Climate Scientists Are Not Experts in Economics

longview said:

Not entirely, but the fossil fuel companies are not as concerned as you might think,

Click to expand...

Why then do the Koch brothers provide enormous sums of money to various right wing boondoggles?

longview said:

The IPCC is a political organization whose existence depends on finding scary possibilities,
as a consequence (of the employees wanting to keep their jobs,) they find scary possibilities.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Yes, the IPCC is a political organization -- which gathers the best current available scientific research, and presents it in a package that is useful to policy makers. That doesn't mean they are fatally compromised doomsayers.

If that was the case, then NOAA would predict a hurricane every week; the CDC would predict an outbreak of the plague every month; NASA would predict a huge meteor strike every year, and so on.

The data shows that our climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as the assumptions used in the models.

Click to expand...

Which data is that, exactly?

longview said:

Not entirely, but the fossil fuel companies are not as concerned as you might think,
as there is not a real competing product to supply the current demand.

Click to expand...

Please. They've been dumping on sustainable and renewable energy supplies for ages. Some of the biggest players (like Exxon) have known for decades that their product harms the environment, yet they continue to sell their product, and bribe politicians to maintain their strong positions.

There is also no question that the Koch Brothers in particular have invested enormous sums in pushing their own anti-environmental agenda. E.g.:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

The only way to displace fuel from fossil oil, is for something to come along that serves the same function,
that is naturally cheaper than fuel made from oil.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's called sustainable and renewable energy. Like solar.

Keep in mind that with fossil fuel, many of the costs involved damage to the environment, including but not limited to CO2, particulates in the nearby atmosphere, oil spills, coal tailings, and so on. We don't directly count them, because there isn't a dollar amount directly attached. Instead, we're going to suffer trillions of dollars in damages due to rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, increased droughts and so forth.

camlok said:

Why then do the Koch brothers provide enormous sums of money to various right wing boondoggles?

Click to expand...

Oil companies are mostly old companies, they fund both sides, so they can be on the winning side.

Visbek said:

:roll:

Yes, the IPCC is a political organization -- which gathers the best current available scientific research, and presents it in a package that is useful to policy makers. That doesn't mean they are fatally compromised doomsayers.

If that was the case, then NOAA would predict a hurricane every week; the CDC would predict an outbreak of the plague every month; NASA would predict a huge meteor strike every year, and so on.



Which data is that, exactly?

Click to expand...

Doomsayers who want to stay in business, understand that the doom predicted cannot have a time limit,
and yet must be plausible enough to believe.

The data which CO2's low sensitivity, the lead authors of AR5 wrote an article about it.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf

The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C,

Click to expand...

But way beyond that the CERES data from the satellite, shows a much lower energy imbalance over a change in CO2
than there should be.

The concept of AGW begins with the energy imbalance, if it's lower than expected, all of the follow on assumptions are incorrect.

camlok said:

Visbek and the video I posted both deal with this. Yes, science has been wrong before but that doesn't mean that it is wrong on this. Look at who has been setting the narrative for the right wing's take on GW, rabid right wingers, Ted Cruz, Rick "a total idiot" Santorum, ... .

Click to expand...

I see that you too are dodging. I'm disappointed but I suppose I should not be surprised. FWIW, both Svensmark and Shaviv are Euro-style Social Democrats, so you can lose the "right wing" nonsense.

Visbek said:

Yes, that's called sustainable and renewable energy. Like solar.

Keep in mind that with fossil fuel, many of the costs involved damage to the environment, including but not limited to CO2, particulates in the nearby atmosphere, oil spills, coal tailings, and so on. We don't directly count them, because there isn't a dollar amount directly attached. Instead, we're going to suffer trillions of dollars in damages due to rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, increased droughts and so forth.

Click to expand...

So please tell me how Solar or wind energy at the current level of technology, is going to fly passenger jets across the country?
We are a long way from wind and solar being able to support our existing grid demands,
and much further for our transport demands.
The only realistic path forward is energy storage, which the oil companies have the most likely
chance of success, yet you want to continue to demonize the oil companies.
I have worked in that industry, they are not nice people, but they are also not the demons they are portrayed as.

Assigning cost to unattached events like sea level is an interesting proposition.
The Sea level has been raising, but seems to be unaffected by whatever CO2 is doing.

Visbek said:

Please. They've been dumping on sustainable and renewable energy supplies for ages. Some of the biggest players (like Exxon) have known for decades that their product harms the environment, yet they continue to sell their product, and bribe politicians to maintain their strong positions.

Click to expand...

Exxon published all their research results from the beginning and played an active role in the IPCC.

Jack Hays said:

I see that you too are dodging. I'm disappointed but I suppose I should not be surprised. FWIW, both Svensmark and Shaviv are Euro-style Social Democrats, so you can lose the "right wing" nonsense.

Click to expand...

Dodging what, Jack, that 97% of thee top scientists who are deeply involved in CS research hold the same view. You don't have to be disappointed - I'm not 100% sold on either position. It's not the two scientists I am talking about. The same people who are funding the attack on the 97% are the same kind of people who did the ID scam of a few years back.

camlok said:

Dodging what, Jack, that 97% of thee top scientists who are deeply involved in CS research hold the same view.

Click to expand...

What view is would that be?

longview said:

What view is[sic] would that be?

Click to expand...

I believe that you are being disingenuous, longview. You seem to know something about this issue. It was explained perfectly in the video.

camlok said:

I believe that you are being disingenuous, longview. You seem to know something about this issue. It was explained perfectly in the video.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the typo.
In you own words, what view do you think that 97% of the top scientists who are deeply involved in CS research hold?

camlok said:

Dodging what, Jack, that 97% of thee top scientists who are deeply involved in CS research hold the same view. You don't have to be disappointed - I'm not 100% sold on either position. It's not the two scientists I am talking about. The same people who are funding the attack on the 97% are the same kind of people who did the ID scam of a few years back.

Click to expand...

I can't think of anything less relevant or productive than whining about an alleged "attack on the 97%." That's a deflection from the science. I have no idea what was the "ID scam."

longview said:

Sorry for the typo. No problem, a "[sic]" is neutral.
In you own words, what view do you think that 97% of the top scientists who are deeply involved in CS research hold?

Click to expand...

I will readily admit that my own words do not hold much value in this area as I am not fully conversant with all the issues, which is why I have been asking questions.

I would rather hear your views or Visbek's or Jack's which obviously can provide a better description.

Jack Hays said:

I can't think of anything less relevant or productive than whining about an alleged "attack on the 97%." That's a deflection from the science. I have no idea what was the "ID scam."

Click to expand...

Rather than posting an entire search page, I think that this link will illustrate what I mean. I think you can see/figure out what my search words were in the link.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Are+...ome..69i57.23034j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

camlok said:

Rather than posting an entire search page, I think that this link will illustrate what I mean. I think you can see/figure out what my search words were in the link.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Are+...ome..69i57.23034j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Click to expand...

Whining and BS propaganda from snowflakes. Has nothing at all to do with the science and I could not care less. And btw, it's nothing compared to the impediments thrown in the path of Shaviv and (especially) Svensmark over the years. So take that nonsense somewhere else.

camlok said:

I will readily admit that my own words do not hold much value in this area as I am not fully conversant with all the issues, which is why I have been asking questions.

I would rather hear your views or Visbek's or Jack's which obviously can provide a better description.

Click to expand...

I contend that the consensus is simply that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that doubling it's level will cause some warming.
The level of warming, weather the warming would be good or bad, ect, are not included in the consensus statement.
If properly stated even Cook's 97% is not accurate unless qualified,with the full statement.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or
'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW,
0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Click to expand...

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Click to expand...

So the 97% is only among papers expressing a position on AGW, excluding 66.4 % of the papers who did not express a position.
And in qualifying the consensus here is what they said,

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Click to expand...

Humans are causing global warming! how much 5% 50%, 97%?
My point is that people attribute much more to the 97% than is actually there.

For the record, if the assumptions made by the IPCC are correct and 2X CO2 will force 1.2 C of warming,
then the warming from the increase in CO2 would be 1.73 X ln(406/280)=.642 C, more than half of the observed warming.
It does appear that Human activity is causing some warming, but the system is so complex, that we do not know
how much it would have warmed(or cooled) without the added CO2.
What we can measure, is coming in lower than expected.

Jack Hays said:

Whining and BS propaganda from snowflakes. Has nothing at all to do with the science and I could not care less. And btw, it's nothing compared to the impediments thrown in the path of Shaviv and (especially) Svensmark over the years. So take that nonsense somewhere else.

Click to expand...

But the anti-GW side takes their cues from idiots like Trump, obvious radical partisans like the Koch brothers, ... .

Really, Jack, how crucial is it to science whether you could care less or not? That statement doesn't sound very scientific to me. Does it to you?

camlok said:

But the anti-GW side takes their cues from idiots like Trump, obvious radical partisans like the Koch brothers, ... .

Really, Jack, how crucial is it to science whether you could care less or not? That statement doesn't sound very scientific to me. Does it to you?

Click to expand...

Trump is no more of an "idiot" than Al Gore. The Koch brothers are no more "radical" or "partisan" than is Tom Steyer. That's all just irrelevant noise.
The real threat to AGW orthodoxy, an elaboration of 19th century physics, comes from the 21st century physics of Svensmark and Shaviv.

camlok said:

But the anti-GW side takes their cues from idiots like Trump, obvious radical partisans like the Koch brothers, ... .

Really, Jack, how crucial is it to science whether you could care less or not? That statement doesn't sound very scientific to me. Does it to you?

Click to expand...

There are really very few "anti-GW" people, there are many people who are skeptical of the catastrophic
predictions from the IPCC. They are skeptical because the data does not support the higher end of the
predicted temperatures necessary for the catastrophic predictions.
Science is normally all about skepticism, checking the numbers for your self.
AGW unlike the real sciences, shouts down the skeptics, calls they heretics, deniers, ect,
when in reality the skeptics are the ones following the scientific method.

Skeptic Bob said:

That is true. Scientists should provide the information and then politicians along with economists should implement policy that addresses the issues the scientists bring up. The problem we currently have, however, is too many politicians just disregard what the scientists say altogether. There is a whole range of options between destroying the economy and just sticking our heads in the sand.

Click to expand...

I have no problem hearing scientific opinion that is honest scientific opinion instead of political propaganda which much of it seems to have become.

When government funding goes to all scientific groups, even the skeptics who provide solid scientific evidence and opinion, then I think we all would feel more secure about consenting to policy based on the scientific opinion offered. When scientists don't get paid if they don't support the official pro-AGW line, such 'scientific opinion' is a powerful club for government to use to exercise more control over the people's liberties, options, opportunities, and choices even though any objective person would consider it suspect.

Meanwhile the OP is absolutely correct that the science we have right now at this time should be considered by the fact that we know more and more as time passes.

I paid $2,000, a formidable sum in the late 1980's, for a Compaq Presario 486 that I thought then was all the computer I could ever possibly need. Machines like that you can't give away anywhere anymore. Last year I bought a new laptop with a huge hard drive, all the power, bells, and whistles anybody could want for a run of the mill computer and incalculably more capability than that old 486 for under $300.

Way back when, most of us have to finance and pay off by the month our first color TV with small screen in a furniture like cabinet limited to nine channels--most places only got three or four channels and those only ran from dawn to midnight at most. There was no DVR, no video hookups. TV showed featured television content and nothing else. Now for well under $500 you can get a 55" smart TV that can handle services providing thousands of 24/7 channels as well as streaming content from Netflix, Youtube, and other such services.

I fully support scientific research into all sorts of areas that affect Planet Earth including heavenly bodies circling out there, what is deep under the ground, how the climate is ever changing and shifting, etc., but I think our shared resources are better utilized by improving conditions as we can for our benefit here and now as well as preparing for an inevitably changing climate/environment here on Earth. Let's don't waste money now mandating that everybody has to do stuff that will likely be completely obsolete five, ten, fifty years from now.

longview said:

I contend that the consensus is simply that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that doubling it's level will cause some warming.
The level of warming, weather the warming would be good or bad, ect, are not included in the consensus statement.
If properly stated even Cook's 97% is not accurate unless qualified,with the full statement.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience


So the 97% is only among papers expressing a position on AGW, excluding 66.4 % of the papers who did not express a position.
And in qualifying the consensus here is what they said,

Humans are causing global warming! how much 5% 50%, 97%?
My point is that people attribute much more to the 97% than is actually there.

For the record, if the assumptions made by the IPCC are correct and 2X CO2 will force 1.2 C of warming,
then the warming from the increase in CO2 would be 1.73 X ln(406/280)=.642 C, more than half of the observed warming.
It does appear that Human activity is causing some warming, but the system is so complex, that we do not know
how much it would have warmed(or cooled) without the added CO2.
What we can measure, is coming in lower than expected.

Click to expand...

But...

Threegoofs said:

But...

Click to expand...

[h=1]Why Climate Models Run Hot[/h]by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…

July 6, 2017 in Modeling, Temperature