No Climate Doomsday Warning Has Come True

ataraxia said:

The consensus is that the uncertainty in risk is high enough that it makes continuing the status quo unacceptable.

Click to expand...

Who said the status quo was acceptable?
We have some very real problems, that need to be addressed, CO2 is simply not one of them.
Energy is the real problem, and if we quit fooling around wasting time on CO2, we can address our energy problem,
and solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.

longview said:

Who said the status quo was acceptable?
We have some very real problems, that need to be addressed, CO2 is simply not one of them.
Energy is the real problem, and if we quit fooling around wasting time on CO2, we can address our energy problem,
and solve any issues with CO2 as a side effect.

Click to expand...

So if we can cut CO2 production by changing energy sources, you would be OK with it?

ataraxia said:

It is the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet.

Click to expand...

Except that it isn't. In fact, numerous scientists have refuted the IPCC completely bogus claims. Even NASA has accused the IPCC of misusing their data. The InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change is a government body whose sole purpose is to push the Marxist redistribution of wealth agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. That is why we are sending hundreds of billions in US taxpayer dollars on Africa, to prevent those nations from developing and becoming productive, as we have. They publish nothing but propaganda.

Glitch said:

Except that it isn't. In fact, numerous scientists have refuted the IPCC completely bogus claims.

Click to expand...

Numerous "scientists" also have "refuted" basic evolutionary biology. Just read about Behe and the Discovery Institute. Doesn't make evolutionary biology unscientific. There are always kooks and charlatans around.

Even NASA has accused the IPCC of misusing their data.

Click to expand...

"Even" NASA believes in climate change.

ataraxia said:

"Even" NASA believes in climate change.

Click to expand...

I've got some incredibly shocking news for you: Everyone on the planet believes the climate changes.

Try some more of your tired pathetic lies, that one obviously isn't going to cut it.

ataraxia said:

It is the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet.

Click to expand...

Every intelligent person on earth knows the claim that humans control the climate is idiocy.

joko104 said:

Every intelligent person on earth knows the claim that humans control the climate is idiocy.

Click to expand...

It is beyond idiocy and has become the ultimate in hubris. It truly takes an arrogant POS to believe a single species can effect global climate.

ataraxia said:

So if we can cut CO2 production by changing energy sources, you would be OK with it?

Click to expand...

Not exactly, CO2 does not matter, but energy does.
We simply do not have enough naturally stored hydrocarbons to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle for long.
Our society is based on easy access to on demand energy, to sustain our lifestyle and expand it to everyone,
will require something beyond naturally stored hydrocarbons.
Solar energy has the potential, but does not have the duty cycle, so some type of energy storage is necessary to make solar viable.
The best chemical storage seems to be hydrocarbons, and if we made hydrocarbon fuels from surplus solar energy, water, and atmospheric CO2,
the resulting fuel would be carbon neutral.

longview said:

U, Computers and computer models existed before the 90's, and any 1988 predictions likely came from James Hansen,
who was the one ringing the alarm bells back then.
Also the ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5 C for doubling the CO2 level was from a 1979 report.

Click to expand...

I'm a software developer so I very much understand that computers existed before the 90s. My point is that they only really started to be good in the 90s. Currently CO2 has been increased by 50% and temperatures have increased by 1.2 C. The report seems to be accurate, but I would trust more recent research a lot more since we have learned so much since then.

longview said:

Not exactly, CO2 does not matter, but energy does.
We simply do not have enough naturally stored hydrocarbons to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle for long.
Our society is based on easy access to on demand energy, to sustain our lifestyle and expand it to everyone,
will require something beyond naturally stored hydrocarbons.
Solar energy has the potential, but does not have the duty cycle, so some type of energy storage is necessary to make solar viable.
The best chemical storage seems to be hydrocarbons, and if we made hydrocarbon fuels from surplus solar energy, water, and atmospheric CO2,
the resulting fuel would be carbon neutral.

Click to expand...

We are developing new technologies at an accelerated rate. I would not rule out the possibility of technology improving not only our sources of fuel, but also reducing our dependence on fuel - regardless of the source. By making engines more efficient we can reduce our dependence. However, even with improving technologies it is only a temporary solution. As the population increases so will the demand for more energy.

Hydrocarbons is not the answer either, since that is literally using food for fuel. Fossilized hydrocarbons is not a food source, but also limited in supply. Just 176 years ago we were burning wood and coal for fuel and using whale oil or candles for lighting. We didn't even know atoms existed, much less how to split one in order to obtain its energy. We've come a long way since then, and we still have a long way to go. However, I do believe that we will have the resources and ingenuity to get there in the end. I cannot imagine what kind of energy will be in wide spread use 176 years from now, but it is unlikely to be fossilized hydrocarbons or anything we are familiar with today.

distraff said:

I'm a software developer so I very much understand that computers existed before the 90s. My point is that they only really started to be good in the 90s. Currently CO2 has been increased by 50% and temperatures have increased by 1.2 C. The report seems to be accurate, but I would trust more recent research a lot more since we have learned so much since then.

Click to expand...

"Good" is relative, I was working on computer systems in the early 80's, and super mini's before the 90's,
Today's machines can run simulations a lot faster, but still run much the same simulations, with many of the same assumptions.
Temperatures have not increased by 1.2 C, GISS is currently at about .92, and Hadcrut4 is at about .89 C, since the 1800's
Where we are at is that forcing warming (no feedback) from all the greenhouse gasses, is at roughly,
(5.35 X ln(496/280) X.3)=.91 C, and that is about the amount of warming we have seen.
What this means is that there is minimal latency, and minimal net feedback to warming perturbations.
Of course this implies that the forcing level of 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2 is accurate, and again there is minimal empirical
evidence to support that ether.

Glitch said:

We are developing new technologies at an accelerated rate. I would not rule out the possibility of technology improving not only our sources of fuel, but also reducing our dependence on fuel - regardless of the source. By making engines more efficient we can reduce our dependence. However, even with improving technologies it is only a temporary solution. As the population increases so will the demand for more energy.

Hydrocarbons is not the answer either, since that is literally using food for fuel. Fossilized hydrocarbons is not a food source, but also limited in supply. Just 176 years ago we were burning wood and coal for fuel and using whale oil or candles for lighting. We didn't even know atoms existed, much less how to split one in order to obtain its energy. We've come a long way since then, and we still have a long way to go. However, I do believe that we will have the resources and ingenuity to get there in the end. I cannot imagine what kind of energy will be in wide spread use 176 years from now, but it is unlikely to be fossilized hydrocarbons or anything we are familiar with today.

Click to expand...

We do not have to make hydrocarbon fuel from foodstocks,(and should not!) We can put together the components from base elements.
NRL Seawater Carbon Capture Process Receives U.S. Patent | News
A modern cracking refinery is already assembling olefins into desired fuels,
Shell has the end stage for turning natural gas (CH4) into whatever liquid fuel is in demand.
Consider that as solar expands, so will the seasonal surpluses of electricity, a supply without a demand.
If the refineries provided a grid level dump load, and stored all the surplus electricity as transport fuels,
they could then sell those fuels through their existing distribution infrastructure.
The limitation is that currently the greater profit is in refining oil, but the cutoff is ~$90 a barrel.
if oil get above that, the refinery could make greater profit, by making their own feedstock.

Glitch said:

That is a lie. There is no science in the IPCC reports. The IPCC is a government body that pushes leftist propaganda. It has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Click to expand...

It is true that the part of the report that most people refer to is written by bureaucrats. The part that people never see or quote from is where the science is laid out, and it doesn't say what most advocates think it says.

In brief, they say that there is a range of possible climate sensitivity going all the way from "ho hum" to "Oh My God!!", and they don't provide a more precise estimate than that. The lower estimates are probably the most realistic ones, and the past 30 years of climate records, during which CO2 has been going up like nobody's business while global temperatures haven't done much, bears that out. If you calculate sensitivity from the existing record it comes out to something like a 0.7 degree increase by 2100 assuming sensitivity to CO2 is the issue.

In one of the earlier versions of the report it is flatly stated that accurate predictions about future climate are not possible because the climate is too complex and chaotic. (Somehow you never hear about that from the climate doom advocates.) They go on to say that models are good for some things, but making accurate predictions about future climate is probably not one of them, imho.

The history of how the UN science efforts were taken over by political force is interesting. Up until that happened in the late '80s the scientists were saying that there was no significant signal in the climate record for a carbon dioxide effect. (And, in fact, there still isn't.) Politics took over, it was declared that CO2 was causing global warming, and dissenters were defenestrated.

Phys251 said:

Cherry-picked examples turn out not to be true. More at 11, where we debate the important question: Is water wet? We'll hear both sides, because we give you fair and balanced coverage!

Click to expand...

Could you cherry pick the doomsday climate statements that have turned out to be true for us?

distraff said:

One thing you have to consider is that before the 90s, climate science was still in its infancy so predictions before that were very hit or miss. They didn't have the computers, and all the global temperature and historical data we do today. Next, your 1988 prediction doesn't mention anyone in particular. Al Gore and Prince Charles aren't scientists and their predictions don't reflect the scientific community. You also like you point out individual people who make predictions, without looking at what the scientific community as a whole is saying, so you are in danger of cherry picking failed predictions, while ignoring the rest of the scientific community. It would be better to reference past IPCC predictions about today and see if those predictions were completely wrong.

Click to expand...

Regarding predictions in the here and now, anybody want to bet that we'll all still be around in 12 years?

Phys251 said:

Cherry-picked examples turn out not to be true. More at 11, where we debate the important question: Is water wet? We'll hear both sides, because we give you fair and balanced coverage!

Click to expand...

The walls are closing in on modeling charlatanry.


Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II.

Guest post by Pat Frank Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models…

2 weeks ago September 7, 2019 in Modeling.

[FONT=&quot]Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Before going further, my deep thanks to Anthony Watts for giving a voice to independent thought. So many have sought to suppress it (freedom denialists?). His gift to us (and to America) is beyond calculation. And to Charles the moderator, my eternal gratitude for making it happen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Onward: the paper is open access. It can be found here , where it can be downloaded; the Supporting Information (SI) is here (7.4 MB pdf).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would like to publicly honor my manuscript editor Dr. Jing-Jia Luo, who displayed the courage of a scientist; a level of professional integrity found lacking among so many during my 6-year journey.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dr. Luo chose four reviewers, three of whom were apparently not conflicted by investment in the AGW status-quo. They produced critically constructive reviews that helped improve the manuscript. To these reviewers I am very grateful. They provided the dispassionate professionalism and integrity that had been in very rare evidence within my prior submissions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, all honor to the editors and reviewers of Frontiers in Earth Science. They rose above the partisan and hewed the principled standards of science when so many did not, and do not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A digression into the state of practice: Anyone wishing a deep dive can download the entire corpus of reviews and responses for all 13 prior submissions, here (60 MB zip file, Webroot scanned virus-free). Choose “free download” to avoid advertising blandishment.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Climate modelers produced about 25 of the prior 30 reviews. You’ll find repeated editorial rejections of the manuscript on the grounds of objectively incompetent negative reviews. I have written about that extraordinary reality at WUWT here and here. In 30 years of publishing in Chemistry, I never once experienced such a travesty of process. For example, this paper overturned a prediction from Molecular Dynamics and so had a very negative review, but the editor published anyway after our response. . . . [/FONT]

jimbo said:

Regarding predictions in the here and now, anybody want to bet that we'll all still be around in 12 years?

Click to expand...

Climate change won't wipe out humans, it will just cost us tens of trillions of dollars, if the scientists are to be believed. There are other threats which have a good chance of at least mostly wiping us out in 100 years.

longview said:

"Good" is relative, I was working on computer systems in the early 80's, and super mini's before the 90's,
Today's machines can run simulations a lot faster, but still run much the same simulations, with many of the same assumptions.
Temperatures have not increased by 1.2 C, GISS is currently at about .92, and Hadcrut4 is at about .89 C, since the 1800's
Where we are at is that forcing warming (no feedback) from all the greenhouse gasses, is at roughly,
(5.35 X ln(496/280) X.3)=.91 C, and that is about the amount of warming we have seen.
What this means is that there is minimal latency, and minimal net feedback to warming perturbations.
Of course this implies that the forcing level of 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2 is accurate, and again there is minimal empirical
evidence to support that ether.

Click to expand...

Except that NASA GISS does not show a 0.92°C increase. You must have obtained that from the completely bogus IPCC website. If you actually read NASA's GISS they stated that there was an overall increase of 0.89°C and an overall decrease of 0.38°C between 1880 and 2010, resulting in a net increase of 0.51°C (which happens to be 0.918°F, not C). The IPCC decided that they would leave the 0.38°C cooling period out of NASA's GISS data for propaganda purposes.

Glitch said:

I've got some incredibly shocking news for you: Everyone on the planet believes the climate changes.

Try some more of your tired pathetic lies, that one obviously isn't going to cut it.

Click to expand...

Everyone on the planet also believes that humans are playing a big role in it and can help reverse the bad changes- everyone, of course, except the Republican party here in the United States.

Glitch said:

Except that NASA GISS does not show a 0.92°C increase. You must have obtained that from the completely bogus IPCC website. If you actually read NASA's GISS they stated that there was an overall increase of 0.89°C and an overall decrease of 0.38°C between 1880 and 2010, resulting in a net increase of 0.51°C (which happens to be 0.918°F, not C). The IPCC decided that they would leave the 0.38°C cooling period out of NASA's GISS data for propaganda purposes.

Click to expand...

The .89 C is within the margin of error, so no big deal, I think I calculated that based on a decade average, but close enough.
My point was that the total warming is not 1.2 C, but much lower.

Jack Hays said:

The walls are closing in on modeling charlatanry.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II.

[FONT=&]Guest post by Pat Frank Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models…
[/FONT]
2 weeks ago September 7, 2019 in Modeling.

[FONT="]Readers of Watts Up With That will know [URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/23/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections/"]from Mark I [/URL]that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Before going further, my deep thanks to Anthony Watts for giving a voice to independent thought. So many have sought to suppress it (freedom denialists?). His gift to us (and to America) is beyond calculation. And to Charles the moderator, my eternal gratitude for making it happen.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Onward: the paper is open access. It can be found here , where it can be downloaded; the Supporting Information (SI) is here (7.4 MB pdf).[/FONT]
[FONT="]I would like to publicly honor my manuscript editor Dr. Jing-Jia Luo, who displayed the courage of a scientist; a level of professional integrity found lacking among so many during my 6-year journey.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Dr. Luo chose four reviewers, three of whom were apparently not conflicted by investment in the AGW status-quo. They produced critically constructive reviews that helped improve the manuscript. To these reviewers I am very grateful. They provided the dispassionate professionalism and integrity that had been in very rare evidence within my prior submissions.[/FONT]
[FONT="]So, all honor to the editors and reviewers of Frontiers in Earth Science. They rose above the partisan and hewed the principled standards of science when so many did not, and do not.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]A digression into the state of practice: Anyone wishing a deep dive can download the entire corpus of reviews and responses for all 13 prior submissions, here (60 MB zip file, Webroot scanned virus-free). Choose “free download” to avoid advertising blandishment.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Climate modelers produced about 25 of the prior 30 reviews. You’ll find repeated editorial rejections of the manuscript on the grounds of objectively incompetent negative reviews. I have written about that extraordinary reality at WUWT [URL="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/"]here[/URL] and here. In 30 years of publishing in Chemistry, I never once experienced such a travesty of process. For example, this paper overturned a prediction from Molecular Dynamics and so had a very negative review, but the editor published anyway after our response. . . . [/FONT]

Click to expand...

I think Frank is off a bit, because I think the errors are systematic, so there would be almost no lower error, only upper error.
While just about everyone uses the ratio of .3 C per Wm-2 of imbalance, Hansen said it would be closer to .75 C per Wm-2.
I wonder if his assumption went into the wonderland model?

longview said:

I think Frank is off a bit, because I think the errors are systematic, so there would be almost no lower error, only upper error.
While just about everyone uses the ratio of .3 C per Wm-2 of imbalance, Hansen said it would be closer to .75 C per Wm-2.
I wonder if his assumption went into the wonderland model?

Click to expand...

The paper is linked.

distraff said:

Climate change won't wipe out humans, it will just cost us tens of trillions of dollars, if the scientists are to be believed. There are other threats which have a good chance of at least mostly wiping us out in 100 years.

Click to expand...

A pandemic has to rank up right up there as a possibility. It has been over a century since the last pandemic wiped out millions. Or possibly an asteroid, not large enough to wipe us all out - we know about those already - but certainly large enough to wipe out a city with a population of millions that we don't know about. Then, of course, there are those random events that nobody could have possibly predicted, like the star Betelgeuse going supernova 500 years ago, and the energy of that blast just reaching us today. The universe is a hostile place. We're lucky to have made it this far.

Jack Hays said:

The paper is linked.

Click to expand...

I know, but I just do not think the potential low side error is possible, because of the type of error.
The size of the error could be accurate, but all too high.

longview said:

I know, but I just do not think the potential low side error is possible, because of the type of error.
The size of the error could be accurate, but all too high.

Click to expand...

Dr. Roy Spencer also has extensive (and not altogether positive) discussion on his website.