Climate science ... settled ? 1

[rb1957]

is there any (other) field where the science is "settled" ?


Is there any field of scientific investigation where new results don't answer some questions, but raise new ones ? where we learn something new ?

The answer is of course not. We live in a world where science is expected to answer all questions, with rock solid certainty. Especially when we're being asked to make very large sacrifices, so the science needs to be "settled". Uncertainty would mean "why are we spending so much, and maybe not getting any significant return ?"

We live in a world of sound bites and slogans, where new discoveries are met with "they were Wrong !"

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[GregLocock]

As I remember the IPCC has opened up the error bars on the estimate of TransientClimateSensitivity to CO2, so even in unicorn land the science is less settled than it was. Of course anybody who has read any Feynman or Popper and agrees with them will accept that the current state of climate science is not Science, as they have defined it, but is more sciencey sounding political stuff.

"The CMIP6 models considered in this Report have a wider range of climate sensitivity than in CMIP5 models
and the AR6 assessed very likely range, which is based on multiple lines of evidence"

Actual science creates falsifiable predictions, climate science has a political sub branch called attribution science, which creates sciency sounding reasons why global warming can increase the snow in the USA, decrease the snow in Canada, make it hotter colder wetter drier in Australia, and so on.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SuperSalad]

I despise hearing that phrase from people. I especially despise hearing it from technically educated people, who should know better.

- Andrew

 

[hacksaw]

Which phrase do you refer?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

the current state of climate science is not Science, as they have defined it, but is more sciencey sounding political stuff.

Well said! Remember that Newtonian physics was essentially "settled science"..... until Albert Einstein came along with the theory of relativity.

I still say that there is good science behind the idea that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will "likely lead" to warming. But, the idea of it being easy to tell how much will occur or how fast it will occur is silly. The idea that we can predict future weather / climate based upon the CO2 concentrations is silly.

I also say that it would be wise to invest in alternative energy to reduce our CO2 emissions. Nuclear, solar and wind (where applicable). That it would also be wise to be more energy efficient with our current CO2 emissions. But, this is hardly and existential crisis or "our WWII". Clearly statements like AOC's "the world is going to end in 12 years" are patently ridiculous.

 

[SuperSalad]

Which phrase do you refer?

"the science is settled"

- Andrew

 

[rb1957]

I have no problem with us being more aware and sensitive to our impact on the environment.

What elevated CO2 can or could or will do is anybody's guess/opinion.

The problem with "free" market capitalism is that very little cost is associated with dumping effluvient or other wastes produced.



"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[enginesrus]

Anyone with open eyes should be able to see why it is "settled". It is simply a tool.

 

[dik]

I think parts of climate change are settled. There is little doubt that in my mind that the CO[sub]2[/sub] content of the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the industrial revolution and this has been caused by man. There is also little doubt that there is a correlation between CO[sub]2[/sub] content and earth temperature. The big unknown is what is the outcome of these two conditions.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Did you see the other thread that got ChatGPT to reluctantly state that man's current contribution to CO2/time is 3.9%?

 

[dik]

I suspect it's a tad higher, tug....

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

That's fine but the data says otherwise.

 

[dik]

Maybe THAT data is faulty...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Maybe, ice core data is incomplete because ice doesn't form during periods of high CO2? In that case, using ice core data would give a false impression that CO2 levels don't have higher peaks.

 

[dik]

...and maybe the penguins sucked it up?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[rb1957]

I thought the ChatGPT said that the volume of CO2 from mankind was a small fractions (4%) of the natural tidal volumes ?

I thought Greg had done a "back of a fag packet" calc to show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was reasonably in line with the amount of fossil fuel we've burnt ?

I thought someone had researched the difference between "natural" CO2 and manmade CO2 ... something to do with the isotope of the Carbon (or the Oxygen ?) that showed a similar conclusion ?

I'm happy to say that mankind has increased the atmospheric level of CO2. Is that change significant ? are it's consequences significant ??
Should we carry on without a care ? (probably not) Should we be more sensitive to our impact on the environment ? (probably)
How do we maintain our current very high level of society (and the trappings of such .. like education, medical care, etc ... democracy?, freedom??) in the light of such "sensitivity" ?
Once we lose the iron clad certainty of the significance and consequences of this (increased level of CO2), we lose much of the logic behind spending tonnes of money and resources (solving a problem that doesn't need to solved). And so the need for such certainty.

I agree with the above comment that there are plenty of clean sources of power but very little push behind them ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Did you see the other thread that got ChatGPT to reluctantly state that man's current contribution to CO2/time is 3.9%?

Yup, I saw it. It said that the yearly anthropogenic production of CO2 is 3.9% of the global CO2 emissions or something similar to that. The key is that (as dik's graph shows) is that atmospheric CO2 has gone way up. It's not just the ice cores that show this, it's also the Mauna Loa. So, we're seeing it at the north pole and we're seeing it at the equator.

Now, does this mean that we're definitively headed towards catastrophe? No, it doesn't! But, it suggests that the CO2 levels / increases are due to human activity. Whether it's de-forestation, fossil fuels, or a combination of things, it's clearly real.

In my opinion, that aspect of climate science isn't really up for debate. It's hard to deny the evidence that's out there.

The next step in the "climate change" narrative is to say that the temperature increases we've seen are due primarily to the changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. The science behind this is more debate-able, but relatively solid (IMO).

The 3rd step is to make predictions about what will happen in the future based on what we've seen so far. That is very, very much debatable. That's where the "predictive models" which have never proven capable of predicting anything accurately come into play. Part a) of these models would be predicting future temperature rises. Then part b) would be predicting weather / climate changes as a result of these temperature rises.

The last and most dubious step is to go from weather / climate changes to it's effect on mankind. As we have frequently discussed on this forum, mankind has NEVER been SAFER from extreme weather events than they are now? This is borne out by comparing climate related deaths from extreme weather as a percentage of population from decade to decade for the last 200 years or so.

I should also point out that there are some blips in the 20th century related to mass starvation in China that could be called weather events like drought and such. However, they were really related to communism (30 million between 1959 and 1962 in Mao's Great Leap Forward). It is abundantly clear that that the type of authoritarian socialism / communism that we have seen is much, much, much of a greater threat to the existence of mankind than climate change (IMO).

 

[GregLocock]

The point is that if you add 4% extra CO2 every year and it stays there then over time the ppm increases, by 12 ppm per year. That's why the half life/residence time is important. If it was 1 year the extra 4% would take us from 280 ppm to 292 ppm, and it would stay there. The fact we are adding 4% every year and the rise is only 2ppm per year suggests the half life is longer than a year, but not much in climate terms, and a recent measurement suggests 29 years, which is much longer than some other estimates. I'll see if I can link 2 ppm pa to 4% pa by some sort of equation to get a half life.

The bit in the settled science that is thoroughly broken is the amount of temperature rise you'd get from doubling the CO2 ppm. Lab numbers suggest 1 deg C. To get good correlation the broken models use numbers between 2 and 6. All the scary stuff is based on the broken models, and often on the ridiculously unrealistic RCP 8.5 (which even IPCC has dropped). Their explanation for this (sound of straws being grabbed) is that there are positive feedbacks which are much stronger than the negative feedbacks. The problem with that is that the negative feedbacks are very strong - for instance in the tropics the daily cycle of hot sunny mornings followed by a build up of cloud cover is pretty well established. THE positive feedback that exists is melting of the Arctic ice cap, clean snow obviously has an albedo much greater than seawater. But given the obliquity of the sun's rays, I wonder how important that is?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

by "half life" I think you mean that atmospheric CO2 gas is converted through natural processes into non-atmospheric-gas CO2 (ie dissolved in sea water, oxidized to -CO3 salts (and eventually solids).

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[GregLocock]

Yes. I'm assuming the Earth can handle the other 96% in equilibrium with 280ppm.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?