15

The Science (No, Really) of Climate Alarmism

Posted by WDonway 7 months, 4 weeks ago to Science
16 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The Science (No, Really) of Climate Alarmism

Atlas Society CEO, Jennifer Grossman, recently interviewed Steven Koonin, whose PhD in theoretical physics is from MIT. He taught in that field for 30 years at Caltech, served as an undersecretary for science in the Biden Administration Department of Energy, and is now a professor at New York University. Dr. Koonin just published Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters. The TAS interview is about 8,600 (well worthwhile) words, but here are a few quotes:

“I realized the science was nowhere near as certain or settled as I had been led to believe from the media. From talking with experts informally, yes, everybody agreed the globe was warming, and everybody agreed that human influences were growing, but exactly how the climate would respond and what the impacts of those responses would be for society and ecosystems was pretty much a subject of great uncertainty and disagreement among the experts.

“There were really two sets of reports that I think are most important. One is produced by the UN by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each of the reports has a large body of text, a thousand pages or more, but then it's got a so-called summary for policymakers, which is much more condensed and there's opportunity for great mischief because those summaries for policymakers are heavily influenced by the government, if not written by them. And so, when you compare the report with the summary, they don't agree at all.

"The other set of reports are produced by the US government, the so-called “National Climate Assessment.” It's mandated by Congress that the administration produce one every four years. The last one was produced in 2017 and 18 in two parts. The next one is expected in 2023.

"A common phrase is that we've broken the climate and that we're headed for disaster unless we take prompt and immediate action. That's just not true in the reports. It's not accurate at all.

"For example, there are no detectable human influences on hurricanes over almost the past century. And it says it right there in the report, certainly sea level, while it's rising at a more rapid rate in the last few decades, if you go back 70 or 80 years, it was rising at the same rate when human influences were much smaller and, maybe most surprisingly of all, if you look at the reports and ask, what do they say about the economic impact of a change in climate? What they say is that if the global temperature were to rise by six degrees, which is four times more than what's being discussed in the Paris Accords, then the economic impact on the US and on the globe would be minimal. It would delay growth by a couple years at the end of the century. So no, it's not an emergency.

"The scientists’ responsibility is to bring the facts to the table, and they're the only people who can do that. What I've discovered is that the climate science community, let's say, falls somewhat short in that dimension. I first got to see it when I was running the American Physical Society exercise, and one of the American Physical Society members said, you know, we can't say that in public because it would give ammunition to the deniers.

"I had somebody come up to me who was a distinguished scientist at one of the nation's best universities and say, you know, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, but I don't dare say that in public.

"[Politicians and the media have been] “saying the science is certain, it's settled. If you don't believe it, you're an idiot. I have been most disappointed by the public reaction of many of the consensus scientists who refuse to engage on the scientific points I've written. They're happy to engage in name calling...

"What's interesting is that, as I mentioned, the next report will come out on Monday. The models that inform that report, which is the newest generation of models (they've already been out there for a year or so), are coming in much more discrepant with each other and with the actual high-net than the previous generation. So as they introduce more sophistication, the models are becoming less certain, and that's not a whole lot of settled science.

"Let me just make a comment about the cooling. If you look at the global temperature record, the official record, it warmed from 1910 to 1940 at a pretty good clip. It then went down from 1940 to 1970, or 1975 it cooled. And then it's been going up again for the last 35, 40 years, the rate of warming in the early part of the 20th century from 1910 to 1940, it was about the same as the rate of warming that we've seen in the last decades. And the cooling was there even as human influences grew. So just by looking at that graph, you can see that this is already a lot more complicated than just that rising CO2 is warming the earth.

"I get many unsolicited emails from scientists and engineers… who, again, they might disagree with some of the things I wrote, but by-and-large said, you got it about right as to the public reaction of other folks like Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes. They have written what I, again, would consider unprofessional pieces in Scientific American in which, again, there's a lot of name calling and motive imputation, but very little direct engagement on the facts

"Start with some fire facts, which might surprise you. If you look at the US as a whole, and I'm sure there are comparable figures for just the West Coast fires, much more common in the early 20th century, five or six times more common than they are today in terms of acreage burned and the reason for that. Then they declined, the incidents, to about 1970. And, the reason for that decline was Smokey The Bear. The forest service put in a policy of suppressing or not letting burn at all macro-fires, whether natural or human-caused. Since then we've seen a gradual rise over the last 40 years from the minimum around 1970, but it's still about one sixth of what it was before that. So, fire is a natural part of the West Coast landscape.

"I think something like 80% of US wildfires are started by people in one way or the other.

"So, let me just talk about extreme events. I mean, we've seen fires, we've seen floods in Europe. We've seen the heat wave in the Northwest. These are weather phenomena. And, what I like to use as a demonstration of that is the record of the level of the Nile river as measured in Cairo over about a thousand years.

"The Egyptians were doing that from about 650 or so, up until the Aswan dam messed things up in the 1970s. And, when you look at that record, you see tremendous year-to-year variation in the water level of the Nile, but there are smooth trends over decades. And if you're looking—I have a graph in the book—if you look in 650 to 750 or so, it was going down, and you can just imagine some medieval Egyptian climate panel saying, we've got to pray some more and maybe do some sacrifices. And then, it turns around again in 50 or 60 years. So, there are these natural variations. And, one of the challenges in climate science is to separate those natural variations from the response to human influence.

"Major technical projects, like the launch of a spacecraft, for example, are always subject to red-team reviews. Climate science doesn't have that. there is no independent, hard-scrub of them."


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mhubb 7 months, 4 weeks ago
    Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
    Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
    If you've read his book, you will agree this is a good summary.

    PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

    Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

    I know.... it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

    The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

    I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

    Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

    Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

    And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.

    Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why?

    It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century, and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 7 months, 3 weeks ago
      Tax the volcano! Tax the volcano! It has plenty of energy that's just going to waste. Tax the volcano until it's out of business, just like Trump.

      Anyone here old enough to remember when in the 1970s we needed prompt action to save the planet from Global Cooling?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 7 months, 3 weeks ago
      For some funny reason when me dino thinks of climate change, me dino often thinks of the dinosaur age.
      For 65 million years (now I read of a change to 66 million years in some places) dinosaurs thrived despite there being a lot more volcanoes and whopper dino farts. It took a humongous asteroid hit to put an end to that big time multi-species success story.
      I shall now repeat what I've repeated before about climate having one constant which is change to wit~~There has always been climate change. Just ask the dinosaurs and the woolly mammoths.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tutor-turtle 7 months, 3 weeks ago
      Life depends on CO2.
      There is zero evidence higher levels of CO2 will hurt anything.
      However there is lots of evidence that higher levels of CO2 are beneficial to all living things... especially plants.
      It's been below freezing here in the Northeast all week,
      I want my global warming!
      The Fuel bills are killing me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 months, 3 weeks ago
      From the "For What It Is Worth Department," this answer from CoPilot AI to my inquiry: "No, that is not true. According to various sources, human activities emit much more carbon dioxide than volcanoes each year. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that human activities produce about 24 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, while volcanoes emit only about 200 million metric tons1. That means humans emit about 120 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. Even a large volcanic eruption, such as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, does not match the rate of human emissions2. In fact, some volcanic eruptions can have a cooling effect on the climate by reflecting some solar radiation back to space2. Therefore, the claim that a single volcano spews out more carbon dioxide than human efforts is false and misleading."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 7 months, 4 weeks ago
    Thanks. Interesting reading. The book "Two Years Before The Mast" was an autobiographical work published in 1840 and described a trip starting in 1834 and the author describes raging wildfires in progress in California while he was there. Forest fires out west are nothing new.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 7 months, 3 weeks ago
    Thanks for posting. Good Stuff...

    One analysis that was debunked in Florida was that the storms are causing more damage. Turns out, it's NOT TRUE if you adjust for Inflation.

    LOL. Yes, if you destroyed 1,000 homes at $100K each, it was $100 Million. Those same homes in FL now would be $500 Million. But that's just been inflation since I bought my house in Florida.

    It's unfortunate that we cannot have these discussions nor have real substantive debates.

    I know I don't know everything. But I've gotten pretty good at detecting when I am being NUDGED into a false decision!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 7 months, 3 weeks ago
      Yes. As reflected in home owners insurance premiums in Florida. I had an opportunity to buy a nice place in New Smyrna Beach some time back and turned it down. Today I'd take it, but whew it costs a lot more, LOL!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 7 months, 3 weeks ago
    The Epoch Times just had an article on this...
    An Excerpt:
    “If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels,” the Royal Society states in a report on its website. The organization describes itself as a “fellowship of many of the world’s most eminent scientists.”

    https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_ap...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 months, 3 weeks ago
    From the :For What It Is Worth Department," CoPilot artificial intelligence gives this answer to query: "No, that is not true. According to various sources, human activities emit much more carbon dioxide than volcanoes each year. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that human activities produce about 24 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, while volcanoes emit only about 200 million metric tons1. That means humans emit about 120 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. Even a large volcanic eruption, such as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, does not match the rate of human emissions2. In fact, some volcanic eruptions can have a cooling effect on the climate by reflecting some solar radiation back to space2. Therefore, the claim that a single volcano spews out more carbon dioxide than human efforts is false and misleading.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 7 months, 3 weeks ago
      I have no faith in AI providing answers to queries that may have ideological bias woven into the search. All AI can do is spew back what it finds in the data base even if it is a value pulled out of the arse of an "expert" paid to put the data there for AI (or anyone else) to find. IMHO, AI can fall for clever BS or popular consensus that is false the same as a person might.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CaptainKirk 7 months, 3 weeks ago
        Well, not completely true. Trained AI systems in GO, Chess, and other games have changed the game theory. Finding mates in thought to be impossible to win situations.

        A recent AI discovered a small trick in sorting that could shave 10% (I have some indexes that take 72 hrs to build... I could appreciate saving a few hours).

        AI's have also been helping with drug discovery, and now that they understand protein folding I assume they will do a lot more.

        Along the way. We will get CRIPPLED AIs like Chat Jippity, who will regurgitate known falsehoods with regards to climate and CO2.

        My experience got it to admit that it's more complicated than just CO2 and the sun may play a bigger role than the current models take into consideration...

        But I agree. We have so much garbage out there. That any AI trained on Garbage will produce Garbage. (The competitive ones that are forced to develop skills and solve problems, and be tested... Those are the path)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 7 months, 3 weeks ago
          I'm not saying there are no uses for clever programming (AI) to help solve problems because, being a programmer since 1972, I've constructed some clever algorithms to solve various technical problems. With that said, designing a clever social algorithm (AI) based on the philosophy of Karl Marx will likely not develop an Ayn Rand world view because it will only be capable of offering a Marxist solution to whatever social question is posed to it. As you mention above, it will be crippled from the get go as we do have so much garbage out there. Edit add: Would a truly intelligent social AI be developed that can actually sift through the garbage and find Marx repulsive?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo