Tinkerpeach
Member
There is no scientist in the world saying this won't happen and it will only get more costly with every generation.
You certainly are willing to kick that can down the road aren't you instead of dealing with it now.
July was hottest month on record by far
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
There is no scientist in the world saying this won't happen and it will only get more costly with every generation.
You certainly are willing to kick that can down the road aren't you instead of dealing with it now.
Climate does not change for no reason at all.
In the distant geologic past, climate change was attributable to Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions, asteroid strikes, the tectonic breakup of continents.
It is known with an extremely high level of scientific confidence that the rapid and alarming rise in global temperatures since the 1990s is attributable largely to human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses.
The claim that 2023 is the hottest July on record is a total lie...iow: TYPICAL CLIMIATISTA BULLSHIT.
Human records only go back 150 years at best.
Isotopic data from ice cores preserving records of paleoclimatic events do not have the precision to capture weekly or monthly climate fluctuations, to the best of my knowledge.
Your fat ass is sweating this summer like never before because conservatives have demanded we keep spewing mass quantities of heat trapping GHGs into the atmosphere.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
You must not! Because you live in Fantasyland!
signalmankenneth
Verified User
You know when the best time to plant a tree is?
20 years ago.
You know when the second best time to plant a tree is?
Today
Yep. Just not at this pace.
And know what else, dumbfuck? The earth wasn’t populated by 8 billion PEOPLE.
The earth will be just fine. It’s been through worse and all will self-correct. It’s the PEOPLE that are fucked. And they are doing it to themselves.
serendipity
Verified User
The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Catastrophism
Attempts to explain attitudes to climate change, and the refusal of large parts of society to accept the idea of an imminent catastrophe, have largely foundered. This ground breaking book overturns the existing literature, developing a powerful new model of public attitudes based on the interaction of traditional religion and a new culture – a new faith – of climate catastrophism, which is instinctively accepted or rejected. At its centre is a series of measurements of public opinion, culled from major international polls, which make a strong case that society is now in the grip of a major new religion. That case is made still more powerful because the model is able to predict real-world outcomes, such as the deployment of renewables and the prevalence of climate protest groups in different countries.
The book ends with a warning. Cultures can bind societies together and cause great civilisations to grow and prosper. But they can also lead them to disaster. If society is truly in the grip of a new cultural entity, we should be very concerned.”
See this review by Andrew Montford:
“I HAVE been working in climate and energy for nearly 15 years, and it’s fair to say that it’s not often I find something that makes me radically change the way I look at the domain. But a new book, by Andy A West, has done just that.”
My book overlaps with some social aspects explored in Judith’s book, including the catastrophe narrative, the social nature of consensuses, and the highly tangled territory where group biases interact with, and damage, the enterprise of science. However, regarding the social aspects generally I see my book as exposing the ultimate root cause of the biases and the deep social need for arbitrary consensus. It does not explore much detail about what specific institutions and efforts are undermined by which biased advocate individuals or organisations, and indeed it does not delve into climate science or the IPCC procedures at all (see the note at the end of this post). The main presence of climate catastrophism is outside of science, and its culture can be characterised and measured from its footprint in global publics (inclusive of public authorities). However, climate catastrophism works to undermine all institutions that provide ‘rationality at social scale’, including democracy, the law (chapter 14), and science (which is considered generically).
Read much more: https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/13/...e-social-psychology-of-climate-catastrophism/
serendipity
Verified User
Hysterical cuntwhistle strikes again!! Let's look to Nic Lewis for a far more balanced and rational approach.
How much warming can we expect in the 21st century?
This is very long and requires a fair modicum of intelligence naturally this rules out the assorted cuntwhistles and fuckwads.
Short summary
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the atmosphere’s climate sensitivity to CO2is likely between 2.5 and 4.0°C. Simply put, this means that (in the very long term) Earth’s temperature will rise between 2.5 and 4.0°C when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles.
A 2020 study (Sherwood20) greatly influenced how the IPCC calculated the climate sensitivity. Sherwood20 has been “extremely influential, including in informing the assessment of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in the 2021 IPCC Sixth Assessment Scientific Report (AR6); it was cited over twenty times in the relevant AR6 chapter“, according to Nic Lewis. A Comment in Nature confirmed this view.1)
Nic Lewis took a closer look at this study, and in September 2022, he published his own study (Lewis22) that criticizes Sherwood20. By correcting errors and using more recent data, including from AR6, Lewis22 found that the climate sensitivity may be about 30% lower than what Sherwood20 had found.
If we know what the climate sensitivity is, and if we also know approximately the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted going forward, then the amount of future warming that’s caused by greenhouse gases can also be estimated.
In terms of future emissions, a 2022 study (Pielke22) found that something called RCP3.4 is the most plausible emissions scenario. Traditionally, another scenario (RCP8.5), has been used as a business-as-usual scenario, but this is now widely regarded as an extremely unlikely scenario, with unrealistically high emissions.
Assuming that the climate sensitivity from Lewis22 is correct and that RCP3.4 is the most appropriate emissions scenario, then we find that global temperatures will rise by less than 1°C from 2023 to 2100 (not accounting for natural variability).
How much the Earth’s surface air temperature will rise this century depends, among other things, on how sensitive the atmosphere is to greenhouse gases such as CO2, the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted, and natural variations. It’s hard to predict natural variations, so the focus here will be on climate sensitivity and greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2).
Climate sensitivity
Climate sensitivity is the amount of warming that can be expected in the Earth’s surface air temperature if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles. So if the climate sensitivity is 3°C, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere quickly doubles and stays at that level, then the Earth’s surface air temperature will – in the long term – rise by 3°C.2) In the long term, in this case, is more than 1000 years, but most of the temperature increase happens relatively fast.
The exact value for the climate sensitivity isn’t known, and the uncertainty range has traditionally been very large. In 1979, the so-called Charney report found the climate sensitivity to be between 1.5 and 4.5°C. 34 years later, in 2013, the IPCC reached the exact same conclusion – that it’s likely (66% probability) that the climate sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.5°C. However, the uncertainty in the Charney report may have been underestimated. So even though the official climate sensitivity estimate didn’t change, it wouldn’t be correct to say that no progress was made during those 34 years.
In climate science, there are several different types of climate sensitivity. I won’t go into detail about the various types just yet, but I’ll have something to say about some of them later in the article – when it becomes relevant. The type of climate sensitivity referred to above – in the Charney report and by the IPCC – is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).
Why so much uncertainty? (Feedback effects)
There’s broad agreement that without so-called feedback effects, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) would be close to 1.2°C 3), which is quite low and not particularly dangerous. The reason for the great uncertainty comes from how feedback effects affect the temperature.
A feedback effect can be either positive or negative. A positive feedback effect amplifies warming, contributing to a higher climate sensitivity. A negative feedback dampens warming and contributes to a lower climate sensitivity.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/07/08/how-much-warming-can-we-expect-in-the-21st-century/
Last edited:
Althea
Althea told me...
Wait...you mean to say that changing the propellant in hair spray wasn't enough?
Althea
Althea told me...
Or:
The coolest July you will ever see for the rest of your lives.
Global warming is an obvious fraud.
serendipity
Verified User
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
That was related to the OZONE HOLE, not AGW.
Do try to understand the science we are talking about.
The five hottest years on record have all been since 2015.
Exxon scientists wrote in the 1970s that if humans continued to pump ever increasing amounts of heat-trapping GHGs into the atmosphere, the result would be global warming.
They were right.
serendipity
Verified User
As I've told you many times, Arrhenius wrote about carbonic acid as he termed CO2 well over 100 years ago, so fucking what? Why did you work for a fossil fuel company then, can you answer that?
You have no credibility on the topic, you've been a climate denier for at least two decades