For some, climate change has become religion, and human activity has become the default bogeyman. The reality is that things are much more complicated, with many variables that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity altering weather and climate across time spans short and long. But, it's somehow satisfying to have someone you don't like to blame for everything, so...
No serious scientists are claiming "all of it" with regard to the manmade contribution to warming. The most credible will state that "we just don't know" and that the manmade contribution ranges from very little (unmeasurable) to statistically significant - in other words, a measurable contribution. The heavy bias in the IPCC models demonstrates a lack of understanding of feedback mechanisms (like clouds) in mitigating both manmade and natural carbon sources in the atmosphere. Being wrong for going on 32 years now has led the serious researchers (there are some) to question whether manmade contribution is even measurable.
Hunga Tonga is significant for a very important reason - the water ejected into the atmosphere was "super-heated vapor" - extremely fine particles at very high temperature, which bloomed into the stratosphere and distributed over the earth evenly, where it will endure for several years. So this eruption will induce statistically significant warming for several years (up to 5 by the articles I've read). It will tend to reinforce the AGW crowd's dire forecasts, for a while, then dissipate. And then, who knows what comes next.
Serious scientists aren't the ones who dominate the dialogue, however. Merely asking the question elicits condescension, credentialism, and "denier" ad hominems.
I recall reading, some time back, that the ocean was modeled as having a uniform depth of a few tens or hundreds of meters (that has probably changed), at which time I was reminded that "all models are wrong. Some models are useful."
You know the point of this - that anything other than "it's all our fault and we must harm ourselves to repent" is dismissed and derided.
I always like to ask the climate crazies one simple question and then watch them turn into pretzels trying to answer it. The question is, what is the ideal global climate (temperature)? I mean, what is the goal? What climate are we shooting for and what happens when we reach it? Never can get an answer...
You observations are practical, applicable, and reasonable in a world of self-serving flagellates who won’t desist.
I had always hope for wisdom in family and friends, at least open discussion. It allows for practical data, like your essay to be incorporated and used as reasonable course correction.
But recto-political behavior still seems to have once reasonable folks i the grip of shallow knee jerk response. As the media slowly …finally… loose relevance I hope critical thinking comes back so we can all dig out of this together…. But….
In conversations, I tend to focus on arguing the remedies rather than arguing the warming itself. Pointing out that the BRICS aren't going to do what we're doing, and that they control most of the resources needed, and then saying that the real answer is nuclear and exporting NG, is like pulling a dog sideways rather than forward or backward. Off-balances enough to make them ponder, "maybe?"
I’ve tried to find at least some who will begin by accepting WE have an issue, common cause as the initial step.
The backwards step of engaging in taking point combat is useless and unproductive
People who will converse based from a ‘remedy’ mindset care about getting US somewhere
Sadly the massive collection of temporal YOLO sheep, simply want to bleat & eat. It seems tje upsurge of that frame of mind is the basis for so many of the progressive cultural suicidals.
Peter, what an insightful essay. I will pass it along to my FB World immediately; it needs to be out there for all to read.
Sadly, the guilty are likely to dismiss it out of hand, since you have provided far too much logic and far too many facts.
Well done.
Thank you!
For some, climate change has become religion, and human activity has become the default bogeyman. The reality is that things are much more complicated, with many variables that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity altering weather and climate across time spans short and long. But, it's somehow satisfying to have someone you don't like to blame for everything, so...
In the "things that will work" column, don't forget this biggy: plant trees!!
No serious scientists are claiming "all of it" with regard to the manmade contribution to warming. The most credible will state that "we just don't know" and that the manmade contribution ranges from very little (unmeasurable) to statistically significant - in other words, a measurable contribution. The heavy bias in the IPCC models demonstrates a lack of understanding of feedback mechanisms (like clouds) in mitigating both manmade and natural carbon sources in the atmosphere. Being wrong for going on 32 years now has led the serious researchers (there are some) to question whether manmade contribution is even measurable.
Hunga Tonga is significant for a very important reason - the water ejected into the atmosphere was "super-heated vapor" - extremely fine particles at very high temperature, which bloomed into the stratosphere and distributed over the earth evenly, where it will endure for several years. So this eruption will induce statistically significant warming for several years (up to 5 by the articles I've read). It will tend to reinforce the AGW crowd's dire forecasts, for a while, then dissipate. And then, who knows what comes next.
Serious scientists aren't the ones who dominate the dialogue, however. Merely asking the question elicits condescension, credentialism, and "denier" ad hominems.
I recall reading, some time back, that the ocean was modeled as having a uniform depth of a few tens or hundreds of meters (that has probably changed), at which time I was reminded that "all models are wrong. Some models are useful."
You know the point of this - that anything other than "it's all our fault and we must harm ourselves to repent" is dismissed and derided.
I always like to ask the climate crazies one simple question and then watch them turn into pretzels trying to answer it. The question is, what is the ideal global climate (temperature)? I mean, what is the goal? What climate are we shooting for and what happens when we reach it? Never can get an answer...
Nicely done
You observations are practical, applicable, and reasonable in a world of self-serving flagellates who won’t desist.
I had always hope for wisdom in family and friends, at least open discussion. It allows for practical data, like your essay to be incorporated and used as reasonable course correction.
But recto-political behavior still seems to have once reasonable folks i the grip of shallow knee jerk response. As the media slowly …finally… loose relevance I hope critical thinking comes back so we can all dig out of this together…. But….
Nonetheless thanks for a fact-heavy column today!
In conversations, I tend to focus on arguing the remedies rather than arguing the warming itself. Pointing out that the BRICS aren't going to do what we're doing, and that they control most of the resources needed, and then saying that the real answer is nuclear and exporting NG, is like pulling a dog sideways rather than forward or backward. Off-balances enough to make them ponder, "maybe?"
I’ve tried to find at least some who will begin by accepting WE have an issue, common cause as the initial step.
The backwards step of engaging in taking point combat is useless and unproductive
People who will converse based from a ‘remedy’ mindset care about getting US somewhere
Sadly the massive collection of temporal YOLO sheep, simply want to bleat & eat. It seems tje upsurge of that frame of mind is the basis for so many of the progressive cultural suicidals.
The dumbing down of the educational system, where inculcation has replaced training the mind to think, takes a big part of the blame.
What are properly deemed conclusions and opinions are taught as facts. It's a mass "begging the question" fallacy.