[wat0n]

Personally, I don't think we can know for sure just what causes climate change or the increase in temperatures absent well-designed experiments (or even quasi-experiments) to test any hypotheses, which are impossible to conduct. As such, we're left with worse options like seeing which theories fit the data best and (just as importantly) how do they perform out of sample (i.e. if their predictions have been correct).

At least as far as global temperatures are concerned, even the old mainstream models seem to have gotten the trends mostly right, at least those built since the 1980s.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ho ... l-warming/

It seems the current state of climate models used to predict future temperatures is spot on for the most part, based on the kind of research we can do at least. As such, unless somebody provides an alternative theory (with its respective models and projections) that performs better, I think it's reasonable to at least accept current theory is as close to be right as it gets.

[skinster]

After reading the link from the previous post, there seems to be no good scientific argument against anthropogenic climate change in that webpage.

If that was a response to me, the two websites I shared are different.

[Pants-of-dog]

@skinster

I am referring to this link:
https://slkanthan.substack.com/p/challe ... ange-dogma

For example:

The first scientific claim discussed is the fact that climate continually changes and always has. While this provides a plausible alternate causative scenario, it does not weaken the argument for anthropogenic climate change in any way. Unless one assumes that new possible causes cannot come into play.

[skinster]

That webpage is Substack where many journalists etc. flocked to after censorship elsewhere on social media.

Anyway, I still don't believe it and you've not provided any evidence to support your position either, except a claim to do with a scientific consensus which you think is worthy of trusting. And I suppose I don't.

[Pants-of-dog]

@skinster

There are many different steps to the anthropogenic climate change theory. And each of those requires its own evidence. Can you be more specific about what you find unbelievable?

[skinster]

What is the evidence humans have caused the planet to heat up? Hasn't it been cooling over the last few years? How come they don't call it 'global warming' anymore? What happened to the holes in the ozone layer? They stopped talking about those..

What is going to happen according to your belief in the climate changing if people don't act? Which by the look of things, they won't. Aside from virtue-signalling protests and antics by groups funded by the government and taxes and restrictions imposed on the people?

I came across the ClimateGate emails Wikileaks published in 2008. Amongst other things, they reveal how IPCC scientists hid the decline in temperatures for three decades since 1940. Apparently 1940 was warmer than today.

Here's a talk on them by someone who went through them, which you won't find of interest, but someone else reading here might.

[late]

evidence

ClimateGate

The science has been consistent from it's beginning in the 1970s...

ClimateGate is BS, you've been scammed. You've been told what you want to hear, but it's crap.

[AFAIK]

You don't hear about the ozone layer because we negotiated a ban on the production and use of CFCs and it was a huge success. This was possible because the companies that produce CFCs are too small to buy the governments of the world and HFCs were already available to replace them.

Global cooling was a concern when we were worried that particulate pollution would deflect sun light and cause the Earth to cool. Greenhouse gases have overpowered them though.

We have already acted and our current trajectory is to experience warming of 3C, which is 2C lower than the 5C predicted if we followed business as usual.

[Pants-of-dog]

What is the evidence humans have caused the planet to heat up?

Many things. for example:

The amount of energy leaving the atmosphere has been measured by satellites and has been measured as being less than what the atmosphere is receiving. This creates a net energy gain.

By looking at the spectrum of the departing energy waves, the gases absorbing the energy and causing this net energy gain can be identified.

These gases have been identified as CO2 and other gases that are caused primarily by anthropogenic industry, specifically the large scale use of fossil fuels.

Hasn't it been cooling over the last few years?

No. The hottest year on record was 2016. Every year since then has been very close in terms of temperature. We are currently experiencing the hottest decade on record.

How come they don't call it 'global warming' anymore?

Because people were confused about how an overall increase in global temperatures can have isolated effects that cause cold snaps and other extreme cold events, and were using this confusion as a poor argument against anthropogenic climate change theory.

What happened to the holes in the ozone layer? They stopped talking about those..

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... ozone-hole

If you travel to the southern hemisphere, I strongly suggest keeping track of the ozone layer.

What is going to happen according to your belief in the climate changing if people don't act? Which by the look of things, they won't. Aside from virtue-signalling protests and antics by groups funded by the government and taxes and restrictions imposed on the people?

A minimum 600mm of sea level rise in the next 70 years. Massive global migration the global south. I was going to say that things like flooding and droughts, but you are asking for future predictions and not for ongoing events that are currently causing negative impacts from climate change. I believe tropical diseases are already spreading more as well.

I came across the ClimateGate emails Wikileaks published in 2008. Amongst other things, they reveal how IPCC scientists hid the decline in temperatures for three decades since 1940. Apparently 1940 was warmer than today.

Here's a talk on them by someone who went through them, which you won't find of interest, but someone else reading here might.

No, the one email that talks about hiding the decline is referring to tree ring data that diverges from the observed temperature record since about 1960.

It is not a secret, and is a fairly well discussed phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergenc ... 0altitudes).

[skinster]

I remain unconvinced.

[Saeko]

I remain unconvinced.

What would convince you?

[ingliz]

cooling

It may get very hot but then it's likely to get very cold very quickly.

As part of the ocean conveyor belt, warm water from the tropical Atlantic moves poleward near the surface where it gives up some of its heat to the atmosphere. This process partially moderates the cold temperatures at higher latitudes. As the warm water gives up its heat it becomes more dense and sinks. This circulation loop is closed as the cooled water makes its way slowly back toward the tropics at lower depths in the ocean.
If the poles warm, it is possible that meltwater from glaciers and the polar ice cap can shut off this circulation and interrupt this circulation system. The melt water is fresher and hence less dense than the ocean water it melts into, and thus the melt water will tend to accumulate near the surface. This layer of fresh water acts as an insulating barrier between the atmosphere and the normal ocean water. The water from the tropics can not release its heat to the atmosphere, and the circulation loop is interrupted. The mechanism has a positive feedback potential in that if the ocean circulation slows, then even less heat will make it to the higher latitudes reinforcing an effect that will cool the climate at these higher latitudes.

— NASA

The last time this happened, temperatures bounced between hot and cold before settling on an ice age.

[skinster]

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

What would convince you?

I don't know, something just smells a bit off about it all but I'll keep an open mind.

[Saeko]

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong



I don't know, something just smells a bit off about it all but I'll keep an open mind.

Forbes? Michael Shellenberger?

Michael D. Shellenberger (born June 16, 1971) is an American author and former public relations professional whose writing has focused on the intersection of politics, the environment, climate change and nuclear power, as well as more recently on how he believes progressivism is linked to homelessness, drug addiction and mental illness. He is a co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the California Peace Coalition.[1] He is also the founder of Environmental Progress.

A self-described ecomodernist, Shellenberger believes that economic growth can continue without negative environmental impacts through technological research and development, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization. A controversial figure, Shellenberger disagrees with most environmentalists over the impacts of environmental threats and policies for addressing them.[2][3][4] Shellenberger accepts that global warming is occurring, but argues that "it's not the end of the world."[4] Shellenberger's positions and writings on climate change and environmentalism have received criticism from environmental scientists and academics, who have called his arguments "bad science" and "inaccurate".[15] Response to his positions and writings from writers and journalists in the popular press has been mixed.[20] In a similar manner, many academics criticized Shellenberger's positions and writings on homelessness, while receiving mixed reception from writers and journalists in the popular press.[25]

Shellenberger was born and grew up in Colorado. He is a 1989 graduate of Greeley Central High School.[27] He earned a BA degree from the Peace and Global Studies program at Earlham College in 1993.[28] Subsequently, he earned an MA degree in anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1996.[29]

So he's an industry shill and not a climate scientist.

[skinster]

His work on the Twitter Files is great too, check it out.

[skinster]

"Science is never settled"

[wat0n]

@skinster I agree the science is not settled, in fact, climate science can't ever be settled because we can't make any experiments.

But the current models have performed well enough in predicting the change in temperatures, it's notable specially for those fitted in the 1980s (newer ones should perform better). Because of that, I doubt the current state of the science is all that poor either, it is at least fair to say so.

Are there any alternative models one can compare with?

[late]

[usermention=10830]

@skinster[/usermention] I agree the science is not settled, in fact, climate science can't ever be settled because we can't make any experiments.



Are there any alternative models one can compare with?

The warming bit is settled. Climate guys can do experiments, but mostly it's models.

Depends on what you mean by alternative... There are thousands of models, more coming all the time. Climate is immensely complicated. It wasn't until the 1970s when supercomputers started to be able to do fairly basic climate models. Doing the math by hand was a nightmare.

[AFAIK]

The great thing about climate science is that even if you don't care about or believe in global warming the solutions that scientists advocate are still a huge benefit to everyone anyway.

[wat0n]

The warming bit is settled. Climate guys can do experiments, but mostly it's models.

The warming bit, if you mean measuring actual temperatures, does not rely on models or a climate theory. But pinning down the causes of the warming (e.g. is it due to higher CO2 concentrations caused by human activity?) does rely on theories, which can't actually be tested using proper experiments hence we use models and see if their predictions have come to fruition or not. This may sound as unimportant but it's not if we want to have an accurate understanding of the science here.

Depends on what you mean by alternative... There are thousands of models, more coming all the time. Climate is immensely complicated. It wasn't until the 1970s when supercomputers started to be able to do fairly basic climate models. Doing the math by hand was a nightmare.

Any temperature projections made by a model that is based on a different, non-mainstream theory.

I've seen some people claiming temperatures are rising due to changes in solar activity. If so, maybe model such system and then provide predictions of future temperatures based on it, allowing us to compare with the predictions from the mainstream models.

The mainstream scientists, right or not, have at least taken the risk of making forecasts, and they have been mostly in line with what we've observed. Have the proponents of alternative explanations done the same? If not, then they're all talk and talk is cheap.