Quoting James:
"Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways!"
"Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways!"
The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons. The majority of hydrocarbons are not recoverable. Your imagery of pulling eons of carbon deposits into the atmosphere is patently false. It's a product of vivid imaginations, programmed by individuals seeking to skim a profit from the commodity.
The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change. Al Gore claimed the debate is over as well. If that were the case, then why are so many research papers submitted to the IPCC still attempting to prove the preconceived notion?
The reason is that most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis. They submit papers with caveats stating things like "the action of clouds cannot be modeled at this time". The caveats are ignored by the political appointees (in the summaries for policymakers) who are there to advise governments on how to deal with the preconceived notion. They are not there to debate whether the problem even exists.
The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive. One or the other. I'm inclined to believe the latter for various reasons we can discuss.
The action of clouds (convection) is the most dominant cooling force in our atmosphere. Heat is carried aloft and radiated into space in the form of Infrared radiation. You can see an example of this radiance in Infrared imagery of a Hurricane. What you see is infrared energy being radiated into space. Climate models are not able to account for this, and that is the primary reason that the models have been wrong historically. The models predict ever rising temperatures, but the measurements have proven them wrong every time. The obvious reason is that the models are not accounting for a huge amount of energy being radiated into space.
The radiation from the top of the atmosphere is triggered by warming itself, and acts as a sort of thermostat moderating the temperature of the planet to a narrow range of extremes. Convection increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. Fortunately for us, that narrow range has been suitable for the evolution of all creatures on earth, including ourselves. In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things.
I don't even know where to start in a response except to say your statements seem to come straight out of a climate denialism website or something. I have seen such statements over the years, every one of them debunked by climate scientists who are actually experts.
"The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons." Where did you get that????
"The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change." That will be news to the scientists who contribute to the IPCC efforts. In fact, assessment of findings and claims is a big part of the IPCC. You sir appear to find fault with the IPCC because their assessments seem at odds with what you want to be true.
"....most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis." Dude- that is just effin' laughable if it weren't so tragic. Where on earth did you find that gem? Do you actually believe it? It is the evidence itself that they are continuing to uncover and further understand that drives climate scientists to go to work every day. Your suggestion here is that there is some sort of skullduggery going on here. Patently false.
"The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive." Again, where did you get this? I mean, just YESTERDAY alot of disturbing news came out from the climate science community that there is more evidence that as a whole, cloud cover and how it is affected by climate change is actually CONTRIBUTING to warming, not cooling. It is really bad news, but news none the less. For several years now, the notion that clouds are cooling us (as they always have), and therefore there is no global warming, has been steadily invalidated. Much as mankind would hope this to be true, it appears to not be so.
"In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things." Isn't that the point??? BTW, humans are singularly able to adapt to climate changes due to our ability to respond through reason (make appropriate clothing, move to other places, build more appropriate shelters, etc). Stuff the animal kingdom cannot do, except to evolve to handle it. And what we are doing to our climate is happening too quickly by several orders of magnitude for that evolution to occur. Hence the danger. It's going to upset the entire balance.
Look - I feel like I am trying to respond to a "Gish Gallop". I am not an expert, and neither are you. But I do read a good bit about the science, as you probably do. I also am a great believer in the scientific method as the prime force for moving humanity forward, a notion you in all likelihood do not share for some reason. For that is why, I believe, you refuse to acknowledge the consensus view of climate science. In a world where objective truth is harder and harder to recognize, due to advancements in communication, and due to the power of disinformation, I have chosen science (real science, not fringe science) to guide my understanding of the world. It is a pretty sure bet. You have chosen something different, along with way too many of your cohorts. You know - have you considered that maybe you are wrong? What if you are? And what if you win out, and nothing is done, and climate science is proved correct. Then, in all likelihood your grand children (and mine) will be doomed to live in a dystopian world of climate catastrophe. That outcome is not at all unlikely, much as I wish it were not so.
You can fetch for yourself if you care to learn. I can repeat all of your ad hominem attacks about you, but what's the point? Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You will not change your mind, and I will not change the minds of the policymakers. I'm just here to state an opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, it make me no difference.
Your last question being "What if you are wrong" can also be placed right back in your lap.
The next major glacial advance could be beginning today, or last year, and we would not know it. If the cycles we see hold true, it can begin at any time in the next 10,000 years or so, including today, or last year. The drought of this summer, and the drying up of the Mississippi River could easily be the first sign of it.
Won't it be funny (or tragic) for our descendants to look back at the time we wasted trying to stop climate change, when in fact there is really no stopping climate from changing? If the planet is now descending into the next glacial advance, we will begin to see drier and colder conditions more and more often, until most of the moisture is locked up at the poles and what is not under ice is essentially desert except for a small band near the equator. That is the band of earth from which humans emerged during the current 20,000 year warm "vacation" from normal glacial domination. Humans and other animals will decline in population due to a lack of food. One can only wonder if our civilization will completely break down, and we will go back to beasts fighting for mere survival.
So if we do nothing, and simply make the most of the current climate "vacation" we will probably be doing the best thing we can do for ourselves, our planet and our descendants. We certainly should not be limiting the resources so desperately needed by so many people poorer than ourselves. Intentionally making fossil fuel more expensive in order to make weaker "alternatives" appear to be cheaper is hurting the poorest of the poor most of all.
Our children will look back on this age as one of selfish hubris, where people really were convinced that we could hold back climate change, and tried to do so at the expense of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
I will furnish you with one tidbit backing up my statement about IPCC scientists acknowledging the frailty of climate models. I will not do the rest of your work for you. It's up to you to learn or deny science. Science does not care how you feel about it.
The following quote expressly states that the models are still needing work to effectively model cloud feedbacks. It also states the most recent revisions have resulted in LESS positive feedback. If you can follow the Science article, and then read the paper in question (second link). You may understand better the importance of the error in climate models. Feel free to come back and comment further after reading the article and paper.
"Bretherton says more cloud-resolving models are on their way. "Within the next few years, we will have global models that will do what [Schneider's] does in a more defensible way." Bretherton is the midst of developing such a model himself, which also relies on eddy simulations to power its simulations. To his surprise, he added, initial runs seemed to suppress the warming feedbacks for these clouds more than expected."
Read the links, thank you. Here is what I will concede. Cloud cover is a large player when it comes to predicting global warming. That is well known. And that cloud simulations in today's climate models might be the most underdeveloped component of those models. The science is under intense development. That is all I'll concede.
Climate scientists and scientists in related fields are hard at work trying to better pin down all the various effects that cloud cover causes. It's complicated, not yet a for-sure thing whether we are seeing a net negative feedback loop, or a positive one, or if it's all just about neutral. It's all over my head; all I can do is read the abstracts and news articles. One thing worthy of notice though - as more evidence comes in, it just is not looking good for those who insist that cloud cover is saving the day so to speak. The evidence, and/or latest model results are not presenting any strong argument for a negative feedback loop - like we all would hope for. That's an understatement. Are you hanging your hat on cloud cover?
At this point, unlike what you seem to suspect, climate science is saying that seriously bad global warming is very likely in the process of occurring (with a xxx% chance of being correct - where "xxx%" is a high number). And every year, as the science continues to develop, that number is getting larger. There are opinions to the contrary among scientists, but they are very small compared to a very large consensus. I just don't see how you could argue against that point. The alarm bells should be ringing loudly in your head, but for some reason are not. And given the current scientific consensus, who could argue that humankind should be taking a path that reflects the odds as currently understood. To be better safe than sorry. How certain must we be? Especially with so little to lose. Adding more expense to already subsidized fossil fuels is not going to have a catastrophic effect, even on the world's poor. Won't help, but the effects can be mitigated.
Meanwhile, the real world is making statements of its own. The effects of rapid climate change are all around us - the "thousand year" floods happening with regularity now, the historic increases in forest fires, the record temp highs that drown out the record lows, island nations watching their territories slowly but surely sink beneath the waves, shore engineering world wide hard at work planning for further invasion of sea water, etc etc.
I did find it interesting that you bring up the coming ice age (if it comes - I am not sure that man-made global warming will not cause trigger point events that curtail its coming....). A great hypothetical question - what would human civilization do about ice-age induced climate change. But I do not think a comparison to the situation today is valid. What I do not see in your arguments is geological time versus time as measured in human civilization terms. As if they are comparable. They are not. The cycle of ice ages, although rapid in comparison to some other planetary variations, is still measured in terms of tens of thousands of years. Whereas the warming we see from fossil fuel burning is measured in centuries, and lately even decades. Human society - and I might add, the world's ecosystems - will adapt to a coming ice age, that comes so gradually that the adaptations are barely noticeable. Nature has always done that with very few exceptions. Few will worry much about that. But human-caused global warming? That is occurring so rapidly that earth's ecosystems are not able to keep up with it. From a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide. We do not even know all that will be upset, although we are beginning to get an idea as we study extinctions, pandemics, unprecedented weather events, and other effects that are beginning to happen.
So just what do you have against an approach that recognizes the danger potential? Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there. Also, do I detect some suspicion on your part that there is a conspiracy of sorts among all the relevant branches of earth sciences to hide the "truth" from us? You made a couple of statements to that effect. Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants? Is there some covered up effort to suppress a large and legitimate body of science that is at odds with the consensus? Is science putting their foot on the scales, working towards a new world order? I'm sorry to insult your intelligence. But at this point, views such as yours need a ton of good evidence to be considered legitimate. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.
I can argue several of the points you make, but it seems your primary desire is to ask what motivates me. I love the scientific pursuit first and foremost.
Of all your guesses, the following comes the closest to the problem I see with not only climate science, but many other branches of the field.
"Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants?"
I and many scientists see a creeping desire on the part of some to abduct science on behalf of certain special interests. It does not have to be a global conspiracy. It is simply an ingrained practice to throw into any innocuous study of historical climate a reference to how it must prove that the so called "consensus" is correct. Essentially, you must genuflect to the "consensus" if you wish to be published or receive grants.
Climatology is a ripe field for this idea of a horse following a cart. The field has very little practical value to the world without a climate crisis. One way it can gain practical value is to have a crisis. That crisis is what draws so much funding to climatology, and sadly, away from other fields which have much more practical uses.
Another inquiry of yours:
"Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there."
I am certain that CO2 absorbs infrared coming from the ground, and that water vapor also does so, to a much greater degree. I am also aware that it is less mentioned in laymen's literature that these gases also radiate infrared. The fact that the layman is being instructed with half truth causes suspicion in my mind. The other fact that convection carries warm air aloft where it radiates IR into space primarily is also not addressed in the literature aimed at the layman. All they hear is that there is an ever thickening blanket of CO2 and we will soon be boiling hot. This is hyperbole and it once again arouses my suspicion that the motive is not the pursuit of science, but the pursuit of captive minds.
I am certain that cities tend to be as much as 10 degrees F warmer than rural lands due to the stifling of winds and the volume of dark pavement there. This actually has affected rural microclimates by promoting convection over cities and robbing rural lands of much needed rainfall. That is actual human caused climate change. It's not a global danger, it is a local nuisance though.
I am certain that temperatures at the poles have warmed significantly more than they have in other regions. Most of the global temperature rise measured at the end of the 20th century was because of higher temperatures at the poles being averaged into the balance of the world. Non-polar regions hardly warmed at all on average. It's understandable that the North Pole in particular would register as much warmer than before. The 20,000 year recession of the glaciers in the Northern hemisphere is running out of ice to melt at the pole. In mid summer there was hardly any ice left. Greenland still had ice, but the amount of sea ice was as near to none as we have ever witnessed. Greenland will take at least 1,000 years to melt at the current rate. By then, we may be back into the next glacial advance, or not. If not, sea levels will continue to rise and we will have to adapt. I like to joke that if a barnacle can outrace sea level rise, then so can humans.
I am also certain that additional CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which we add through burning anything, do cause it to absorb additional IR. What I do not agree with is that this will lead to a "tipping point" from which earth will never recover. Nothing of the kind has ever been observed in nature. Convection being a feedback loop which responds to additional heat and radiates it will prevent it. Even objects without water vapor radiate more when heated, and eventually settle back to equilibrium. None ever reach a runaway heating. It's basically impossible on earth because the warming effect of additional CO2 is reduced logarithmically, not linearly.
Your comment:
"from a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide."
This is the kind of hyperbole we get from ignorant mainstream media, and the layman just eats it up. It's total drama. If it were like a meteor strike we would probably be thrust back into the 16th century or worse. We have seen Huge volcanic eruptions that blacked out the sky and emitted megatons of CO2 and other gases. They have a short term effect and then the soot and gases are absorbed into the ground or ocean and the planet swiftly returns to an equilibrium. The planet is not a delicate flower. It is a huge fluid body of molten rock with a crust of slag and water floating on the surface. Laymen have real trouble visualizing the scale of Earth in relation to our impacts upon it. Al Gore took advantage of that weakness and he rests secure in his home today, near sea level. Physically secure perhaps, but deep down he knows he is a con artist.
The terms "The Science", "Trust the Science" or "I am the Science" are abhorrent to any real scientist. A real scientist would never utter such words. But this is what the layman is subjected to on a daily basis from a certain faction of the science community and media outlets sponsored by the industries which promote and fund the distortion of science for the purpose of political action favorable to such industries.
Bottom line is that many a "consensus" in science has been overturned in the past, and this one is lacking in honesty as outlined above. Once science returns to its roots as the search for true understanding of nature the "consensus" will quickly and catastophically collapse. Hopefully sooner than later.
If there are questions in your above comment that I have not addressed, please ask again. I am happy to offer my opinion.
Well I wish Dr. Mann could read your comments and respond. He seems to be the voice of climate science somewhat similar to some other scientists who have come out of their labs to address the public and try to make them understand that which is very complex. His responses would be interesting to say the least. And BTW - Sagan when he was alive, and Tyson today (good examples of scientists comfortable speaking in public), are/were firmly on board with the consensus, for what it's worth. I do not think they have anything to hide.
Much of what you argue here can be found in one form or another on climate denial websites, and therefore have been addressed. None seem to have stuck to the wall so far. But then, if corruption is as rife in the science as you appear to believe, then they wouldn't would they? So we are at a bit of a dead end. Except to say this - dig down deep enough, and you will find that the vast majority of contrarian arguments being put forward originate from persons funded directly or indirectly by Big Oil. If you were in a jury of your peers, and heard arguments from career climatologists, and from scientists working for Exxon or the like, who would you tend to believe?
I still maintain that, at the very least, the stakes are so potentially serious that the prudent path must be taken. Now. The cost can be handled, and sustainable energy for a civilization is one of the ultimate civilized things to do.
I'm going to end it here; thanks for listening anyway. We are hijacking the LFAA comment section with things most readers are not that into.
Quoting James:
"Oil pumped out of the ground, or coal mined from deposits in the ground or in mountains give mankind the ability to release energy (and waste products that go with it) in a geological instant that has taken eons to lay down. No wonder the earth's atmosphere is going to react in surprising ways!"
The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons. The majority of hydrocarbons are not recoverable. Your imagery of pulling eons of carbon deposits into the atmosphere is patently false. It's a product of vivid imaginations, programmed by individuals seeking to skim a profit from the commodity.
The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change. Al Gore claimed the debate is over as well. If that were the case, then why are so many research papers submitted to the IPCC still attempting to prove the preconceived notion?
The reason is that most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis. They submit papers with caveats stating things like "the action of clouds cannot be modeled at this time". The caveats are ignored by the political appointees (in the summaries for policymakers) who are there to advise governments on how to deal with the preconceived notion. They are not there to debate whether the problem even exists.
The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive. One or the other. I'm inclined to believe the latter for various reasons we can discuss.
The action of clouds (convection) is the most dominant cooling force in our atmosphere. Heat is carried aloft and radiated into space in the form of Infrared radiation. You can see an example of this radiance in Infrared imagery of a Hurricane. What you see is infrared energy being radiated into space. Climate models are not able to account for this, and that is the primary reason that the models have been wrong historically. The models predict ever rising temperatures, but the measurements have proven them wrong every time. The obvious reason is that the models are not accounting for a huge amount of energy being radiated into space.
The radiation from the top of the atmosphere is triggered by warming itself, and acts as a sort of thermostat moderating the temperature of the planet to a narrow range of extremes. Convection increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. Fortunately for us, that narrow range has been suitable for the evolution of all creatures on earth, including ourselves. In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things.
I don't even know where to start in a response except to say your statements seem to come straight out of a climate denialism website or something. I have seen such statements over the years, every one of them debunked by climate scientists who are actually experts.
"The hydrocarbons that we are able to recover make up a miniscule fraction of those laid down over the eons." Where did you get that????
"The IPCC was not formed by the United Nations to prove or disprove that climate catastrophe is imminent. It's in their initial statement of formation. It was formed under the preconceived notion that that debate is over, and that we must take strong action to halt climate change." That will be news to the scientists who contribute to the IPCC efforts. In fact, assessment of findings and claims is a big part of the IPCC. You sir appear to find fault with the IPCC because their assessments seem at odds with what you want to be true.
"....most real climate scientists themselves are not convinced that there is a crisis." Dude- that is just effin' laughable if it weren't so tragic. Where on earth did you find that gem? Do you actually believe it? It is the evidence itself that they are continuing to uncover and further understand that drives climate scientists to go to work every day. Your suggestion here is that there is some sort of skullduggery going on here. Patently false.
"The fact that the action of clouds is the most dominant cooling forces in our atmosphere either escapes the writers of the summaries for policymakers, or they are being intentionally deceptive." Again, where did you get this? I mean, just YESTERDAY alot of disturbing news came out from the climate science community that there is more evidence that as a whole, cloud cover and how it is affected by climate change is actually CONTRIBUTING to warming, not cooling. It is really bad news, but news none the less. For several years now, the notion that clouds are cooling us (as they always have), and therefore there is no global warming, has been steadily invalidated. Much as mankind would hope this to be true, it appears to not be so.
"In a sense, through natural selection, we are "designed" by the climate that exists on earth to be the way that we are. Same for all the other living things." Isn't that the point??? BTW, humans are singularly able to adapt to climate changes due to our ability to respond through reason (make appropriate clothing, move to other places, build more appropriate shelters, etc). Stuff the animal kingdom cannot do, except to evolve to handle it. And what we are doing to our climate is happening too quickly by several orders of magnitude for that evolution to occur. Hence the danger. It's going to upset the entire balance.
Look - I feel like I am trying to respond to a "Gish Gallop". I am not an expert, and neither are you. But I do read a good bit about the science, as you probably do. I also am a great believer in the scientific method as the prime force for moving humanity forward, a notion you in all likelihood do not share for some reason. For that is why, I believe, you refuse to acknowledge the consensus view of climate science. In a world where objective truth is harder and harder to recognize, due to advancements in communication, and due to the power of disinformation, I have chosen science (real science, not fringe science) to guide my understanding of the world. It is a pretty sure bet. You have chosen something different, along with way too many of your cohorts. You know - have you considered that maybe you are wrong? What if you are? And what if you win out, and nothing is done, and climate science is proved correct. Then, in all likelihood your grand children (and mine) will be doomed to live in a dystopian world of climate catastrophe. That outcome is not at all unlikely, much as I wish it were not so.
You can fetch for yourself if you care to learn. I can repeat all of your ad hominem attacks about you, but what's the point? Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You will not change your mind, and I will not change the minds of the policymakers. I'm just here to state an opinion. You are free to agree or disagree, it make me no difference.
Your last question being "What if you are wrong" can also be placed right back in your lap.
The next major glacial advance could be beginning today, or last year, and we would not know it. If the cycles we see hold true, it can begin at any time in the next 10,000 years or so, including today, or last year. The drought of this summer, and the drying up of the Mississippi River could easily be the first sign of it.
Won't it be funny (or tragic) for our descendants to look back at the time we wasted trying to stop climate change, when in fact there is really no stopping climate from changing? If the planet is now descending into the next glacial advance, we will begin to see drier and colder conditions more and more often, until most of the moisture is locked up at the poles and what is not under ice is essentially desert except for a small band near the equator. That is the band of earth from which humans emerged during the current 20,000 year warm "vacation" from normal glacial domination. Humans and other animals will decline in population due to a lack of food. One can only wonder if our civilization will completely break down, and we will go back to beasts fighting for mere survival.
So if we do nothing, and simply make the most of the current climate "vacation" we will probably be doing the best thing we can do for ourselves, our planet and our descendants. We certainly should not be limiting the resources so desperately needed by so many people poorer than ourselves. Intentionally making fossil fuel more expensive in order to make weaker "alternatives" appear to be cheaper is hurting the poorest of the poor most of all.
Our children will look back on this age as one of selfish hubris, where people really were convinced that we could hold back climate change, and tried to do so at the expense of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
I will furnish you with one tidbit backing up my statement about IPCC scientists acknowledging the frailty of climate models. I will not do the rest of your work for you. It's up to you to learn or deny science. Science does not care how you feel about it.
The following quote expressly states that the models are still needing work to effectively model cloud feedbacks. It also states the most recent revisions have resulted in LESS positive feedback. If you can follow the Science article, and then read the paper in question (second link). You may understand better the importance of the error in climate models. Feel free to come back and comment further after reading the article and paper.
"Bretherton says more cloud-resolving models are on their way. "Within the next few years, we will have global models that will do what [Schneider's] does in a more defensible way." Bretherton is the midst of developing such a model himself, which also relies on eddy simulations to power its simulations. To his surprise, he added, initial runs seemed to suppress the warming feedbacks for these clouds more than expected."
https://www.science.org/content/article/world-without-clouds-hardly-clear-climate-scientists-say
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018MS001409
Read the links, thank you. Here is what I will concede. Cloud cover is a large player when it comes to predicting global warming. That is well known. And that cloud simulations in today's climate models might be the most underdeveloped component of those models. The science is under intense development. That is all I'll concede.
Climate scientists and scientists in related fields are hard at work trying to better pin down all the various effects that cloud cover causes. It's complicated, not yet a for-sure thing whether we are seeing a net negative feedback loop, or a positive one, or if it's all just about neutral. It's all over my head; all I can do is read the abstracts and news articles. One thing worthy of notice though - as more evidence comes in, it just is not looking good for those who insist that cloud cover is saving the day so to speak. The evidence, and/or latest model results are not presenting any strong argument for a negative feedback loop - like we all would hope for. That's an understatement. Are you hanging your hat on cloud cover?
At this point, unlike what you seem to suspect, climate science is saying that seriously bad global warming is very likely in the process of occurring (with a xxx% chance of being correct - where "xxx%" is a high number). And every year, as the science continues to develop, that number is getting larger. There are opinions to the contrary among scientists, but they are very small compared to a very large consensus. I just don't see how you could argue against that point. The alarm bells should be ringing loudly in your head, but for some reason are not. And given the current scientific consensus, who could argue that humankind should be taking a path that reflects the odds as currently understood. To be better safe than sorry. How certain must we be? Especially with so little to lose. Adding more expense to already subsidized fossil fuels is not going to have a catastrophic effect, even on the world's poor. Won't help, but the effects can be mitigated.
Meanwhile, the real world is making statements of its own. The effects of rapid climate change are all around us - the "thousand year" floods happening with regularity now, the historic increases in forest fires, the record temp highs that drown out the record lows, island nations watching their territories slowly but surely sink beneath the waves, shore engineering world wide hard at work planning for further invasion of sea water, etc etc.
I did find it interesting that you bring up the coming ice age (if it comes - I am not sure that man-made global warming will not cause trigger point events that curtail its coming....). A great hypothetical question - what would human civilization do about ice-age induced climate change. But I do not think a comparison to the situation today is valid. What I do not see in your arguments is geological time versus time as measured in human civilization terms. As if they are comparable. They are not. The cycle of ice ages, although rapid in comparison to some other planetary variations, is still measured in terms of tens of thousands of years. Whereas the warming we see from fossil fuel burning is measured in centuries, and lately even decades. Human society - and I might add, the world's ecosystems - will adapt to a coming ice age, that comes so gradually that the adaptations are barely noticeable. Nature has always done that with very few exceptions. Few will worry much about that. But human-caused global warming? That is occurring so rapidly that earth's ecosystems are not able to keep up with it. From a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide. We do not even know all that will be upset, although we are beginning to get an idea as we study extinctions, pandemics, unprecedented weather events, and other effects that are beginning to happen.
So just what do you have against an approach that recognizes the danger potential? Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there. Also, do I detect some suspicion on your part that there is a conspiracy of sorts among all the relevant branches of earth sciences to hide the "truth" from us? You made a couple of statements to that effect. Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants? Is there some covered up effort to suppress a large and legitimate body of science that is at odds with the consensus? Is science putting their foot on the scales, working towards a new world order? I'm sorry to insult your intelligence. But at this point, views such as yours need a ton of good evidence to be considered legitimate. There is too much at stake to do otherwise.
I can argue several of the points you make, but it seems your primary desire is to ask what motivates me. I love the scientific pursuit first and foremost.
Of all your guesses, the following comes the closest to the problem I see with not only climate science, but many other branches of the field.
"Maybe at least an unsaid effort to protect their incomes, their jobs, their grants?"
I and many scientists see a creeping desire on the part of some to abduct science on behalf of certain special interests. It does not have to be a global conspiracy. It is simply an ingrained practice to throw into any innocuous study of historical climate a reference to how it must prove that the so called "consensus" is correct. Essentially, you must genuflect to the "consensus" if you wish to be published or receive grants.
Climatology is a ripe field for this idea of a horse following a cart. The field has very little practical value to the world without a climate crisis. One way it can gain practical value is to have a crisis. That crisis is what draws so much funding to climatology, and sadly, away from other fields which have much more practical uses.
Another inquiry of yours:
"Correct me if I am wrong - your approach (which is to do nothing) suspiciously suggests that you deny that human-caused global warming is even happening at all, or if so that it just ain't no big thing, or that if it is happening and it looks bad we can reverse course at any time and it will be fixed right then and there."
I am certain that CO2 absorbs infrared coming from the ground, and that water vapor also does so, to a much greater degree. I am also aware that it is less mentioned in laymen's literature that these gases also radiate infrared. The fact that the layman is being instructed with half truth causes suspicion in my mind. The other fact that convection carries warm air aloft where it radiates IR into space primarily is also not addressed in the literature aimed at the layman. All they hear is that there is an ever thickening blanket of CO2 and we will soon be boiling hot. This is hyperbole and it once again arouses my suspicion that the motive is not the pursuit of science, but the pursuit of captive minds.
I am certain that cities tend to be as much as 10 degrees F warmer than rural lands due to the stifling of winds and the volume of dark pavement there. This actually has affected rural microclimates by promoting convection over cities and robbing rural lands of much needed rainfall. That is actual human caused climate change. It's not a global danger, it is a local nuisance though.
I am certain that temperatures at the poles have warmed significantly more than they have in other regions. Most of the global temperature rise measured at the end of the 20th century was because of higher temperatures at the poles being averaged into the balance of the world. Non-polar regions hardly warmed at all on average. It's understandable that the North Pole in particular would register as much warmer than before. The 20,000 year recession of the glaciers in the Northern hemisphere is running out of ice to melt at the pole. In mid summer there was hardly any ice left. Greenland still had ice, but the amount of sea ice was as near to none as we have ever witnessed. Greenland will take at least 1,000 years to melt at the current rate. By then, we may be back into the next glacial advance, or not. If not, sea levels will continue to rise and we will have to adapt. I like to joke that if a barnacle can outrace sea level rise, then so can humans.
I am also certain that additional CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which we add through burning anything, do cause it to absorb additional IR. What I do not agree with is that this will lead to a "tipping point" from which earth will never recover. Nothing of the kind has ever been observed in nature. Convection being a feedback loop which responds to additional heat and radiates it will prevent it. Even objects without water vapor radiate more when heated, and eventually settle back to equilibrium. None ever reach a runaway heating. It's basically impossible on earth because the warming effect of additional CO2 is reduced logarithmically, not linearly.
Your comment:
"from a geological time perspective, it is somewhat akin to a catastrophic event like a meteor strike, which quite suddenly upsets all equilibriums worldwide."
This is the kind of hyperbole we get from ignorant mainstream media, and the layman just eats it up. It's total drama. If it were like a meteor strike we would probably be thrust back into the 16th century or worse. We have seen Huge volcanic eruptions that blacked out the sky and emitted megatons of CO2 and other gases. They have a short term effect and then the soot and gases are absorbed into the ground or ocean and the planet swiftly returns to an equilibrium. The planet is not a delicate flower. It is a huge fluid body of molten rock with a crust of slag and water floating on the surface. Laymen have real trouble visualizing the scale of Earth in relation to our impacts upon it. Al Gore took advantage of that weakness and he rests secure in his home today, near sea level. Physically secure perhaps, but deep down he knows he is a con artist.
The terms "The Science", "Trust the Science" or "I am the Science" are abhorrent to any real scientist. A real scientist would never utter such words. But this is what the layman is subjected to on a daily basis from a certain faction of the science community and media outlets sponsored by the industries which promote and fund the distortion of science for the purpose of political action favorable to such industries.
Bottom line is that many a "consensus" in science has been overturned in the past, and this one is lacking in honesty as outlined above. Once science returns to its roots as the search for true understanding of nature the "consensus" will quickly and catastophically collapse. Hopefully sooner than later.
If there are questions in your above comment that I have not addressed, please ask again. I am happy to offer my opinion.
Thank you for your interest.
Well I wish Dr. Mann could read your comments and respond. He seems to be the voice of climate science somewhat similar to some other scientists who have come out of their labs to address the public and try to make them understand that which is very complex. His responses would be interesting to say the least. And BTW - Sagan when he was alive, and Tyson today (good examples of scientists comfortable speaking in public), are/were firmly on board with the consensus, for what it's worth. I do not think they have anything to hide.
Much of what you argue here can be found in one form or another on climate denial websites, and therefore have been addressed. None seem to have stuck to the wall so far. But then, if corruption is as rife in the science as you appear to believe, then they wouldn't would they? So we are at a bit of a dead end. Except to say this - dig down deep enough, and you will find that the vast majority of contrarian arguments being put forward originate from persons funded directly or indirectly by Big Oil. If you were in a jury of your peers, and heard arguments from career climatologists, and from scientists working for Exxon or the like, who would you tend to believe?
I still maintain that, at the very least, the stakes are so potentially serious that the prudent path must be taken. Now. The cost can be handled, and sustainable energy for a civilization is one of the ultimate civilized things to do.
I'm going to end it here; thanks for listening anyway. We are hijacking the LFAA comment section with things most readers are not that into.