A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is coming true next week

Assuming the 3 degree C consensus CO2 climate sensitivity and the A1B CO2 concentration growth model the rate of temperature increase per year is 0.03 degrees C. Global warming has nothing to do with daily weather extremes. Daily temperature variation is huge compared to annual global warming.

And yes, the globe is warming. We are in the tenth warming period of the ~ 10,000 year Holocene period. The current warming began in the late 1800’s.

 

It takes ~ 30 years to detect global temperature trends.

 

I don’t think people deny global warming. Some like me deny that man is causing it and deny that even if we are there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

 

And also some of us realize that CO2 is an inherent and non-toxic part of the energy production that powers the globe and the continuing enhancement of the human condition. Without it millions WILL die horribly, not "might" die at some point. And so far, there is no alternative.

 

You're suggesting that grants are given on the basis of whether a study will support some prior assumption. But, how is it known what the outcome of a study will be? Those who administer grants will usually be presented with hypotheses that will be tested, but it won't be known whether an hypothesis will be shown to be true or false.

So, let's say there is a proposal to test the hypothesis that CO2 slows heat from leaving Earth. Those who administer grants don't know whether that hypothesis will be found to be true or found to be false. Obviously, that's a gross simplification, as there are hypotheses concerning all sorts of factors related to that issue.

Hypotheses are usually stated in the positive, as there is usually no real way to "prove" a negative. So, it's common for a hypothesis to be stated in the positive and then for the actual study to find that the hypothesis is false. Even the idea of "proving" something is problematic to some degree, as there could be some mechanism that nobody has thought of.

 

Science is clear on humans being the major cause. Simply put, Earth has been warming even when the sun is in a low period of it's heat cycle, and there is no other serious source of heat than the sun. So, Earth is changing, and it's not hard from there to identify what those changes are. As of now, the sun is moving into its upward cycle of heat emission, so just based on that we're going to see more rapid heating.

I think that at this point the real question is whether it is worth the effort to slow down the warming that is taking place.

 

Well, one thing is CERTAIN.

We are NOT going to run out of CO2!

So, your "millions WILL die horribly" is a seriously pathetic attempt at deception.

 

Your first statement is false. The earth has been in ten periods of warming followed by cooling in the Holocene Period. And global warming is net beneficial. In the last 3 warmings (Medieval, Roman, Mynoan). civilization flourished. And in ~ half of the warming periods the rate of warming and maximum temperature were greater than we see today.

 

You know that because scientists figured that out.

You can't now claim that they forgot.

 

My post disproved your claim stated in the first sentence of the post I responded to.

 

No, it certainly did not.

Ancient events are informative of mechanisms concerning climate. So, it's no surprise that there have long been scientists studying that.

And, what is found is not somehow forgotten or ignored.

 

The natural history of climate in the Holocene is being totally ignored by some who profess to be scientists of high integrity. Especially egregious were those who attempted to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period by using bristlecone tree rings.

 

I'm not sure it could really get bad enough to make humans go extinct. We are quite resourceful and omnivorous. But population collapse from billions to millions is certainly plausible (eventually, and at worst).

 

And we are very adaptable. Counterintuitively the wealth generated by the unrestricted use of inexpensive fossil fuels is the main driver of this adaptability. And that is the policy which most guarantees the success of the human race. Rational optimism makes perfect sense given the maximum means to adapt. This has always been so.

 

The tree ring thing was shown to be an invalid claim.

Claiming that climatological science from all parts of the world ignore the Holocene is ridiculous.

 

That's a stupid misinterpretation of what I said. Producing energy releases CO2. Invariably. Cannot be chaged currently. Period.

Shutting down CO2 production shuts down energy production. Period. Full stop.

People can't live without energy production. Everything stops.

And people die. In large numbers.

 

I agree - I haven't seen any predictions of extinction.

However, the wars and total chaos that would come from having that many desperate people would be unbelievably horrible world wide.

My understanding is that the mass displacement of people is why our DoD sees national security risk in climate change.

 

Oh yeah I'm NOT saying some people will survive so it's not a big deal. Billions dying is a big deal. Just saw somebody predict extinction and I said that's taking it too far. When we take it too far, the deniers pounce and say "see, they said the world will end so they must be wrong about all of it."

 

I don't know about main driver of adaptability, but industrialization certainly was a major and probably necessary step in technological development. But we're at a stage now where the technology to move beyond fossil fuels is within reach, we just lack the will to do it, and that's a problem. This problem is caused by people being in denial. This denial is fostered by people more interested in short-term profits and benefits than long-term consequences.

 

That's all correlation, not causation. Tell me what the actual mechanism is that allows 0.04% of the atmosphere to overwhelm the rest of the atmosphere to cause it to heat abnormally.

No, it's not clear that humans are the cause at all.

 

Yes - it really does seem like the amount of CO2 required to make a difference would have to be somewhere close to the amount that already exists.

But, that is a major mistake.

There is a balance between solar radiation arriving and heat being released to space.

All one has to do is to change that balance. On a child's see saw, it doesn't matter how much weight is on either side as long as it is the same. Then, a tiny amount more weight on one side will send one side up.

A small percent more CO2 has been enough to change the balance - causing less heat to radiate to space while not changing the amount of arriving solar radiation.

When less heat radiates to space, Earth's temperature goes up.

 

What CO2 does is actually shown to be causation. It combines with other factors to slow heat from escaping from Earth. This is a significant area of study.

See page 136 of this site:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf

That page has a diagram that shows the measurements of the various factors causing change in Earth's average temperature.

What you see in red are factors causing warming. What you see in blue are factors causing cooling.

These are measured in watts per square meter.

These are measured causations, not correlations.

 

So again, what's the actual mechanism? CO2 is a molecule much like any number of similar molecules. Is it somehow more reflective? I guess on one side anyways. Otherwise it would be equally reflective both coming and going.

That's just a really small change in a really small quantity. Effectively maybe going from what? 300 ppm to 400 ppm.

No, not even close to a silly child's seesaw analogy. It amounts to one kid having a small rock in his pocket.

Again you're stating "facts" that aren't in evidence.

Wanna try again?

 

I tried reading that crap again (I've been forced to for years) and it still makes my head hurt. Instead of looking at the pretty pictures, try reading the text. The massive use of the word "estimated" damns the whole thing. So what they are plainly saying is that they're guessing. Not like doing actual experiments with precise and definitive measurements.

Again, useless crap.

 

I made no such claim.