New report on climate change released today

[Gun Nut]

There is nothing natural about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. That was us. Humans did it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

If CO2 is so good and important to have as much as you can get, then place a plastic bag over your head so you can increase the concentration to levels you are more happy with. More is better, right?

 

[bilby]

There is nothing natural about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. That was us. Humans did it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

If CO2 is so good and important to have as much as you can get, then place a plastic bag over your head so you can increase the concentration to levels you are more happy with. More is better, right?

From angelo's own link, which he presumably either didn't read, didn't understand, or posted as a concession of defeat:

Global annual mean CO₂ concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century to 410 ppm as of mid-2018. The present concentration is the highest in the last 800,000 and possibly even the last 20 million years. The increase has been caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

 

[George S]

The author of this (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/06/climate-change-misconceived/), Iain Aitken, an Australian Climate Scientist,

In this essay I propose that there are many things about climate change that the general public, journalists, academics, environmentalists and politicians may think they ‘know’ to certainly be true that are actually, at the least, highly equivocal (or demonstrably false) and that once these misconceptions are corrected perceptions of the issue are (or, at least, should be) transformed. Note that throughout I use the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition of ‘climate change’: ‘a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)’. By ‘global warming’ I mean a rise in the Global Average Surface Temperature of the Earth.

Although the exact terminology and language may vary, we are repeatedly told that the essential ‘facts’ about climate change are that:

a) Global warming is happening, at rate that is unprecedented and accelerating

b) It has been caused by our carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels

c) It has already caused an alarming and accelerating rise in sea levels

d) It has already caused an alarming and accelerating increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events

e) It has already caused alarming and accelerating global species extinctions

f) We are experiencing a climate change crisis that will soon be catastrophic (potentially even causing a mass extinction event) if we don’t stop climate change

g) We can stop climate change by urgently switching to renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, so eradicating our emissions

h) The science behind the above points is settled and beyond reasonable dispute.

My assertion is not that these ‘facts’ are ‘fake news’ (deliberately reported falsehoods) or ‘myths’ (implying that there is no truth whatsoever in them) but that they are fundamental misconceptions based on misunderstandings of what the science and evidence actually tell us. These misconceptions appear to have assumed the mantle of ‘collective beliefs’ (or ‘memes’) that through extensive repetition in the media are mistakenly taken to be indisputable truths, despite the ready availability of science and evidence to disprove (or, at the least, seriously question) them. Few people will have heard the opinions of scientists (including many of the world’s most eminent climate scientists) who doubt this ‘man-made climate change crisis’ narrative because their voices have largely been silenced (typically by branding them ‘climate change deniers’ or even ‘science deniers’). In the current climate of hostility to even considering alternative viewpoints there is apparently only one politically correct position to take, the ‘right’ position of accepting that the alarmist narrative is beyond dispute.

So can we reduce all this complexity to a relatively simple ‘alternative climate change narrative’, at the very real risk of being as trite as the original set of ‘facts’? If forced to make such a gross simplification my suggestion would be:

a) Global warming is happening, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating

b) It has been caused by both human activity and natural activity (i.e. it has not just been caused by our carbon dioxide emissions)

c) It has caused a rise in sea levels, albeit at a rate that is unexceptional and not accelerating

d) It has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events

e) It has not caused accelerating global species extinctions

f) We are not experiencing a ‘climate change crisis’ or a ‘climate change emergency’ (indeed arguably quite the opposite) but climate disruption in the far future, although very unlikely, is not impossible

g) We cannot stop climate change but we can reduce climate change risks (albeit at an economic, social and environmental cost that may be prohibitive) by gradually transitioning to lower carbon-intensity energy sources (like natural gas), so reducing our emissions

h) The science behind the above points [in previous quote] is immature and subject to dispute. There is almost total scientific consensus that global warming and climate change are happening and that we are contributing to them – but profound disagreements about the extent of our contribution, whether it will lead to ‘dangerous’ climate change and whether urgent global decarbonization is the correct policy response.

 

[bilby]

The author of this (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/06/climate-change-misconceived/), Iain Aitken, an Australian Climate Scientist,

Is he?

Are you able to advise what qualifications he has, or point me to any papers in climatology or a related discipline that he has co-authored?

Because I didn't find a single one in a quick search of Google Scholar, and I can't find any details of his scientific qualifications via a normal search on Google (there are rather a lot of people called Iain Aitken who appear in a Google search, so it's apparently an unfortunately common name).

The only qualification I can find that is directly attributed to him is at the top of the article you linked to - but neither 'author' nor 'guest blogger' suggests any actual expertise in climatology.

Why should we take his word, over that of 'bloke in the pub', much less over the claims made by large numbers of actual climatologists, with published works that have undergone peer review, and not just selection by a publisher who thinks it has commercial potential?

It seems that if he is a climate scientist, he's not been a particularly solid contributor to the field; So why should we take his word for anything?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The author of this (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/06/climate-change-misconceived/), Iain Aitken, an Australian Climate Scientist,

Is he?

Are you able to advise what qualifications he has, or point me to any papers in climatology or a related discipline that he has co-authored?

Because I didn't find a single one in a quick search of Google Scholar, and I can't find any details of his scientific qualifications via a normal search on Google (there are rather a lot of people called Iain Aitken who appear in a Google search, so it's apparently an unfortunately common name).

The only qualification I can find that is directly attributed to him is at the top of the article you linked to - but neither 'author' nor 'guest blogger' suggests any actual expertise in climatology.

Why should we take his word, over that of 'bloke in the pub', much less over the claims made by large numbers of actual climatologists, with published works that have undergone peer review, and not just selection by a publisher who thinks it has commercial potential?

It seems that if he is a climate scientist, he's not been a particularly solid contributor to the field; So why should we take his word for anything?

He used to just be called "Australian author and climate analyst." I guess the Internet gave him a promotion.

 

[bilby]

The author of this (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/06/climate-change-misconceived/), Iain Aitken, an Australian Climate Scientist,

Is he?

Are you able to advise what qualifications he has, or point me to any papers in climatology or a related discipline that he has co-authored?

Because I didn't find a single one in a quick search of Google Scholar, and I can't find any details of his scientific qualifications via a normal search on Google (there are rather a lot of people called Iain Aitken who appear in a Google search, so it's apparently an unfortunately common name).

The only qualification I can find that is directly attributed to him is at the top of the article you linked to - but neither 'author' nor 'guest blogger' suggests any actual expertise in climatology.

Why should we take his word, over that of 'bloke in the pub', much less over the claims made by large numbers of actual climatologists, with published works that have undergone peer review, and not just selection by a publisher who thinks it has commercial potential?

It seems that if he is a climate scientist, he's not been a particularly solid contributor to the field; So why should we take his word for anything?

He used to just be called "Australian author and climate analyst." I guess the Internet gave him a promotion.

Sweet. I think I shall be "Australian climate analyst and supreme overlord" from now on.

 

[angelo]

There is nothing natural about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. That was us. Humans did it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

If CO2 is so good and important to have as much as you can get, then place a plastic bag over your head so you can increase the concentration to levels you are more happy with. More is better, right?

Your argument is with Wiki not me. I just provided the link!

 

[angelo]

If CO2 is so good and important to have as much as you can get, then place a plastic bag over your head so you can increase the concentration to levels you are more happy with. More is better, right?

From angelo's own link, which he presumably either didn't read, didn't understand, or posted as a concession of defeat:

Global annual mean CO₂ concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century to 410 ppm as of mid-2018. The present concentration is the highest in the last 800,000 and possibly even the last 20 million years. The increase has been caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

I read it, but the 45% increase in emissions since the industrial revolution has NOT lead to a 45% increase in temperatures as one would expect. In fact the rise is less than 1 degree F and has in fact remained stable for close on to 2 decades even though emissions have increased and will
increase markedly for the foreseeable future.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I read it, but the 45% increase in emissions since the industrial revolution has NOT lead to a 45% increase in temperatures as one would expect.

Why would you expect that?

 

[bilby]

I read it, but the 45% increase in emissions since the industrial revolution has NOT lead to a 45% increase in temperatures as one would expect.

Why would you expect that?

There hasn't been a 45% increase in emissions, there's been a 45% increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration, which is due to a VAST increase in emissions, (which as they started close to zero could not be sensibly represented as a percentage).

Neither would lead one to expect a 45% rise in temperature, unless one were an innumerate and scientifically illiterate moron. (And indeed percentage rises in temperature are meaningless anyway, unless an absolute temperature scale is used).

Every part of that paragraph is erroneous or nonsensical, other than (perhaps) the opening three words, which might be true as long as it's clear that they in no sense imply 'I understood it'.

This is a level of Dunning-Kruger that's completely off the charts.

Does anyone know the contact details for the Guinness Book of Records, because I want to register a contender in the record for 'most gross errors in a single confidently asserted paragraph' entry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From angelo's own link, which he presumably either didn't read, didn't understand, or posted as a concession of defeat:

I read it, but the 45% increase in emissions since the industrial revolution has NOT lead to a 45% increase in temperatures as one would expect. In fact the rise is less than 1 degree F and has in fact remained stable for close on to 2 decades even though emissions have increased and will
increase markedly for the foreseeable future.

Incredible ignorance there. All things must not increase 1 to 1 to have a relationship.

 

[TSwizzle]

What is actually being observed is natural variability.

There is nothing natural about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. That was us. Humans did it.

I think you put far too much stock in the effects CO2 has on the climate. CO2 is not the sole contributor to climate change. This irrational obsession with CO2 really needs to stop. It has a negligible effect on climate.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Even if climate change wasn't caused by human industry, why oppose clamping down on pollution? I don't see the problem in that direction.

 

[scombrid]

Good for them. I'm talking about what is actually being observed.

What is actually being observed is natural variability. There is nothing going on now that hasn’t happened before.

On what time scale and by what mechanism?

 

[scombrid]

I read it, but the 45% increase in emissions since the industrial revolution has NOT lead to a 45% increase in temperatures as one would expect.

No one predicts a 1:1 relationship between the concentration of any one greenhouse gas and global atmospheric and oceanic heat content. That is an odd straw argument you are making there.

- - - Updated - - -

I read it, but the 45% increase in emissions since the industrial revolution has NOT lead to a 45% increase in temperatures as one would expect.

Why would you expect that?

Yes, why?

 

[scombrid]

What is actually being observed is natural variability.

There is nothing natural about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. That was us. Humans did it.

I think you put far too much stock in the effects CO2 has on the climate. CO2 is not the sole contributor to climate change. This irrational obsession with CO2 really needs to stop. It has a negligible effect on climate.

What is the cause of the climate changes we have seen in the last couple of decades?

It was 77F at my house this morning. That was the warmest daily minimum on record for May 8th. In April we set 10 record warm daily minimums. We are at 175% of normal cooling degree days so far for the year and about 50% of normal heating degree days. Now there are warm days and cool days in a variable system. You generally expect about half of observations to be above the average and half below. But we have had 10 consecutive summers like this with very warm minimum temperatures and elevated dew points (higher than our normal high humidity). In each of the last 10 summers we have had daily minimums at or above average for every day with no observations below average. This is due to a change in the depth and persistence of the high pressure that parks over the subtropical Atlantic in the summer. What caused this persistent pattern change?

Along with this pattern change, the higher dewpoints that we see at the surface are causes by warm temperatures at the H500 level. It caps convection so the air holds more moisture without generating rain. Funny thing happens when that air gets advected from down here up onto the continent. They get deluges.

These weather changes are persistent. Climate is the average of weather. I'd say climate has changed and the change is consistent with increased average heat content (higher dew points is more heat content just as much as higher temperature). So if we can ignore CO2 as a factor, what should we be looking at?

I know I dread my summer workouts when it is 80 degrees with a dewpoint of 77 degrees at 5 in the morning. Our long term normal of 72 degrees with a dewpoint of 70 to 72 is quite warm enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From angelo's own link, which he presumably either didn't read, didn't understand, or posted as a concession of defeat:

I read it, but the 45% increase in emissions since the industrial revolution has NOT lead to a 45% increase in temperatures as one would expect. In fact the rise is less than 1 degree F and has in fact remained stable for close on to 2 decades even though emissions have increased and will
increase markedly for the foreseeable future.

Someone with even a rudimentary understanding of the issue would not expect a doubling of emissions to cause a doubling of temperature.

And it has not remained stable for 2 decades. This is standard denier garbage of measuring from the highest point rather than the trend line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is actually being observed is natural variability.

There is nothing natural about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. That was us. Humans did it.

I think you put far too much stock in the effects CO2 has on the climate. CO2 is not the sole contributor to climate change. This irrational obsession with CO2 really needs to stop. It has a negligible effect on climate.

There are some natural effects that are basically cyclic and thus of no concern. There are occasional non-cyclic natural events but they are normally small in the big picture. Water vapor matters but it's controlled by other factors and thus not a driver. That leaves CO2 and CH4. The former is man-made and what of the latter isn't is due to warming.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is actually being observed is natural variability.

There is nothing natural about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. That was us. Humans did it.

I think you put far too much stock in the effects CO2 has on the climate. CO2 is not the sole contributor to climate change. This irrational obsession with CO2 really needs to stop. It has a negligible effect on climate.

You said natural variation as a method to hand wave the cause of warming (in part CO2). Then when it is pointed out the increase is man made you just deny the cause.

It is like arguing evolution with a creationist.

 

[repoman]

There are two issues regarding the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;

- first is the heat trapping that keeps on increasing albeit at a slower rate with more of it.
- second is the duration of it over pre-industrial ~280 ppm also increases with more of it.




Which is from here and here:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/10684785/


Wiki actually has a good article on radiative forcing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing