Very bad news

[boji]

I do wish pro-climate crisis folks would effectively rule out the issues of scale. I've lost count how many Anti-AGW folks have responded to me with the 100k year chart as an example pro-AGW alarmism:

 

[JohnRoberts]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics... (Mark Twain).

JR

 

[PermO]

Predictive "Computer models" did not exist in his age, but I think they can be added to the list...

I should be dead by now,... many many times...

 

[cyrano]

What's AGW?

 

[JohnRoberts]

What's AGW?

anthropogenic global warming.... warming caused by humans.
====
I heard an interesting observation the other day... cold weather kills far more humans than hot weather, so global warming (an objective fact) will actually save lives (cause less cold weather deaths).

JR

 

[cyrano]

Thanks, John!

I'm sure in that observation lies bad methodology. How in heaven'e name would you try to evaluate "deaths". Would that include stuff like tropical disease, fi.

What I do know that counters that observation, is that people lead shorter lives in hot climates, compared to colder. That's just numbers and fairly reliable, if you keep it to an average.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Thanks, John!

I'm sure in that observation lies bad methodology. How in heaven'e name would you try to evaluate "deaths". Would that include stuff like tropical disease, fi.

What I do know that counters that observation, is that people lead shorter lives in hot climates, compared to colder. That's just numbers and fairly reliable, if you keep it to an average.

I didn't repeat the actual numbers cited because these are what I call "brown" numbers (pulled from someone's butt).

The methodology is reported cause of death. Another observation from a deeper dive is that most temperature related deaths do not occur at extreme temperature highs or extreme lows, but from unseasonably (unexpectedly) cold or hot weather.

This is just one aspect of a much larger calculus I just thought it was an interesting angle.

JR

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Maybe we'll all die like a bunch of boiling frogs. Oblivious until the end.

 

[Matador]

For some more bad news, IPCC released AR6 covering the last 10 years in developments on climate change and modeling. It's a long read (thousands of pages), but one thing that immediately stuck out to me was that they have dropped the 'highly likely' terms related to the anthropomorphic contributions to CO2, and have essentially made these terms certain.

Full download is available here.

Probably the most pertinent sections comes from chapter 1 and the technical summaries:

The evolution of these statements over time reflects the improvement of scientific understanding and the corresponding decrease in uncertainties regarding human influences. The SAR stated that ‘the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’ (IPCC, 1995b). Five years later, the TAR concluded that ‘there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities’ (IPCC, 2001b). AR4 further strengthened previous statements, concluding that ‘most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’ (IPCC, 2007b). AR5 assessed that a human contribution had been detected to changes in warming of the atmosphere and ocean; changes in the global water cycle; reductions in snow and ice; global mean sea level rise; and changes in some climate extremes. AR5 concluded that ‘it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th 41 century’ (IPCC, 2013b).
...
[With AR6], human influence on the climate system is now an established fact: combined evidence from across the climate system strengthens this finding. It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. (TS.1.2, TS.2.1)

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am about 140 pages into "Unsettled" by Koonin... he is very critical of those reports with summaries that are not always supported by the data.

Of course believe what you want.

JR

PS: Next on my reading list is "False Alarm" by Lomborg. Koonin who was in the Obama administration does a deep dive into climate science methods, certainty, and factors glossed over in the media with their sky is falling pronouncements. Lomborg talks about economic cost/benefit and the like. I recall years ago reading an analysis by some Chicago school economists.

 

[ruffrecords]

For some more bad news, IPCC released AR6 covering the last 10 years in developments on climate change and modeling. It's a long read (thousands of pages), but one thing that immediately stuck out to me was that they have dropped the 'highly likely' terms related to the anthropomorphic contributions to CO2, and have essentially made these terms certain.

This hit the headlines over here over a week ago and caused the predictable media and government frenzy. They are now saying they will not allow sales of any but new electric cars from 2030 onwards. I guarantee this is impossible. Hydrogen fuel is now touted as the 'solution' to the drive to 'net zero' while studiously ignoring the fact that huge amounts of electricity will be required to generate it not to mention the present capacity is little more than laboratory supply level. This is the biggest con ever yet the general public is lapping it up and crapping themselves in equal measure.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Matador]

I am about 140 pages into "Unsettled" by Koonin... he is very critical of those reports with summaries that are not always supported by the data.

Which summaries in AR6 are not supported by data?

 

[JohnRoberts]

From a Aug 10, WSJ commentary

Previous climate-assessment reports have misrepresented scientific research in the “conclusions” presented to policy makers and the media. The summary of the most recent U.S. government climate report, for instance, said heat waves across the U.S. have become more frequent since 1960, but neglected to mention that the body of the report shows they are no more common today than they were in 1900. Knowledgeable independent scientists need to scrutinize the latest U.N. report because of the major societal and economic disruptions that would take place on the way to a “net zero” world, including the elimination of fossil-fueled electricity, transportation and heat, as well as complete transformation of agricultural methods.
===
As is now customary, the report emphasizes climate change in recent decades but obscures, or fails to mention, historical precedents that weaken the case that humanity’s influence on the climate has been catastrophic. The Summary for Policy Makers section says the rate of global sea-level rise has been increasing over the past 50 years. It doesn’t mention that it was increasing almost as rapidly 90 years ago before decreasing strongly for 40 years.
---
Good science is characterized by detail, data, proven models and reasoned debate. That takes time. Meanwhile, we should be wary of the torrent of hyperbole that is sweeping the globe.

I am only half finished reading the book, and its not a fun read, mostly about climate science and causes of uncertainty in conclusions.

Koonin is an actual guy who can read the 4,000 page report and separate the wheat from the chaff... He has a target on his back for resisting the "settled science" story being pedaled by the "trust us" scientific community.

JR

 

[crazydoc]

I am about 140 pages into "Unsettled" by Koonin... he is very critical of those reports with summaries that are not always supported by the data.

Of course believe what you want.

JR

Other opinions:

Physicist Mark Boslough, a former student of Koonin, posted a critical review at Yale Climate Connections. He stated that "Koonin makes use of an old strawman concocted by opponents of climate science in the 1990s to create an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying politicians – making them easier to attack."[24]

Nonprofit news organization InsideClimate News reported that climate scientists call Koonin's conclusions "fatally out of date ... and based on the 2013 physical science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[9]

Mark P. Mills, a venture capitalist in the nuclear power and fossil fuel extraction industries and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute,[25] lauded the article in The Wall Street Journal as "rebut[ing] much of the dominant political narrative." Twelve scientists analyzed Mills’s arguments and said that he merely repeated Koonin’s incorrect and misleading claims.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin
As you say, of course, believe what you want. We won't be around long enough (I hope) to see what happens.

 

[Matador]

From a Aug 10, WSJ commentary

Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’

Twelve scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Inaccurate, Misleading.

#twomovies

 

[JohnRoberts]

Science is not a popularity contest or vote. It's about data fitting theory or not.

In fact Koonin suggests that some of the climate scientists are intentionally misleading the public, for some greater good.

His book is more about science than politics.

It is pretty apparent which side is winning the politics.

JR

 

[scott2000]

"It feels very much like there's a social universe and a social set of conclusions that people insist that we must come to , and trying to figure out what is exactly true should not interface with that social universe nor does social pressure change what is actually true."

Some smart lady on the internet

 

[Matador]

Science is not a popularity contest or vote. It's about data fitting theory or not.

No. System sciences are about preponderance of evidence, not about fitting data to a theory. If there is a set of criterion that goes against a conclusion, it makes that conclusion less likely, not incorrect. It's a massive difference.

There was a great analogy in one of the linked articles: the Chinese satellite that crashed to Earth a few months ago...there was a lot of arguing about where it would land, based on calculations and models. But nobody argued either a) that it was unknowable, b) that because the models couldn't predict where it would land, that meant it would stay in orbit, or c) it was only media hysteria and there was no satellite.

 

[shabtek]

PS: Next on my reading list is "False Alarm" by Lomborg. Koonin who was in the Obama administration does a deep dive into climate science methods, certainty, and factors glossed over in the media with their sky is falling pronouncements. Lomborg talks about economic cost/benefit and the like. I recall years ago reading an analysis by some Chicago school economists.

isn't this the only relevant perspective?

 

[JohnRoberts]

No. System sciences are about preponderance of evidence, not about fitting data to a theory. If there is a set of criterion that goes against a conclusion, it makes that conclusion less likely, not incorrect. It's a massive difference.

He writes at length about the different degrees of certainty/uncertainty wrt climate science estimates/predictions.

Climate models are all about fitting data to theory (computer models) and he cites examples where inconvenient data are ignored, by selectively limiting time periods. There are plenty more games played with "tuning" (cough) climate models, tweaking internal factors to give a desired result.

There was a great analogy in one of the linked articles: the Chinese satellite that crashed to Earth a few months ago...there was a lot of arguing about where it would land, based on calculations and models. But nobody argued either a) that it was unknowable, b) that because the models couldn't predict where it would land, that meant it would stay in orbit, or c) it was only media hysteria and there was no satellite.

I'm not sure what you are even talking about.

The koonin book is all about scientific method and how climate science is practiced. His basic argument is that climate science is not settled, and he cites many examples to support his point.

isn't this the only relevant perspective?

Cost/benefit seems to be pretty much ignored in the public conversation. The costs are real and near term (like government building EV charging stations), while the benefits are hypothetical, save the planet from warming a degree or two a century from now.

I've heard Longberg throw around numbers like low single digit impairment of GDP growth out a century from now, while we want to saddle poor people with more expensive energy and lower quality of life, right now. I haven't even bought his book yet to read, so lets not argue about those details just yet.

JR