How long is a piece of string? The waffle about ‘climate deniers’ and ‘reputable scientists’ is a waste of time. There will always be known unknowns and unknown unknowns – that’s science.
– – –
[Last paragraph of the article only]
The uncertainties in climate science that remain are not a justification for not acting to slow climate change, because uncertainty can work both ways: Climate change could prove to be less severe than current projections, but it could also be much worse, says State of the Planet @ Phys.org.
Full article here.
– – –
Talkshop comments:
— ‘Climate change could prove to be less severe’ – or not related to human activity, or not severe at all
— ‘Could also be much worse’ – ‘could’ be this or that, i.e. they can only speculate about the future, but nevertheless demand ‘action’ now
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
this was written:
How long is a piece of string? The waffle about ‘climate deniers’ and ‘reputable scientists’ is a waste of time. There will always be known unknowns and unknown unknowns – that’s science.
And in modern peer reviewed consensus, I cannot call consensus science, there will always be forced known[s] that are false.
This was written:
— ‘Climate change could prove to be less severe’ – or not related to human activity, or not severe at all
— ‘Could also be much worse’ – ‘could’ be this or that, i.e. they can only speculate about the future, but nevertheless demand ‘action’ now
We have history and data to show how severe climate has been.
We have caused some change, farming practices, the tractor was invented and became widespread, we plowed too much land at the same time and helped cause the dust bowl. We have build dams and held too much or too little water behind them and caused worse flooding, upstream and/or downstream sometimes. We have pumped water from underground and causes subsidence, called sea level change by some.
The change in CO2, may or may not be from emissions, or may be from what we have put into the oceans, but it added a little over one molecule of CO2 to ten thousand molecule of atmosphere, that one molecule must add significant energy to ten thousand molecules to cause any warming, that is closer to nothing than anything.
They demand specific action now, that makes them more rich and powerful, with no apparent knowledge of the harm they have already done or will do.
What uncertainties remain in climate science?
We have history and data to show what the bounds have been and we are much cooler than the higher bounds and much warmer than the lower bounds and the modern ten thousand years have had much more narrow bounds and this is the coolest warm time ever in history and data.
What has happened is known to be likely to happen again, we know it could because it did.
What has not happened before is unlikely to happen in the future, we are far inside the bounds of the past, based on all data and all history, the climate future looks wonderful, compared to before ten thousand years ago.
People have always thought up disasters that were caused by something they were not profiting from and figured out ways to ban a product or substance to enforce using something they could profit from, gaining more money and power, control over other people.
This was written:
Water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas, amplifies the warming resulting from other greenhouse gases. Rising temperatures caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide and methane result in more evaporation, which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. For every added degree Celsius of warming, water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7 percent. Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would result from rising carbon dioxide levels alone.
Let us evaluate that:
More water vapor comes first from more evaporation from a warmer wet surface, causing self-correcting cooling then, the water vapor is carried to altitude where it forms water drops or ice crystals, releasing more energy that is radiated out, doing more immediate cooling. Some cooler water drops, and colder ice crystals are dropped down where they do more slightly delayed cooling, over larger areas. Some of the IR out is over polar regions and high glaciers and ice sheets where ice is sequestered for longer periods of time with that IR out not resulting in immediate cooling but resulting in cooling by thawing and reflecting later after the ice has flowed into warmer conditions.
This cooling from IR out that stores ice, like water changed to ice in our freezers, which keeps our drinks and food cold in an ice chest at the beach much later, this cooling of the climate by sequestered ice is not included in their energy balance charts, not in their theory or models.
It is not just that they have trouble understanding the climate system, it appears they do not even have a good clue.
The climate system is a dynamic system with storage of warm energy in oceans which is transported to where ice stores energy for cooling in sequestered ice that does cooling later with alternating warmer and colder time periods. This is clear from history and data.
Peer Reviewed, Consensus, Modern Climate [a major error to call science] is a Static Climate Theory where a change in forcing causes a response to a new Static Temperature, with the major forcing an almost nothing addition of a molecule of a trace gas to ten thousand molecules of atmosphere.
This was written:
The ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland present the greatest uncertainty. Ice loss from these ice sheets were most responsible for the sea level rise of the last few decades and will potentially make the largest future contributions to sea level rise.
About the sea level rise in the last few decades, how about since 1972:
A rising sea level would increase the Inertia of the Earth Crust.
More Land Ice is near the spin axis of the rotating earth crust while much more ocean is near the equator where sea level rise would significantly increase the inertia of the spinning earth crust.
Conservation of Momentum would slow the Rotation Rate of the Earth Crust. The Atomic Clocks were put in place to measure Time Extremely Accurately, in 1972. More Leap Seconds would need to be added more frequently, but Less Leap Seconds have been added to the time every decade since 1972. The last leap second was added in 2016 and none expected to be added.
This is valid Proof that Sea Level is Lower Now than it was in 1972!
Sea Level has Fallen for Fifty Years, yet they say it has risen and the rise rate is accelerating. If sea level Ever Rises, Added Leap Seconds will be an Immediate Indicator.
Since this is Absolute Proof that they have lied about Sea Level Rise, it clearly follows that the rest of the Climate Alarmism is Also Lies!
This was written:
The uncertainties in climate science that remain are not a justification for not acting to slow climate change, because uncertainty can work both ways: Climate change could prove to be less severe than current projections, but it could also be much worse, says State of the Planet @ Phys.org.
They try to use the Precautionary Principle to win every debate, but much of their “so called” evidence is just plain lies!
It could also be, and is, a fact they are causing much harm!
With no actual proof of any harm from natural climate change and no proof that warming out of the little ice age was any different from warming out of thousands of colder periods into warmer periods for fifty million years.
Thanks to Oldbrew for posting this! I have been studying these things for almost 15 years. The harm from the Green Alarmism, destroying reliable nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources and replacing with intermittent wind and solar and inadequate battery backup has killed many already from lack of energy in critical times.
The Alarmists have been and are, “the little boys who cry wolf”, “the sky is falling”, “the kings who have no clothes on”, they have world class funding to gain control of the world. They must be stopped.
What uncertainties remain in climate science?
This is the wrong question!
What we should be asking is this: Where is the empirical evidence supporting the 19th-Century “greenhouse” theory, which is the foundation of current climate science?
Nether NASA planetary observations nor the Earth’s geological records provide any such evidence. Modern climate science is built on a false physical theory and utilizes faulty computer models that violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. This dire situation goes beyond “uncertainties” of knowledge and into the domain of institutional junk science.
See the graph below and watch this video for details: Demystifying the Greenhouse Effect
Article: Certain evidence, however, is clear: global temperatures are rising, and humans are playing a role in it.
Assertions about a human role prove nothing.
Well, that was a long-winded way of saying that basically they haven’t the first clue what they’re wittering about.
Interesting to note that they’ve got as far as admitting that things aren’t as cut and dried as they’ve been asserting for years, and that at least some of the science isn’t settled.
My guess is, in ten years or so, it will be as hard to find a “climate scientist” admitting that they were peddling CAGW as it is now to find one who was peddling the Ice Age scare, see:
Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141) and expunge all references to AGW from Wikipedia.
catweazle666, That is a good comment!
“and expunge all references to AGW from Wikipedia.”
They are rewriting history and data and most likely training AI to do that and hoping that AI does not stumble on truth.
–Despite this evidence, “In the climate change field, with its countless socioecological factors and interdependent systems, its known unknowns and unknown unknowns, deep uncertainty abounds,” —
Well, what is certain is 15 C air temperature is cold.
And can get -30 C, -40 C, or even colder.
Earth gets this cold, because it is in an Ice Age.
An Ice Age which has been on for about 30 million years, and the last couple
million has been the coldest with last 30 million years.
The Earth’s average temperature has been cold, because the entire ocean’s
average temperature is cold.
Earth long ago was much warmer, and whenever Earth has been warmer is when
Earth average temperatures have more uniform- it does not get as cold as -30 C.
None of ocean surface freezes in winter. Though lakes near polar regions could freeze and it can snow. But not as cold as Earth is now.
Anyhow, we stuck in this Ice Age, no one imagines we going to leave it, within a mere million years.
We must spend hundreds of billions because it could be bad? That’s not how Economics works. We have ways of discounting the future and uncertainty. If climate scientists admit there’s considerable uncertainty about what might happen, we should not spend very much now at all and instead be prepared to adapt and mitigate future effects.
–This is the wrong question!
What we should be asking is this: Where is the empirical evidence supporting the 19th-Century “greenhouse” theory, which is the foundation of current climate science?–
I think it was theory, just experiments indicating certain gas were more transparent to IR light.
So sunlight fairly transparent to Earth’s atmosphere [like a greenhouse] and infrared heat generated by sunlight had elements in atmosphere which were more transparent
compared to what could call greenhouse gases.
But in terms of “climate science” there are many aspects related to it.
If google: greenhouse effect theory, the third one down is:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
“Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33°C (59°F) cooler. ”
Which obviously is wrong.
Though I welcome anyone trying to support the idea
In terms of general understanding Earth climate, I would describe it this way.
Earth is mostly covered by ocean. The ocean controls global climate.
Over 80% of sunlight reaching the Earth surface, passes thru the top layer of
the ocean.
The average ocean surface temperature is warmer, global land area, the average ocean surface is about 17 C, and land area is about 10 C.
Land areas have high daily variation in temperature- the air temperature heats up
a lot doing daytime, and cools down a lot a night.
Whereas ocean surface temperature doesn’t vary much during a 24 hour period.
Unlike a land surface, which can heat up quickly, the top surface of ocean absorbs
a tiny amount of heat, because it’s quite transparent, and it’s the top couple meter
of the ocean which absorbs most of 80% of sunlight reaching the surface.
And sea water or water has high heat capacity- it require a lot energy to warm a 1 meter depth of the ocean- so temperature doesn’t change much in 24 hours.
Next the warmer ocean, causes the land to be warmer, as compare to replacing the ocean area with land.
There are well known examples of this, and Gulf Stream could said to be most famous
and most obvious example of how the ocean warms Europe. Or because Ocean warms Canada less, Canada has average temperature of -3 C, and Europe average around 9 C.
But what is more interesting, and dare I say, more important, is the climate of Venus.
Venus has huge atmosphere [might call it an ocean of air} but doesn’t have greenhouse effect like we relate a greenhouse effect on Earth- It’s not atmosphere
in which sunlight directly heats in rocky surface.
But Earth Ozone is directly heated by sunlight and is consider part of greenhouse of Earth. So, if think sunlight warming Ozone, and Earth clouds as a greenhouse effect,
then Venus has that kind of greenhouse effect.
Anyways one aspect of why Venus is more important, is our attempt to understand Venus as shaped the way we think of Earth climate.
As in “Venus was like Earth” and “Earth could become like Venus” which is completely
wrong- and is utterly crazy.
One could ask why is Venus so Hot. I would rather ask, how can make Venus, cold.
And I would say to way to make Venus colder than Earth, is to put Venus at Earth’s distance from the Sun.
One can say obvious, if Venus is further from the Sun, it will cool down.
And if put Venus at Earth distance Or block the amount sunlight it gets to
be equal to the sunlight one gets at 1 AU [earth distance] from our sun, Venus
hot surface air temperature will reduce dramatically- though it could take centuries
to cool down and become colder than Earth.
Global temperature 2022 – same again
Friday 13th January 2023 | Dr David Whitehouse, Science editor
NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office have released the global temperature for 2022, showing it to be a warm year, ranked sixth warmest year. It was subdued, the researchers say, because we have had the third consecutive year of La Nina conditions.
. . .
The stepwise influence of El Nino events on the long-term trends seems very apparent.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/global-temperature-2022-same-again/
Urbanization Effects on GHCN Temperature Trends, Part I: The Urbanization Characteristics of the GHCN Stations
January 14th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Based upon what I’ve seen so far, I’m convinced that there is spurious warming remaining in the GHCN-based temperature data. The only question is, how much? That will be addressed in Part II.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/01/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-i-the-urbanization-characteristics-of-the-ghcn-stations/