Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. What Does the IPCC Report Actually Say?

 

The science in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report is contained in the report published by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I suspect that few people have actually read this ~1500 page tome. Most people read the Summary for Policy Makers, which is written by bureaucrats and does not, in my opinion, faithfully reflect the contents of the actual report. There is too much emphasis on worst-case scenarios, which the report does not say are the most likely ones, in the Summary.

As best I can make out, what the report itself says is this: Global warming isn’t likely to be a big deal. It is unlikely to cause significant harm over the next 100 years or so. In a followup special IPCC report even in the worst-case scenario the prediction is a fall in economic productivity of 10% of what it would otherwise be by 2100. That’s not even noticeable considering the growth in the economy that will have occurred by then.

As for the predictions of drought, flooding, storms, fires, species extinctions, climate refugees, etc., there is no certainty about any of it, and climate scientists have shown no skill in predicting those things so far.

This stands in rather stark contrast to the claims being made by some environmentalists these days, such as that we’re all going to die in 20 years, that global warming will be a catastrophic disaster, and so on.

As best I can tell these guys are just making this stuff up.

As for the changes that we are likely to see, such as a rise in sea level by a few feet in 100 years, I rely on the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters, which says that for any catastrophe that’s coming toward us from a long way in the future mankind will not fail to find some solution for it.

Decades ago we were threatened by a future shortage of food and by 1980 or so we were all supposed be dying in famines. We found a solution to that called the Green Revolution. Nowadays fewer people than ever as a proportion of the world’s population suffer from starvation. For those who do starve the problem is most likely bad governance not a global shortage of food.

We are supposed to have run out of oil by now, a catastrophe called Peak Oil, but we have not done that because of advances in technology and the discovery of more reserves.

For the distant future, the earth has been through climates such as those predicted in the worst-case scenarios of the IPCC report before. Life went on. There was no ice at the poles and temperate weather was closer to the poles, but this is so far off that civilization is sure to adapt.

Notwithstanding the doom-mongering, we are now in an era of unparalleled peace and prosperity that extends to all the peoples of the world, and this is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. It’s a shame more people can’t celebrate this.

Published in Science & Technology
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 46 comments.

  1. OldPhil Coolidge

    Whenever I get into a debate with friends (or others) about climate change, I just tell them that in the 4-1/2 billion year history of the earth, it either gets warmer or cooler. It doesn’t stay at some ideal “average” temperature that they might want it to be at, one that they believe mankind (can I say that?) can keep it.

    And if I had to choose, I’d pick to live in a warming period, because you can, you know, grow more food and stuff.

    • #1
    • November 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  2. philo Member

    Roderic: Most people read the Summary for Policy Makers, which is written by bureaucrats and does not, in my opinion, faithfully reflect the contents of the actual report.

    Well, your opinion would be correct. It never has. It was never intended to. It has an altogether different purpose.

    It would be more appropriate to call it the “Summary to Provide Cover for Policy Makers.” True, a good portion of the titular “policy makers” really are dumb enough to believe it but those really driving the boat know its all bunk. They commission this farce solely to provide cover for their evil intentions. This much has been clear for all who wish to see for at least 25 years. (I trace this clarity back to a Forbes article in the mid to late 1990s…with a little luck the author of that piece may grace us with a comment here…)

    • #2
    • November 8, 2019, at 4:46 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  3. OkieSailor Member

    Always beware the Gloom and Doom hucksters who come with hands out offering salvation for just a bit more of your income. The agenda is simple, scare people enough to loosen thier grip on thier wallets. Strange that they never offer any solutions that cost less not more. Just the law of averages should make that come around occasionally. Color me skeptical. 

    • #3
    • November 8, 2019, at 5:19 PM PST
    • 1 like
  4. Mark Camp Member

    It is so rare to see an informative, rational piece on global warming, and so common to see content-free, irrational ones. Even on Ricochet.

    This is a very good one. Thanks.

    • #4
    • November 8, 2019, at 5:33 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  5. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    The worst-case scenarios are a really a disservice to any reasonable discussion. The worst-case is has explosive population levels that are 50% above what is likely and they assume that energy efficiency regresses back to the 1980’s level. It is silly and feeds every extreme headline. They use worst-case models of worst-case scenarios to scare kids and drive crazy Lefty policies.

    In the most likely case the models show that CO2 is a net benefit to humanity, not counting the moral case for cheap energy. There are still 4 million Africans that die each year, because they don’t have cheap energy for cooking, clean water, and sanitation.

    • #5
    • November 8, 2019, at 6:53 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  6. The Reticulator Member

    DonG (View Comment):
    There are still 4 million Africans that die each year, because they don’t have cheap energy for cooking, clean water, and sanitation.

    I’d like to see the math on that one. 

    • #6
    • November 8, 2019, at 10:43 PM PST
    • Like
  7. tigerlily Member

    Roderic:

     

    As for the changes that we are likely to see, such as a rise in sea level by a few feet in 100 years, I rely on the Adams Law of Slow Moving Disasters, which says that for any catastrophe that’s coming toward us from a long way in the future mankind will not fail to find some solution for it.

    The Scott Adams quote reminds me of something said by Calvin Coolidge regarding the doom & gloom predictions being made during his time – “If you see ten problems coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.”

    • #7
    • November 9, 2019, at 9:46 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  8. Mark Camp Member

    DonG (View Comment):

    The worst-case scenarios are a really a disservice to any reasonable discussion. The worst-case is has explosive population levels that are 50% above what is likely and they assume that energy efficiency regresses back to the 1980’s level. It is silly and feeds every extreme headline. They use worst-case models of worst-case scenarios to scare kids and drive crazy Lefty policies.

    In the most likely case the models show that CO2 is a net benefit to humanity, not counting the moral case for cheap energy. There are still 4 million Africans that die each year, because they don’t have cheap energy for cooking, clean water, and sanitation.

    I think this is a really important objective criticism about the abuses by the leftists’ climate change arguments, Don. Thanks for bringing it up.

    (I do think you greatly overstate the case for the credibility of the climate/economic models. I think that long range climate change models by themselves have very little predictive value.

    I am much more certain that every forecast by an “economist” of the long-range social benefits of one or another climate scenarios, even if those could be forecast with certainty and precision, is a cake built up by multiple layers of pure junk science.)

    • #8
    • November 9, 2019, at 10:14 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  9. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    Roderic:

     

    As for the changes that we are likely to see, such as a rise in sea level by a few feet in 100 years, I rely on the Adams Law of Slow Moving Disasters, which says that for any catastrophe that’s coming toward us from a long way in the future mankind will not fail to find some solution for it.

    The Scott Adams quote reminds me of something said by Calvin Coolidge regarding the doom & gloom predictions being made during his time – “If you see ten problems coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.”

    With the current crop of “Climate Change Extinction Event” folks angling for positions of power to “help” us face the doom, I’d say that it is likely should they get some power, they will run us off the road exactly so we can end up hitting the nine problems as they go in the ditch.

    • #9
    • November 9, 2019, at 12:35 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  10. Slow on the uptake Thatcher

    Roderic: We are supposed to have run out of oil by now, a catastrophe called Peak Oil, but we have not done that because of advances in technology and discovery of more reserves.

    Yeah. That peak oil thing started about 1956 and was much noised about when I started in the industry, in 1971 (we were supposedly over the hump by then).

    Malthus’ descendants have never really gone away, just nowadays they try to force the gloom and doom predictions to come true.

    • #10
    • November 9, 2019, at 12:42 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  11. Mark Camp Member

    Slow on the uptake (View Comment):

    Roderic: We are supposed to have run out of oil by now, a catastrophe called Peak Oil, but we have not done that because of advances in technology and discovery of more reserves.

    Yeah. That peak oil thing started about 1956 and was much noised about when I started in the industry, in 1971 (we were supposedly over the hump by then).

    Malthus’ descendants have never really gone away, just nowadays they try to force the gloom and doom predictions to come true.

    I don’t know. You may indeed be slow on the uptake. But once you do get it, you get it.

    • #11
    • November 9, 2019, at 1:01 PM PST
    • 1 like
  12. Slow on the uptake Thatcher

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Slow on the uptake (View Comment):

    Roderic: We are supposed to have run out of oil by now, a catastrophe called Peak Oil, but we have not done that because of advances in technology and discovery of more reserves.

    Yeah. That peak oil thing started about 1956 and was much noised about when I started in the industry, in 1971 (we were supposedly over the hump by then).

    Malthus’ descendants have never really gone away, just nowadays they try to force the gloom and doom predictions to come true.

    I don’t know. You may indeed be slow on the uptake. But once you do get it, you get it.

    Thanks for that – still haven’t learned to consistently shut up and just listen.

    • #12
    • November 9, 2019, at 2:39 PM PST
    • 1 like
  13. James Gawron Thatcher

    Roderic: As best I can make out, what the report itself says is this: Global warming isn’t likely to be a big deal. It is unlikely to cause significant harm over the next 100 years or so. In a followup special IPCC report even in the worst-case scenario the prediction is a fall in economic productivity of 10% of what it would otherwise be by 2100. That’s not even noticeable considering the growth in the economy that will have occurred by then.

    Rod,

    So to suggest based on the actual IPCC report that massive draconian intervention in the economy that brutally crushes economic activity and ties us to failed technologies should be implemented would be simply insane.

    Yes, I think “simply insane” perfectly describes the climate obsessives that are now running loose.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #13
    • November 9, 2019, at 6:19 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  14. Seawriter Member

    I think most climate science “results” can be explained by the golden rule: “He that pays the gold makes the rules.”

    Who are climate scientists paid by? Governments.

    What results do governments want? Results increasing the importance of the government through government intervention.

    What happens to the grants of climate scientists producing results that meet results desired by governments? Their grants get continued and they continue doing research.

    What happens to the grants of climate scientists failing to produce results that meet results desired by governments? Their grants get canceled and they leave the field.

    What happens over a generation of this? The only results that are produced are the ones conforming to government expectations.

    Note that in the real world, reality eventually catches up to government fantasies. However it often takes a long time. (It took 74 years before the fantasies Communism was based on finally caught up with the Soviet Union and caused it to collapse.) The beauty of climate science results indicating the world will end unless you let the government regulate everything is that it is non-falsifiable. Once people buy into it, every negative result gets attributed to climate change until society as a whole grinds to a halt. Look at California. Wacko environmentalism has run amok there for over 30 years, but it has still not reduced the quality of life in California enough to cause collapse. 

    • #14
    • November 9, 2019, at 6:32 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  15. Brian Watt Member

    I may have to report you for Comrade Greta’s sake.

     

    • #15
    • November 9, 2019, at 6:40 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  16. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    I think most climate science “results” can be explained by the golden rule: “He that pays the gold makes the rules.”

    Who are climate scientists paid by? Governments.

    What results do governments want? Results increasing the importance of the government through government intervention.

    What happens to the grants of climate scientists producing results that meet results desired by governments? Their grants get continued and they continue doing research.

    What happens to the grants of climate scientists failing to produce results that meet results desired by governments? Their grants get canceled and they leave the field.

    What happens over a generation of this? The only results that are produced are the ones conforming to government expectations.

    Note that in the real world, reality eventually catches up to government fantasies. However it often takes a long time. (It took 74 years before the fantasies Communism was based on finally caught up with the Soviet Union and caused it to collapse.) The beauty of climate science results indicating the world will end unless you let the government regulate everything is that it is non-falsifiable. Once people buy into it, every negative result gets attributed to climate change until society as a whole grinds to a halt. Look at California. Wacko environmentalism has run amok there for over 30 years, but it has still not reduced the quality of life in California enough to cause collapse.

    Good piece you have written, except now with the power outages turning the state into a third world nation, people are leaving in droves. Seven hundred thousand people left the Golden State last year. This year’s exodus will dwarf that, I’m sure.

    • #16
    • November 9, 2019, at 8:09 PM PST
    • Like
  17. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic Post author

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    I think most climate science “results” can be explained by the golden rule: “He that pays the gold makes the rules.”

    Who are climate scientists paid by? Governments.

    What results do governments want? Results increasing the importance of the government through government intervention.

    What happens to the grants of climate scientists producing results that meet results desired by governments? Their grants get continued and they continue doing research.

    What happens to the grants of climate scientists failing to produce results that meet results desired by governments? Their grants get canceled and they leave the field.

    What happens over a generation of this? The only results that are produced are the ones conforming to government expectations.

    Note that in the real world, reality eventually catches up to government fantasies. However it often takes a long time. (It took 74 years before the fantasies Communism was based on finally caught up with the Soviet Union and caused it to collapse.) The beauty of climate science results indicating the world will end unless you let the government regulate everything is that it is non-falsifiable. Once people buy into it, every negative result gets attributed to climate change until society as a whole grinds to a halt. Look at California. Wacko environmentalism has run amok there for over 30 years, but it has still not reduced the quality of life in California enough to cause collapse.

    I think it’s axiomatic that if people can make a lot of money with fraud and there’s no risk to doing so that what we get is a lot of fraud.

    Thirty years ago the scientists who studied the climate for the UN tried to be honest. They said at that time that there was not enough evidence to link global warming to atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Their reward was to have the project taken away from them by the bureaucrats who declared carbon dioxide to be the culprit regardless of evidence. Anyone who didn’t go along with that was cast out. That’s the way it has been to this day. 

    What was it that caused all this? In part it was the prospect of Brazil and other developing nations getting money for climate reparations. This is described in the book Climate Change: The Facts by John Abbot et al.

    • #17
    • November 10, 2019, at 5:13 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  18. GrannyDude Member

    During the Y2K scare, I arrived at a formula with which I attempted to reassure my jumpier friends: “If it is a problem for rich people, it will be solved.” 

    Air pollution is another good example. Bill Gates has to breathe, too.

     CEOs might selfishly conspire to dump chemical waste near a poor neighborhood because their own children won’t be spending time there, and the profits thus maximized can pay for elegant summer camps and fabulous Ivy League educations. Their legendary selfishness seems wholly absent in this latest iteration of the Rich White Male Conspiracy theory. The evil of Rich White Men, when it comes to Climate Change alone, seems curiously and unnaturally pure.

     

     

     

     

    • #18
    • November 10, 2019, at 5:36 AM PST
    • 1 like
  19. Old Bathos Member

    The entire structure of the IPCC is weird. The climate working group uses the models to predict warming. The other teams don’t question that working assumption but project economic, ecological effects. A lead committee gets to write the report for each group. Then a layer of non-experts (consultants who report to the UN political figures and connected NGOs) gets to write the summaries and the summary of summaries which is for the lazy morons in the media.

    The first IPCC report (there have been five) summary stated that scientists believed warming could be as high as 10 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. One lame model out of over 30 projected that. No serious scientist ever believed that figure and most projections were clustered between 1.5 and 2.0 as as the sensitivity figure (IMHO the correct figure is 1.4) but the summaries were written by people under orders to hype.

    So if the IPCC (which cautiously sides with the higher warming guesses) does not predict doom, it ain’t happening.

    Richard Lindzen, Chris Landsea among others were part of the first IPCC and objected to how the content was generated and spun. For example, Landsea (longtime head of the national hurricane center) said the final report claim for increased number of hurricanes was unscientific and unrelated to what his working group found. Similarly, the economic costs, the supposed increase in malaria in the final report did not reflect the views of the actual experts assembled.

     

     

    • #19
    • November 10, 2019, at 8:22 AM PST
    • 1 like
  20. J Ro Member

    Excellent piece, but without a mention of an important aspect of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.” IPCC reports cover the “scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

    This focus allows them to downplay or even ignore non-human effects on the climate system. It’s simply not part of their mission. Good luck finding that limitation in typical IPCC documents or doomsday predictions in the MSM!

    Watching a college football game yesterday in a stadium with 102,000 seats, it occurred to me that if the humans in that stadium represented the molecules in our atmosphere, just 40 of them (400 ppm) would be the ‘catastrophic’ world-ending CO2 molecules. I find it hard to believe such small amounts of an otherwise harmless gas which is so critical to maintaining life on earth can be the threat that the climate worriers claim it is.

    • #20
    • November 10, 2019, at 11:23 AM PST
    • 1 like
  21. CurtWilson Lincoln

    I strongly recommend to all interested parties Bernie Lewin’s excellent book “Searching for the Catastrophe Signal”. I believe it is a careful and fair book, and not polemical.

    After covering the policy responses to issues like DDT, the ozone hole, acid rain, and global cooling (for context), it follows the birth and subsequent evolution of the IPCC.

    One of the key points he details is that even before the scientific committees really got organized, the politicians from the developing countries in the UN leapt on the issue as yet another justification for financial transfers from the rich world.

    Ultimately, the scientific groups were worn down, not able to resist the political pressure. The book concludes with the 2nd report in 1995, where the scientific committee turned in a report that said that they could not attribute the recent climatic trends to human emissions (or any other cause), and they had no idea when they would be able to do so. The committee preparing the “Summary for Policy Makers” (I prefer to call it the “Summary by Policy Makers” because it is written mostly by politicians, not scientists) took out those claims and replaced them with a statement that they found “a discernible impact” from human emissions. This was based on a single unpublished paper that failed in peer review.

    Game over…

    • #21
    • November 10, 2019, at 11:51 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  22. Mark Camp Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The first IPCC report (there have been five) summary stated that scientists believed warming could be as high as 10 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. One lame model out of over 30 projected that. No serious scientist ever believed that figure and most projections were clustered between 1.5 and 2.0 as as the sensitivity figure (IMHO the correct figure is 1.4) but the summaries were written by people under orders to hype.

    The implication is that the serious scientists, like the unserious ones, could calculate a sensitivity figure, though neither could not give a serious scientific argument for their method.

    The global warming debate is between two large, politically powerful ideological factions who claim they know what science most certainly doesn’t know. One endless series of unscientific conclusions gives a facade of credibility to Marxist-leaning ideologues, and the other stream of junk science media-flogged facts supports those who oppose them.

    Between them is a small, unpopular faction: the actual scientists.

    • #22
    • November 10, 2019, at 5:30 PM PST
    • 1 like
  23. The Reticulator Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    Richard Lindzen, Chris Landsea among others were part of the first IPCC and objected to how the content was generated and spun. For example, Landsea (longtime head of the national hurricane center) said the final report claim for increased number of hurricanes was unscientific and unrelated to what his working group found. Similarly, the economic costs, the supposed increase in malaria in the final report did not reflect the views of the actual experts assembled.

    Interesting. Did you learn this from that Abbot book?

    • #23
    • November 10, 2019, at 9:08 PM PST
    • Like
  24. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    J Ro (View Comment):

    Excellent piece, but without a mention of an important aspect of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It’s objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.” IPCC reports cover the “scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

    This focus allows them to downplay or even ignore non-human effects on the climate system. It’s simply not part of their mission. Good luck finding that limitation in typical IPCC documents or doomsday predictions in the MSM!

    Watching a college football game yesterday in a stadium with 102,000 seats, it occurred to me that if the humans in that stadium represented the molecules in our atmosphere, just 40 of them (400 ppm) would be the ‘catastrophic’ world-ending CO2 molecules. I find it hard to believe such small amounts of an otherwise harmless gas which is so critical to maintaining life on earth can be the threat that the climate worriers claim it is.

    Nicely stated. And I find it hard to believe that so many people now see these small amounts of an otherwise harmless gas as being the great threat the climate worriers tell them it is… Sometimes it seems that so many human beings have collectively gone mad.

    • #24
    • November 10, 2019, at 9:39 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  25. Old Bathos Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    Richard Lindzen, Chris Landsea among others were part of the first IPCC and objected to how the content was generated and spun. For example, Landsea (longtime head of the national hurricane center) said the final report claim for increased number of hurricanes was unscientific and unrelated to what his working group found. Similarly, the economic costs, the supposed increase in malaria in the final report did not reflect the views of the actual experts assembled.

    Interesting. Did you learn this from that Abbot book?

    For professional reasons, I used to track the debate in some detail. Lots of visits to 5 or six serious websites assiduously following the links to papers and carefully wading into each IPCC report. Landsea, for example, built a statistical model of hurricane activity assuming a 2 degree C temp rise. He projected zero increase in the number of storms but if you measure data for a minimum of 30 years you should then be able to detect a statistically significant rise in the average strength of the storms. Real science, totally ignored. Typical invisibility problem.

    The notion that there are “real scientists” in the middle sounds nice but the truth is that climate science is so politicized that journals and university authorities will make every effort to silence heretics. It is ironic but sadly true that Chinese and Russian climate scientists have more freedom to explore climate patterns and causes than do American, Australian or European academics.

    The career of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. His first book on the topic The Skeptical Environmentalist almost 20 years ago, made carefully documented arguments that by every measure, the environment is in better shape than ever, that the projections of rapid, large-scale warming were highly improbable and (here is the worst heresy) even if there is a relatively high climate sensitivity (2.0 instead of the 1.5 he argued was more likely) it is vastly cheaper and more humane to adapt to the predictable changes rather than some futile gesture to strangle fossil fuel use to prevent some imaginary apocalypse. He became a pariah and was threatened with removal from all Danish professional societies. He would represent the perfect “in the middle” analyst but in the current political climate, instead deemed a right-wing denialist.

    Judith Curry ( https://judithcurry.com/ ) is always worth reading because she focuses on the issue of degree of certainty rather than conformity to a narrative (any narrative). Her main heresy is to point out that the science is anything but “settled.”

    • #25
    • November 12, 2019, at 9:16 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  26. Old Bathos Member

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The first IPCC report (there have been five) summary stated that scientists believed warming could be as high as 10 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. One lame model out of over 30 projected that. No serious scientist ever believed that figure and most projections were clustered between 1.5 and 2.0 as as the sensitivity figure (IMHO the correct figure is 1.4) but the summaries were written by people under orders to hype.

    The implication is that the serious scientists, like the unserious ones, could calculate a sensitivity figure, though neither could not give a serious scientific argument for their method.

    The global warming debate is between two large, politically powerful ideological factions who claim they know what science most certainly doesn’t know. One endless series of unscientific conclusions gives a facade of credibility to Marxist-leaning ideologues, and the other stream of junk science media-flogged facts supports those who oppose them.

    Between them is a small, unpopular faction: the actual scientists.

    The models are each a batch of assumptions that generate a result that reproduces the temperature record from the beginning of the satellite era (~1977) to the early nineties when the IPCC was underway. All of the models appear to overestimate the sensitivity of CO2 compared to actual temperature data (even “adjusted” data) since then. 

    The hard science is that a doubling of CO2 will cause enough outgoing longwave radiation in the 11- and 15-micron range to be adsorbed by CO2’s covalent bonds, which absorbed energy is released as heat resulting in an average increase in surface temperature a little over 1.0 degree centigrade. That is largely unassailable radiative physics. The alarmist theory is speculation that water vapor will greatly amplify that warming–not unreasonable but not settled by any stretch. In fact, that level of warming has not panned out in the empirical record. IPCC predictions about humidity, tropospheric heat exchange and the infamous “hot spot” were all erroneous. In fairness, climate is incredibly complicated so failed predictions are marginally forgivable so long as one did not claim “settled” science or tilt the predictions for political ends.

    There is no “right-wing” mirror image of the Narrative-controlled alarmist academic establishment. So there is no “middle” of good guys. There is only the Narrative and those who have not submitted to it.

     

    • #26
    • November 12, 2019, at 9:37 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  27. Old Bathos Member

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Between them is a small, unpopular faction: the actual scientists.

    You may want to Google the Hartwell Paper for an example of a responsible, objective, non-partisan approach to climate that went nowhere. I naively believed that it represented a path away from “climate porn” scare stories as well as away from a refusal to do a realistic assessment of long-term likely climate effects. A humane approach based on concern for human well-being and respect for science penned by highly competent scholars seemed like a breakthrough. I was wrong.

    Advocates of the Narrative gave the Hartwell group the black conservative treatment — trashed then militantly ignored.

    • #27
    • November 12, 2019, at 9:53 AM PST
    • 1 like
  28. Mark Camp Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The hard science is that a doubling of CO2 will cause enough outgoing longwave radiation in the 11- and 15-micron range to be adsorbed by CO2’s covalent bonds, which absorbed energy is released as heat resulting in an average increase in surface temperature a little over 1.0 degree centigrade. That is largely unassailable radiative physics.

    That isn’t largely unassailable radiative physics. It is pure junk science.

    In your defense, if one built a system in the lab where the all conditions other than the concentration of CO2 were controlled, then what you are saying would be true of that experiment.

    But you didn’t make your claim about a carefully controlled lab experiment. You made it about a system that known with scientific certainty to be substantially different from such a controlled experiment.

    • #28
    • November 12, 2019, at 4:23 PM PST
    • Like
  29. Old Bathos Member

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The hard science is that a doubling of CO2 will cause enough outgoing longwave radiation in the 11- and 15-micron range to be adsorbed by CO2’s covalent bonds, which absorbed energy is released as heat resulting in an average increase in surface temperature a little over 1.0 degree centigrade. That is largely unassailable radiative physics.

    That isn’t largely unassailable radiative physics. It is pure junk science.

    In your defense, if one built a system in the lab where the all conditions other than the concentration of CO2 were controlled, then what you are saying would be true of that experiment.

    But you didn’t make your claim about a carefully controlled lab experiment. You made it about a system that known with scientific certainty to be substantially different from such a controlled experiment.

    Take it up with Roy Spencer, Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen. The raw greenhouse effect of CO2 doubling is pure physics. The absorption and heat release by CO2 molecules are precisely known. No serious scientists (including the leading “denialists”) deny this.

    The issue is, given the complexity and variability of the system, what is the likely actual, empirically measurable net effect on temperature from that particular factor. I invite you to watch this talk by Nic Lewis who has done a lot of wonderful work disposing of bogus, inflated estimates of CO2 sensitivity.

    The alarmist project is a crock but blanket rejection of one of the few solid numbers in the whole topic area makes our side look stupid.

    I am a “lukewarmer” which also makes me a species of dreaded “denialist.” There is warming from CO2 but it is far less than falsely advertised, and most likely dwarfed by contributions from large scale long-term cycles involving the oceans, solar activity and even the angle of precision of the poles. 

    I am also evil for noticing that anthropogenic warming affects daily temp minimums more that maximums and affects colder, drier regions more that equatorial ones. In other words, warming mostly means warmer nights in Siberia. 

     

     

     

    • #29
    • November 12, 2019, at 6:52 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  30. Mark Camp Member

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The raw greenhouse effect of CO2 doubling is pure physics. The absorption and heat release by CO2 molecules are precisely known. No serious scientists (including the leading “denialists”) deny this.

    Right. If you had said only that, you would have been correct. In other words, in a lab experiment where everything else was controlled, the effect of a change in CO2 concentrations on the average temperature of the isolated system could be predicted.

    But what you did say was not that, and what you did say was pure junk science.

    • #30
    • November 12, 2019, at 7:02 PM PST
    • Like