I was right about Global Warming science from 2007!

[Aractus]

Recently Sabine Hossenfelder uploaded this video:



Where she admits she got the science of CO2's contribution to Global Warming “completely wrong”.

As most people familiar with Sabine's content would be aware, she's a stickler for details and scientific accuracy, credibility, and accountability. Only problem here is that I have been explaining since 2007 what she explains, which is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot “cause” increased warming on its own, all it can do is bring that same warming closer to the surface. For that reason it's both illogical and scientifically invalid (without hard evidence) to think that ever increasing levels will result in a exponential style warming, more likely it will be logarithmic.

I don't expect most people to care. In the post-grad course I did a year ago the academics (that is the professors - our teachers) were openly flaunting how people need to be persuaded on emotions and not facts when it comes to “the climate emergency”. Their research has shown that facts don't convince people, but emotions do. Yeah that kind of attitude has contributed to the shockingly poor scientific literacy people have today... and I don't just mean about climate change. I mean about calling wind and solar “clean energy”. If it's so clean why didn't Europe commission any studies before building “offshore wind” in the North Sea? The first such study published would suggest it will have dire environmental consequences on the ecosystems in the North Sea. That's not surprising, I could have predicted that on the back of an envelope and what do you expect if you move from a model where we produce electricity in facilities that are reasonable sized to facilities that have to take up huge amounts of space, whether over land or sea?

Anyway, nice to see someone credible explain exactly how the greenhouse effect from CO2 actually works - I've got absolutely no complaints as it's what I've been saying since 2007.

[Alan V]

... it's both illogical and scientifically invalid (without hard evidence) to think that ever increasing levels will result in a exponential style warming, more likely it will be logarithmic.

I posted this in the Climate Change discussion on January 6, 2019:

To answer the question of how bad it will likely get, we have to understand climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity is defined as how much temperatures will rise on average with any given doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The radiative forcing for CO2 is the same for any doubling of the CO2 concentration, regardless of how much that is in actual parts per million. This is because the infrared absorption bands become saturated as CO2 increases, so it takes more and more CO2 to warm the average temperature a given amount. So more CO2 will always cause more warming, but at a decreased rate. Climate sensitivity is the long-term equilibrium change in the global average surface temperature, which means after the temperature has stabilized again.

Added comments: Climate sensitivity is a concept common to all climate change science. This is also why emissions from jets at higher altitudes are considered more destructive than those at the ground level. Human emissions can still result in a potentially exponential style warming, however time-limited, when they heat the permafrost and ocean enough to release the huge amounts of frozen carbon now sequestered on the earth. In other words, there are natural feedbacks which might very well increase the rate of warming. Certainly the rates of the earth's sea level rise and the melting of the ice sheets are presently accelerating.

[Rhythmcs]

It seems strange to me that anyone ever thought that co2 caused heat, ala airquotes? It holds and reradiates it. It's not a heat source, it's a heat trap. Like...you know..a greenhouse. As for the dire consequences of any power generation scheme, yup. No free lunches. The question is whether or not those consequences are more or less deleterious - to us- than our current scheme of setting fire to anything that burns.

[Alan V]

For a rather long and tedious discussion about how Aractus has been wrong about climate science, see Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints under Pseudoscience and Conspiracy Theories, starting at page 7 post #160. https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid166993

[Rhythmcs]

Is this one of those things were some common denier waits for 15 years with baited breath for an actual scientist to do what they're supposed to, and self correct a point of minutiae, and then proceeds to declare the entire field a hoax and themselves as having somehow been right about...something?

[Alan V]

Is this one of those things were some common denier waits for 15 years with baited breath for an actual scientist to do what they're supposed to, and self correct a point of minutiae, and then proceeds to declare the entire field a hoax and themselves as having somehow been right about...something?

Aractus is correct that certain alarmists misrepresent or over-simplify the science of climate change to score political points.  The science is rather complex and difficult.  

However, that does not at all mean that the majority of climate scientists are blinded by political considerations, even when they promote political solutions to the problems in question.  Over-extrapolations from limited information is a problem for both political extremes, certainly, but historically it has been the most employed by right-leaning, pro-business interests.  They have thrown a lot of money at the denialists to give them a platform.

[Cavebear]

It seems strange to me that anyone ever thought that co2 caused heat, ala airquotes?  It holds and reradiates it.  It's not a heat source, it's a heat trap.  Like...you know..a greenhouse.  As for the dire consequences of any power generation scheme, yup.  No free lunches.  The question is whether or not those consequences are more or less deleterious - to us- than our current scheme of setting fire to anything that burns.

I love reading rational replies regarding science. Thank you.

You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to explain science to family and friends (well, maybe you do). Like "ice sheets" cool the planet not because "ice is cold" but because it reflects radiation energy.

[Cavebear]

Recently Sabine Hossenfelder uploaded this video:

Where she admits she got the science of CO2's contribution to Global Warming “completely wrong”.

As most people familiar with Sabine's content would be aware, she's a stickler for details and scientific accuracy, credibility, and accountability. Only problem here is that I have been explaining since 2007 what she explains, which is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot “cause” increased warming on its own, all it can do is bring that same warming closer to the surface. For that reason it's both illogical and scientifically invalid (without hard evidence) to think that ever increasing levels will result in a exponential style warming, more likely it will be logarithmic.

I don't expect most people to care. In the post-grad course I did a year ago the academics (that is the professors - our teachers) were openly flaunting how people need to be persuaded on emotions and not facts when it comes to “the climate emergency”. Their research has shown that facts don't convince people, but emotions do. Yeah that kind of attitude has contributed to the shockingly poor scientific literacy people have today... and I don't just mean about climate change. I mean about calling wind and solar “clean energy”. If it's so clean why didn't Europe commission any studies before building “offshore wind” in the North Sea? The first such study published would suggest it will have dire environmental consequences on the ecosystems in the North Sea. That's not surprising, I could have predicted that on the back of an envelope and what do you expect if you move from a model where we produce electricity in facilities that are reasonable sized to facilities that have to take up huge amounts of space, whether over land or sea?

Anyway, nice to see someone credible explain exactly how the greenhouse effect from CO2 actually works - I've got absolutely no complaints as it's what I've been saying since 2007.

"2007" seems very specific.  Was that an important date to you?  If so, may I ask why?  We all have important dates where we suddenly "realize" something and they are all different and from some cause.

[Dānu]

Is this one of those things were some common denier waits for 15 years with baited breath for an actual scientist to do what they're supposed to, and self correct a point of minutiae, and then proceeds to declare the entire field a hoax and themselves as having somehow been right about...something?

Aractus is a bit of a douche. He started as a theist at AF and converted. My favorite memory of him was when he vehemently defended his opinion of a book that he hadn't read.

[GenesisNemesis]

Knew who made the thread as soon as I saw the title.

[Paleophyte]

Where she admits she got the science of CO2's contribution to Global Warming “completely wrong”.

Congratulations. You are very slightly less wrong than another non-expert. I'll send some climatologists around to explain to you why you need to balance your vitamin C intake with twice as much vitamin O and maybe you'll get the joke.

Only problem here is that I have been explaining since 2007 what she explains, which is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot “cause” increased warming on its own, all it can do is bring that same warming closer to the surface.

Except that isn't what she said. So now we know that you've been wrong for at least a decade and a half.

For that reason it's both illogical and scientifically invalid (without hard evidence) to think that ever increasing levels will result in a exponential style warming, more likely it will be logarithmic.

Kindly show your math.

Anyway, nice to see someone credible explain exactly how the greenhouse effect from CO2 actually works

What a shame you didn't understand it.