Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Climate, like the stock market, is chaotic.

A rock falling from the sky is not chaotic. A rock falling can be predicted with certainty, and experiments can be repeated with expected results.

There is a very high uncertainty in even the measurement of current global temperature. Let alone the predictions.

What is the global temperature? What was the average temperature in your city today?
What is the average depth of the entire ocean?

You can give me a single answer to these questions, but it won’t be meaningful or useful.

Anyway, you asked for my opinion, so this is my opinion. You don’t have to agree, and you can even think it makes me an idiot.

rederob said:

If heat is prevented from leaving the planet at greater rates over time, then the planet will warm (assuming minimal changes to irradiance).

Click to expand...

Correct, this is the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Let me know when it’s testable, falsifiable and able to be replicated.
Until then it’s nothing more than a hypothesis. One I certainly can’t and won’t try to falsify. However that doesn’t make it fact.

Struzball said:

Climate, like the stock market, is chaotic.

Click to expand...

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that there are statistical techniques to account for chaos in systems.
With regard to the role of GHGs in the atmosphere, the outcome can be derived with certainty.

Struzball said:

There is a very high uncertainty in even the measurement of current global temperature.

Click to expand...

That is false.
Temperatures are being measured with great precision.
The issue with deriving an agreed global temperature is based on selection and methodology.

Struzball said:

You can give me a single answer to these questions, but it won’t be meaningful or useful.

Click to expand...

That is true for you, but not for me.
Science will measure.
Data will accumulate.
Patterns will emerge.

Struzball said:

Anyway, you asked for my opinion, so this is my opinion. You don’t have to agree, and you can even think it makes me an idiot.

Click to expand...

No, it just makes you ill informed, and unaware of how science is carried out.

Struzball said:

Correct, this is the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Let me know when it’s testable, falsifiable and able to be replicated.
Until then it’s nothing more than a hypothesis. One I certainly can’t and won’t try to falsify. However that doesn’t make it fact.

Click to expand...

False - it's a theory.
It's a theory because it has been tested, and to date it has not been falsified.
It is clear from your many posts that science is a second language, at best, for you.

It is notable that the alarmists show their lack of grasp on the situation (while of course repeatedly accusing other of what they are guilty of), by stating that we know with certainty and high accuracy what the climate will do, in a chaotic system. We don't even know what the behaviour of humans will do, let alone all of the variables, including a lot of unknowns, which will be driving change, and even if we did, our models are still not anywhere near good enough to predict these things with the accuracy claimed by these people.

It is impossible to test these models. We do not have a control planet. In reality the models have quite consistently overestimated the change we would see (when I was working directly with climate scientists as a scientist myself around 10-14 years ago, they were unanimously predicting massive issues before 2020 and far, far greater issues than we saw before 2015. 2020 is now almost here and I don't think anyone is now currently expecting anything more drastic than perhaps a slightly warmer year than 2019. Back around 10-15 years ago they were all openly acknowledging that they had previously got it wrong and things didn't turn out as drastically as they'd predicted, but they claimed the models had been fixed and they now (at the time) had it right. But as it turns out, they didn't.

If you actually look at the actual predictions being made, they didn't come true, but amazingly, we are now being told that the predictions were not what they actually were, and that they were conservative.

Think about it for just a moment. What we are actually seeing is slightly warmer years on average each year. Do you remember them saying 15 years ago "Oh, by 2020 things will be slightly warmer but there won't be catastrophic effects?" People have such short memories, or perhaps it is more that they have malleable memories. Sea levels were supposed to already have dramatically risen by now, but they haven't appreciably changed. Perhaps marginally measurable, but go to any beach you went to as a kid, even if you are old, and you won't notice a difference (contrast this with quite rapid 120 metres - not mm, not cm, but 120 METRES of entirely natural, quite rapid sea level change before humans were doing anything of consequence).

I would love it if climate scientists would actually set out clear, unambiguous predictions so they could legitimately be held accountable for them - average global temperature rises/changes, sea level changes, and any other data. Consensus view from the global climate science community. Of course, this will not happen, because the fact that they keep exaggerating would be obvious if there was actually a way to keep them accountable. Incidentally, this is not restricted to climate science, and is universal to all predictive science with remarkable consistency.

Sdajii said:

It is notable that the alarmists show their lack of grasp on the situation (while of course repeatedly accusing other of what they are guilty of), by stating that we know with certainty and high accuracy what the climate will do, in a chaotic system. We don't even know what the behaviour of humans will do, let alone all of the variables, including a lot of unknowns, which will be driving change, and even if we did, our models are still not anywhere near good enough to predict these things with the accuracy claimed by these people.

Click to expand...

These comments reflect your poor knowledge of science.
If heat is trapped then the planet will warm.
We can calculate the amount of heat likely to be trapped, and project that into how temperature at the surface of the planet is likely to respond.
You claim "a lot of unknowns, which will be driving change," so please delineate this area of climate science which apparently is unique to you as the drivers of climate are well known.

Sdajii said:

It is impossible to test these models

Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish - you are clueless.

Sdajii said:

...around 10-14 years ago, they were unanimously predicting massive issues before 2020 and far, far greater issues than we saw before 2015.

Click to expand...

More rubbish - here's the projection window from 1990 with actual temperatures after the event.

As per usual your post is an unmitigated science disaster.
Stop making up what you do not know.

And here's a real clincher from you:

Sdajii said:

I would love it if climate scientists would actually set out clear, unambiguous predictions so they could legitimately be held accountable for them - average global temperature rises/changes, sea level changes, and any other data.

Click to expand...

Because you do not understand the science of climate, you want "predictions" to be made. IPCC Reports offer what you ask, but base them on settings given that variables can fall within many future ranges. The IPCC does not predict the future, but does forecast the likely climate outcomes if the settings in future fall within the specified ranges.

Now let me turn the tables on your point. Let's hold those who deny the science and fail to act, personally responsible. Let's sentence them to the same fate that they have set for the planet.

Sdajii claims "massive issues" were fore forecast when he was involved in science many years ago, so the below is cut and paste from IPCC's first Report:
"How will climate extremes and extreme events change?
Changes in the variability of weather and the frequency of extremes will generally have more impact than changes in the mean climate at a particular location. With the possible exception of an increase in the number of intense showers there is no clear evidence that weather variability will change in the future. In the case of temperatures, assuming no change in variability, but with a modest increase in the mean, the number of days with temperatures above a given value at the high end of the distribution will increase substantially. On the same assumptions, there will be a decrease in days with temperatures at the low end ot the distribution. So the number of very hot days or frosty nights can be substantially changed without any change in the variability of the weather. The number of days with a minimum threshold amount of soil moisture (for viability of a certain crop, for example) would be even more sensitive to changes in average precipitation and evaporation."

Sdajii also claimed that such events were predicted for 2020. Yet the IPCC's first Report only gave a brief overview of likely projections at 2030 and not beforehand.
While Sdajii is copious on commentary on what he thinks, he certainly is very light on knowledge, but profound on fabrication.

rederob said:

Let's hold those who deny the science and fail to act, personally responsible. Let's sentence them to the same fate that they have set for the planet.

Click to expand...

I already do live the fate I set for the planet.
I use fossil fuels for cooking, keeping my food cool, transport, air conditioning, heating.
You already have the opportunity to live the fate you set for the planet: stop using fossil fuels today.

But it appears you're actually suggesting some sort of concentration camp for those that don't support the green agenda. Now that is alarming.

It is amusing to see the alarmists bleating such nonsense, and among it, saying the climate deniers should be held accountable for future climate disaster. The ironic thing about this is that somewhat surprisingly, data shows that people who talk a lot about climate change alarmism actually contribute more to CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution than conservatives. As we also see with many other issues associated with the left, it is all about identity politics, virtue signaling, not actual action.

Posting a meme on Facebook or having irrational, emotional rants full of ad hominem attacks doesn't actually reduce your carbon output. I am not sure where my personal level is compared to the average Australian, but I would estimate it to be well below average. The one big way in which I consume more than the average Australian is international travel (I spend about 11 months of the year outside Australia and usually jump country every 2 weeks - 2 months, last year I would have taken around 20 flights, which I'm sure is much more than the average Australian). However, most of those flights are not too far, and other than flying and for the month per year in Australia when I'm driving my car, I use public transport when I get around, I don't commute to a daily job, the majority of what I eat is local and unprocessed, I don't have a house full of stuff, I have very very low electricity usage, I buy very little in the way of disposable goods compared to the vast majority of Australians, I'd be more than willing to bet that I contribute far less CO2 to the atmosphere than rederob or kahuna, I reckon they would each be around 5-10x my impact. So, hey, let's bring on those CO2 accountability measures!

I still don't have a single question answered.

In the only response, its NOT possible driving at 100km an hour to know with great accuracy that 30 minutes latter you will be 50 km away.

Simple stuff .... rising sea levels .... measured ... rate of change ... increase in that rate of change ... and multiplied by years.

No its impossible .... according to both responses so far.

So glad they have lots of road signs on long trips to tell you how far you have gone. Asked when I would arrive leaving at 2 pm on a 200 km drive, country roads, my response should be ....

Sorry have no idea, I will call you as I pass road signs.

Sdajii said:

I'd be more than willing to bet that I contribute far less CO2 to the atmosphere than rederob or kahuna,

Click to expand...

Methane ... CH4 is a greenhouse gas and your emissions are astounding.

I would prefer you answered the question about IPCC projections rather than emit more greenhouse gasses.

Struzball said:

I already do live the fate I set for the planet.
I use fossil fuels for cooking, keeping my food cool, transport, air conditioning, heating.
You already have the opportunity to live the fate you set for the planet: stop using fossil fuels today.

But it appears you're actually suggesting some sort of concentration camp for those that don't support the green agenda. Now that is alarming.

Click to expand...

I generate more energy into the system than I use, via renewables.
So you are again dead wrong.

rederob said:

I generate more energy into the system than I use, via renewables.
So you are again dead wrong.

Click to expand...

Oh, so you don't use electricity when the sun goes down do you?
Where do you suppose the electricity is coming from at night?

Sdajii said:

The ironic thing about this is that somewhat surprisingly, data shows that people who talk a lot about climate change alarmism actually contribute more to CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution than conservatives.

Click to expand...

There is no such data - why not prove your points rather than keep making up things!

Sdajii said:

I'd be more than willing to bet that I contribute far less CO2 to the atmosphere than rederob....

Click to expand...

That would be a bet you would lose.
I drive my car so little that I did my 3rd fill-up of fuel so far this year.
During the summer we ran our aircon for a total of about 12 hours.
We get paid by our electricity supplier every quarter, and this has been the case for almost 10 years, as we feed our excess into the grid. On a bad year we earn well in excess of $1000.
We have 2 rainwater tanks. Our average daily consumption from domestic supply is a tad under 40 litres per day. Our washing machine uses rainwater.
I walk to the shops and back, and to our friends place. Those are 7km round trips.
I am still using Makita and Black and Decker power tools I bought around 40 years ago.
In the early 1980s I shipped dual flush toilets from WA and installed them myself, because they were illegal where I lived at that time!
You are so prone to making up what you want to believe it is becoming farcical.

Struzball said:

Oh, so you don't use electricity when the sun goes down do you?
Where do you suppose the electricity is coming from at night?

Click to expand...

You have real comprehension problems don't you.
I generate more than I use.

rederob said:

You have real comprehension problems don't you.
I generate more than I use.

Click to expand...

Moon rays?

This story is amazing and encouraging. A cheap artificial mechanism to encourage ice to regrow in the Arctic. And so far it works...

In the warming Arctic, a promising solution to climate change
https://grist.org/article/in-the-warming-arctic-a-promising-solution-to-climate-change/

basilio said:

This story is amazing and encouraging. A cheap artificial mechanism to encourage ice to regrow in the Arctic. And so far it works...

In the warming Arctic, a promising solution to climate change
https://grist.org/article/in-the-warming-arctic-a-promising-solution-to-climate-change/

Click to expand...

This actually touches on a subject I sometimes think about. To whatever extent humans are currently interacting with the climate, whether you believe it is negligible or the only thing causing any change (neither is correct of course), it is definitely unintentional.

Technology is advancing at a furious pace, and it won't be long before we can *deliberately* engineer the climate in whatever way we want, with relative precision and high accuracy. There are various mechanisms we can use to do this, and not only will it be possible to stabilise the climate (which is not naturally stable), it will allow us to improve it, tailor it to our advantage.

Sdajii said:

This actually touches on a subject I sometimes think about. To whatever extent humans are currently interacting with the climate, whether you believe it is negligible or the only thing causing any change (neither is correct of course), it is definitely unintentional.

Click to expand...

Your claims continue to be a joke.
Humans are knowingly causing the climate to warm. There is no contrary evidence.
Your idea that it is "unintentional" is hilarious. We have known the cause for a long while and not acted in response.

Sdajii said:

Technology is advancing at a furious pace, and it won't be long before we can *deliberately* engineer the climate in whatever way we want, with relative precision and high accuracy.

Click to expand...

Some level of geoengineering is technically possible, but is exceptionally expensive and politically fraught with more issues than simple mitigation.
It's a lie to claim it can be done "accurately" as there will be a raft of unintended consequences.

Sdajii said:

There are various mechanisms we can use to do this, and not only will it be possible to stabilise the climate (which is not naturally stable), it will allow us to improve it, tailor it to our advantage.

Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense.
See my next post and I will go through the principal options and briefly explain their deficiencies.

(following on from my previous post)
Principal Mitigation Options (and issues):

• land-use management to protect or enhance land carbon sinks; Requires all nations to act
• using biomass for carbon sequestration as well as a carbon neutral energy source; Requires all nations to act
• acceleration of natural geological weathering processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere; Technically challenging, expensive and requires global action
• engineered capture of CO2 from ambient air; Technically challenging and expensive - who pays?
• enhancement of oceanic uptake of CO2, for example, by fertilization of the oceans with naturally scarce nutrients, or by increasing upwelling processes; Technically challenging and expensive - who pays?
• increasing the surface reflectivity of the planet, by brightening human structures (e.g. by painting them white), planting of crops with a high reflectivity, or covering deserts with reflective material; Expensive and requires all nations to act
• enhancement of marine cloud brightness (reflectivity); Technically challenging, and expensive - who pays?
• mimicking the effects of volcanic eruptions by injecting aerosol particles (e.g. sulphates) into the lower stratosphere; Expensive and unintended consequences may be even more costly again
• placing shields or deflectors in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth; Exceptionally expensive.

Looking at the above, it becomes apparent that we would need incredible investment and the agreement of most nations to the various options.
Given we cannot even get nations to meet their already meagre commitments to mitigation, it's a bit optimistic to suppose geoengineering could be successful.