Global Climate Change Science News

[macdoc]

He has been discredited for decades. Don't pollute the thread with his stinking crap ......

Lindzen argues that we should be equally sceptical about both climate change and the link between smoking and cancer, but his argument can just as easily be turned around. If you accept Lindzen’s ‘impeccably logical’ view that the two arguments are comparable, you reach the conclusion that the link between human activity and climate change is now so well-established that it makes about as much sense to doubt it as to doubt the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, that is, no sense at all.

A notable fact about the professional climate sceptics is that many of them (Singer, Seitz, Milloy and so on), are also paid advocates for the tobacco industry, there’s no* evidence to suggest that Lindzen is acting from mercenary motives. It appears that he’s just an irresponsible contrarian as a matter of temperament.

There is evidence he was well paid by the fossil fuell industry $2500 a hit...

He's a fucking crank.. What next Judith Curry

..there are far better sources from actual working climate scientists instead of old farts like Lindzen. He has zero cred outside the right wing echo chambers.

https://www.realclimate.org

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... tart-here/

[Sean Hayden]

Didn’t Curry help establish the link between global warming and more intense hurricanes? She definitely helped me to see how unqualified I am to argue the science of climate change. It’s probably safe to assume others could use some of the same reality check, provided we think it’s generally better for our confidence to closely match our abilities.

As for what I should and shouldn’t post —meh, we’re all in different places on our journey to understanding climate change Mac, and this thread will reflect that.

[Brian Peacock]

why are you posting up long ago discredited denier assholes in the Climate Science thread.

Watch the video. The title is click bait. From March this year.

He's critical of the scientific illiteracy of policy makers, and narratives that drive policy through a reduction of climate to simple indexes like avg global temp or CO2 levels without looking at climate as a complex of dynamic, linked, feedback systems. His general thrust is that climate variation is as likely to be a matter of internal climate dynamics as external factors like CO2, and it's impossible to say which given our current level of understanding. When it comes to policy for mitigating or adapting to global heating--regardless of the cause--he thinks that only a steep rise in suffering can force a change the paradigm. I have a feeling is main beef is with a kind of Promethean view of climate systems that promote the idea that humans have dominion over and can control the climate, because he thinks that political leaders should really be focusing on increasing resilience to reduce actual and possible suffering rather than trying to manipulate the economy. Another thing is that he thinks a big part of the problem is that most people aren't as smart as him.

We have to remember that the IPCC reports are an attempt to analyse, integrate, and communicate the overall picture from the available research, and one eminent scientist's views and understandings neither validate or invalidate the general consensus. It's important to be aware of what people like Lindzen say because it will be used by disingenuous actors to justify inaction, like the brouhaha about data error bars in the hacked emails of University of East Anglia researchers in 2009, now often referred to as 'Climategate'.

[Sean Hayden]

That sounds about right. He does seem more concerned about suffering from net zero than warming.

[macdoc]

Bullshit - it's not in the least important to give climate denier shills any time or space at all
I fought these climate wars a decade ago when Exxon et al were pumping millions into the denier community to the point where the the Rockefeller family staged a shareholders revolt forcing Exxon to stop denying what they categorically knew from their own scientists since the 70s.
It sure got quieter when the money left and the climate science community decided to call a spade a spade and speak out.

A manufactured controversy (sometimes shortened to manufactroversy) is a contrived disagreement, typically motivated by profit or ideology, designed to create public confusion concerning an issue about which there is no substantial academic dispute.[1][2] This concept has also been referred to as manufactured uncertainty.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactu ... roversy%20(sometimes%20shortened,referred%20to%20as%20manufactured%20uncertainty.
The Repuglies never got the memo that the idiotic denier meme was over.
The world has moved on and giving air time to old shite is a total waste of time and does not belong in Climate Change Science News

What next ???? Cover off smoking doesn't cause cancer??? The flat earthers??? The moon landings were fake???

[Sean Hayden]

I always liked our librarian's response to arguments against taking action: well shucks, we made the world a better place for nothing.

[Brian Peacock]

Bullshit - it's not in the least important to give climate denier shills any time or space at all
I fought these climate wars a decade ago when Exxon et al were pumping millions into the denier community to the point where the the Rockefeller family staged a shareholders revolt forcing Exxon to stop denying what they categorically knew from their own scientists since the 70s.
It sure got quieter when the money left and the climate science community decided to call a spade a spade and speak out.

A manufactured controversy (sometimes shortened to manufactroversy) is a contrived disagreement, typically motivated by profit or ideology, designed to create public confusion concerning an issue about which there is no substantial academic dispute.[1][2] This concept has also been referred to as manufactured uncertainty.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactu ... roversy%20(sometimes%20shortened,referred%20to%20as%20manufactured%20uncertainty.
The Repuglies never got the memo that the idiotic denier meme was over.
The world has moved on and giving air time to old shite is a total waste of time and does not belong in Climate Change Science News

What next ???? Cover off smoking doesn't cause cancer??? The flat earthers??? The moon landings were fake???

The thing is to use the frustration as a motivator to effect change. Nobody is endorsing denialism here, and ranting at the converted on an internet forum isn't achieving anything - and it's bad for you blood pressure!

[Brian Peacock]

That sounds about right. He does seem more concerned about suffering from net zero than warming.

I think his position on resilience is interesting, because creating greater resilience could also include carbon reduction measures, getting more stuff onto an expanded and cleaner grid, rewilding and conservation, changes in land use etc, and other system changes towards sustainability - where 'sustainable' means securing and meeting the needs of Earthlings today and on into the future in a fairer and more equitable way.

[Brian Peacock]

Hundreds of academics call for 100% plant-based meals at UK universities.

More than 650 academics have called on British universities to commit to 100% plant-based catering to fight the climate crisis, saying that the institutions have “for centuries, been shining lights of intellectual, moral, and scientific progress”.

The open letter, organised by the student-led Plant-Based Universities campaign, likened the move to meat-free food to the fossil fuel divestment to which 101 UK universities have already committed.

Cutting meat consumption in rich nations is vital to tackling the climate crisis, with scientists saying it is the single biggest way for people to reduce their impact on the planet....

[Brian Peacock]

Australia has highest per capita CO2 emissions from coal in G20, analysis finds.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, fuck you world!

[Brian Peacock]

Earth ‘well outside safe operating space for humanity’, scientists find

Earth’s life support systems have been so damaged that the planet is “well outside of the safe operating space for humanity”, scientists have warned.

Their assessment found that six out of nine “planetary boundaries” had been broken because of human-caused pollution and destruction of the natural world. The planetary boundaries are the limits at which key global systems, such as climate, water and wildlife diversity, beyond which these systems’ ability to maintain a healthy planet is in serious peril.

The broken boundaries mean the systems have been driven far from the safe and stable state that existed from the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, to the start of the industrial revolution. The whole of modern civilisation arose in this time period, called the Holocene.

The assessment was the first of all nine planetary boundaries and represented the “first scientific health check for the entire planet”, the researchers said. Six boundaries have been passed and two are judged to be close to being broken: air pollution and ocean acidification. The one boundary that is not threatened is atmospheric ozone, after action to phase out destructive chemicals in recent decades led to the ozone hole shrinking.

The scientists said the “most worrying” finding was that all four of the biological boundaries, which cover the living world, were at, or close to, the highest risk level. The living world is particularly vital to the Earth as it provides resilience by compensating for some physical changes, for example, trees absorbing carbon dioxide pollution.

The planetary boundaries are not irreversible tipping points beyond which sudden and serious deterioration occurs, the scientists said. Instead, they are points after which the risks of fundamental changes in the Earth’s physical, biological and chemical life support systems rise significantly. The planetary boundaries were first devised in 2009 and updated in 2015, when only seven could be assessed.

Prof Johan Rockström, the then director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre who led the team that developed the boundaries framework, said: “Science and the world at large are really concerned over all the extreme climate events hitting societies across the planet. But what worries us, even more, is the rising signs of dwindling planetary resilience.”

Rockström, who is now joint director of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said this failing resilience could make restricting global heating to the 1.5C climate goal impossible and could bring the world closer to real tipping points. Scientists said in September that the world was on the brink of multiple disastrous tipping points.

Prof Katherine Richardson, from the University of Copenhagen who led the analysis, said: “We know for certain that humanity can thrive under the conditions that have been here for 10,000 years – we don’t know that we can thrive under major, dramatic alterations [and] humans impacts on the Earth system as a whole are increasing as we speak.”

She said the Earth could be thought of as a patient with very high blood pressure: “That does not indicate a certain heart attack, but it does greatly raise the risk.”

The assessment, which was published in the journal Science Advances and was based on 2,000 studies, indicated that several planetary boundaries were passed long ago. The boundary for biosphere integrity, which includes the healthy functioning of ecosystems, was broken in the late 19th century, the researchers said, as destruction of the natural world decimated wildlife. The same destruction, particularly the razing of forests, means the boundary for land use was broken last century.

Climate models have suggest the safe boundary for climate change was surpassed in the late 1980s. For freshwater, a new metric involving both water in lakes and rivers and in soil, showed this boundary was crossed in the early 20th century....

[aufbahrung]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/m ... cy-5489139?

Meteorologists, Scientists Explain Why There Is ‘No Climate Emergency’

(continued)

sorted, nothing to worry about

[macdoc]

Melting ice likely triggered climate change 8,000+ years ago
by University of Leeds

Melting ice likely triggered climate change 8,000+ years ago
The sediment core being taken from the Ythan Estuary. Credit: University of Leeds
Using geological samples from the Ythan Estuary in Scotland, scientists have identified a melting ice sheet as the probable trigger of a major climate-change event just over 8,000 years ago.

And the analysis—involving a team of geo-scientists from four Yorkshire universities led by Dr. Graham Rush, who holds positions at both the University of Leeds and Leeds Beckett University—could hold clues as to how present-day ice loss in Greenland could affect the world's climate systems.

more
https://phys.org/news/2023-09-ice-trigg ... years.html

[macdoc]

a reminder

New files shed light on ExxonMobil’s efforts to undermine climate science
Executives privately sought to downplay link between fossil fuels and climate change despite public pronouncements, WSJ reports

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... te-science