Why Greta's Climate Panic Failed

I'm not sure how Greta's message can be construed as a 'panic'. Climate scientists are absolutely panicked about the rate of warming. Climate impacts are real, present, and already devastating swathes of the globe. If Greta Thunberg failed, broadly speaking science has also failed in convincing governments to enact the drastic changes needed.
 
cerebus said:
I'm not sure how Greta's message can be construed as a 'panic'. Climate scientists are absolutely panicked about the rate of warming. Climate impacts are real, present, and already devastating swathes of the globe. If Greta Thunberg failed, broadly speaking science has also failed in convincing governments to enact the drastic changes needed.
Click to expand...

that isn't true though, the IPCC report states quite clearly that there is till day no noticeable increase in extreme weather and if you follow the report, then the devastating effects of GW won't be in this century, but in the next.

The rate of warming is what lies at the heart of the dispute (so called climate sensitivity) and thus far it is hitting the lower bounds of the models, especially at the lower troposphere,
UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2021_v6-550x317.jpg



for the last 9 years, it has been more or less a statistical tie.

the scientists aren't creating the panic, it's the politicians and the activists,
 
Nicodeamus said:
She is a sad case of an indoctrinated child being abused by adults for their own political purposes. The critique should be against her parents and those who masquerade her around the world.
Click to expand...

Let this sink in.

1641307855913.png
1641307870606.png
 
Nicodeamus said:
the scientists aren't creating the panic, it's the politicians and the activists,
Click to expand...
Everyone arguing about the reality of global warming while factories continue to pollute the hell out of our oceans and environment, deforestation continues at ridiculous rates etc. I can almost understand their panic. Global warming doesn't need to be a reality to realize we're ****ing this planet up but nobody really seems to give a toss.

If giving a toss hinges on whether global warming is true or not people have missed the point.

 
Last edited:
Nicodeamus said:
that isn't true though, the IPCC report states quite clearly that there is till day no noticeable increase in extreme weather and if you follow the report, then the devastating effects of GW won't be in this century, but in the next.
Click to expand...
I suspect someone is misrepresenting the data in that report

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch www.ipcc.ch

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC​


I suggest you read that article, it's sobering stuff

Nicodeamus said:
The rate of warming is what lies at the heart of the dispute and thus far it is hitting the lower bounds of the models,


for the last 9 years, it has been more or less a statistical tie.

the scientists aren't creating the panic, it's the politicians and the activists,
Click to expand...

Watts Up With That? - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Watts Up With That?
Click to expand...
(WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]

The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Contributors include Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors.[8] In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy, and a driving force behind its coverage.[8]
Click to expand...
 
Hey we got good meme's from it, this brat is probably going to have a bit of a difficult existence I'd say.
 
cerebus said:
I suspect someone is misrepresenting the data in that report

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch www.ipcc.ch

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC​


I suggest you read that article, it's sobering stuff



Watts Up With That? - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

If you actually read the IPCC report and section one in particular then you will see that there isn't any increase in extreme climate patterns.

What the media does is that it constantly confuses weather with climate, the latter being a 30 year average.
Currently there just isn't a trend increase. The IPCC report falls into three parts the first being the scientific one, the other 2 are wish lists for policy makers.

Steve Koonin recently gave a good presentation on the data by citing only the IPCC. It's worth a watch to see how the press release deviates from what is actually in the report.

 
@cerebes
the report is quite long, but you can find it here, I have read the previous ones, but generally only part 1 as that deals with the climate stuff,

a few things to point out is that 1. GW is real, 2. it is blown out of proportion,

For example on sea levels from the report.
Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971. {2.3, 3.5, 9.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9.1, Box TS.4}
Click to expand...
you read that right, mm per year, we can manage that,

Then in terms of extreme weathers such as cyclones,
It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades, and the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence) but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale. {8.2, 11.7, Box TS.10}
Click to expand...

Decreases in global land monsoon precipitation17 from the 1950s to the 1980s are partly attributed to human-caused Northern Hemisphere aerosol emissions, but increases since then have resulted from rising GHG concentrations and decadal to multi-decadal internal variability (medium confidence). Over South Asia, East Asia and West Africa increases in monsoon precipitation due to warming from GHG emissions were counteracted by decreases in monsoon precipitation due to cooling from human-caused aerosol emissions over the 20th century (high confidence). Increases in West African monsoon precipitation since the 1980s are partly due to the growing influence of GHGs and reductions in the cooling effect of human-caused aerosol emissions over Europe and North America (medium confidence). {2.3, 3.3, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, Box 8.1, Box 8.2, 10.6, Box TS.1
Click to expand...
the IPCC admits that there is more to the climate than just GHG as there are counteracting moonsoon effects,


In terms of temperature, yes there is a increase (no on disputes this), the question is, is it really alarming? and what is the cost associated with it (the social cost of carbon)


where the big debate always come in is climate sensitivity and the hockeystick in particular as it relates to the paleoclimate,
1641311738711.png


Stephan Mckintyre who was an auditor of the 3rd assessment if I recall, has constantly showed that the principal component analysis that they use is not statistically robust. (the article is a bit technical, but it's actually difficult to get an accurate estimate of the paleoclimate).

climateaudit.org

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre
climateaudit.org climateaudit.org

Overall, I think that it’s fair to say that Briffa’s criticism of Mann remains just as appropriate for the IPCC in 2021, as it did in 2001. Like Mann’s network, PAGES 2019 “contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series”. And PAGES 2019 authors “were just as capable [as Mann] of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years”. Indeed, if anything, the new generation of climate activists have proved themselves more than capable of continuing Mann’s “trend of self-opinionated verbiage” to, shall we say, “unprecedented” levels.
Click to expand...


What we do know is that the earth has warmed around 1 degree in the last century, half of that is natural as it came before 1950, afterwards C02 increased and the question has always been how much of the warming is due to C02 alone. Other uncertainties include watervapour, changes in the albedo cloudfeedback and that function is poorly understood. Left to C02 alone we would only see another degree of warming if we double it, the question is if there is a runaway positive feedback.

Then there has been a lot critique against the climate models overstating the temperature in the lower troposphere, https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/17/...imate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming-2/

I get it that modeling the climate is incredibly difficult, and no one faults the scientific community for finding it a tough problem to solve. But we are all living with the consequences of climate modelers stubbornly using generation after generation of models that exhibit too much surface and tropospheric warming, in addition to running grossly exaggerated forcing scenarios (e.g. RCP8.5). Back in 2005 in the first report of the then-new US Climate Change Science Program, Karl et al. pointed to the exaggerated warming in the tropical troposphere as a “potentially serious inconsistency.” But rather than fixing it since then, modelers have made it worse. Mitchell et al. note that in addition to the wrong warming trends themselves, the biases have broader implications because “atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients.” In other words when the models get the tropical troposphere wrong, it drives potential errors in many other features of the model atmosphere. Even if the original problem was confined to excess warming in the tropical mid-troposphere, it has now expanded into a more pervasive warm bias throughout the global troposphere.
Click to expand...


My biggest gripe though is the impossibility of netzero, even if we go full blown nuclear, wind and solar, we simply won't achieve it. A lot of the alarm is based on the RCP8.5 scenario that assumes that we will burn unrealistic amounts of fossil fuels,
 
Last edited:
cerebus said:
I'm not sure how Greta's message can be construed as a 'panic'. Climate scientists are absolutely panicked about the rate of warming. Climate impacts are real, present, and already devastating swathes of the globe. If Greta Thunberg failed, broadly speaking science has also failed in convincing governments to enact the drastic changes needed.
Click to expand...
So the world is finally ending? Or is this one of those mayan calendar theories?
 
ShaunSA said:
So the world is finally ending? Or is this one of those mayan calendar theories?
Click to expand...
Hawkins made a prediction long ago that the world will end as we know it in 1000 years. Later he revised and re-researched this and changed the date to be 100 years. So he said climate change will end life by +- the year 2100. He said nuclear war could also end it but that climate change is likely to be 1st. He said the only way for humans to survive is to flee to space/another planet. Musk took him up on that.

The other end of the world (year 2012...) was never about the end of the world but rather about the end of the Piecean age. This is true, we are now in the Aquarian Age.
 
Benedict A55h0le said:
Hawkins made a prediction long ago that the world will end as we know it in 1000 years. Later he revised and re-researched this and changed the date to be 100 years. So he said climate change will end life by +- the year 2100. He said nuclear war could also end it but that climate change is likely to be 1st. He said the only way for humans to survive is to flee to space/another planet. Musk took him up on that.

The other end of the world (year 2012...) was never about the end of the world but rather about the end of the Piecean age. This is true, we are now in the Aquarian Age.
Click to expand...

So wtf is everyone stressing about? If it ends it ends
 
ToxicBunny said:
I just want some sort of concrete time frame to this, so I can plan out the last year's properly
Click to expand...

Here's a time frame. It isn't going to happen in your lifetime or your kids or grandkids lifetime

Go out there and enjoy life. Being a Chicken Little never got anyone anywhere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X