I argue repeatedly for moderation of concern over Climate Change. I do so from several approaches. One, in the IPCC AR 6 the Climate Sensitivity range was decreased from 1.5C - 4.5C to 2.5C - 4.0C. I have argued for quite some time that Climate Sensitivity is most likely between 2.0C and 2.5C. This value is actually at the core of Climate Change because it puts an overall bound on how dramatically the climate will react to increases in atmCO2.
In theory, calculating Climate Sensitivity should not be difficult. We know approximately how much global temperatures have risen since around 1880 when more or less reliable data is available and how much atmCO2 has increased during that time frame. So, one only needs to do a simple regression to calculate Climate Sensitivity. There is, however, a few problems with that approach.
First, for the last couple of centuries, global temperatures have been rising, ostensibly, as the result of a general cooling trend that is often referred to prosaically and inappropriately as 'the little ice age'. Second, the temperature record is incomplete and may be biased toward areas of the Earth that are substantially affected by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Also, the early part of the time period under study warmed too much in the first half and not enough in the latter half. Lastly, the Earth's albedo may have changed during that time. A major culprit is aerosols which tends to lower incident solar radiation. However, changes in land use also have an impact.
So, the regression is affected by any changes in global mean temperatures that are not the result in changes in atmCO2. I did a multiple regression where I assumed that changes in temperature are the result of atmCO2 warming and 'other'. The advantage of this approach is that the non-randomness of regression residuals can be lowered, if not completely eliminated. When I did this, I came to the conclusion that short-term Climate Sensitivity is likely between 2.0C and 2.5C. Two other approaches, one by Zhukova, which estimated solar radiation variability, and Lindzen, who built up the contentious feedback portion of Climate Sensitivity from scratch. Zhukova implies a range similar to mine. Lindzen goes even lower to the 1.5C -2.0C range. I believe that his is lower because he did not incorporate all feedbacks.
Here is a more recent source that concludes that Climate Sensitivity is between 2.11 °C to 2.49 °C or more or less consistent with Zhukova, Lindzen and me.
This is important because public perception and scientific and public policy discussions are influenced by the promulgation of catastrophic scenarios, partially painted by activists. Most of these scenarios are very poorly described and assume Climate Sensitivity values at or even above the top of the IPCC AR6 range.
I argue that while some concern over AGW (Anthropogenic Climate Change) is warranted, it is far less concerning than the media and politicians wish to make it. AtmCO2 over 600 ppm may be problematic directly, irrespective of any effects on the climate. The world is projected to reach this level around 2100. These lower values of Climate Sensitivity do not suggest that a climate catastrophe is at all likely prior to then. Additionally, severe selection bias in the funding of research into the impact of climate change makes future scenarios of climate disasters highly suspect. There are, in fact, positive effects of higher global temperatures, but funding for research into them is non-existent. When the potential benefits of higher CO2 levels (CO2 fertilization, for example) reaches public awareness, the activist community goes into high gear to 'debunk' the putative benefits. When satellite data made the 'greening of Earth' obvious, NASA, much to its discredit, tried to say it was due to China and India planting trees. While that was true, it did not explain the greening in other areas.
I have some persistent issues that I address at Polymaths.Locals.com and my MichaelWFerguson.substack sites and AGW is one of them. With highly visible personalities, such as AOC, doing a very good impression of Chicken Little and with that message being picked up and amplified by the MSM, other politicians, the corporate world, entertainment personalities, etc. compensating and calming voices need to be heard. I have taken it upon myself as I present what I call an 'objectively supportable world view' to be one of these voices.
Hi all, I live in Canada. And the article " The Inappropriately Excluded " is really something that deeply resonates with me, and has helped make sense of my life. That I've been going back to it for years as a reference. But today found out there is this meetup group. Excellent stuff!
So I'm wondering what are people's interests here?
I like transition planning, and how we'll get through the end of oil,
archival of important documents, talking to international advisors and politicians about it. Also run several businesses. And do a lot of religious stuff,
cause that's best way of connecting with the uh IQ challenged majority in terms they can understand. So for that I run anabaptist.ca and got like outreach for all sorts of faiths, like humanism, islam, communists, chinese, hindus, christians etc: https://anabaptist.ca/dyet/
Hi! Just joined. I discovered this group through the Inappropriatelt Excluded article and it hit home. Looks very interesting :)
After Dobbs v Jackson, people are saying they want to move to Canada? Why? There is no part of Canada that allows abortion after 23 weeks. And, of course, nowhere in Europe are abortions legal after 24 weeks. So, if one really feels that access abortion is so important, the best thing to do is move to California. It has the most Progressive abortion laws pretty much anywhere, save China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Honestly, if this is your thing, then you should move to California. Whatever state you are in, they will celebrate your departure.
