Chris Martz posted an excellent summary of X
I am picky with terminology, so let me explain. . .
I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It's not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.
While a consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith…
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) November 18, 2024
Here is the complete post.
I'm picky about terminology, so let me explain. . .
I urge people to stop calling man-made global warming a “hoax” or a “scam.” That's not it. There is actually a legitimate scientific basis.
While a consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. As Roy Spencer pointed out, there is general agreement in the scientific literature on these three things:
➊ Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has increased by about 1.2 °C since 1850. The warming since 1980 is about the same in magnitude and speed as the warming at the beginning of the 20th century from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warming for >250 years. 📈
🔗https://metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
➋ The burning of coal, oil and natural gas to generate energy has caused carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere to rise by around 51% since 1850. We know this because there is an isotope fingerprint in the decrease in the C13/C12 ratio. While this isn't a clear indication of an anthropogenic origin, it's a pretty solid indicator. 🏭
🔗https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/stable.html
➌ Earth's average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss. Given that there is a radiation spectrum from CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic spectrum (EM), adding more CO₂ to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by IR emission to space, all else being constant. In fact, it induces a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has actually been observed. 🌈
Furthermore, there is no agreement on:
➊ How much warming is caused by humans? The claim that virtually all warming is anthropogenic is clearly based on modeling studies. The IPCC's “best estimate” of greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to GMST change since 1850 is +1.5°C ± 44%, and its “best estimate” of aerosol forcing is -0.5°C ± 100 %. That doesn’t sound like “settled science” to me.
🔗https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter03.pdf (pp. 439-441)
➋ The exact equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) – a measure of how much warming will result from a doubling of CO₂ concentrations once a new local equilibrium is reached – and the amount of warming still planned for the 21st century. 🌡️
➌ Is warming dangerous for humanity and life on Earth as a whole? Is it a net advantage or a net disadvantage? This is not a settled matter, regardless of what experts say. The results in the literature are mixed. It doesn't clearly support their idea that warming is catastrophic or even bad. 🤷♂️
➍ What are the best measures for adaptation and/or containment? How should energy policy be handled? Do we change the zoning regulations? Are we building sea walls to counteract the gradual rise in sea levels? What is the cost-benefit analysis of decarbonization efforts?
So there is actually a legitimate scientific basis for the global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; The devil is in the details and the science is far from clear. ❌
The case is not closed. This book is still open on the table. 📖
However, what is actually a scam is the demand for “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.
A legitimate scientific topic has become captive to a Malthusian religion at the hands of power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people are pushing for a one world government where you're told what you can and can't eat, what gadgets you can and can't buy, where you can and can't travel, and they want to force us to have one To introduce a carbon credit cap and a cashless trading system. The policy is the fraud, not the underlying scientific theory.
I am picky with terminology, so let me explain. . .
I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It's not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.
While a consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith…
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) November 18, 2024
4.4
7
Voices
Article review
Like this:
Load…
Comments are closed.