Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "The Truth of Climate Change | Niall Ferguson" video.

The problem here is, climate models are wrong. They have been comically so in the past ("25 degrees warming by 2020!" according to the BBC in 1990), and there is every reason to believe, based on the theoretical underpinnings of computer modeling itself, that they will remain meaningless in the future. The difficulty is in the sort of modelling they are trying to do. Climate models are modelling convection cells, hundreds of thousands of them, all of which are "sensitive to initial conditions". Their behavior is, formally, chaotic - and therefore not amenable to future prediction. Even in simple stochastic computer modeling, it's extremely difficult (often impossible) to determine what model parameters will have what effect on the output of the model, especially far-future predictions. With a chaotic system, that determination is firmly on the "impossible" side of that spectrum. Without the theoretical support of these computer models, we're left with simple back-of-the-envelope radiative heat transfer calculations about how much CO2 (and H2O, and CH4) is transparent to solar radiation, but opaque to Earth's blackbody radiation. Doing this math, we find that the increase in much-demonized CO2 "emissions" only causes a few hundredths of a degree of warming. Global warming hysteria is a tempest in a teapot.
9
Any climate model is a matter of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of convection cells, all of which are chaotic, and therefore impossible to use predictively. Worse yet (from the point of view of the modelers) it cannot be used to determine what parameters are the critical parameters for any changes you see. These models will be wrong, unless we can develop computers whose variables accurate to infinite decimal places. Not just very accurate, but infinitely so. And, those models have to be fed with observation data that is also infinitely accurate. Applying computer models to this case is pure hubris. Basing dramatic and punitive legislation on their results, is pure insanity.
7
@owenoceillaigh5899 Computer models back in 1990 trumpeted by the BBC program "After the Warming" predicted 15-25 degrees Fahrenheit warming by 2020. That's not even close to correct. I suppose it does give us hope, though. The strategy we're taking right now to prevent warming -- doing next to nothing -- is obviously the correct one. =)
5
California is a desert, plain and simple. It's at the same latitude as every other major desert in the world, save the poles. This is a matter of atmospheric circulation cells, which is a function of the size of Earth and its rotational rate. As far as flooded islands go, land subsidence is as likely as sea level rise to be the cause of any destruction.
3
Research at NASA Ames shows that optimum plant growth occurs when CO2 levels are far higher than human beings can survive.
2
@carleddison7479 I'm still not sure we're disagreeing, here. The paper I'm referring to is, sadly, a physical paper I was reading in the library of Ames Research Center several years ago, so I can't give you a link (or even more sadly, precise numbers.) The paper cited both the level of CO2 at which humans could not survive, and the level of CO2 that led to optimal plant growth, for the purposes of determining optimal conditions for a farm in a space habitat. As it turns out, the optimal CO2 level for plant growth, is higher than the level at which human beings start to asphyxiate. I agree we're nowhere near those CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere, and short of being struck by a dry-ice comet, or some surprising volcanic activity that released enormous amounts of CO2 from who-knows-where under Earth's crust, we won't hit those levels. Plants will continue to benefit from increasing CO2 levels in Earths' atmosphere, and humans will continue to benefit from those plants.
2
@davidtuer5825 The NASA data I was citing was from studies for space-based (or Moon-based) habitats, where CO2 and O2 levels would be precisely chosen, monitored, and (hopefully) controlled. This makes me sad. Am I the only one here who associates NASA research with travel and human habitation in space?
2
Antefa members also contribute to the arson.
1
Al Gore is still salty that he lost the 2000 election to an oil man. His opposition to the petroleum industry is personal, not scientific.
1
@carleddison7479 I don't think we're disagreeing, here. Human survival isn't a matter of heat, at plant-optimal CO2 levels; at those levels, asphyxiation is the problem.
1
@johnsalamito6212 The Earth and the Sun have differing temperatures. (No big surprise.) Each of them emits light along a blackbody curve, based on that temperature. Each gas in the Earth's atmosphere absorbs light at different points along the spectrum. The "Greenhouse Effect" refers to the fact that various gasses absorb some of the light emitted from Earth, so that light is not emitted into space. It is instead converted back to heat within the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. If we burn all of the known reserves of all fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect contributed by CO2 will raise the the temperature of the Earth by (on the order of) a hundredth of a degree Celsius. It's only when the (by nature chaotic) computer model tells various panicky scientists that some runaway effect will happen because of this, that we run into any problems. However, chaotic computer models can't be trusted to make accurate long-term predictions. At all. And they certainly can't be used in the sort of A/B testing that determines which of the multitude of parameters is really causing the effect they claim to see.
1
@davidtuer5825 My post is based on research at NASA Ames, which concluded that the concentration of CO2 for plant growth is much higher than a human being can survive without asphyxiating. That research was actual empirical research, which physically grew plants in an atmosphere of enriched CO2. As far as I'm concerned, empirical research is far more reliable than theoretical work, which is why I bring up the subject. I guess that the numbers they found for optimal plant growth in an enclosed atmosphere could be different than the numbers out in the open, but I would only be speculating about how that might be the case.
1
@johnsalamito6212 Just be careful when you start a deep dive into the science, it's important to get it right. =) It's going to be a slow and painful process, convincing computer scientists of the limitations of computer models. "They work so well at small and simple scales" they think, "Why wouldn't they scale up to large and complex problems?" A time will come before the end of the century, possibly before the end of the generation, when the vision of the omniscient computer model will be looked upon with the same amusement as a 50-foot-tall robot. "Oh" we think. "A 50-foot-tall robot. This story must be fiction". It will be "Oh, a computer model that predicts chaotic systems far into the future. This story must be fiction."
1
@davidtuer5825 High concentrations of CO2 in the air you're breathing will prevent your lungs from transferring CO2 out of your bloodstream. That's why it's a bad idea to be with a fire in an enclosed space.
1
@davidtuer5825 Please tell me you're not willing to try to light a campfire in an enclosed space. That would be a very bad idea, and I do not recommend it at all.
1
If I were a more cynical man, I would be jumping at the chance to sell "Climate Change Insurance". Imagine spending your life collecting premiums against an event that will never happen, and skimming your percentage off the top. If you're the type to sell your soul, this is a very, very high bidder.
1
It was even more heartbreaking when the otherwise excellent James Burke narrated BBC's 1990 "After the Warming", which claimed temperatures would have gone up 15-25 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020. I should go back and watch "Connections", from BBC's golden age. It's one of the finest explorations of human innovation that has ever been produced.
1