Home | About | Donate

2100, and the Fundamental Fallacy of Climate Change Predictions

2100, and the Fundamental Fallacy of Climate Change Predictions

Gordon Clark

As a new global-warming charged hurricane dumps historic amounts of rain over the Carolinas, reporting on climate change is seeing another uptick. However varied the predictions, there is one number that will always be included in the article: 2100 - as in the year 2100. Or sometimes just “by the end of the century.”

6 Likes

Climate scientists certainly don’t neglect feedback loops. If there one thing James Hansen has focused on it is feedback loops. However, predictions including feeback loops are unlikely as accurate as predictions not including feedback loops. I think were there is often a failing is to clearly point out the feedbacks are not included. Relatively small changes in temperature can amplified by positive feedback loops. But nobody knows where tipping points are for these feedback or the speed that they will occur. We have to accept that there are a lot of unknown when dealing with climate change.Basically we are left with worst case scenarios and best case scenarios and everything in between.

Says the man who used to head up a group which actively opposes the development of potentially one of our largest sources of low-carbon energy.

It is incredible to watch the slow motion, surreal unfolding of conditioned cultural blindness. With news and information widely disseminated, cultural machinery magically fabricates a social conceptuality disconnected from and unaccountable to its own thoughts and actions. We all see it politically and economically every single day.
While modern people tend to see themselves as civilized and intelligent, history is documenting our mythologized and psychotic lives as irrational, pathological, disconnected from accurate language, ideology and actions. With or without university, whether highly paid or poorly paid, regardless of religious commitments and ‘dedication’ to positive human values, the behemoth of cultured ignorance and corruption rolls on, the inertia of societal conformity irresistibly powerful like gravity.
But all fabrications can be changed. The false necessity and corrupted power is fully recognizable. The conformity and the social coercion is visible. As darkness gives way to light, human beings can recognize and change the self replicating cultural machinery of ignorance and domination. And we can start right this very second. Let’s go . . . . !!!

7 Likes

The collapse of civilization is a negative feedback loop.

4 Likes

That’s just bullshit. You have no data to support that assertion.

This is the fool’s way of thinking about this issue. First of all, the magnitude of the risk (being existential in nature) far outweighs giving any weight to imagined small probabilities and so demands a maximum effort to avoid it.

Second, the solutions to the problem appear to be cost-effective, especially when externalities are included, so we should be doing what cures the climate problem anyway. See, for example, Natural climate solutions, Policy Implications of Deep Decarbonization in the United States and Decarbonizing the World Economy

Third, technological improvements are starting emerge at a break neck pace, but without implementation mean nothing. See, for example, Photoelectrode Harvests 85% Of Sunlight and EIA: 700 MW of utility-scale battery capacity installed in US.

You act like this is some kind of insurmountable problem. Most of the solutions already exist. For those that don’t, recent experience indicates that they will become available if we set ourselves on the path of implementing solutions. Hand wringing, which seems to be your forte, is a useless, indeed counter productive, activity.

4 Likes

Got news for you, linear is geometric so what exactly do you mean by geometric? Probably you mean you don’t really understand what you are talking about with respect to mathematical progressions. Geometric, does that mean logarithmic…exponential…what??? It means nothing other than the fact the author doesn’t understand what he is talking about. Not that he isn’t correct about global warming and feedback loops though.

2 Likes

Oh, and by the way, it is not climate change it is global warming. I really don’t understand the tendency of people to muddy the waters by not referring to the root cause as what it really is. Global warming is causing the climate we are used to to change. Sea level rise is not caused by climate change, it is caused by global warming.

8 Likes

Yes, and his assertion that science cannot predict non-linear changes in a property is also nonsense - let’s start with just Newton’s Second Law, for example.

The logn-running poor state basic science and maths education in the US can really hurt activists on the left.

2 Likes

@Lrx @Yunzer @DerekMaddox @sbrownn

All you pedantic dissemblers are obfuscating the TRUTHS in this activists assessment of accelerating climate chaos: Scientists have consistently UNDERESTIMATED the rate of change, and have consistently UNDERVALUED the feedback mechanisms involved, so that they have consistently found the empirical changes in the climate are OUTSTRIPPING their most “extreme” scenarios; and IMMEDIATE, COMPREHENSIVE ACTION is needed, to have any hope to avert utter disaster.

But hey, thanks so much for your super important contributions! Now, what prospects do you see for humanity to effectively address the need for IMMEDIATE, COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE to the human economy to stop adding accelerants to the accelerating process underway, and to support natural and technological processes to slow this unfolding disaster?

5 Likes

For some reason you don’t seem to not understand what I am saying about climate change. I am for taking urgent action. You seem to have gotten the impression that I support the opposite.I don’t know how much clearer I can make it. You seem to think it is taboo to bring up any nuances. No, nuances are part of reality. My view is action to fight climate change needs to be taken faster and on a larger scale. It is mystifying that you misrepresent what I write.

So far as technology is concerned, I’m fairly optimistic about our prospects. There will be the social problem of how to get around the opposition of “environmentalists” like Mr. Clark here, and his Peace Action group, but even there, I think cooler heads will ultimately prevail.

No. The climate scientists are not underestimating the rate of change. Global mean temperatures are following their predictions remarkably well going back to Hansen’s prediction 30 years ago.

And btw, this article stated that this July was the warmest on record. that is wrong. It was the 4th warmest. The warmest was July 2016, an El Nino year.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201807

We don’t need shrill fabricated-from-thin-air facts (aka “fake news”) from the left - we get enough of that from the extremist right, thank-you.

No, let’s not. This is a silly dead-end question and, worse, one that has, for practical purposes, been decided. The science is settled. The climate is warming. Humans are causing that to happen. Warming is an existential threat to humanity and millions of other species. We need to be doing everything in our power to stop it.

We need to start with all those things that already cost-effective:

  1. All technically feasible, cost-effective energy efficiency.

  2. Replacement of fossil fuels in the electric sector as quickly as possible.

  3. Replacement of fossil fuels in the transportation sector as quickly as possible.

These changes are cost-effective because of the externalities in our current economic system that fails to include the impacts (costs) of fossil fuels in their prices and allows those costs to be borne by others (for example, the health care system).

In the meantime, technology is emerging to make these changes even more cost-effective.

The tone of your argument implies that you believe it will cost society more to solve the climate challenge than not. But you are wrong.

4 Likes

Much of your statement here is true in the sense that most people don’t have the skills to properly model a problem such as this. However, the people that do have these skills have modeled this problem and they are telling us we are in serious trouble and need to take action as soon as possible.

4 Likes

Global warming is a non-linear process. The details are worth getting right when talking about science, as tiny misunderstandings can swirl into huge delusions. Geometric is not an antonym of linear.

5 Likes

Climate scientists have already studied the degree that the observed and predicted warming is attributable to human CO2 emission. It is extremely unlikely that the human contribution is less than 50 percent, or greater than 170 percent (the latter figure being the unlikely scenrio that climate would be cooling rapidly without human contributions). The best estimate is about 110% - i.e. globe would be cooling slowly absent the human contribution, who are instead, warming it at a more rapid rate than any known past geologic event.

2 Likes

You do know that computer models - which are physical models - not statistical extrapolations, have been used to make “hindcasts” to verify their validity.

And if you so skeptical of “computer models”, never believe a weather forecast, fly on an airplane, or go inside a building.

2 Likes

Sure . But. We will not get much time to rebel on our new found consciousness …before. The End

No, Don’t take him seriously (although it is clear that he meant “carbon dioxide”). But I can’t fail to notice in your other posts that your understanding of the science is even worse.

You can, however take scientists like Gavin Schmitt, Stefan Ramsdorf, Michael Mann, and James Hansen though. Go here for some of their wisdom:

1 Like