On May 27 the Conservative Princeton Association is sponsoring a hard-hitting panel discussion on “Why Climate Change is NOT an Emergency”. Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and Dr. Bruce Everett, climate economist, and Princeton physicist William Happer will be presenting data and analysis which show that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will be beneficial, that the atmospheric temperature is relatively insensitive to addition of CO2 and decarbonization is unnecessary, undesirable, impossible and not happening.
This event will be streamed live on Saturday May 27 from 11 am to 12:30 pm from Princeton University during Reunions Weekend and can be viewed at:
https://mediacentrallive.princeton....
The event will also be available live on Zoom:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/820313440...
These links will be public and will not require passcodes.
UPDATE:
Sabotage:
The event was live streamed from Media Central Live, at Princeton University. There were difficulties with the broadcast of the presentation by Patrick Moore. Then, as William Happer began to talk, someone else took control of the media presentation. Several cartoons were drawn on the slides, then an obscene, juvenile one. Just before the video went dead, Happer politely said: “You can see what we are up against.”
The event was live streamed from Media Central Live, at Princeton University. There were difficulties with the broadcast of the presentation by Patrick Moore. Then, as William Happer began to talk, someone else took control of the media presentation. Several cartoons were drawn on the slides, then an obscene, juvenile one. Just before the video went dead, Happer politely said: “You can see what we are up against.”
These people are against rational discussion and fear it. We appear to be no longer in an age of reason.
Actually the climate is quite sensitive to co2.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
It’s all a matter of degree
All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more. Even such a small rise would signal many damaging and highly disruptive changes to the environment. In this light, the arguments against reducing greenhouse gas emissions because of climate sensitivity are a form of gambling. A minority claim the climate is less sensitive than we think, the implication being we don’t need to do anything much about it. Others suggest that because we can't tell for sure, we should wait and see.
In truth, nobody knows for sure quite how much the temperature will rise, but rise it will. Inaction or complacency heightens risk, gambling with the entire ecology of the planet, and the welfare of everyone on it.
IF we are lucky it will turn out to be on the low side of past estimates of clmate sensitivity. If we are flippant about climate sensitivity to co2 and it turns out to be on the high side of science estimates, we are screwed. You can't turn back the clock on this. Its like the salt shaker spilled into the soup. You can't take the salt back out once its in the water.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm
Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.
Climate sensitivity from empirical observations
There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.
Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
Hansen et al. 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
Gregory et al. 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
Chylek & Lohmann 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.
Tung & Camp 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.
Bender et al. 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.
A typical denier mistake is to look at co2 and nothing else. An actually bigger part of the story are the pos. feedbacks, mainly water vapor. Positive feedback of water vapor with the earth's surface being 70% water, this makes a different story than that told by the carbon elite deniers.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.
Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing). For example, we know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C. However, this doesn't account for feedbacks, for example ice melting and making the planet less reflective, and the warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor (another greenhouse gas).
If you want to learn about this then you should watch the presentation by the experts.
ReplyDeleteI already know them. They don't tell the scientific truth.
Delete