[gault8121]

Yes, and so that's why we need to study these things now. These aerosols dissipate - you need to continually add them to the atmosphere every few months. The point here is that this a temporary measure to bring down the temperature to prevent additional deaths caused from global warming. If it ended up causing more harm than the co2 alone, this could be stopped. However, when faced with the impossible situation all of humanity is in now, applying a tourniquet to stop the bleeding buys time for decarbonization to happen.

[upsidesinclude]

>prevent additional deaths caused from global warming

How would one even begin to make such an assessment? Natural disaster is less likely than ever to cause death with a higher than ever population. Damage dollar cost increases from weather have increased as a result of development, not increasingly severe events.

>the impossible situation all of humanity is in now

Compared to the current resurgence in desire for nuclear war, war and diminishing diplomacy? We are not in an impossible situation because of weather. This is alarmist and completely predicated on climate models being accurate, despite that they have always proven to be inaccurate.

"Whelp, no issue there, those were the old models. We've got new, accurate models now!!"

[mort96]

Climate models are generally inaccurate in the opposite direction of what we want though. Things are progressing faster than predicted.

But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.

[yodon]

>But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.

The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion."

Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.

[mort96]

Come on. They're conflating climate and weather, downplaying the effects, and calling people who are concerned about the ongoing mass extinction alarmists. This is good old climate change denialism, there is nothing here that's worth taking seriously.

[upsidesinclude]

Feel free to engage any of the points I brought up.

Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far.

I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.

[mort96]

I'm 100% for challenging how the powers that be react to climate change! But you're saying we should be taking it less seriously than we already do. That's completely bonkers and the complete wrong conclusion. You're not challenging authority, you're supporting their destructive profit seeking behaviour by downplaying the negative effects.

[origin_path]

No, they are not. Models vs observations:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mod...

Even the modellers themselves admit this. When they felt a need to re-declare victory a few years ago in response to graphs like that one, even then, their argument was "if we re-calculate the original models with better data then they aren't so inaccurate anymore". It wasn't that the original predictions were correct.

Now look at a graph of temperatures as measured by satellites:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Notice that it has long periods where it moves sideways, despite continuing emissions. Models don't predict these apparently arbitrary pauses.

"But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal."

This is a thought terminating cliché. The default non-political position in any discussion of what should government or society do is always "do nothing". It has to be - think about it. It's always the people agitating for change who are engaged in the process of politics, because it's via the process of politics that change on the level of government policy is enacted.

What's happening here is the opposite; the people saying "default to nothing, we think the need is unproven" are the people taking the default non-political position. It's the people demanding massive enforced changes to people's lives that are engaging in politics. And unfortunately, history teaches that people who insist on totally upending society for long term abstract goals must always be treated with suspicion because that is power, power corrupts, and the ground is full of the skeletons of people who died due to the dreams of despots. What they advertised as concern over some abstract ideal (justice, equality, nation, etc) rapidly became a mere tool to enter and stay in power.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

> Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D.[3] is a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a crank with a major persecution complex. His favored form of pseudoscience is global warming denial, though he has also become known as a proponent of Intelligent Design.

[origin_path]

Is that meant to be a rebuttal? You realize that I'm citing data, not even personal opinions?

It's hilarious that the website is called "rational wiki" by the way. Replies like yours are why we must not geo-engineer the earth. The sort of people who insist it's necessary can't handle data and fall back to ad-hominem, so should not be listened to.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Yep, it is a rebuttal. Climate cranks and their misuse of questionable data should not be taken seriously. Relying on them in your arguments, quoting and defending them is likewise an instant credibility fail.

[upsidesinclude]

Thanks for that reasoned reply

[hotpotamus]

Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog? I think this is the kind of research that might take more than one person. And is his data only coming from satellites? Wouldn't it make more sense to get a variety of sensor data?

[origin_path]

Because that's where I happened to find the graphs? Go right ahead and find the papers if you like. The research in question is simply plotting old model projections on a graph along with satellite temperatures.

"Wouldn't it make more sense to get a variety of sensor data?"

By all means, try it. You'll find that satellites and weather balloons disagree with surface level temperature history. The reason is, climatologists keep editing surface temperature databases to create new 'versions' that create warming trends where none were previously visible. This is not scientific, of course. You're meant to fit your theory to the data, not data to the theory. The satellite data presented there is much less tampered with.

[hotpotamus]

How do I know the satellite data wasn't tampered with?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Why are you linking to one guy's wordpress blog?

One particular guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(meteorologist)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

See particularly Wikipedia:

> "Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community."

Which, if you translate back from the dry language that Wikipedia uses, says "this guy's a nut".

[upsidesinclude]

This statement is just false.

As of yet, the outcomes have been on the lower end of modeling, i.e. less severe, until the models are revised to be more conservative in their estimates. Convenient because then the models can come back with elevated outcomes by comparison to the predicted average. Ah! See scientism at work?

It's the persistent, politically motivated science that causes the hesitancy and disbelief