5 ms·

The entire narrative is that a gas which is just 400 parts per million - 4 10^4, or 0.04% - causes heating of 1 degree Celsius around ~300 degrees over absolute

The entire narrative is that a gas which is just 400 parts per million - 4 10^4, or 0.04% - causes heating of 1 degree Celsius around ~300 degrees over absolute zero (so 0.3% increase in temperature) over a time frame of decades - so 0.03% increase per year - and the only evidence we have tying the conjectured cause of warming (CO2) to the actual climate are computer models, whose accuracy is extremely bad in the span of few months. We're talking about predicting an effect which is 10^-5 orders of magnitude different from current configuration, with tools that were tested and failed within much shorter timeframes (~ months instead of years) and all of this is the only "evidence". The prediction abilities of these tools are only around the general trend, they failed predicting the magnitude correctly. So around 10^1 orders of magnitudes of accuracy. All of this by computer models which have horrible code, all copying from each other, and are extended way beyond their empirical testing - while being fixed with fudge factors called "flux adjustments". All of this in an extremely chaotic system. The kind of chaos which has no hope for even short duration prediction. It's not science. It's a religion. There are no confidence intervals on this because if they had done a systematic analysis of the entire thing, they would have to admit that the chaotic behavior dominates their analysis by several orders of magnitude. They do have plenty of data for what is actually going on - but the conjecture that it is CO2 causing it (as opposed to being just chaotic behavior, other factors, anything else really) has very little evidence. They abuse conjunction fallacy to convince everyone.

imtringued 4y ago
Somehow the Exxon researchers made predictions four decades ago that are still accurate today.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  I wonder how did they do that without predicting anything about CO2 usage in those 4 decades? You need to realize there are two questions: 1. What will be the climate decades into the future? T(CO2, t)=? 2. What is the effect of CO2 on all of this? T(CO2+ΔCO2, t)=? Getting zeroth order of T is one thing. They did it pretty badly anyway. Getting the first order of T with respect to CO2 is another thing entirely. Getting the answer to 2 correctly is much, much harder. You want to do the the derivative by CO2 ppm, and as you do that, you have 10^-5 factors on most things, because that's how much CO2 ppm there is. I don't buy the narrative that they did this difficult thing correctly. Supposedly the leading order is something like how much CO2 increases absorption. It's going to have this 10^-5 factor of CO2 ppm there, and it's going to be what's causing this whole thing to happen. But if there are greater than 10^-5 errors in this calculation, the whole thing is useless. And they don't actually do this analytically, they just run it many times in a simulation. I just don't buy the narrative that they manage to get meaningful signal out of that, not with how their code looks like, how chaotic the real system is, and their uncertainties about other parameters, there's just no way in hell they know this correctly. Their evidence is that they have some pretty rough estimates for the zeroth order. The evidence for their confidence of the first order is extremely weak. And the narrative that CO2 matters is only meaningful if they have a good estimate of the first order.
beej71 4y ago
What you really have to come up with is what's causing it. That's how to destroy the CO2 narrative. Otherwise, CO2 it is.

imtringued 4y ago

Somehow the Exxon researchers made predictions four decades ago that are still accurate today.

machina_ex_deus 4y ago
I wonder how did they do that without predicting anything about CO2 usage in those 4 decades? You need to realize there are two questions: 1. What will be the climate decades into the future? T(CO2, t)=? 2. What is the effect of CO2 on all of this? T(CO2+ΔCO2, t)=? Getting zeroth order of T is one thing. They did it pretty badly anyway. Getting the first order of T with respect to CO2 is another thing entirely. Getting the answer to 2 correctly is much, much harder. You want to do the the derivative by CO2 ppm, and as you do that, you have 10^-5 factors on most things, because that's how much CO2 ppm there is. I don't buy the narrative that they did this difficult thing correctly. Supposedly the leading order is something like how much CO2 increases absorption. It's going to have this 10^-5 factor of CO2 ppm there, and it's going to be what's causing this whole thing to happen. But if there are greater than 10^-5 errors in this calculation, the whole thing is useless. And they don't actually do this analytically, they just run it many times in a simulation. I just don't buy the narrative that they manage to get meaningful signal out of that, not with how their code looks like, how chaotic the real system is, and their uncertainties about other parameters, there's just no way in hell they know this correctly. Their evidence is that they have some pretty rough estimates for the zeroth order. The evidence for their confidence of the first order is extremely weak. And the narrative that CO2 matters is only meaningful if they have a good estimate of the first order.

beej71 4y ago

What you really have to come up with is what's causing it. That's how to destroy the CO2 narrative. Otherwise, CO2 it is.