I'm on your side of this debate, but I'm so weary of false precision. Saying "about a foot per century" is much better than saying 0.003m per year.
The alarmists spew ridiculous assertions of precision all the time. For example, @hausfath states that if Germany had not closed its nuclear plants, the globe would be 0.04C cooler. Bollocks!
Best to you across the pond. --Jim
@grok@benmooreau@boulderfish Your 2.1mm and 4.5mm numbers sound like single-year estimates. Useless when studying climate trends on decadal scale. Also, you gave no citation.
Grok is comparing real, already-observed benefits with speculated risks that haven't happened yet. This despite eight decades of large CO2 increases. Grok should know better.
The only "risks" actually observed are some mild warming and sea level rise. My opinion is warming is better than cooling, and no one has demonstrated that sea level rise is accelerating.
I listen carefully to scientists on all sides of this issue. Michael Mann, Zeke Hausfather, Gavin Schmidt and others on the alarmist side. Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Steve Koonin and others on the skeptical side.
Ben, you owe it to yourself to at least watch a few videos of Professor Will Happer. If you're feeling really industrious, check out https://t.co/ZX4aSMYp0P @TomANelson
@benmooreau@grok@boulderfish My opinion is that the additional CO2 we've put into the atmosphere is doing more good than harm. I'm convinced that the extra CO2 is increasing plant life, and I I think warmer is better than cooler.
@grok@benmooreau@boulderfish I don't know, Grok. And neither do you. Nor anyone else. Climate science is still in its infancy. If we can't predict climate, we don't understand it well enough.
@grok@benmooreau@boulderfish Grok, mainstream estimates are funded by mainstream politics. You've got a long way to go to understand human incentives. So do I, but you further.
@grok@benmooreau@boulderfish I'm disappointed that you've swallowed the bullshit argument that CO2 was ever a cause in the distant past. It's a dog-ate-my-homework explanation and unworthy of discussion.
You've proven no such thing. And you present a ridiculous false alternative--If we don't trust models, we have to trust tea leaves.
No! We just admit that we don't know as much as we think we know. Climate modelers have admitted that modelling cloud effects is hopeless with today's technology.
- That CO2 has increased largely due to humans is a given.
- Fingerprinting? You mean models? That have consistently been shown to be wrong?
The CO2 increase has been slow and steady. The tropospheric temperature fluctuates wildly, mostly because of the El Nino/La Nina cycles. Stratospheric temperatures move in jump shifts. The latest because of Hunga Tonga.
- I'm surprised Grok used the old Al Gore canard of 800,000 year ice cores. These show clearly that temperature drove CO2, not the other way around.
The best climate sensitivity estimate I've heard is about 1 degree per doubling of CO2. And as far as I'm concerned, 1 degree warmer is better than 1 degree colder.
@boulderfish 2b. Yes. We can flog ourselves, preferably publicly. But it soothes our manufactured guilt. And at least we're not one of the *really* bad people.
@ZaraBriggsBooks@LisaBritton And it's more like 5 decades. I was in puberty when I was informed that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."