Temperature not freaking everyone out?

[JKDcot]

Meant to be 23/24 degrees in London next week? Not usual for early October… anyone else think it’s bonkers that climate change so obvious and still nothing being done my government and corporates

Bogwood

A quick check of Koonin. He’s not a climate expert, was employed by (and may still earn money from) the oil industry. See quote below for one extract from Wikipedia;

“Critics of Koonin's book Unsettled accused him of cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of climate change, and having no experience in climate science.”

There is an overwhelming majority of actual climate experts and so much data that shows, beyond a doubt, the the rapid and extreme climate change we are experiencing is caused by our actions. Using h many different models and based on the work of hundreds of scientist over decades, we know this. We ignore them at our own peril.

itsmyp4rty

Why compare us to China? Why not compare us to the hundreds of countries with much lower emissions that are getting the first and worst effects of climate change. Pakistan as one example.

And, If we are setting out to compare ourselves to China, and take their lead, then why just in this respect? Let’s lower our human rights. Let’s treat our workers worse than we do. Why are we not looking to them for our lead in those areas? It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom if we have any self respect as a nation. we should aim high.

China are also investing heavily in renewables and we are falling behind in that race where we could be global leaders. Its a massive and growing industry.

Saying ‘what about’ is illogical. ‘ Bert down the road beats his wife with a massive stick and I only beat mine with a wooden spoon. Why should I stop, when he’s still doing that?’ Answer: because what you are doing is wrong. - We should do the right thing, even when it’s hard. Climate chaos will disproportionately affect brown skinned people, already living in comparative poverty. By saying we don’t need to do anything because we only contribute x amount to the problem is akin to several people stabbing someone to death, and one of the defendants saying ‘but they all used massive knives, I only used this pen knife’. Doesn’t make sense.

We are contributing to the problem. We have the means to stop contributing to the problem. And that’s the right (but harder) thing to do.

Many of us could make massive reductions in our personal carbon footprint. All of us can write to our MPs and sign petitions. Lots of us can get out there and protest. There is stuff we can do.

The UK will be effected dramatically too, so it’s in our best interests. It’s way past the time for debate.

Quick checks are really not the way to do due diligence! Define a climate scientist! Koonin's scientific credentials are fantastic! Steve Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under the Obama administration. He has more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology & policy and climate science. He was the professor of theoretical physics at Caltech, where he was also vice president. He is currently a professor at New York University. He clearly ticks the boxes of eminent scientist and academic - he does not dispute the underlying physics of anthropogenic global warming (most climate sceptics don't) - however, he does dispute the way that the science that feeds into the IPCC reports is subsequently misrepresented by mainstream media and politicians. He disputes that we are in a climate emergency - he sees a huge disparity between the actual data and the way that the data is misrepresented in subsequent summary documents and media headlines (I have read his book, and most of the material is drawn directly from IPCC published material - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/B0948CBSY6/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=unsettled&qid=1690956367&sr=8-1
The negative review that you reference has been thoroughly debunked - yet it strangely still appears at the top of the Google searches on Koonin! You clearly haven't even had time to watch the video I posted. I have taken the time to read his recent book - he takes all of his evidence directly from the 'settled science' of IPCC data.

As for the negative criticism of his book, he challenges one of the listed authors (Andrew Dessler) directly at the end of a recorded debate with him -  - this fellow academic initially denies having contributed to the piece that was published in Scientific American, until he is shown a slide with his name on it as a contributing author! Koonin is clearly, and understandably, very angry - he says:
"Inexplicably, the criticisms were based upon a review of the book, not what I’d actually written. They criticised 3 points I was alleged to have made. For example, they said I portrayed sea level rises as steady over time, when the entirety of ‘Unsettled;’ Chapter 8, if you've read it, is devoted to variations over the past century. Since Scientific American refused to publish a detailed rebuttal, I posted one on my 'Medium' page and it is worth checking out. But the great bulk of the 1000 words from those dozen ‘distinguished’ scientists were devoted to ad hominem attacks - for example, I was called a crank who is taken seriously only by far right disinformation peddlers, hungry for anything they can use to score some political points…really, Andy…you really think I am a crank, you really believe that? It is unfortunately typical of public discussions of climate and energy, when senior academics engage in name-calling they debase themselves and deny the public any real expertise that they have. It is the kind of thing people do when the facts aren't on their side…”
And that conveys a microcosm of the reality of what has been happening with the manipulation of the scientific debate - despite that negative review being challenged and clearly discredited by Koonin, it remains very easy for the public to find (as you did), who then take it at face value, believing it to be a credible source - unlikely to scratch beneath the surface!

Anyway, as Koonin explains in another interview, he is aware of the individual scientific criticisms and believes that he has effectively countered each of them - he has his own webpage called 'Medium', which I eventually managed to find, where he does publish rebuttals of criticisms, including the Scientific American one - https://steven-koonin.medium.com/  It is notable that when you Google 'Steven Koonin', the top result is that Scientific American negative review...but you have to hunt hard to find Steven Koonin actual page, in which he clearly discredits the Scientific American piece...funny that, almost as though Google is deliberately manipulating the information that you get to read!

In the covid pandemic we had a lot of eminent accomplished scientists (and data analysts) stepping out of their lane, billing themselves as experts in another science area, and then coming up with crazy conclusions about epidemic control because they completely didn't understand infectious disease epidemiology at all.

Would you trust your car mechanic to do orthopaedic surgery? They are both disciplines that require great expertise on mechanical repair. How different could they be? Is how they operate.

Is how I look at people like Koonin (and plenty others).

I am afraid that you cannot view climate as a standalone discipline in the same way - it is simply far too complex. Understanding the climate requires a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates physics, astrophysics, chemistry, biology, geology and importantly computer science (projections are completely dependent on hugely inadequate computer modelling). Koonin is definitely worth listening to as a scientist who has spent a lot of time getting to grips with the published material that feeds into the IPCC material - probably very few individual climate scientists have this level of understanding...the scientific research is necessarily atomised - dealing with a huge number of individual areas that connect to the overall oceanic-atmospheric system (which in turn is not a closed system, but rather operates within and interacts with the wider solar/cosmic environment).
Dr Judith Curry is a climate scientist and provides a good overview of these complexities....and the lack of meaningful consensus in the principal areas of scientific understanding. She has given plenty of detailed online interviews (eg ) - some more detailed than others. It is probably best, if you are genuinely interested in gaining a level of knowledge (beyond the inaccurate, simplistic screaming climate emergency headlines) to read her recent publication - it is excellent - called 'Climate Uncertainty and Risk' - published this year.

@Bogwood I'm interested in your posts. I'm going to listen to the interviews you linked as really can't find the motivation for cleaning and I feel this would be a better use of my time.

@Fallenangelofthenorth How refreshing to have an open minded response! I come from an environmentalist background (before 'green' was fashionable). I had major questions about aspects of the science and the feedback loops when I was at university back in the early 1990s. I remain an absolutely passionate environmentalist - but I think the anthropogenic global warming agenda is controlling the green narrative to an unhelpful degree. Take the quest for 'net zero' - it simply cannot happen on the current trajectory - given issues such as the inadequate electricity distribution infrastructure for low density renewable energy production. Another major obstacle will be the lack of supply of raw materials such as copper, graphite, lithium, cobalt and rare earth metals. These are simply not being mined (and there are not the plans to mine them) in the necessary quantities to meet stated ambitions for electric vehicles and their associated batteries. Where they are being mined and processed, there is a great risk of environmental damage and poor labour conditions (most of the mining takes place in Africa and Asia - most of the refining in China). Ironically, EVs are not 'carbon neutral' when the carbon footprint of their production is taken into account - indeed, some larger vehicles may actually never 'pay back' their carbon footprint. So, even if you buy into the current climate alarmist narrative, the goals of 'net zero' simply cannot be fulfilled by the stated policy aims - we will just impoverish ourselves in our panic (and make society less resilient to the sort of extreme weather events that always have and will continue to be an issue!).
WIth respect to the unintelligent way that society is pursuing 'net zero', Mark P. Mills has carried out a great deal of detailed work, scrutinising how realistic such policies are - for example, he examines the shortcomings of the ostensible energy transition in this interview...

Mark Mills is associated with the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank with a long history of rejecting any government involvement in markets. This has left the group with a reflexive loathing of any attempts to address global warming.

Just like anyone suggesting UPF isn’t bad for us seems to be linked to producers of said products, do too do climate change deniers seem to always be linked somehow to the oil industry. Oil industry has spent millions on undermining the science.

Im going to believe the scientific consensus, rather than a random on a forum and a couple of outliers in the scientific community who have dubious credentials and links to the industries with the most to lose if we reduce fossil fuel consumption. These people don’t have our best I tetsts at heart.

Interests

Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere, despite having published research confirming anthropogenic effects on climate.[3]

I think it's reasonable to ask questions given the nett zero targets that will affect us all. I'm happy to listen to all voices on this subject. And even happier to waste my Sunday afternoon eating a giant galaxy laying on my sofa.

Curry’s own site states her funding has partially come from energy companies;

“CFAN contracts with private sector and other non-governmental organizations include energy and power companies,”

Fallenangelofthenorth

OMG! So fancy a chunk of that galaxy bar!!

Wanna add this to what you read?

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/stories/climate-action/amp-index.html

A period of warm weather in mid October used to be called St Luke's Little Summer because the saint's feast day falls on October 18 - and it's been called that for centuries. Not just the last 10 years.

Its has been known that we get a hot well or two in October I remember a good few years ago Oct half term was warm so no not freaked out.

@Andnowtowhatcomesnext You should listen to the substance of what is being said...the trouble is that you are confusing science with politics. I am left-leaning politically, but hold a position on some aspects of climate science that means I risk being labelled as right wing. That is dangerous, silly nonsense! We should be free to scrutinise the science - political affiliations should be irrelevant. Professor Koonin served under the Obama administration and so doesn't fit into the standard socio-political narrative...but this really should not be a factor when discussing the actual science.
I would be interested if you had a position that challenged the actual objective information being presented by any of the eminent scientists that I have referenced (Mills, Koonin, Curry) - but I am not interested in you trying to discredit through attacking them on ideological grounds.
You talk about the scientific consensus - both Koonin and Curry detail what that consensus consists of. Koonin draws his information precisely from the 'scientific consensus' in the form of evidence published by the IPCC. Curry makes it clear exactly what the areas of scientific agreement are - and there are absolutely fundamental differences of opinion on key areas of understanding with respect to the climate system. There are also huge variations in computer generated modelling - giving greater levels of variation in output than the temperature changes that they have attempted to describe over the past hundred years!

Bogwood you are cherry picking data that confirms your view. That’s unscientific. understandable, given the enormity of the problem, but not helpful.

There have been so many MASSIVE reviews of the data, over decades, using multiple models in different countries. Peer reviewed, solid science. You are only linking to outliers. The tiny proportion of scientists, often with industry links. It’s so arrogant to think that you know better than the global scientific community.

I’m sure there are some nuggets of truth or wisdom in what you say and the people you quote, but with a risk assessment you ask two main questions:

• how likely is it?
• how bad would the consequences be

The current scientific consensus is that climate catastrophe is highly likely without significant change (and is happening more quickly and with more severity than at first modelled) and that the outcomes are catastrophic (as is already happening across the world - drought, crop failures, wild fires, floods, apocalyptic storms. Leading to food shortages, mass migration, social instability and war).

I say if the worlds leading experts all agree the above - based on decades of work, better safe than sorry. It’s too late to avoid it, but we can still mitigate the worst of it.

Bogwood

Not attacking on ideological grounds. Climate breakdown is an humanitarian issue. I don’t see it as left versus right. I’d vote outside of my usual political leanings if a party had strong climate policy.

My point is that I’m not an expert so I can’t challenge the minutiae. None of us can understand the whole picture. Even someone who has studied climate science for decades won’t have the full picture as one person, with one brain. Therefore, I am going to listen to the consensus of the majority of experts globally, the massive reviews, rather than the minority who won’t have the full picture and will be biased by their links to the industry. It’s just good sense.

Given the risk assessment mentioned above, it seems sensible and wise to err on the side of caution to me - rather than cling to the narrative of a minority with poor credentials- even if it gives some comfort.

I'm heading towards being 50, and remember being in my early 20's and it being at least 25c in a dress.

I remember as it's my mums birthday on the 23rd October. Also, we've had a bad summer so milder autumns tend it follow. It's not even 22c today. They say it is on the weather, it's probably 19c at most and im in the south. The mornings and evenings are cold.

It’s not unusual we always have a weeks holiday late sept when the kids are back at home and the weather is often beautiful

@Andnowtowhatcomesnext
How about addressing the millions (if not billions) of pounds that are being made available in pursuit of net zero - both through industrial subsidies, the provision of renewable energy infrstructure and, crucially (in terms of the type of scientific analysis encouraged) in the form of academic grants for the right sort of research projects! Legislative frameworks are being created that are forcing industrial changes - ultimately this is going to be massively inflationary. this is not a zero sum game.

The world's leading experts don't agree. You need to dig behind the headlines! Where are you getting your information from about scientific consensus? Even the computer modelled projections don't agree. The only agreement is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that its increase will produce some warming - there is no consensus with respect to the amount of warming that it produces, relative to other causes of warming. I don't believe that you have taken the time to listen to the positions of any of the scientists that I have linked to. Fair enough! But that doesn't put you in a strong position when it comes to criticising their positions. They are not challenging the scientific consensus per se - they are saying that the public is not being given an accurate representation of the objective scientific understanding of climate change.

With respect to Mills, his position is only to question - quite reasonably - the logistics of pursuing net zero within the current political, social and economic constraints. Do you have any sources that would counter his systematic assessment of how unrealistic the supposed energy transition is? Do you disagree with the evidence that he presents that demonstrates that the carbon footprint and environmental damage associated with mining the raw materials for EVs makes the end products far from the clean, carbon neutral panacea they are marketed as?

For context, I have no skin in the game - I walk everywhere, don't go on foreign holidays, grow my own veg, make do and mend etc...I hate the noise of combustion engines. I hate the throw away consumer culture of fast capitalism (crapitalism). I hate the pollution of rivers, pesticides that impact on pollinators and the general reduction of biodiversity. However, I am sick of the overly simplistic propaganda that leads the public to think that CO2 (a natural plant fertilizer) is the most pressing problem currently facing humanity - ironically, it may be our rush to achieve 'net zero' that constitutes far more of an existential threat than the 'problem' it purports to solve!

Completely agree and also with the OP.

People don’t want to know, because it’s an unpleasant fact staring them in the face.

Bogwood

As I’ve said, the arguments are of no interest to me. I’m not an expert in that field so can’t even begin to unpick it all and get my head around it. Of course there is not an absolute consensus. Science is always evolving. There is always debate. This is not an area I have a hope in hell of even partially understanding. So I don’t need to dig behind the headlines. Equally, I’m not going pay attention to three, likely biased, lone voices as it makes no difference to my understanding.

What I do know is that tax payers money HEAVILY subsidies the oil industry. The oil industry is a billion pound industry and has heavily invested, over the years in funding climate change sceptics to undermine the scientific consensus. Anyone with financial links to the oil industry loses any credibility in my eyes. I work in a different scientific area and I’ve seen first hand the bias caused by various funding streams.

I also know experts in climate science personally, who understand a lot more than I, who have sleepless nights worrying about the future for their kids. I trust them and know their expertise, so again, I’ll trust them rather than a random on a forum: no offence.

As I said, my view is that I’ll believe the consensus rather than the outliers.

@littleblackcat27 and @Knnniggets How do you think they work out global average temperatures? It is actually not an exact science! And all this nonsense about the hottest temperatures in human history. I thought the last interglacial (the Eemian) was supposed to have reached higher temperatures - and modern Homo sapiens were certainly in existence then. It is silly headlines like this that start to discredit our perception of 'the science'.