Good grief, is Trump going to destroy the climate?

[Junglebell]

Just been scrolling and came across this.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1854482837350555810

Is Trump for real? Surely someone needs to tell him that every scientist agrees that manmade CO2 controls the climate/

The El Niño switched off in the spring. In theory we should be in an El Niña.

Whatever the weather, it shouldn't be this warm and this dry for this long at this time of year.

Based on what metric?

Sorry to disappoint you, but you shouldn't believe all you hear on blogs.

To quote the actual IPCC:

The frequency of these unprecedented extreme events will rise with increasing global warming. Additionally, the combined occurrence of multiple unprecedented extremes may result in large and unprecedented impacts. Human-induced climate change has already affected many aspects of the climate system.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/

evidence strengthens the conclusion from the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) that even relatively small incremental increases in global warming (+0.5°C) cause statistically significant changes in extremes on the global scale and for large regions (high confidence). In particular, this is the case for temperature extremes (very likely ), the intensification of heavy precipitation (high confidence) including that associated with tropical cyclones (medium confidence), and the worsening of droughts in some regions (high confidence)

Temperature of the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

I know how ENSO cycles work! But there is absolutely no definitive link to our weather - only theoretical ones (which would, even then only be based on averages, from which the actual weather at any given time would be free to deviate). Weather is incredibly complex - it is why it is so difficult to forecast accurately, even within 24 hours (other than during the current period of incessant gloom!).

You are linking to an IPCC executive summary - that is not the same as the actual science that constitutes the main body of the IPCC reports. This is the starting point of the propaganda and misinformation - there is a political agenda at play here.

"No, I don't necessarily think that. I think that organisations are made up of ordinary people who don't necessarily join up all the pieces of a complicated jigsaw. Paradigms work in insidious ways. "

So now you're saying that people who work for NASA are mistaken, don't have a good grasp of the science, and that NASA has allowed them to publish inaccurate, fear mongering and misleading statements on climate change on their website?

@StuffandFluff

As someone who's not an expert in this field you've worked really hard on this thread to discredit the view that there's any sort of meaningful consensus about the risks of global warming. Including explaining why NASA has got it wrong.

Haha - you're right! I am probably being far too generous. They must be doing it deliberately - not a surprise, given that they are dependent for their very being on billions of dollars of state funding!

I can't work out whether this is a complement or not!

@StuffandFluff

"Actually, the scientist Steven Koonin is worth a look at."

This guy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/StevenE.Koonin

Worked with the Trump administration in 2019 on a plan to recruit other sceptic scientists to "conduct an "adversarial" review of the scientific consensus on climate change"

The book you mention was criticised for " cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of climate change, and having no experience in climate science.[30]
In a review in Scientific American, economist Gary Yohe wrote that Koonin "falsely suggest[s] that we don't understand the risks well enough to take action":

I see your agenda @StuffandFluff

https://podcast.app/climate-change-denial-part-1-science-friction-e350820230/?utmsource=ios&utmm_medium=share

There's a second part to this podcast.

Really recommend this exploration of the history of climate change scepticism and the strategies and motivations of those keen to persuade everyone else that climate change isn't a meaningful threat to the wellbeing of humanity.

I probably should have my post in two parts, the first to a previous poster suggesting that Americans had dismissed the recent Florida hurricane as a result of El Niño; which is over a while back.

The second is an observation on the current weather in the UK.

I also quite like the term "whatever the weather". It's reminds me of primary school.

There was no intention to link the two.

The thing is, your position is simply the standard narrative - which people like me have moved away from for good, solid intellectual reasons. And I don't need to listen to any podcast to gain an insight into my own personal intellectual journey, or to understand my motives. I particularly do not want to waste any more time listening to something with 'climate change denial' in the title. As I have explained upthread - I am not denying climate change - that would be a ridiculous position to adopt. I am objecting to the accuracy of modelled projections - the inaccuracy of which is proven by their repeated failures to accurately predict! I am also (which you would know if you had taken the time to read my previous very long post) fundamentally opposed to the socioeconomic lunacy of attempts to achieve the unachievable 'Net Zero' in the coming decades (given the fact that, according to the models you hold in such high esteem, reducing manmade CO2 output to zero tomorrow would not impact on temperature rises that are already baked in). In reality, even if the West could achieve net zero (which it cannot, within our lifetimes) - this would be irrelevant as the total global dependence on fossil fuels is currently increasing, regardless!

There isn't a single person on the planet who has the capacity to read, digest and assimilate all the data the IPCC reports are based on.

At least I took the time to read the ES, and knew where to look. I don't see yourself quoting much more than personal opinion.

Its too late, whether you believe in man made climate change or not, its all past that now...

There is zero sign anyone in any govt or business takes it seriously, its about growth and making money.

China doesn't make the worlds Solar panels etc etc because it wants to save the world, anymore than Musk makes Teslas to do the same.

Take a look at the latest DHL advert... if people were really serious, Coldplay would do studio recording only.

Well, not exactly true! But you are not far off - in that most individuals would not have the time to wade through and digest it all. That is precisely the point - that is how it the paradigm perpetuates. you really would benefit from reading Steven Koonin's book "Unsettled? What climate science tells us, what it doesn't and why it matters". Absolutely all of his illustrative facts are drawn directly from the main body of the IPCC reports. He was part of a group of scientists tasked to look over and appraise the scientific position. You are right, it was an incredible amount of material to assimilate - and took months to complete. But it changed this scientific expert's opinion about the actual evidence and he was genuinely shocked by the degree to which it deviated from the political messaging.

@Texanholdem you know it's the same physics and the same computers that are used to predict that planes will fly, buildings remain upright, cars drive in a straight line etc?

Yes - and they are all infinitely less complex than the global climatic system. And the physics underpinning them is completely understood - unlike the physics (fluid mechanics etc) of the atmosphere. So many variables in the climatic system have to be crudely represented and simply cannot be modelled at the scale required to accurately predict what will happen to the track of a storm hours in advance, let alone an ever-changing world climate!

@StuffandFluff I specifically and deliberately quoted examples that use fluid mechanics and multi-physics.

The physics of these machines/structures is perfectly understood - that is why they work! The physics of the climate is not! Are you seriously equating the specific and deliberately quoted examples that you quoted to the climate? Really?

The physics is the same.

The way that the components interact is not understood. And that is before we even consider the question of astrophysics!