I think you can definitely make an argument on multiple levels like that. Not "it's not warming, but the fact that it's warming is good", but rather "it's not warming, but *even if* it *were* warming, that *would* be good".
I'm not saying it's necessarily a sound argument, but it is a valid one.
Just about kept up with Tom’s explanations…. Good to know the modelling has held up pretty well. Am I in a minority thinking media outlets should apply similar rigour with climate change activists as they now do with the deniers? The apocalyptic cries of billions will die, our children’s future is doomed etc just cause most people to give up even trying to engage with climate science. Anyway, thanks for another enjoyable episode!
Thanks for another interesting episode, although you partly fell into the trap of a "skeptic's skeptic", like at the beginnig mocking the claim that CO2 is "plant food", and then making the very same claim yourself later (it was Tom, I think).
I also think you dismissed the GWPF too lightly. The name of the think tank is Global Warming Policy Foundation, not Climate Science Denial Foundation. Its' work is mostly about how not to waste taxpayers' money on ineffective climate solutions. You should also name the people you criticize, so they could respond.
Anyway, your discussion about models was on point and strengthened the lukewarmer position that climate change is a problem and shuld be dealt with, without panic. The new consensus on nuclear power shows that reasonable people can agree on policies even if their understanding of the danger of warming differs somewhat.
Please give us a follow-up episode in a year's time to discuss the global temperature situation. There is a very interesting experiment going on, thanks to the Hunga Tonga eruption that you briefly mentioned: the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere was increased by maybe over 10%, and this was predicted (!) to raise temperatures for a couple of years. Now we are in the second year post-eruption, and the first part of the prediction (!) has come true.
Interesting and entertaining as always. I have three questions about climate change which I never see the answer to, perhaps you can help
1) How does an 'average' temperature get measured given the huge temperature variations across geography, seasons, even daily. 1.5C is noise level change compared even to the daily range in most places, let alone seasonal. Given the vast number of possible measurement methods one way sceptics have of challenging the conclusion is to choose a different measurement method that gives a different result. How settled is the methodology and how much variation would different methodologies give?
2) How does a 1.5C average net out when we see the examples of wild fires, etc in many places due to extreme high temperatures (40, 50C etc in places). Presumably these are (partially)netted off against unusually low extremes elsewhere?
3) and why is it axiomatic that 1.5 net increase is a Bad Thing? Would a 1.5C net decrease also be a bad thing? Given other long term variations in climate, such as the 'Little Ice Ages' and effects due to volcanic eruptions, do we know that anthropogenic climate change is going to have a bigger impact?
It's funny, listening to Stuart talk about arguing with Creationists remind me back in my early college years I spent a lot of time arguing with Creationists. I haven't thought about it recently. Though, it became highly salient because I'm from the county where the "Dover Panda Trial" originated (fortunately not my school district). It was both a local and national story and felt dramatic and important. The court decision did seem to end the attempt to sneak creationism into schools under the guise of intelligent design. Where I was at the time, not being a creationist put you in the minority. I was about to say I don't remember it coming up recently, then I remembered I have relatives in coworkers who visited the ark experience and creation museum in Kentucky. I guess I just got used to it.
I think you can definitely make an argument on multiple levels like that. Not "it's not warming, but the fact that it's warming is good", but rather "it's not warming, but *even if* it *were* warming, that *would* be good".
I'm not saying it's necessarily a sound argument, but it is a valid one.
Just about kept up with Tom’s explanations…. Good to know the modelling has held up pretty well. Am I in a minority thinking media outlets should apply similar rigour with climate change activists as they now do with the deniers? The apocalyptic cries of billions will die, our children’s future is doomed etc just cause most people to give up even trying to engage with climate science. Anyway, thanks for another enjoyable episode!
Thanks for another interesting episode, although you partly fell into the trap of a "skeptic's skeptic", like at the beginnig mocking the claim that CO2 is "plant food", and then making the very same claim yourself later (it was Tom, I think).
I also think you dismissed the GWPF too lightly. The name of the think tank is Global Warming Policy Foundation, not Climate Science Denial Foundation. Its' work is mostly about how not to waste taxpayers' money on ineffective climate solutions. You should also name the people you criticize, so they could respond.
Anyway, your discussion about models was on point and strengthened the lukewarmer position that climate change is a problem and shuld be dealt with, without panic. The new consensus on nuclear power shows that reasonable people can agree on policies even if their understanding of the danger of warming differs somewhat.
Please give us a follow-up episode in a year's time to discuss the global temperature situation. There is a very interesting experiment going on, thanks to the Hunga Tonga eruption that you briefly mentioned: the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere was increased by maybe over 10%, and this was predicted (!) to raise temperatures for a couple of years. Now we are in the second year post-eruption, and the first part of the prediction (!) has come true.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2#:~:text=This%20large%20water%20vapour%20perturbation,C%20over%20the%20coming%20decade
Keep up the good work and let the numbers do the talking.
Interesting and entertaining as always. I have three questions about climate change which I never see the answer to, perhaps you can help
1) How does an 'average' temperature get measured given the huge temperature variations across geography, seasons, even daily. 1.5C is noise level change compared even to the daily range in most places, let alone seasonal. Given the vast number of possible measurement methods one way sceptics have of challenging the conclusion is to choose a different measurement method that gives a different result. How settled is the methodology and how much variation would different methodologies give?
2) How does a 1.5C average net out when we see the examples of wild fires, etc in many places due to extreme high temperatures (40, 50C etc in places). Presumably these are (partially)netted off against unusually low extremes elsewhere?
3) and why is it axiomatic that 1.5 net increase is a Bad Thing? Would a 1.5C net decrease also be a bad thing? Given other long term variations in climate, such as the 'Little Ice Ages' and effects due to volcanic eruptions, do we know that anthropogenic climate change is going to have a bigger impact?
It's funny, listening to Stuart talk about arguing with Creationists remind me back in my early college years I spent a lot of time arguing with Creationists. I haven't thought about it recently. Though, it became highly salient because I'm from the county where the "Dover Panda Trial" originated (fortunately not my school district). It was both a local and national story and felt dramatic and important. The court decision did seem to end the attempt to sneak creationism into schools under the guise of intelligent design. Where I was at the time, not being a creationist put you in the minority. I was about to say I don't remember it coming up recently, then I remembered I have relatives in coworkers who visited the ark experience and creation museum in Kentucky. I guess I just got used to it.