As usual, the science does NOT seem settled, but the news is always bad.
Two things we always get hammered about regarding global war–…that is, Climate Change; there is a scientific consensus on the matter, and we have to rely on the data. Yet, if one were to point out contradictory scientific data, and note how many scientific experts are in conflict with the media narrative it simply means you are a flat-earth hysteric who hates science.
Well, a new climate study has been released, and in it the scientifical scienticians who can science better than you and me came to a conclusion — we may need more aerosols and other greenhouse gases to help the planet. Or, maybe not. It is all rather fluid, it seems, with the settled science behind this research
In the new paper, with the reader-friendly title of, ‘’Ensembles of Global Climate Model Variants Designed for the Quantification and Constraint of Uncertainty in Aerosols and Their Radiative Forcing’’ we get served some rather curious analysis. In the opening of the Abstract to this paper, one becomes struck by the admission — they just are not sure. They use the term ‘’Uncertainty’’ so frequently in the opening paragraph that nobody should be able to say ‘’Settled’’ any more without chortling.
Tropospheric aerosol radiative forcing has persisted for many years as one of the major causes of uncertainty in global climate model simulations. To sample the range of plausible aerosol and atmospheric states and perform robust statistical analyses of the radiative forcing, it is important to account for the combined effects of many sources of model uncertainty.
To explain what is being said here, the ‘’Tropospheric aerosol radiative forcing’’ is an overly complex way of saying that the greenhouse gasses currently in the atmosphere are actually reflecting sunlight and are contributing to reducing the harmful heating effect.
You have to be at least a little bit surprised to read this. They repeatedly mention ‘’uncertainty’’ in the climate modeling, despite the constant barrage of talk we are served that the science is settled, and we have to move forward to radical solutions. Yet, here we are told models are completely uncertain, and that they may have discovered that the reflective effects by aerosols are actually beneficial.
Huh. So does this mean that we might actually be depending on the supposedly toxic gases to help our condition down here on terra firma? It seems to be the case. Climate alarmist Eric Holthaus explains things further. Understand, this does not mean he clarifies things;
This is a pretty important result:
Aerosols (tiny specks of dust, smoke, salt, and organic molecules) have a net cooling effect on the planet. Without them, global warming would be magnified. This paper finds that their effect might be about 40% stronger than we thought. https://t.co/74b5wqYfFO— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) January 7, 2020
So…those once demonized aerosols are now considered helpful to our atmospheric state, if not outright needed.
Great news, right?! Wrong!
If we are going to rapidly reduce emissions in the next decade, which we will, that means we'll be producing less smoke and air pollution from burning fossil fuels. We'll clear the air of lots of aerosols. That will happen very quickly.
— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) January 7, 2020
We need to clean our emissions because it causes warming, and doing so will clear away aerosols which protect us from warming. As usual, no matter what takes place environmentally, we are in a no-win scenario — but we are fully to blame, of course. I cover this type of contradictory data-point summation in my annual Earth Day piece, where I collected numerous modeling and predictions that were contradicting themselves.
One issue involves clouds. The climate experts say that climate change will affect clouds, they just cannot seem to agree on how. The experts declare that increased sunlight will cause clouds to dissipate. Other experts say the warming of the planet will create more water vapor, leading to more clouds. The experts also debate the effects of clouds — more clouds will trap the heat and warm us further, or they will block the sun and cool us, or the lack of clouds will allow more sunlight and heat, or the lack of clouds will allow heat to vent through the atmosphere.
Yet we are told to listen to the exxperts. Despite this very unsettled but scientific reality one thing we can count on — the consensus is always bad news. Holthaus underscored this reality perfectly in two additional tweets. He displays the blatant paradox in the research, but is hysterical in his call that something MUST be done.
This is the catch-22 of our climate emergency: Continued near-term warming is inevitable, either through continuing to burn fossil fuels, or by unleashing the aerosol effect via rapid emissions reductions.
I wrote about this awhile back:https://t.co/gqjdedi8Mp
— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) January 7, 2020
Pollution is causing warming, and removing pollution is causing warming. For once I believe that I can use the phrase ”I can’t even…’’, because I am dismayed as to what the solution can possibly be for this unsettled scientific conclusion.
But it's increasingly clear that there is no way around the mess that continued unrestrained capitalism has caused.
Every year we wait to take bold action makes the problem exponentially worse.
We are in a climate emergency, and we must act as though our lives depend on it.
— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) January 7, 2020
”We must act’’, all the while being completely unable to formulate a cogent solution to the problem. I now understand better than ever why politicians love the climate hysteria so much.
