This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/collapse by /u/TuneGlum7903 on 2024-08-22 19:07:16+00:00.
"In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/ PARR-ə-dyme) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitute legitimate contributions to a field." - Wikipedia
How we SEE the Climate System and think about it is a paradigm. That paradigm is "mainstream climate science".
This paradigm didn't come "from nowhere". It has a history.
IT is NOT the ONLY way to look at the Climate System.
But, "right now" it is the dominant paradigm in the field of Climate Science. People like Zeke Hausfather, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt at GISS proselytize and vigorously "defend the paradigm".
Not agreeing with the mainstream paradigm makes you a "Denier", an "Alarmist", or just plain "crazy".
Do you have ANY idea what the main points of the "mainstream" or "Moderate" (because it's between the Deniers and Alarmists) Climate Paradigm are?
Do you have ANY idea why this paradigm became the dominant viewpoint in Climate Science and what evidence supports it?
The Climate Paradigm of the Moderates is built on VERY weak foundations.
051 - Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our Climate Paradigm. In order to understand “Why” things are happening “FASTER than Expected”. (11/05/23)
Zeke Hausfather wrote this on October 13th 2023 for the NYT.
I Study Climate Change. The Data Is Telling Us Something New.
“While many experts have been cautious about acknowledging it, there is increasing evidence that global warming has accelerated over the past 15 years rather than continued at a gradual, steady pace. That acceleration means that the effects of climate change we are already seeing — extreme heat waves, wildfires, rainfall and sea level rise — will only grow more severe in the coming years.”
“I don’t make this claim lightly. Among my colleagues in climate science, there are sharp divisions on this question, and some aren’t convinced it’s happening.”
“Climate scientists generally focus on longer-term changes over decades rather than year-to-year variability, and some of my peers in the field have expressed concerns about over interpreting short-term events like the extremes we’ve seen this year.”
“In the past I doubted acceleration was happening, in part because of a long debate about whether global warming had paused from 1998 to 2012. In hindsight, that was clearly not the case.”
THE “DEBATE” IS OVER.
It’s a signal that the “Climate Paradigm” of the Moderates is “broken”.
It’s a signal that “The Alarmists”, are right.
Global Warming is Accelerating. Why? Will We Fly Blind?”
The world is getting hotter faster, say Dr. James Hansen and his team. Sept 2023
ALLIGATORS IN THE ARCTIC
The narrative explaining the “hole in the heart” of our current Climate Paradigm starts with paleontology.
During the 90’s, paleontologists exploring the High Arctic (above 60N) found fossils of alligators and palm trees in Alaska. These fossils are clustered between 55–53mya in a period known as the PETM or “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum”.
55 million years ago, during the PETM, the High Arctic was a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74F degrees. Alligator ancestors and palm trees lived in Alaska on the shores of an Arctic Ocean, that NEVER froze. Even in Winter.
How giant tortoises, alligators thrived in High Arctic 50 million years ago.
— Science News Aug, 2010
During the Early Eocene, Ellesmere Island, which is adjacent to Northern Greenland, probably was similar to swampy cypress forests in the southeastern United States today. Eocene fossil evidence collected there in recent decades by various teams indicate the lush landscape hosted giant tortoises, aquatic turtles, large snakes, alligators, flying lemurs, tapirs, and hippo-like and rhino-like mammals.
These are “indisputable” FACTS.
This is a HUGE problem for the current Climate Paradigm. Because there is NO WAY to explain it using the current Climate Models.
“Climate Science” has known about this “problem” since 1998.
Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943–5971, MARCH 27, 1998 by David Rind NASA\GISS
Here’s WHY this is a problem for the current Climate Science “orthodoxy”.
In order for these fossils to exist, the High Arctic would have to have been about +35C warmer than our 1850 baseline.
How HOT does the Earth have to get, in order to warm up the Arctic by +35C?
How is that even possible?
In 1998, this was regarded as a “life or death” question. The VERY first sentence of this paper asks.
“How variable is the latitudinal temperature gradient with climate change?”
Then goes on to tell us that;
“This question is second in importance only to the question of overall climate sensitivity”
“Our current inability to answer it affects everything from understanding past climate variations, and paleoclimate proxies, to projections of regional effects of future greenhouse warming [Rind, 1995].”
WE ALL NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.
This paper is the “smoking gun” evidence that our current understanding of the Climate System is “deeply flawed” and “morally corrupt”. This paper is at the heart of “the lie” in our current Climate Paradigm.
Because, it’s REALLY about “Climate Sensitivity”.
It’s really, about how much we think the Earth will warm up if we DOUBLE the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The “science” of CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is a LOT less certain than most people understand.
Here’s what our best models indicated as of September 2020.
+2.3–+4.5C — 95%
+2.6–+3.9C — 66%
+2.0–+5.7C — 05%
An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence
Which states: that at atmospheric CO2 levels of 560ppm, there is a;
- 95% chance that the GMT will increase at least +2.3C and possibly as much as +4.5C (Split the difference)
- 66% chance that the GMT increase will be between +2.6C and +3.9C (Moderates)
- 05% chance that the GMT could increase as much as +5.7C. (Alarmists)
This is the range of answers after 60 YEARS of effort at modeling the future “near term” climate.
Narrowing the “most likely” response down to a 66% chance that it will be between +2.6C and +3.9C JUST happened in 2020. It was hailed as a HUGE advance.
“Constraining Earth’s Climate Sensitivity (ECS) has remained a holy grail in climate science ever since U.S. meteorologist Jules Charney suggested a possible range of 1.5C to 4.5C in his 1979 report.”
“His estimate was largely based on the world’s first two global climate models, which gave different estimates of +1.8°C to +3°C (Moderate) and +4°C to +6°C (Alarmist) when they performed a simple experiment where atmospheric CO2 levels were doubled”.
“Since then, despite more than 40 years of research, much improved understanding of atmospheric processes, as well as many more detailed observations, this range has stubbornly persisted”.
‘Now, bringing together evidence from observed warming, Earth’s distant past and climate models, as well as advances in our scientific understanding of the climate. After four years of labor and detailed discussions by an international team of scientists, we are able to quantify better than ever before how the world’s surface temperature responds to increasing CO2 levels”.
“Our findings suggest that the range of ECS is “likely” (66%) to be between +2.6C and +4.1C.”
Why low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out.
FYI- They mean we can FINALLY toss out the +1.8°C to +2.2°C "lowball" guesses.
Only ONE of these answers implies a “Climate Sensitivity” to CO2 that’s HIGH enough to account for the PETM fossils.
It’s not in the “likely” range.
The Moderates got Climate Sensitivity WRONG in 1979.
When they couldn't account for the PETM fossils they "doubled down" in 1998 and chose a value of "less than double" for Arctic Amplification.
The two MOST IMPORTANT values in the Climate System are "off" in our models.
THERE IS ABOUT TO BE A PARADIGM SHIFT IN CLIMATE SCIENCE.
It's not going to be "good news".