this is freshly out from behind the paywall, and I really encourage you folks to give it a look. One of the best reviews of Steve Koonin's book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. Koonin's book is one of the best book-length works on climate science, and the book's title is a direct allusion to the question of "settled science" raised earlier in this thread. I would really welcome and appreciate hearing thoughtful responses to this review Who Broke Climate Science? There is a complete disconnect between the reality of climate science and the authoritarian designs of many climate agitators. https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/who-broke-climate-science/
As my Abuelo once said to his 6 young children before a plane to south america Todos ustedes estan muertos para mí
You don’t need a paywall for this review. A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/?amp=true
Enjoy some history. Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global Warming? | Snopes.com A newspaper clipping from 1912 that anticipates the global warming potential of burning coal is authentic and consistent with the history of climate science. "The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries." This article’s authenticity is supported by the fact it can be found in the digital archives of the National Library of New Zealand. Further attesting to its authenticity (and perhaps its role as a bit of stock news used to fill space) is that an identical story had appeared in an Australian newspaper a month prior, in the 17 July 1912, issue of The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, as found in the digital archives of the National Library of Australia. An even deeper dive reveals that the text of this news item has its origins in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, where it appeared as a caption in an article titled “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate — What Scientists Predict for the Future”: Some online commenters expressed skepticism over the notion that such a clear understanding of the mechanisms relating to greenhouse gases existed in 1912, or that anyone back then would have suggested humans could play a role in altering their concentration. In fact, the timing of these news clips is consistent with the historical record. The first person to use the term “greenhouse gases” was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In a paper published that year, he made an early calculation of how much warmer the Earth was thanks to the energy-trapping nature of some of the gases in the atmosphere. Even at this early stage, he understood that humans had the potential to play a significant role in changing the concentration of at least one of those gases, carbon dioxide (carbonic acid back then): "The world’s present production of coal reaches in round numbers 500 millions of tons per annum, or 1 ton per km of earth’s surface. Transformed into carbonic acid, this quantity would correspond to about a thousandth part of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere." Though he didn’t explicitly say in that paper that human activity could warm the planet, Arrhenius would go on to make that argument in later works. A 2008 tribute to Arrhenius published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences stated that his ideas about coal and climate were popular and well known in his day but fell out of favor for a while after his death in 1927: "While Arrhenius’ prediction [of warming] received great public interest, this typically waned in time but was revived as an important global mechanism by the great atmospheric physicist Carl Gustaf Rossby who initiated atmospheric CO2 measurements in Sweden in the 1950s." In this sense, the content and date of the newspaper clips in question are consistent with both what was known to scientists about greenhouse gases then and what the general public was interested in at the time.
I find it odd asking for thoughtful response to a post that says "the authoritarian designs of many climate agitators".
That's a very fair point @Os Trigonum , how can you ask for people's thoughtful responses when the starting point is this? I don't even know what authoritarian designs around climate change are out there, and who these climate agitators are? Are you talking about Al Gore? Are you talking about the Paris Climate Agreement which was voluntary? Voluntary doesn't sound very authoritarian to me. It just feels like, and I feel this on many many issues, that there is this false boogey man that gets created that can be used to attack and win arguments. There's some kind of term for it.
history lesson https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/
No I mean it literally gave me a headache. I took a bad fall kiteboarding the other day and hit my head at high speed into the water. I really haven't been able to read anything more than a few paragraphs today.
Thanks but I did glance at it and saw a lot of things that made me spurious. His analysis of the models dividing the planet in 10 by 10 km cubes and saying the granularity doesn't account for local effects. That's pretty local but even then, the models have been highly accurate in their predictions so far. If what he was saying was true, that shouldn't be the case. And then there are things like saying 100 square km = 60 square miles. Stuff like that just makes me question whether he is qualified because that's not an error anyone with any semblance of math would make.
You might have already heard of Steven Koonin and his "Unsettled" book. A cool title that is a logical fallacy right off the bat. I think it probably was intentional. That link for the book review - it's mostly a bunch of complaints. Koonin doesn't complain and should be taken seriously but the review of his book at that link is a waste of time. There are plenty of much better sources about him and his book. Here are a few. https://kendaljourney.com/2021/11/07/the-complicated-climate-message-of-steven-koonin-and-unsettled/ https://steven-koonin.medium.com/re...londergans-critique-of-unsettled-bc9ecf395bd5 https://www.aei.org/economics/what-...te-change-my-long-read-qa-with-steven-koonin/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/a-critical-review-of-steven-koonins-unsettled/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/ many more... Sorry, know you can't read now, but ... it's climate science. Can't boil it down. But I will boil it down anyway. It falls into the uncertainty umbrella.
