in a bad adapted, December 16, 2024 at 11:57 am,
and Piotr, December 19, 2024 at 7:58 pm,
Dear Sirs,
Thanks to both of your comments.
First, I am not a scientist. It simply has some experience in chemistry and chemical technology and with respect to the science of the climate and the protection of the environment, consider me as a simple member of the public. I admit that the lack of scientific literacy can be a problem if I should understand what climate science achieved / how it understands the climate change observed. I think, however, that the vast majority of the population is in the same position. Although it can belong to the exceptions that have the necessary scientific metalfabetization, they cannot reasonably expect the same of all.
Now, you may ask: “If you, TK, admit that you can lack scientific meta-alfabetization and, therefore, it can have a limited capacity to assess whether the advice provided by the latest generation to public climate science is public is Reliable, why are you reluctant to accept it and follow it without asking any questions?
My answer: it is not because I feel qualified to doubt about the science of the weather. I dare to doubt the qualification of climatic scientists (or activists who have enough metacon-alfabetization to evaluate the production of climate science) to provide advice that affect the practical life in which they can in fact have significantly lower literacy than People who really live who live. In other words, I believe that bets in practical life are higher than in a scientific dispute. Consequently, I believe that if scientific information served as a guide for a practical decision, it must comply with different certainty standards that scientists,
More specifically, with respect to the advice that the world economy must be decarbonized:
I recognize that there is a high level of consensus among climate scientists that fossil fuel fuel fuel dioxide is probably the main driver of observed climate change, that this change can have serious economic consequences and perhaps even endanger lives human However, this warning provided by the latest generation climate science of fossil fuels. towards other forms of energy (“decarbonization”).
Unfortunately, it seems that such recommendations regularly lack an analysis of the risk that the proposed measures will fail. In other words, I have the feeling that on the way from the warning to the Council, the level of certainty expressed by a broad scientific consensus on the “primary” or “main” cause of the global warming observed updated in an absolute certainty, expressed, expressed Due to an implicit assumption that the proposed measures may not fail and that no risk analysis is necessary or desirable.
However, I understand that even in the case of a solid scientific consensus, public policies cannot and should not deal with the same absolute certainty. Opposite, I believe that an exhaustive public scrutiny of the reliability of available evidence is very desirable. All possible weaknesses of the evidence provided can and should be questioned, with the aim of minimizing the possibility that the advice provided is in fact false. Of course, the risk of failure can be, alternately or also mitigate looking for such forms towards the desired goal (for example, economic decarbonization) that will minimize costs and/or that will bring additional benefits that will justify the investments made even in case that the main objective of the proposed measures is not achieved. This approach can be particularly preferable if existing uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of the proposed solution (for example, the decarbonization of the world economy) for the mitigation of global warming cannot be currently eliminated above a reasonable doubt.
Now, I will try to answer the question “How do you know, for example, that the mechanisms involved are more complex and poorly quantified than the consensus of peers acknowledges?” Answer: I don’t know. I think so, on the basis of my experience of discussions on various topics in this real climate during the last 21 months. To be more specific, I would like to remind you three questions still without resolving here:
1) With respect to the teacher’s publications. Axel Kleidon and collaborators, stating that the Earth’s atmosphere works as a “cold heat engine”, see EG
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/9/1127/2018/ either
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1571064524001349
I asked if this theory is correct and, if so, if it is implemented in state -of -the -art climatic models. I understand that the theory gives EG a clue that he widely discussed the mitigation strategies of global warming due to artificial air pollution of aerosol would have actually decreased the intensity of the global water cycle. Therefore, I suppose that if the theory is correct, it represents an important restriction for climatic models and must definitely be implemented in it. There was no answer about this question.
2) Regarding Makarieva et al
Objecting that due to convective parameterization, climatic models can underestimate the role of the water cycle in the climate regulation of the Earth, I asked if someone familiar with climatic models can confirm or refute these statements. I have not yet obtained an answer.
3) Laguë et al
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
Brought a clue that the availability of water for the evaporation of the earth can be considered as an independent climate forcing. I asked if the availability of water for the evaporation of the earth can influence climate sensitivity towards other forcing, including the atmospheric concentration of CO2. I have not yet obtained any response.
My personal answer to the crucial question “Is it a reasonable previous doubt that the mitigation of global warming through the decarbonization of the world economy cannot fail?” Therefore, it remains “No.” I do not say that I am right, I just try to explain my personal point of view, which can be similar to the opinions of many other people who still doubt the reliability of reasoning for the measures to mitigate climate change proposed by inspired politicians For conventional climate science.
I wish you Merry Christmas!
Greetings
Tomáš
#REALCLIMATE #FORCED #VARIATIONS #December
