Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
The paper is an interesting read - but it is worth noting the conclusion when referring to it in a discussion about Climate Change and Human Carbon Emissions.
'Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming through the greenhouse effect?
Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions?
Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment?
These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it. Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper’s confined scope but require further research.'
|
The beauty of the relatively recent construct called Climate Science, for those wishing to engage with it and use it as a career path and more, is that it IS and will remain completely untestable in any current lifetime and, most probably, forever.
The untestability is aided by the complexity of the climate system. A system so complex that there is little chance of being able to understand it fully. It seems to be a system highly influenced by very small changes. Many, many very small changes. Or, at least, small as measured by human sensitivity.
Much of the current effort and focus was kicked off by the Hockey Stick graph in the late 1990s.
Oddly, for a scientific endeavour, the graph seems to be a bit of a mix of extremely difficult-to-calibrate measures, bound together and processed by some forecasting algorithms that, no matter what vaguely related time series data one feeds them with, produce a "Hockey Stick blade" result of increasing values as its prediction for the next 25 years of the time series.
That means that, if one removed 25 years worth of the original data series and ran the analysis the result would be an upwards pointing Hockey Stick blade as the estimate for a future where the results were already known and where not as per the Stick result.
In effect the program could not accurately predict even close to the real numbers that were available for calibration. That's about the nearest they could ever come to a somewhat scientific test of the code.
Perhaps they tried that test but if they did it has never received much attention so far as I can recall. People are still writing about the work today.
On that foundation Net Zero, a slogan rather than a practical concept, has been based.