Wonderful comment, have you read the follow up piece?
I'm not doing great right now but I am taking the time to respond to you because I respect you a great deal. I was an NSA analyst for a few years back in the 90's. My approach to this is going to be different from yours because I am approaching it like an analyst looking at a "fact pattern".
Based on what I see, I am not inclined to trust the models nearly as much as you are.
For example, how much warming do you think has happened since 1850? Do you accept the GISS estimate of 1.2℃ as canonical. I don't.
Because they changed the measurement baseline to 1880. The hottest year of the 19th century. Trimming about 0.4-0.6℃ of warming from the total amount of global warming.
This was not a scientific decision, it was a political one. I document it in detail in my article above.
The Trump administration suborned GISS into setting the baseline for warming as 1880. The hottest year of the 19th century. It was done at the behest if the Fossil Fuel industries, and they told environmentalists to "fuck off" in an unbelievable
article in Forbes;
“Exactly How Much Has the Earth Warmed? And Does It Matter?”
Published September 2018. I encourage you to read it. Written by a University of Houston Energy Fellow it is the climate equivalent of the post 2000 election, “you need to just move on” statement.
It explicitly states that:
1850 was an arbitrary choice — The debate exists in part because the UNFCCC did not define preindustrial when setting the targets. What does “preindustrial” mean anyway? You can make an argument that it should be 1740, or 1820, or 1880. Each of these dates shifts the goalposts. We should pick a date all of us can agree on.
Many people don’t agree with 1850 — There was no “worldwide” network of weather stations in 1850. So, the temperature measurements from 1850–1880 are uneven in both number and quality. Attempts to “fix” the data are always going to be biased and using it typically adds 0.4℃-0.6℃ to the amount of global warming that has occurred. We cannot move forward until we have a starting point that everyone agrees with and “many people” will never agree with 1850.
An exact value doesn’t matter — Although there are some out-of-the-mainstream views to the contrary, there is strong evidence the Earth has warmed about 1° C since pre-industrial times. Uncertainties in the data and lack of agreement on a reference date make it impossible to give a precise value.
1880 is a baseline we can all agree on — By 1880, a global network of weather stations using standardized equipment had been established. This makes it the most logical baseline for measuring global warming from CO2. Which, we can then agree, is 1.2℃. It’s unfortunate that 1880 was the hottest year of the 19th century but that’s the year we started getting solid measurements. Being able to agree on the data and stop arguing about it is the most important thing at this point.
We need to work together, using 1880 lets us do that — This shift is actually good for those who subscribe to the belief that fossil fuels are the primary or sole cause of this warming. If you really believe that it is urgent to reduce fossil fuel usage, then you understand how important that it is to stop fighting each other over a “few tenths of a degree that no one cares about” and start doing the real work of making that happen. Not agreeing with 1880 as the baseline makes you part of the problem at this point.
GISS caved under pressure. That's how "Global Warming" was set at 1.2℃. Science was only part of that number.
The ARGO float data shows that we underestimated the amount of energy in the oceans by 40%. Now they show that the oceans are absorbing heat at "record rates"
Heat doesn't just happen.
Where is the energy for that warming coming from?
Those are the questions I went looking to answer and this is where it led me. I am normally inclined to a more conservative analysis. But, we live in strange times now.
The need for more data before reaching a conclusion is always with us. We all fear "jumping to a conclusion" and being wrong. If you are a scientist or a doctor that can be career ending.
But, waiting for certainty can be worse.
Back in July of 2020 I wrote a six month analysis on Covid (This is Going to be Bad - 08) where I declared it to be a airborne virus. The CDC was still saying it was transmitted by droplets on surfaces.
This was stupid on their part because the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the virus was airborne. But they "had to be 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt certain" that what they said was correct.
They didn't declare the virus airborne for another 18 months. By which time this information was worthless. After two years, we all knew the virus was airborne. They weren't leading, they were following. It was pathetic.
By the time we have "perfect knowledge" of how the Earth's climate system works it will be too late to do anything to save ourselves. As an analyst, who was also a military officer at one point in my life, I was trained to make decisions based on what you know at that instant.
Which is why I am putting this "out there" and reducing my standing to "crazy crank".
Here's my prediction.
The first big "Climate Shock" is about to hit. In 12 to 18 months a perfect storm of warming will kick in that will last 3-5 years.
It's a 3 part storm:
1. Albedo diminishing has doubled the rate of warming in the last 7 years. It's simple, if the planetary albedo declines, the earth warms up.
Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine pub. Aug 2021
2. The La Nina cycle we are in will flip into an El Nino.
Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions
Heat in World's Oceans More Than Ever Recorded.
Hottest ocean temperatures in history recorded last year.
3. Warming that was being masked by SOx emissions will rapidly take place due to the changes in diesel fuels in the shipping industry in 2020.
Cleaner Air in 2020: 0.5% sulfur cap for ships enters into force worldwide.
I think, that all of this will combine to push warming above 2C by 2026. I think, that the next 2-6 years are going to be insanely hot,
I think that this is going to trigger multifocal agricultural production failures globally. I am seeing signs of it everywhere.
So, as an analyst I am forecasting approximately 800 million to 1 billion people are probably going to starve in this time frame.
The Climate Crisis is upon us "right now".
In Ukraine we are seeing the first war of the "Climate Crisis".
Agricultural output failures of 40% are already happening.
Putin's Strategy is coming into view. If you weren't clear on it, World War III has started.
Yes, Putin does know about Climate Change, he knows a lot.
I think things are much worse than the projections. I think we are about to find out how "off" the models were.
I am an extreme outlier right now. No one else is seeing the disaster I am predicting yet. So, I could just be a very smart "crazy person".
Here's the thing though. Which of these do you think is "false"?
That a hot El Nino is coming.
That cuts in the sulfur content of diesel fuels in shipping will cause warming over the next 3 years.
That record amounts of heat are flowing into the oceans.
That the 20 year study of the planetary albedo shows a diminishment of the Earth's albedo and an increase in the level of energy the climate system is absorbing (reflected in proxy by the amount of energy the oceans are absorbing).
Do you disagree with any of those statements?
What no one wants to say, is that these are going to combine and cause megadeaths over the next five years.
If you say that, you become a "Doomer" crazy person.
