Mann said the last time CO2 was high was 4 million years ago. To give that context, the first fossil records of mammals dates back 4.8 million years.
7 minutes in Mann talks about the jet stream gone wild.
Curry ignores AMOC slowing. Hoping one of the others points that out. Edit: They don't because this isn't actually a debate.
Curry points out "Climate Pragmatism": what I've advocated doing here and elsewhere. Good phrase to describe it.
Titley: Navy saying: "If you wait for 100% certainty, you're 100% dead."
Even though Trump is in denial about climate's impact on governance, the military and intelligence community is not. Titley gave an example of flooding problems at the Norfolk navy base.
Moore makes a lot of excellent points. I wonder what he thinks of CH4. I completely agree with him that there's no strong link between CO2 and temperature but that sounds like an opportunity to understand what governs temperature. Edit: In Q&A, he points out that (what should be obvious) carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04% of the air's composition. Nitrogen and water vapor constitute most of it.
It's hard to listen to the end of the video because of the mono sound only coming through the left speaker. Disappointed there wasn't much in the way of debate.
Moore's closing statements (about 1:29:45) are golden. I transcribed it below:
Dr. Patrick Moore said:
In 1970 there were approximately 6000 polar bears. Today there are somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000. That is a fact and they still say they're going extinct.
The word "consensus," when used in a sentence with "science," is false because consensus is a political and social word. That is a different arena than science. Science is about observation and replication, period. It is not about how many people are willing to jump off a cliff with you. It is not about lemmings. It is not about sheep. It is about individuals like Galileo, Darwin, Mandel, Newton, Einstein.
When Einstein published his Theory of Relativity as an obscure pub-patent joke. He was scoffed at by the rest of the physics community to the point where 100 physicists published a paper saying he was wrong. When asked what he thought of that he said, "why 100? One would do." 'Cause that's how science works with individuals making discoveries.
It's very seldom that 17,000 people come to the same brilliant conclusion all at the same time. That doesn't happen. This is becoming some kind of religion. Even the Pope is into it. Right? Original sin: humans. We're sinning against the world and nature by burning fossil fuels. That is a lie and it is not honest to say that this debate should be squelched because in science, if you say that, you are an activist, not a scientist.
It should be noted that Moore has a PhD in Ecology and bachelors in Forestry where the other three have a more climate/atmospheric background. He's basically been a consultant/lobbyist since the 1990s.
------------------------------------------------------
I had a conversation with some people and they reminded me that short term warming corelates with the rise of CO2 in the short term (years to hundreds of thousands of year):
Moore was talking about long term ( millions of years):
Which got me thinking about cloud coverage again. There was supposed to be research being done in that field but I can't find it today. I believe it was being conducted at a NOAA facility in Boulder, CO. They were attempting to model cloud impact on climate, especially man-made clouds:
Contrails reduce daily temperature range.
Consider this: if we changed aircraft so they no longer belched CO2 but still created contrails, would the same change in temperatures be observed? I'd argue yes because the high, wispy, cirrus clouds that jets create let light in but reflect heat, causing a very strong, observed greenhouse effect. Human CO2 use strongly correlates with air travel especially post-1930s. The correlation between temperature and CO2 may not be a causation at all (as Moore put it, "insignificant").
The Sahara isn't what it is because of global warming but because there's never any cloud cover shielding the Earth from the sun's scorching heat (blue is uncovered, red is covered):
Indeed every place on the planet that is perptually dry is due to a lack of cloud cover. It stands to reason that a minor change in cloud cover (and cloud type) can have a major impact on temperature.
Even finding that picture on number of aircraft tells us virtually nothing in regards to climate. All those planes could be sitting on a tarmac. I tried to find a graph for flight hours and one doesn't seem to exist. Additionally, altitude is very important in terms of producing contrails. There really needs to be a comprehensive study on this field of climate. It can easily explain why the prediction models consistently get it wrong.
