Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[steveT350C]

Silver Smudger said:

Grrr - Tiny Smudger's 'science' homework -



How should we answer this without rocking the boat too much and getting her a detention?!

Appalling!

What year is Tiny Smudger in?

[robinessex]

Silver Smudger said:

Grrr - Tiny Smudger's 'science' homework -



How should we answer this without rocking the boat too much and getting her a detention?!

The answer to Q3 is we don't know, but earth has had varying % of CO2 for 4.5billion years, so we don't worry about it. Scientists have no idea either, but have inveted a scenario that ensures them a research budget and income for eternity

Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 18th November 22:03

[LongQ]

Lotus 50 said:

turbobloke said:

Lotus 50 said:

limit CO2 emissions and associated increases in temp

There has been no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions since Kyoto, there will be none after Paris, and there are no increases in temp associated - meaning linked causally - with carbon dioxide emissions anywhere at any time.

Why do you pretent otherwise when you must, absolutely must, be aware by now that there's no causal human signal visible in any global climate data? Or perhaps you were just playing their game and going along with the bunk for the sake of argument.

Here's a reminder from the IPCC but don't take their word for it, just look at the data.

"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)

By their own admission the IPCC is clueless. Nobody else outside The Team and The Cause is implicated because we're not basing our position on junkscience and inadequate climate models, we're basing it on the data which do matter.

Perhaps quoting from more recent IPCC documents, rather than picking and choosing quotes in an attempt to build a case might help? The research post 1995 seems to have come a fair way towards answering that question. For a start how about "Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}" (the phrase extremely likely = 96-100% probability) from:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/W...

and

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/W...

and the host of reference material therein.

Similarly, and I'll admit I may have missed something if I have, but who at the UNRIC had anything to do with the "Margarita Declaration"?

Well, at least bringing the IPCC into the thread once more confirms the strong Political influence.

You are catching on Lotus 50.

[Mr GrimNasty]

At the end of the day, as far as preventing climate change goes, COP21 doesn't matter, and all the climate change science/politics doesn't matter.

Even if the warmists are right, and their ruinous plans are implemented in the most extreme, and continued into new agreements in the most extreme, it isn't going to stop more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming according to the IPCC's own GIGO model.

Dangerous man-made climate change theory is irrelevant because it is wrong, and because even if it were right - there isn't a hope in hell of making the changes required on the scale required.

[wc98]

Silver Smudger said:

Grrr - Tiny Smudger's 'science' homework -



How should we answer this without rocking the boat too much and getting her a detention?!

start with this http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatech...



Carbon Dioxide through Geologic Time

Introduction
Since of the Earth's atmosphere is out-of-balance with the conditions expected from simple chemical equilibrium, it is very hard to say what precisely sets the level of the carbon dioxide content in the air throughout geologic time. While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.

and end with this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/13070...

Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.

(the above is heresy of course, no denier should ever link to csiro research )

[wc98]

Ali G said:

mybrainhurts said:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/11/18/...

$100,000 to find the signal...

On your marks..get set..........PFFFT

This is going to be fun...

Happy Christmas!

To solicitors...

(No not those who solicit - just regular legal sharks)

it always strikes me as funny that sceptics appear to be the only people willing to put their money where their mouth is. i touted a 1000 quid bet around the arctic alarmist community that the arctic minimum extent would remain above 1 million square kilometers (in area not overall extent.so the very best chance they have) right up to 2022 . only one had the courage of his conviction . the money will go to charity when i win.

[gareth_r]

Just thought I'd let you all know that the big question has been answered.

According to Alok Jha, reporting on ITN tonight, "The West was built on coal. It powered the industrial revolution, but also caused climate change.".

Thank God that's sorted. Coal done it, and Amber Rudd has saved us!



Apparently, Alok is "science correspondent for ITV News".
http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alokjha

[LongQ]

gareth_r said:

Just thought I'd let you all know that the big question has been answered.

According to Alok Jha, reporting on ITN tonight, "The West was built on coal. It powered the industrial revolution, but also caused climate change.".

Thank God that's sorted. Coal done it, and Amber Rudd has saved us!



Apparently, Alok is "science correspondent for ITV News".
http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alokjha

He has extensive knowledge of the Antarctic as I recall.

There seem to be supporting reports in the items on that Grauniad web page. Interesting that it still seems to be updated even though he has apparently moved to ITV. Was it a very recent move?

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}" (the phrase extremely likely = 96-100% probability) from (links given).

You're still actively blinkering yourself to the absolutely obvious. If the IPCC are relying on percentage likelihood of something existing, it isn't visible and they can't point to it. The percentages are meaningless, have no physical basis and are simply made up. Politicians want certainty to hide behind and that's what climate scientists are engineering via waffle and unscientific erroneous nonsense such as 'the science is settled' when it never has been.

"This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4" it patently has not, since The Pause confounded predictions and has clearly lessened the likelihood or probability or percentage confidence in the faith or whatever weasel words the IPCC may publish.

Moreover it's not evidence. Evidence would be a visible causal human signal in either temperature or energy data and neither exists. Nothing else is anywhere close to being evidene. There's no causality to humans in any measured temperature value or trend, an ice mass change, bears, windy weather or any of the other proxies that believers cite in the absence of actual evidence.

IPCC use of 'evidence' is unjustified, it's a mix of gigo and made-up percentages but enough to fool politicians...giving the impression that they want to be fooled to stave off their embarrassment at backing a myth-hoax at massive expense for no benefit.

Lotus 50 said:

Similarly, and I'll admit I may have missed something if I have, but who at the UNRIC had anything to do with the "Margarita Declaration"?

The declaration was declared (as declarations are) at a UN-backed meeting with the usual suspects in attendance. Keep those blinkers tight.

[turbobloke]

Keeping political, with the IPCC being a political advocacy group touting many a political appointee, a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (AR4) carried an admission from the IPCC that the (then) reported 90% confidence in their own ability to see an invisible signal was simply based on “expert judgment” i.e. conjecture. The same applies to the nonsensical increase to 95% after The Pause obviously lessened any prior made-up confidence. IPCC percentages representing confidence in their own faith have no physical basis and are meaningless.

PS here's some essential homework for PH's believers before entering the Keenan Kontest it's from an article first published around 4 years ago. Others with a viewpoint based on credible data and climate realism will find it of interest with between 96%-100% likelihood

Warming or Cooling is it Heads or Tails

[tomw2000]

OT: Wintermaggedon. Gotta love the Daily Mash;

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/bri...

As you were.

[chris watton]

I am sure I read somewhere that if it's too windy, like it has been this week, the wind turbines automatically shut down. Is that true?

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

I am sure I read somewhere that if it's too windy, like it has been this week, the wind turbines automatically shut down. Is that true?

Yes and here's a very recent 'paper' on this phenomenon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3324722/Tu...

On my Pennine travels this week I saw several stationary white elephants enduring cold wet and windy weather, but there's nothing to worry about as this is a protected subsidised species.

tomw2000 said:

OT: Wintermaggedon. Gotta love the Daily Mash;

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/bri...

Brilliant!

In 6 months we can recycle the cartoon below.

[jet_noise]

tomw2000 said:

OT: Wintermaggedon. Gotta love the Daily Mash;

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/bri...

As you were.

From 2011, tom, but more relevant than ever, I quote:
"believes sunsets are caused by Gark, the angry moon god”
"carry a flaming torch at all times and don’t be sentimental about eating your plumpest child"


I often say to friends/acquaintances complaining about the weather "It's winter/summer/other seasonal name (delete as appropriate), get over it",

regards,
Jet

[tomw2000]

jet_noise said:

From 2011, tom,

Yeah - I'd just not seen before. Made me chuckle

[Einion Yrth]

tomw2000 said:

jet_noise said:

From 2011, tom,

Yeah - I'd just not seen before. Made me chuckle

Doesn't really matter, winter happens every year.

[London424]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp...

Interesting development

[LongQ]

Now that it has been deemed necessary to "name" "storms" for some reason should we not also "name" other potentially identifiable weather events.

Periods of calm for example.

Or periods of extended warmth.

Or dryness.

Or wetness.

Or extended mild and tranquil conditions.

Persistent cloud cover.

Etc.

What do we think?

Should this be proposed to the Met office as a means of fully engaging public stakeholders in understanding and the management of weather?

[Mr GrimNasty]

London424 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp...

Interesting development

The Karl 'pause buster' paper was the biggest most blatant temperature fiddle in decades of feculent climate 'science'.

Everyone knows it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if everyone in exonerated though.


Meanwhile, BBC bias 'Manufacturing Consensus' - Roger Harrabin being as slippery as usual.

http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2015/11/17/manufacturing...

[don4l]

LongQ said:

Now that it has been deemed necessary to "name" "storms" for some reason should we not also "name" other potentially identifiable weather events.

Periods of calm for example.

Or periods of extended warmth.

Or dryness.

Or wetness.

Or extended mild and tranquil conditions.

Persistent cloud cover.

Etc.

What do we think?

Should this be proposed to the Met office as a means of fully engaging public stakeholders in understanding and the management of weather?

Periods of calm probably kill more people than storms in the UK. Increased levels of pollutants and particulates have a strong impact on people with respiritry problems.