Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
Jinx said:
Merely places where if you pay attention others post analysis. And where you can find links to such places as http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/...
As to your list: Tamino, Mosher and Nick Stokes are all dyed in wool CO2 believers (as believe in it's magical powers) and aside from Mosher (who can at least remain civil on forums though frequently cryptic) I wouldn't trust to analyse the colour of grass (I have a lot more time for Moshers work) .
Oh you may want to pass this new paper cutting AGW in half to Tamino...... no reason.
CO2 believers - as are Watts, McIntyre, Jo Nova...scandalous, but an ad hom.As to your list: Tamino, Mosher and Nick Stokes are all dyed in wool CO2 believers (as believe in it's magical powers) and aside from Mosher (who can at least remain civil on forums though frequently cryptic) I wouldn't trust to analyse the colour of grass (I have a lot more time for Moshers work) .
Oh you may want to pass this new paper cutting AGW in half to Tamino...... no reason.
The paper you link looks interesting but I can't see the relevence to this discussion. Was that a squirrel?
kerplunk said:
CO2 believers - as are Watts, McIntyre, Jo Nova...scandalous, but an ad hom.
The paper you link looks interesting but I can't see the relevence to this discussion. Was that a squirrel?
Not to the "magical properties" level but I digress. The paper you link looks interesting but I can't see the relevence to this discussion. Was that a squirrel?
Historical temperature changes - adjusting trends - start points - end points - complete lack of correlation with CO2.
For a moment imagine a world where we have access to all the climate information we have now, satellite records, ocean currents, cloud experiments and that the AGW industry did not exist . If someone said carbon dioxide was solely or the dominant forcing responsible for temperature shifts in the global temperature record you would be laughed at - no correlation in recent years, up-shift in temperatures easily explained by the ocean heat transfers, solar eruptivity and cloud formation - atmosphere net response to temperature change being a net negative feedback.
To imagine a partical with limited IR absorbtion and in trace amounts (and given radiative heat transfer is but a small part of how energy gets from the oceans into space) somehow controls the earth is fantastical. That the oceans control the atmosphere is not just obvious but has been shown.
I suspect that potential to measure energy consumption and apportion it to fuel use is the strongest link that one will find between 'carbon' and politics. Politics is only interested when it offers power and control combined with money - ease of taxation in this case. It is of especially interest when the taxation can readily be applied to the plebs.
I would still like to see a graph that compares the increase in the number of disturbines to the rise in temperatures or changes in wind patterns.
Likely it would be entirely meaningless based on any knowledge we have today but politically it would give the tax makers another option for unjustified cash grabbing.
I would still like to see a graph that compares the increase in the number of disturbines to the rise in temperatures or changes in wind patterns.
Likely it would be entirely meaningless based on any knowledge we have today but politically it would give the tax makers another option for unjustified cash grabbing.
Jinx said:
Not to the "magical properties" level but I digress.
Historical temperature changes - adjusting trends - start points - end points - complete lack of correlation with CO2.
For a moment imagine a world where we have access to all the climate information we have now, satellite records, ocean currents, cloud experiments and that the AGW industry did not exist . If someone said carbon dioxide was solely or the dominant forcing responsible for temperature shifts in the global temperature record you would be laughed at - no correlation in recent years, up-shift in temperatures easily explained by the ocean heat transfers, solar eruptivity and cloud formation - atmosphere net response to temperature change being a net negative feedback.
To imagine a partical with limited IR absorbtion and in trace amounts (and given radiative heat transfer is but a small part of how energy gets from the oceans into space) somehow controls the earth is fantastical. That the oceans control the atmosphere is not just obvious but has been shown.
Imagine a world where we don't have all those satellites etc...Historical temperature changes - adjusting trends - start points - end points - complete lack of correlation with CO2.
For a moment imagine a world where we have access to all the climate information we have now, satellite records, ocean currents, cloud experiments and that the AGW industry did not exist . If someone said carbon dioxide was solely or the dominant forcing responsible for temperature shifts in the global temperature record you would be laughed at - no correlation in recent years, up-shift in temperatures easily explained by the ocean heat transfers, solar eruptivity and cloud formation - atmosphere net response to temperature change being a net negative feedback.
To imagine a partical with limited IR absorbtion and in trace amounts (and given radiative heat transfer is but a small part of how energy gets from the oceans into space) somehow controls the earth is fantastical. That the oceans control the atmosphere is not just obvious but has been shown.
De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. . . every variation [in aqueous vapour] must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.... Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal - John Tyndall, 1860.
Not much has changed has it?
There's a new exit strategy about.
Apparently GWHQ has decided it's already too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions.
Somebody should tell those people warning us we have X years to stop global warming, and somebody else should tell all warmists that as yet there is no sign in the data of anything we need to stop (or could stop, as we didn't start the thing that doesn't exist).
As such, warmists are now arguing for politicians to focus on adaptation policies. Are PH warmists behind the curve?
More laughs to come no doubt.
Apparently GWHQ has decided it's already too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions.
Somebody should tell those people warning us we have X years to stop global warming, and somebody else should tell all warmists that as yet there is no sign in the data of anything we need to stop (or could stop, as we didn't start the thing that doesn't exist).
As such, warmists are now arguing for politicians to focus on adaptation policies. Are PH warmists behind the curve?
More laughs to come no doubt.
I think it doesI knew it!
There's nothing those greedy Bankers aren't responsible for, or can't be taxed to cure the evils of...
There's nothing those greedy Bankers aren't responsible for, or can't be taxed to cure the evils of...
nelly1 said:
They're making it up as they go along, never once understanding that their stupid actions always have consequences somewhere down the line.Politicians and bureaucrats, doncha jus' love 'em?
kerplunk said:
Imagine a world where we don't have all those satellites etc...
De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. . . every variation [in aqueous vapour] must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.... Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal - John Tyndall, 1860.
Not much has changed has it?
Kind of proves my point - it has moved on - thermodynamics and quantum theory have superceded the classical 18th and 19th Century thinking. Heck most of those mentioned above believed science was settled and all you needed were better and better instruments to measure the universe with (stick it to them Heisenberg)De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. . . every variation [in aqueous vapour] must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.... Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal - John Tyndall, 1860.
Not much has changed has it?
Climate change theory has moved on from CO2 (or carbonic acid diffused in air) only those without the wit or the will stick with disproven theories.
kerplunk said:
Imagine a world where we don't have all those satellites etc...
De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. . . every variation [in aqueous vapour] must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.... Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal - John Tyndall, 1860.
Not much has changed has it?
Pending jail time for that criminal smiley, WTF? De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. . . every variation [in aqueous vapour] must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.... Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal - John Tyndall, 1860.
Not much has changed has it?
That's almost a pure Ludoism and given that it was posted with intent, very depressing.
Not much has changed?
Only the advent of quantum molecular spectroscopy at the turn of the 20th century and the resulting revision of those 1860 perspectives on how atmospheric gases interact with radiation.
The change wasn't good for warmism btw which is presumably why we get these irrelevant historical cameos that reveal culpable levels of ignorance...repeatedly.
It's not even political.
turbobloke said:
Pending jail time for that criminal smiley, WTF?
That's almost a pure Ludoism and given that it was posted with intent, very depressing.
huh? Don't know what's got your goat there. That's almost a pure Ludoism and given that it was posted with intent, very depressing.
turbobloke said:
Not much has changed?
Only the advent of quantum molecular spectroscopy at the turn of the 20th century and the resulting revision of those 1860 perspectives on how atmospheric gases interact with radiation.
The change wasn't good for warmism btw which is presumably why we get these irrelevant historical cameos that reveal culpable levels of ignorance...repeatedly.
It's not even political.
Yep, not much has changed from that statement of Tyndall'sOnly the advent of quantum molecular spectroscopy at the turn of the 20th century and the resulting revision of those 1860 perspectives on how atmospheric gases interact with radiation.
The change wasn't good for warmism btw which is presumably why we get these irrelevant historical cameos that reveal culpable levels of ignorance...repeatedly.
It's not even political.
Self-evidently, and whether you like it or not, greenhouse gases ARE widely thought to affect climate and indeed play a significant role in 'the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal' so there's nothing controversial in what I've said - tis the truth.
Such innocence 
Lots of things have changed since 1860. Scientific understanding moved on so Arrhenius & Co of the late nineteenth century are history in terms of our understanding of the interaction between molecular atmospheric gases and radiation.
Politics has also moved on, instead of basing policy on rational science, muppets in parliament now base it on evidence-free junk, bunk and gigo.
Lots of things have changed since 1860. Scientific understanding moved on so Arrhenius & Co of the late nineteenth century are history in terms of our understanding of the interaction between molecular atmospheric gases and radiation.
Politics has also moved on, instead of basing policy on rational science, muppets in parliament now base it on evidence-free junk, bunk and gigo.
kerplunk said:
whether you like it or not, greenhouse gases ARE widely thought to affect climate and indeed play a significant role in 'the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal' so there's nothing controversial in what I've said - tis the truth.
Sorry KP but the CO2 bit is simply a political device, to link the natural variation of the climate to the use of energy by humans. This political ideal is killed 25,000 people in the UK last year - because of the 'green' taxation added.a) This 'green' tax that kills pensioners has created wind mills that suck up energy and kill bird life and sea life.
b) Even the greens now admit they can't change the climate so all that money has been wasted - all those deaths were in vain.
c) CO2 has never had any effect on climate.
Although this is the political thread, it's good to refresh the IPCC/UN argument - that CO2 is the 'culprit'. This myth is actually mis-understood even by people like you - the AGW theory doesn't actually say CO2 is the problem, it says a positive feedback with water vapour - induced by CO2 is the problem. Did you know that?
Then there are the numbers: CO2 at 360ppm absorbs a 15micron band of IR and re-radiates in all directions. After 540ppm CO2 is saturated and can absorb no further IR. Water vapour - or Climate Alarmists Bane as it's known, at an average of 30,000ppm vapour absorbs wideband (all) IR and re-radiates in all directions. As far as affecting the climate CO2 isn't even in the car - let alone the drivers seat.
So what is in the drivers seat? An AGW believer thinks it's CO2 but as we have shown CO2 is just a bystander, swamped completely by water vapour. Well, in the drivers seat is The Sun. And THATs why the earth is no longer warming.
d) Global mean temperature is 1) not really mean, and 2) meaningless.
The lesson is that we need to stop definitely killing people with 'green' taxes, stop messing up nature with wind turbines and work out whether those grants for 'tackling' global warming could actually be used to save people's lives instead.
Edited by Globs on Thursday 18th October 21:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff