Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

Snnnnnzzzzzzzzzzzz

A-ha, so you've just gone for some vague dismissal/nebulous appeal to authority and some more personal denigration. How predictable and disappointing.

I gave you a free field to refute with facts and logical argument; I'm bored dissecting your technical torturing, I wouldn't have bothered going trough it all again.

So yet again you've failed to address/counter a single point, made false presumptions as to my views, and projected your rampant cherry picking onto me.

Manifestly the data is what is is, data is not my opinion, the Arctic warming is not as large/irreversible as exaggerated, there is no significant continuation of Arctic decline by any measure volume and extent (not cherry picked) for a decade - you have not refuted this with any data, just less complete more misleading data and some inconsequential politicized narrative.

And NASA and other sources agree Antarctica is cooling and accumulating mass - seems like it's you that's out of step with professional opinion on that one.
I don't dispute there are differing opinions and conflicting data, there always is in science, it's healthy you know, unlike your bigoted unquestioning credulous sycophantic stance.

And still no actual causality to CO2 anywhere.

Lets have a look at another scary red and orange globe, before CO2 global warming ceased all natural variation in 1950 and became the only factor. (sarky face)

30 years 1916-1945 - oh no we're burning up burning, meltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.



Strange, that warming's pretty rapid............... inconvenient, ouch.

You would do well to remember:-

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo Galilei

Pfffffft.

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

mondeoman said:

No scathing comment on this Durbs?

You had something to say on everything else, but missed this. Come on, fill yer boots...

To be honest, I wasn't really sure what the point of that one was.

And for the record, there were no scathing comments in my post, just information.

You have a habit of ignoring inconvenient points - i.e. alarmists like Schmidt et el screaming about natural El Nino warming, but ignoring equally massive natural cooling.

And for the record your posts are constantly snide, don't pretend otherwise.

[Terminator X]

On R4 this morning a Met Office chap commenting that according to IPCC all Arctic ice could be gone by 2030-40! I was bouncing in my seat with rage.

TX.

[Terminator X]

JawKnee said:

Record temps in the Middle East at the same time as Peru having record snow. Just shows the global climate is in an unusual state at the moment. Things are not normal. Quite worrying really.

Describe this normal global climate for us if you will.

TX.

[plunker]

Mr GrimNasty said:

durbster said:

Usual tedious rubbish.

Perhaps you would like to suggest how the DMI temperature graph is misleading as you claim. It is what it is - and clearly demonstrates the melt season has been on the cold side compared to the average line, after a superheated exceptional El Nino winter.

The temperature varies little from the mean at this time of year due to:

a/ the temperature is above melting point (the blue line)
b/ the sea is still covered in ice - hence the heat energy goes into melting the ice.

This happens every year.

Edited by plunker on Tuesday 26th July 10:39

[turbobloke]

Terminator X said:

On R4 this morning a Met Office chap commenting that according to IPCC all Arctic ice could be gone by 2030-40! I was bouncing in my seat with rage.

TX.

It's recycling with a twist.

In 1954 a statement made in the US Congress claimed that the arctic would have no summer ice 'in another 25 or 50 years' i.e. 1979 and even with that degree of uncertainty things didn't quite turn out as forecast in 2004 either.

Back in the tank top days of 1972 the arctic ice specialist Bernt Balchen predicted that the arctic would be free of sea ice by the year 2000.

Modelling at the Naval Postgraduate School in California predicted that summer arctic ice would be a thing of the past by 2013 a forecast that was keenly peddled by the BBC, Al Gore and John Kerry. In the real world, ice cover had expanded on the prediction date.

ArcticNet (Canada) had the summer ice-free date as 2016 with a claim staked in 2007.

In 2013 the US Navy recycled their false prediction for 2013 to say that the arctic would be summer ice-free by 2016, why did they bother.

It was either an ESA bod or somebody at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at UCL - or both - who said arctic ice would be a gonner in 2022.

In 2011 the Director of NSIDC said that there would be no summer ice by 2030.

Now it's been pushed out to 2040 and...well we must wait and see.

[robinessex]

Todays Beeb CC puff story:-

Sri Lanka prime minister: Mangroves curb climate threat

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3688...

Sri Lanka's prime minister has said mangroves' ability to swiftly absorb carbon make the forests vital in the fight against climate change.
His comments come on a day marking the first anniversary of a project to protect all of the nation's mangroves.
As well as storing carbon, the forests provide habitat for fish and protect communities from tsunamis and cyclones.

So lets all plant a bit of a mangrove in our gardens then

[LongQ]

robinessex said:

Todays Beeb CC puff story:-

Sri Lanka prime minister: Mangroves curb climate threat

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3688...

Sri Lanka's prime minister has said mangroves' ability to swiftly absorb carbon make the forests vital in the fight against climate change.
His comments come on a day marking the first anniversary of a project to protect all of the nation's mangroves.
As well as storing carbon, the forests provide habitat for fish and protect communities from tsunamis and cyclones.

So lets all plant a bit of a mangrove in our gardens then

Mangrove.

Not a very PC word, is it?

How did that get past the vocabulary monitors?

[Jasandjules]

Terminator X said:

Describe this normal global climate for us if you will.

TX.

Also include when the Global Climate was in this normal state, for how long, and what the Co2 levels, mean global temperature and the sea ice levels for the Antarctic were......

[robinessex]

I think I was the first to ask those questions !!!!

[mondeoman]

Jasandjules said:

Terminator X said:

Describe this normal global climate for us if you will.

TX.

Also include when the Global Climate was in this normal state, for how long, and what the Co2 levels, mean global temperature and the sea ice levels for the Antarctic were......

hells
chance
cat
in


Rearrange to suit

[Jasandjules]

mondeoman said:

hells
chance
cat
in


Rearrange to suit

Well Mr Gore and the IPCC MUST know, in order to know that this current weather is all soooooo odd. I mean, they wouldn't just lie to us to make money would they? No, of course not....

[robinessex]

Todays BEEB puff CC bit:-

Increasing ocean acidity could impact fish spawning

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3689...

Notice the 4th word in the title. Not worth reading really !!

First paragraph

"A new study suggests that the increasing acidification of the oceans is likely to interfere with the ability of fish to reproduce."

And the 4th word here! Getting pathetic now, isn't it ?

[DibblyDobbler]

Thinking about the CO2 v Temperature causal link (and I'll nail my colours to the mast as a skeptic) - do we actually need to prove something to know that it's true? I get the whole correlation ≠ causality thing but it does strike me that actually proving the link in a scientific sense is going to be pretty much impossible (even if it was true!) much in the same way that Fermat's last theorem remain unproved for several hundred years (but we could see that in any meaningful sense it was true by observation).

Just musing/rambling but would welcome any thoughts

[Jasandjules]

Well if CO2 drove temp there would be a clear correlation. For example, CO2 is 200ppm, average temps are 21c. CO2 rises to 300ppm, average temps rise to 23c. Co2 rises to 400ppm, average temps rise to 25c....

Buuuut mother nature drives climate (well, the Sun) therefore lower solar activity historically means the actual average temps are not increasing at all - which is why they now need to "adjust" the figures....

[Terminator X]

Not the science thread of course however what is supposed to happen is that you create a theory and then try to dis-prove it ergo the first time it falls apart you need a new theory. Not what is going on re MMCC.

TX.

[paulrockliffe]

Fermats last theorem was proved wasn't it?

[durbster]

DibblyDobbler said:

Thinking about the CO2 v Temperature causal link (and I'll nail my colours to the mast as a skeptic) - do we actually need to prove something to know that it's true? I get the whole correlation ? causality thing but it does strike me that actually proving the link in a scientific sense is going to be pretty much impossible (even if it was true!) much in the same way that Fermat's last theorem remain unproved for several hundred years (but we could see that in any meaningful sense it was true by observation).

Just musing/rambling but would welcome any thoughts

The causality turbobloke goes on about is of course impossible (because it's not falsifiable without having a second Earth that's identical apart from the industrial revolution) but the fundamental physics are definitely testable, provable and calculable.

Here's one way to think of it: Jalapenos.

Bear with me.

We know that Jalapenos are spicy as it's something that's scientifically falsifiable. Therefore, we know that when we put them in a meal, they make it more spicy.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a spicy meal because there are numerous ways to negate the effect by adding neutralising ingredients, or overwhelming the Jalapenos. Even though your meal may not be spicy, it hasn't changed the basic fact that Jalapenos are spicy.

If you keep adding and removing various ingredients, the spiciness will vary quite a lot but if you keep adding Jalapenos you'll eventually end up with a spicy meal.

Now think of Jalapenos as greenhouse gases and the meal as the climate. There's a lot of stuff going on so the effects are inconsistent, but if we keep pumping CO2 into the climate mix there will inevitably be a point where it will have an effect.

There are some fundamental things we know:
- We've known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th Century.
- We know the greenhouse gases and how much they reflect heat, light etc.
- We know we're putting a stload of them into the atmosphere.

But I'm just a layman with a basic understanding. Here's a more in-depth explanation:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

Article said:

The climate system is conceptually complex but has at its heart the physical laws of radiative transfer. This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar's calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.

[LongQ]

DibblyDobbler said:

Thinking about the CO2 v Temperature causal link (and I'll nail my colours to the mast as a skeptic) - do we actually need to prove something to know that it's true? I get the whole correlation ? causality thing but it does strike me that actually proving the link in a scientific sense is going to be pretty much impossible (even if it was true!) much in the same way that Fermat's last theorem remain unproved for several hundred years (but we could see that in any meaningful sense it was true by observation).

Just musing/rambling but would welcome any thoughts

The beauty of the hypothesis, from a political point of view, is that it has long term legs and is almost certainly not likely to be proved one way or another in this century. With the predictions for Armageddon all being in the future no current politician or academic is likely to have their reputation on the line in their life time. It is, in effect, Orwell's never ending war that takes place somewhere else but can be used to cajole the masses into accepting what they are told because it is for their own long term good - or that of their as yet unconceived progeny 3 generations down the line. Maybe.

As the world's population grows and migrates the balance of social systems is likely to change. The recently strong "western" style of civilisation based to a large extent on science and engineering and energy production on demand seems to be threatened from within by the fear of "carbon" (and a strong element of self hatred from various quarters) and from without by social systems that are still primarily founded on beliefs. Indeed the Western "civilisation" is primarily a belief system with a veneer of science.

What "the science" tells us is, even in the world of science, still frequently subsidiary to the belief systems. For that reason alone one might conclude that a full and final proof of anything vaguely controversial would still be beaten back by widely based belief systems.

Only when the subject matter becomes of low interest to the large majority of people will the subject matter and the theory become accepted - mainly through that very lack of interest removing the potential for influence and control from those who like to practise such things.

Just my opinion of course. Probably not worth a damn.

[robinessex]

Article said:

The climate system is conceptually complex but has at its heart the physical laws of radiative transfer. This basic, or “core” physics is relatively straightforward to compute mathematically, as exemplified by Callendar's calculations, leading to quantitatively robust projections of baseline warming.

Er, they've ALL BEEN WRONG !!