Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
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.
It's not impossible at all.There are several visible causal signals in global climate data, including volcanism plus solar eruptivity and irradiance combined. The reasons for these signals being visible are that the magnitude of the effect is such that the data show it appearing visibly above the noise of natural variation, there is a sound scientific mechanism for the effect, and the effect itself follows after the additional forcing has occurred, i.e. the order in time is correct for cause and effect. None of these conditions apply with tax gas.
The simple fact is that there's no visible causal signal from tax gas because the effect of carbon dioxide in reality is far too small to emerge from the noise of natural variation. What happens is better described as a transient and insignificant delay in cooling, rather than permanent dangerous warming as wrongly claimed and not supporte by unmolested data.
This is the whole point - the basic physics of radiative absorption by carbon dioxide in a few wavelengths of ground-emitted far IR has never been disputed never mind rejected, but that's not the same thing as global warming and nowhere near it.
There's a very good analogy in dropping an ice cube in the middle of the ocean. The physics is well understood - latent heat, conduction, mixing and so on - but the effect is too small to measure not least with uneven natural temperature changes taking place during the course of a day which are far larger. This remains the case even though the physics is well-known, well-understood and not disputed. Somebody on the shoreline could never tell if or when the ice cube had been dropped, even though it happened.
The basic physics of radiative absorption is not proof of AGW. Conflating the two is a transparent strategy akin to pointing to carbon dioxide levels. A different composition of atmospheric gases is just that, on its own it's not AGW. The same goes for radiative absorption, but one part of a myriad of atmospheric energy transfers.
Believers point to radiative absorption in isolation and tax gas level changes also in isolation because in the absence of a visible causal human signal in global climate data, these are the best shots in their arsenal and will gull some people who don't understand any more than they do. However, shooting blanks will never do the job. Nor will reasoning by assertion in claims that it couldn't happen, the IPCC don't say that they just say they have no idea when or if it will ever happen.
Based on sound science, data and the politics
of PH I would not advise anyone to hold their breath.Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 3rd August 09:46
DibblyDobbler said:
^^^ Thanks - was about to have a brain haemorrhage after reading the latest Monbiot piece in the Guardian. That's calmed me down nicely 
I think it is always important to assess all sides to a discussion and use varied sources and diverse opinion.However, for the sake of one's health, Monbiot should be taken in small (very small) doses. Usually the headlines and the first paragraph should be thought of as a safe limit. Anything more risks ending up with a catastrophic overdose.
Whether or not there's any anthropological influence though, if his statistics are correct it does start some alarm bells ringing.
Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
Moonbat said:
This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
The data, in terms of solar and temperature (not including the buoy-to-ship-intake fiddle) still indicate a Dalton or Maunder event ahead, though we need to maintain a close eye on the data as time goes by in order to get a better view. The fallout from a strong, natural El Nino isn't unusual. On the basis of this, rather than inadequate climate models, there needs to be at least as much preparation for falling temperatures and more severe winters.
hornetrider said:
Whether or not there's any anthropological influence though, if his statistics are correct it does start some alarm bells ringing.
Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
Why should it be any different from the last 50? As a kid I remember several summers being burnt to a crisp, riding my BMX day after day through the school holidays on countless, long, dry days. So far, this year has been another damp squib, a few "scorchio" moments but nothing to write home about. Ive actually taken a leaf from the wifes book, stopped reading MSM, watching morning TV and surprisingly Im quite a bit calmer (than usual!) without all the hype. Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
Moonbat said:
This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
Oakey said:
Have we skipped Summer and gone straight into Autumn this year?
Nope. It's going to be warm this weekend. An old man told me. Plus the barometer is heading that way. F. all to do with GW. But they are correct, it is climate change. It's the weather. It's the climate. It changes. It always has.
The difference today from the past is so-called experts and jumpy-on-bandwagon types can make a lot dosh by agreeing to this nonsense.
In the late 50s it was a nice hot summer.
Mid 70s was hot too, especially 76.
I know.
I was there!
Oh, and one of the best rainbows this evening (earlier) that I have ever seen in my life.
Perhaps it was a climate-change rainbow?
hornetrider said:
Whether or not there's any anthropological influence though, if his statistics are correct it does start some alarm bells ringing.
Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
The problem with the Monbiot approach is that he offers up problems and never any solutions.Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
Moonbat said:
This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
If he had influence he might be able to persuade various huge polluters (by his assessment) to take steps to walk the walk instead of just talk the waffle.
He could start with, for example (there is a long list of potential candidates) Richard Branson and little Leo di Caprio and his very large carbon footprint.
I doubt they have heard of him. If they have they probably don't care about his message.
His message would be more meaningful if he was able to say, affirmatively and with some proof, that there is a known way to control the temperature of the Planet (whatever the temperature of the Planet may mean) to keep it within certain boundaries that are proven to desirable and sustainable.
Of course he can't provide that proof - there is no way it can exist within our current understanding and nor could the controls be developed and applied using any technology we have at our disposal (although it is probably safe to assume that any attempts would certainly end in the usual cock-up.)
Thus there is nothing positive that one can say about Monbiot for all his bluster. He is as useless as the rest of us in terms of providing the "great solution" for something that may or may not have some message illustrating a future challenge that may be faced by humanity - if some other challenges fail to eradicate to our species sooner.
dandarez said:
Nope. It's going to be warm this weekend. An old man told me. Plus the barometer is heading that way.
F. all to do with GW. But they are correct, it is climate change. It's the weather. It's the climate. It changes. It always has.
The difference today from the past is so-called experts and jumpy-on-bandwagon types can make a lot dosh by agreeing to this nonsense.
In the late 50s it was a nice hot summer.
Mid 70s was hot too, especially 76.
I know.
I was there!
Oh, and one of the best rainbows this evening (earlier) that I have ever seen in my life.
Perhaps it was a climate-change rainbow?
Probably be blamed on too much of one or other taxable gasses....F. all to do with GW. But they are correct, it is climate change. It's the weather. It's the climate. It changes. It always has.
The difference today from the past is so-called experts and jumpy-on-bandwagon types can make a lot dosh by agreeing to this nonsense.
In the late 50s it was a nice hot summer.
Mid 70s was hot too, especially 76.
I know.
I was there!
Oh, and one of the best rainbows this evening (earlier) that I have ever seen in my life.
Perhaps it was a climate-change rainbow?
Real extreme weather & disasters, early 20th Century style - 854 in 25 years in the USA alone.
Imagine the frenzied climate attribution today, if a tornado killed 800 one year, and the most expensively damaging Miami Hurricane happened the next!
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/before-you-w...
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/miami-drowni...
Imagine the frenzied climate attribution today, if a tornado killed 800 one year, and the most expensively damaging Miami Hurricane happened the next!
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/before-you-w...
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/miami-drowni...
king crazy man!LongQ said:
hornetrider said:
Whether or not there's any anthropological influence though, if his statistics are correct it does start some alarm bells ringing.
Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
The problem with the Monbiot approach is that he offers up problems and never any solutions.Could be an interesting ride over the next 50 years. We should really be thinking about putting money into mitigating any projected effects rather than trying to 'prevent'.
Moonbat said:
This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
If he had influence he might be able to persuade various huge polluters (by his assessment) to take steps to walk the walk instead of just talk the waffle.
He could start with, for example (there is a long list of potential candidates) Richard Branson and little Leo di Caprio and his very large carbon footprint.
I doubt they have heard of him. If they have they probably don't care about his message.
His message would be more meaningful if he was able to say, affirmatively and with some proof, that there is a known way to control the temperature of the Planet (whatever the temperature of the Planet may mean) to keep it within certain boundaries that are proven to desirable and sustainable.
Of course he can't provide that proof - there is no way it can exist within our current understanding and nor could the controls be developed and applied using any technology we have at our disposal (although it is probably safe to assume that any attempts would certainly end in the usual cock-up.)
Thus there is nothing positive that one can say about Monbiot for all his bluster. He is as useless as the rest of us in terms of providing the "great solution" for something that may or may not have some message illustrating a future challenge that may be faced by humanity - if some other challenges fail to eradicate to our species sooner.
dickymint said:
If anyone couldn't see this coming....Entice pretend green-conscious punters into EV's on the promise of free fuel (like a drug dealer giving away his wares for free to new users), and when enough have bought into the lie of free fuel coupled with a huge dose of self satisfied smugness, fleece 'em!
I wonder how long it will take before the batteries are considered bad for the environment, and taxed accordingly. Remember, for years, we were pushed into buying diesels because we were told they're better than petrol, and diesel was much cheaper. What happened there?
Similar problem, different era !
Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBrit...
"By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods.
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... "In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure."
However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Henry Ford came up with a process of building motor cars at affordable prices. Electric trams and motor buses appeared on the streets, replacing the horse-drawn buses.
By 1912, this seemingly insurmountable problem had been resolved; in cities all around the globe, horses had been replaced and now motorised vehicles were the main source of transport and carriage.
Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBrit...
"By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods.
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... "In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure."
However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Henry Ford came up with a process of building motor cars at affordable prices. Electric trams and motor buses appeared on the streets, replacing the horse-drawn buses.
By 1912, this seemingly insurmountable problem had been resolved; in cities all around the globe, horses had been replaced and now motorised vehicles were the main source of transport and carriage.
robinessex said:
Similar problem, different era !
Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBrit...
"By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods.
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... "In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure."
However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Henry Ford came up with a process of building motor cars at affordable prices. Electric trams and motor buses appeared on the streets, replacing the horse-drawn buses.
By 1912, this seemingly insurmountable problem had been resolved; in cities all around the globe, horses had been replaced and now motorised vehicles were the main source of transport and carriage.
The eco-friendly horse, what a beast Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBrit...
"By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure". In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods.
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... "In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure."
However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Henry Ford came up with a process of building motor cars at affordable prices. Electric trams and motor buses appeared on the streets, replacing the horse-drawn buses.
By 1912, this seemingly insurmountable problem had been resolved; in cities all around the globe, horses had been replaced and now motorised vehicles were the main source of transport and carriage.
A large city with at least 10,000 adult horses working the streets at the turn of the century would have seen an annual dump of 55 million kilos of manure, a lot ending up as powder in the air, plus a river of 3.5 million gallons of urine, and over 1000 deaths involving carriages. The amount of hoss waste material would have been enough to support an additional 15 billion flies.
Nowadays we've seen motorised vehicles that clean the urban air they drive through (Porsche 911 Turbo was one of them).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff