Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
No-one disagrees with that point, though. There's the thing.More carbon dioxide and a tiny trend don't demonstrate manmade global warming.
In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been ten times higher then now and rising as the planet entered an ice age.
Even during transitions to climate optima aka natural warmness
carbon dioxide doesn't lead temperature.jshell said:
XJ40 said:
NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
No-one disagrees with that point, though. There's the thing.It would seem to me to be a massive conincidence that there's a big spike in atmospheric CO2 levels occuring when mankind happen to be burning a lot of fossil fuels. If we accept the big rise in CO2 and the greenhouse effect of that in the atmosphere, then surely the temp rises seen can't just be a coincidence too??
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
No-one disagrees with that point, though. There's the thing.More carbon dioxide and a tiny trend don't demonstrate manmade global warming.
In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been ten times higher then now and rising as the planet entered an ice age.
Even during climate optima aka natural warmness
carbon dioxide doesn't lead temperature.Once you see that this is a real frickin issue, then the questions come thick and fast.
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
No-one disagrees with that point, though. There's the thing.More carbon dioxide and a tiny trend don't demonstrate manmade global warming.
In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been ten times higher then now and rising as the planet entered an ice age.
Even during transitions to climate optima aka natural warmness
carbon dioxide doesn't lead temperature.NerveAgent said:
Shar2 said:
What a load of tosh. I'm not that old, but I remember years hotter than this one, or is this cherry picked again?
Did you go to every part of the world regularly to check?Where there are distant rural cooler areas or inaccessible icy expanses it's quite OK to take a warmer temperature sensor hundreds of km away in an urban location or research station to substitute for the 'missing' reading. Good old substitution.
Better sampling is partly why the UAH LTT satellite temperature data is the best place to look for something more like reality.
XJ40 said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
No-one disagrees with that point, though. There's the thing.More carbon dioxide and a tiny trend don't demonstrate manmade global warming.
In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been ten times higher then now and rising as the planet entered an ice age.
Even during transitions to climate optima aka natural warmness
carbon dioxide doesn't lead temperature.jshell said:
XJ40 said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
No-one disagrees with that point, though. There's the thing.More carbon dioxide and a tiny trend don't demonstrate manmade global warming.
In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been ten times higher then now and rising as the planet entered an ice age.
Even during transitions to climate optima aka natural warmness
carbon dioxide doesn't lead temperature.turbobloke said:
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
turbobloke said:
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
No-one disagrees with that point, though. There's the thing.More carbon dioxide and a tiny trend don't demonstrate manmade global warming.
In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been ten times higher then now and rising as the planet entered an ice age.
Even during transitions to climate optima aka natural warmness
carbon dioxide doesn't lead temperature.
XJ40 said:
Okay here's a graph to explain
Yet it explains nothing. A record in carbon dioxide levels over a short geological timescale isn't climate change.As you must surely have read in two recent posts, there's no dispute over the existence of a molecule or two of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The question you ought to be asking is how come with carbon dioxide levels at that claimed high, the temperature in this interglacial isn't significantly greater than on previous occasions.
Also when the temperature plot is placed on that sawtooth plot, the timing of events is that the temperature changes first, then the carbon dioxide level changes.
You're going a long way to argue against your own position.
Meanwhile, how has carbon dioxide evolved to behave differently? Afer all, the laws of physics and physical chemistry were the same then as now.
Tax gas levels ten times higher and rising, planet entering an ice age. Cool.
turbobloke said:
XJ40 said:
Okay here's a graph to explain
Yet it explains nothing. A record in carbon dioxide levels over a short geological timescale isn't climate change.As you must surely have read in two recent posts, there's no dispute over the existence of a molecule or two of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The question you ought to be asking is how come with carbon dioxide levels at that claimed high, the temperature in this interglacial isn't significantly greater than on previous occasions.
Also when the temperature plot is placed on that sawtooth plot, the timing of events is that the temperature changes first, then the carbon dioxide level changes.
You're going a long way to argue against your own position.
So do you look at this graph with the spike and the end and conclude that there's no possible way that this big increase in CO2 could be cause by humans burning fossil fuels? As I'm sure you well know, we're talking gigatonnes per year, every year.
I think one of the arguements is that rising temperatures can cause the release of yet more CO2 from oceans and what have you so there will be some lag as well...
jshell said:
I was thinking a little longer...
Yes CO2 and temperature was higher in the distant past by accounts, I'm not sure how that's an arguement against MMGW though, given we had an ice age in the more recent past so are starting with a low base (thankfully).Do you also look at that plot I posted and see no way how the recent spike in CO2 could be related to human CO2 emissions??
XJ40 said:
jshell said:
I was thinking a little longer...
Yes CO2 and temperature was higher in the distant past by accounts, I'm not sure how that's an arguement against MMGW though, given we had an ice age in the more recent past so are starting with a low base (thankfully).Do you also look at that plot I posted and see no way how the recent spike in CO2 could be related to human CO2 emissions??
CO2 is a great political bad-boy that is used to address gloabl 'ills', but when you drill down, there's not much real evidence that can't be explained by other factors.
We always look at a trace gas, 0.016% of the atmosphere and forget that mahoosive burning nuclear ball of fecking fury just up there.
Have you read this: https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/ If this happens, and it's 'if', quite simply we are f
ked.And that trace gas has never, at geological (Monnin et al and the rest) or more recent and shorter timescales (Humlum et al) led a temperature rise - causality is absent - nor has it been established in enhancing an existing rise (causality again) despite arm-waving claims which the data don't support.
Sure carbon dioxide levels have been rising, it's been doing great things for crop yields and greening the planet generally.
Sure carbon dioxide levels have been rising, it's been doing great things for crop yields and greening the planet generally.
XJ40 said:
This plot goes back 400,000 years, now far back do we really want/need to go?
So do you look at this graph with the spike and the end and conclude that there's no possible way that this big increase in CO2 could be cause by humans burning fossil fuels? As I'm sure you well know, we're talking gigatonnes per year, every year.
That's a surprising post.So do you look at this graph with the spike and the end and conclude that there's no possible way that this big increase in CO2 could be cause by humans burning fossil fuels? As I'm sure you well know, we're talking gigatonnes per year, every year.
Two PHers have, very recently in this thread, said that there's anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I was one of them. It's not disputed.
Your question sounds almost aggrieved...odd. Do you read replies?!
The key issue is, has that carbon dioxide caused a temperature increase and that's where the thing falls down flat. There's no visible causal signal in any global climate data attributable to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
Pointing to gigatonnes is absolutely pointless
since you will firstly be aware of the Beer Law and secondly of the data which doesn't support carbon dioxide in a causal role in any way. XJ40 said:
I think one of the arguements is that rising temperatures can cause the release of yet more CO2 from oceans and what have you so there will be some lag as well...
Yes, higher temperatures will result in carbon dioxide degassing from the oceans.What is the lag you speak of? Carbon dioxide degassing now from the oceans is mixing with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. There's still no visible human signal and Humlum et al show (regardless of corals acidifying the oceans etc and various diversions) the lag is still temperature first, then carbon dioxide.
XJ40 said:
Do you also look at that plot I posted and see no way how the recent spike in CO2 could be related to human CO2 emissions??
Yes, we all have, for decades now. This issue is not 'is man pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere' the issue in question is 'Is an elevated atmospheric CO2 level driving any change in climate?'The only place where CO2 (currently) appears to have any effect on climate/temperature is in predictive computer models, which (currently) fail to predict anything close to what is happening here on Earth.
More worringly CO2 levels are having a massive impact on people's access to affordable energy.
If you want to find any decent correlation between 'Climate' and 'Something', then you might like to take a look into Sun activity cycles.
It [CO2] just isn't in the game in witnessed reality/nature/data, but then of course a way to tax sun activity hasn't been invented (just) yet.
turbobloke said:
That's a surprising post.
Two PHers have, very recently in this thread, said that there's anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I was one of them. It's not disputed.
Your question sounds almost aggrieved...odd. Do you read replies?!
The key issue is, has that carbon dioxide caused a temperature increase and that's where the thing falls down flat. There's no visible causal signal in any global climate data attributable to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
Yes, higher temperatures will result in carbon dioxide degassing from the oceans.
What is the lag you speak of? Carbon dioxide degassing now from the oceans is mixing with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. There's still no visible human signal and Humlum et al show (regardless of corals acidifying the oceans etc and various diversions) the lag is still temperature first, then carbon dioxide.
Well I do try and read most of the replies yes, particularly yours as you seem a lot more well informed than certain others.Two PHers have, very recently in this thread, said that there's anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I was one of them. It's not disputed.
Your question sounds almost aggrieved...odd. Do you read replies?!
The key issue is, has that carbon dioxide caused a temperature increase and that's where the thing falls down flat. There's no visible causal signal in any global climate data attributable to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
Yes, higher temperatures will result in carbon dioxide degassing from the oceans.
What is the lag you speak of? Carbon dioxide degassing now from the oceans is mixing with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. There's still no visible human signal and Humlum et al show (regardless of corals acidifying the oceans etc and various diversions) the lag is still temperature first, then carbon dioxide.
The lag I meant was some lagging of CO2 levels following temp, as you said.
I see what your saying regarding causality, seems something of a chicken or the egg arguement given the facts we know. If we are contributing to a large rise in CO2 through industrial activity, and the said CO2 has a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, then there will be some corresponding temperature rise as a result. Unavoidable.
XJ40 said:
jshell said:
I'm sure these posts are a deliberate ploy to continue the endless cycle of these threads... They simply cannot be genuine. 
There is an endless cycle your right... There is no new debate as such, this space is an echo chamber for those who share a climate skeptic persuasion, rightly or wrongly. I suppose I'm a troll for having an alternative opinion to those here, even if it is accepted mainstream science.I guess there no real purpose to me posting the above, there is no ploy, it's more an expression of perpetual increduality that I experience every time I'm tempted to have a look at this thread... as you were.
1. Endless attrition loops in the Science thread that will take decades of additional measurements to even begin to be meaningfully discussed.
2. The politicians of the world realising that they really don;t have to care about the support of serious science any more when they decide to make whatever policy they choose to adopt.
So here we can discuss the result of policy decisions that will be made based on the premise of "Humans can control Climate".
Most of these decision involve taxation and "control" of a restrictive kind. Call it totalitarianism and that would be close enough. All politicians, ultimately, like the concept of totalitarianism to a greater or lesser extent. It makes their personal missions meaningful.
Nothing in the policies benefit the truly impoverished around the world in a meaningful way. Certain thinkers on the subject of how Humanity is destroying the habitat might see that as a good thing. The old concept of overpopulation and population control and reduction have not gone away.
These are political matters that we might be discussing with a little science on the side where something pertinent at local levels to, say, effective provision of energy and good quality water, seems relevant.
Instead we get dragged back to scientific theories that by their nature can never in our lifetimes be proved or disproved by a controlled experiment. That will not stop the Politicians screwing things up as politicians tend to do. Nor will it stop the alarmist scientists and "Overpopulaters" promoting their opinions.
The irony is that the political decision, often poor from everyone's perspective (except those farming the grants and subsidies) are likely to be of interest to all of us and a valid and open discussion - but those who seem to think everything is proven keep dragging matters back to "the science".
Since, they frequently claim, as does XJ40 above, there is no point in doing that from their perspective one wonders why they bother. Especially here when there is a perfectly formed thread already available for such matters for those who are of a mind to enjoy the constant looping and attrition.
Make a political point and let's discuss the merits and demerits of Climate Change policy. CCP will happen anyway for years to come with minimal input of anything new from "science" no matter what that might identity.
The one thing that all will agree is that there is no way a suitable experiment could be set up to allow the theories to be tested. No one taking the grants will want to run the risk of having significant questions raised about the level of Climate knowledge available related to the ability to specify how any models should be designed. Yet the only "evidence" the politicians have on which to base their "policies" on out behalf is the result of the prediction of models. They would probably get something equally meaningful from their Astrologers should they think to ask. Or perhaps just settle for a crystal ball.
Discussions about why the politicians seem to be so captivated on this subject are surely worth having. They will affect us, come what may and likely have equally adverse effects on all of us, no matter where our understanding might be on matters "scientific".
Heck, even the "scientists" are saying this is all about politics. What is so difficult about accepting that part of their message compared to the theories, the modelling and the use of marginal statistical methods?
TheExcession said:
XJ40 said:
Do you also look at that plot I posted and see no way how the recent spike in CO2 could be related to human CO2 emissions??
Yes, we all have, for decades now. This issue is not 'is man pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere' the issue in question is 'Is an elevated atmospheric CO2 level driving any change in climate?'The only place where CO2 (currently) appears to have any effect on climate/temperature is in predictive computer models, which (currently) fail to predict anything close to what is happening here on Earth.
More worringly CO2 levels are having a massive impact on people's access to affordable energy.
If you want to find any decent correlation between 'Climate' and 'Something', then you might like to take a look into Sun activity cycles.
It [CO2] just isn't in the game in witnessed reality/nature/data, but then of course a way to tax sun activity hasn't been invented (just) yet.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/s...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent...
A sciencey graph, as we like those...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff