Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
LongQ said:
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?
The thing is though is that, as far as I'm aware, virtually all governments accept the man made climate change agenda. Even if they don't, they must still surely accept that temp's and CO2 levels are on the up, so the only political debate seem to be, "what are we going to do about climate change (whether it's man made or not)?"
s2art said:
XJ40 said:
Even if they don't, they must still surely accept that temp's and CO2 levels are on the up, so the only political debate seem to be, "what are we going to do about climate change (whether it's man made or not)?"
And the only sane answer is; adapt as required.XJ40 said:
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...
Telling comment said:
Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area.
The hand of man indeed, on the controls no less.These authors claim that their work serves to confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions.
It's a demonstration of radiative absorption which like carbon dioxide levels is not disputed, what you don't realise is that it's still not causing permanent dangerous warming. The effect at this stage is a transient insignificant delay in cooling.
The greehouse effect, when said quickly in a gullible state, may confer belief on the sayer, but the science says no.
The fact that a gas is a greenhouse gas simply relates to an ability of the relevant molecule to absorb far IR radiation. That's not disputed. Whether the energy can then escape to space at a particular rate in comparison to other energy transfers is where the game is at.
Back to the link. The authors are working within the AGW assumption list, which is a major handicap. They assume a directly proportional connection between the energy balance at the ToA and at the surface.
According to Ceres satellite data, from 2000 to 2014 i.e. encapsulating the 2000-2010 period of study in Feldman et al, average atmospheric DWLWIR (Down-Welling Long Wave Infra Red, aka 'back radiation') to the planet's surface decreased by approx -0.44 W/m2 per decade) while average insolation (incoming solar) to the earth's surface increased by approx +0.36 W/m2 per decade.
The so-called 'enhanced greenhouse effect' claims that as carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, DWLWIR will intensify. Yet Ceres satellite data shows that as carbon dioxide levels increased 2000-2010 and indeed 2000-2014, DWLWIR decreased. However, insolation increased.
This isn't what the AGW enhanced greenhouse effect should produce. It's the opposite, in fact.
An accurate mathematical model for carbon dioxide absorption, so simple it doesn't need a supercomputer, has clearly fallen on deaf ears.
Consider a thought experiment involving a room with one window and a light bulb, switched on. The light from the bulb signifies thermal energy, the room represents the planet's atmosphere, and the window represents an escape route for the energy.
Over the window there is a set of black roller blinds. As many as you like, say up to 400. This is a thought experiment after all. Each roller blind represents an additional amount of carbon dioxide which stops some light aka thermal radiation from getting out through the window - say one roller blind for 1 ppmv carbon dioxide.
When the first roller blind is pulled down over the window the relative effect is marked, in comparison to pulling down the 400th blind which will have a negligibly small effect on preventing light escaping, having had 399 roller blinds pulled down previously. Adding 1ppmv carbon dioxide at 399ppmv is simply not the same as adding 1ppmv at 0ppmv, something which isn't audible when the phrase 'greenhouse effect' is spoken. The effect spoken of ought to be 'enhanced greenhouse effect' as this at least alludes to the fact that something is being added to a position which already exists, enhancing it. Or not!
This is where we now are with carbon dioxide at ~400ppmv, and why climate models rely on significant positive feedback to amplify this minuscule effect. Unfortunately, overall feedback is seen to be negative.
Adding those impressive sounding gigatonnes is irrelevant at this stage and it's not surprising that there's no visible causal human signal in global climate data.
XJ40 said:
s2art said:
XJ40 said:
Even if they don't, they must still surely accept that temp's and CO2 levels are on the up, so the only political debate seem to be, "what are we going to do about climate change (whether it's man made or not)?"
And the only sane answer is; adapt as required.turbobloke said:
It hasn't fallen on deaf ears at all, any more than rising levels of carbo dioxide have fallen on deaf ears.
Okay glad to hear it. I posted this link before and you were very quiet on the matter. I think I can see where your arguement is at, but I'll have a think on the science of your post and your thought experiment later, time for a cold alcoholic beverage now here...Edited by XJ40 on Friday 26th August 18:09
XJ40 said:
the only political debate seem to be, "what are we going to do about climate change (whether it's man made or not)?"
What climate change?You seem quite clever and clearly have lots of graphs at hand, perhaps you can answer my questions as I am desperate to know the answers. They have been asked and dodged many times, let's see if you can address them..
1. What is the correct CO2 level for planet earth
2. What is the correct temperature for planet earth.
Once you have those answers (I will agree to a CO2 level to within 20ppm and a temp to within 1 degree) I will ask more but I need a baseline to do so.
Jasandjules said:
XJ40 said:
the only political debate seem to be, "what are we going to do about climate change (whether it's man made or not)?"
What climate change?You seem quite clever and clearly have lots of graphs at hand, perhaps you can answer my questions as I am desperate to know the answers. They have been asked and dodged many times, let's see if you can address them..
1. What is the correct CO2 level for planet earth
2. What is the correct temperature for planet earth.
Once you have those answers (I will agree to a CO2 level to within 20ppm and a temp to within 1 degree) I will ask more but I need a baseline to do so.
Obviously there is no set temperature or CO2 level for the planet, what's important is what levels are optimial for human life and what is going to give us problems down the line... There's talk about temps and CO2 being higher millions of years in the past, but since humans have been evolving over the last several 100,000 years that's the most interesting time frame.
XJ40 said:
Obviously there is no set temperature or CO2 level for the planet, what's important is what levels are optimial for human life and what is going to give us problems down the line...
People live, in large numbers, in the tropics and near the poles (Alaska, parts of Russia etc). In general warmer is better, but I prefer the climate in the UK compared to, say, Cairo. YMMV, but talk of an optimal temperature is rather difficult to pin down. Note that standard AGW theory would predict that the tropics would be least affected.XJ40 said:
Obviously there is no set temperature or CO2 level for the planet, what's important is what levels are optimial for human life and what is going to give us problems down the line... There's talk about temps and CO2 being higher millions of years in the past, but since humans have been evolving over the last several 100,000 years that's the most interesting time frame.
Then how do you know it is a problem? Unless you have a figure which is set as "correct", you do not know what is wrong do you? Simple. You can then, just for ease, clarify what temperature is correct for human life then, and what CO2 level of course.
As an aside, you miss the point regarding historical temperature. You see, CO2 was many times higher than current levels whilst the planet was significantly colder. It follows that CO2 does not drive temperature (which is also shown by historical records evidencing that in fact CO2 changes follow temperature change, lagging by several hundred years).
XJ40 said:
Well by all measures the planets climate is getting warmer, those guys who measure temperature are saying that 15 of the 16 years since 2000 are the warmest on record. Turbobloke and some others here seem to accept this, but there's a debate as to whether this temperature rise is caused by the rise in CO2 and whether this rise in CO2 is caused by human activity...
Well I remember scientific publications in the 70s saying the opposite due to the extreme temperatures of the 40s (that now seem to have been "edited" from the records). Given that CO2 always lags behind temperature I wouldn't put the cart before the horse.Jasandjules said:
XJ40 said:
Obviously there is no set temperature or CO2 level for the planet, what's important is what levels are optimial for human life and what is going to give us problems down the line... There's talk about temps and CO2 being higher millions of years in the past, but since humans have been evolving over the last several 100,000 years that's the most interesting time frame.
Then how do you know it is a problem? Unless you have a figure which is set as "correct", you do not know what is wrong do you? Simple. You can then, just for ease, clarify what temperature is correct for human life then, and what CO2 level of course.
As an aside, you miss the point regarding historical temperature. You see, CO2 was many times higher than current levels whilst the planet was significantly colder. It follows that CO2 does not drive temperature (which is also shown by historical records evidencing that in fact CO2 changes follow temperature change, lagging by several hundred years).
XJ40 said:
Isn't it obvious that at some level rising global temperature is going to become a problem?? The global average temperature is around 15degC these days. Let's say it were to rise to 25degC over some period of time, you must realise that would have some serious consequences for life on earth? Significantly raised sea levels, desertification, drought, impact on ocean currents, large releases of methane, acidification of oceans, collaspe in biodiversity, etc. It's got nothing to do with "correct" temperatures, no ones said that here.
There is no prospect of a 10 degree rise. We are not even at the level the medieval climate optimum reached, and it wasnt called optimum for nothing. Latest estimates for climate sensitivity are around 1-1.5 deg per doubling of CO2. We will run out of fossil fuels before any significant warming can occur. Large increases are just scare stories, politically driven.XJ40 said:
Isn't it obvious that at some level rising global temperature is going to become a problem?? The global average temperature is around 15degC these days. Let's say it were to rise to 25degC over some period of time, you must realise that would have some serious consequences for life on earth? Significantly raised sea levels, desertification, drought, impact on ocean currents, large releases of methane, acidification of oceans, collaspe in biodiversity, etc. It's got nothing to do with "correct" temperatures, no ones said that here.
I see there is just a general spread of rubbish which sounds like you've read some t**t blog from someone who knows nothing and spouts out a lot of rot to panic people. But let's play for a moment as you at least have the decency to try.
Please enlighten me how there will be increased acidification of the oceans if temps rise to 25c. Oh, I should add I speak as someone who has kept many marine tanks for 15 years plus now, I bet you can't guess what is a good temperature for corals.......
Please explain how there will be "large releases of methane" in relation to CO2 from man?
You do realise that Africa, the Caribbean and many other places have significantly higher average temps don't you? You do realise some of those places are rainforests don't you?
Then, we can move onto what was the condition of the planet when CO2 and temps were higher, for example forests (hint, used to be a lot more plant life when CO2 and temps were much higher - and much larger plants too, but then guess what they eat), sea levels.....
jshell said:
I always found it funny when alarmists said that rising temperatures and humidity would cause crop failures. I've lived in sub-Saharan Africa - stuff there grows like f
k, it's the most fertile place on the planet! Hot, wet, plants looooove it!
It's evident that a good deal of what used to be called desertification is actually just sk, it's the most fertile place on the planet! Hot, wet, plants looooove it!tty land management.s2art said:
XJ40 said:
Isn't it obvious that at some level rising global temperature is going to become a problem?? The global average temperature is around 15degC these days. Let's say it were to rise to 25degC over some period of time, you must realise that would have some serious consequences for life on earth? Significantly raised sea levels, desertification, drought, impact on ocean currents, large releases of methane, acidification of oceans, collaspe in biodiversity, etc. It's got nothing to do with "correct" temperatures, no ones said that here.
There is no prospect of a 10 degree rise. We are not even at the level the medieval climate optimum reached, and it wasnt called optimum for nothing. Latest estimates for climate sensitivity are around 1-1.5 deg per doubling of CO2. We will run out of fossil fuels before any significant warming can occur. Large increases are just scare stories, politically driven.As for "We will run out of fossil fuels before any significant warming can occur", I've not been able to verify that one way or t'other, is that just your assertion?
People are politically motivated both ways, there doesn't exactly seem to be a shortage of right wingers amongst those of the skeptic view.
Carbon dioxide isn't causing any temperature rise and won't be doing so.
In terms of doubling carbon dioxide levels, experiments including those carried out by Dr Heinz Hug (previously dismissed in PH climate threads because he published in the German scientific literature) show that saturation occurs within 10 metres of the earth's surface with lower ppmv than now. This result is rejected by the faithful for no reason except to protect mythology. Doubling carbon dioxide will reduce the height to 5m. A shorter distance is not a temperature increase. Diagrams in school text books with carbon dioxide molecules acting as little mirrors high in the atmosphere bouncing IR back to the surface are nonscience.
In terms of doubling carbon dioxide levels, experiments including those carried out by Dr Heinz Hug (previously dismissed in PH climate threads because he published in the German scientific literature) show that saturation occurs within 10 metres of the earth's surface with lower ppmv than now. This result is rejected by the faithful for no reason except to protect mythology. Doubling carbon dioxide will reduce the height to 5m. A shorter distance is not a temperature increase. Diagrams in school text books with carbon dioxide molecules acting as little mirrors high in the atmosphere bouncing IR back to the surface are nonscience.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff