Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Jasandjules 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.
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.....
The 25degC figure I just picked out off the air as an arbitary number. If one were to accept AGW, then given enough fossil fuels and time there could be such a temp rise a some point in time.
Apparently the ocean waters absorb CO2 which cause the pH to drop, scientists seem to agree that this has a negative effect on marine life.
I was reading that the polar ice traps methane, if it were to melt away then the said methane will enter the atmosphere.
XJ40 said:
From what I've seen, estimates for climate sensitivity seem to start at around 1.5degC per doubling of CO2,
The laboratory evidence is that the figure is about 1.7C.Scientific opinion is that this would actually be good.
Current scientific opinion is that a rise above 3C would be bad. This is why they have they have suggested that there is a "posotive feedback" mechanism at play.
There is no evidence of any positive feedback, and the actual data suggests that there is no such feedback.
Please explain to us why you think that a positive feedback really exists?
If you cannot offer us such an explanation, then I would suggest that you stop posting nonsense.
turbobloke said:
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.
Well that's the crux of your arguement isn't it, one you obviously can't back down from despite me posting links to recent scientific evidence that clearly shows the contary. (one more time, why not - http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/s... ) 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.
I understand that you and others have made up your mind and won't be convinced by AGW, in the same way that those are convinced the other way.
Edited by XJ40 on Friday 26th August 22:26
XJ40 said:
I was reading the NASA website earlier.
The 25degC figure I just picked out off the air as an arbitary number. If one were to accept AGW, then given enough fossil fuels and time there could be such a temp rise a some point in time.
Did you miss the logarithmic relationship involved (the window blinds analogy) and the overall negative feedback? Carbon dioxide won't be causing any warming, just as it has never yet been shown to do.The 25degC figure I just picked out off the air as an arbitary number. If one were to accept AGW, then given enough fossil fuels and time there could be such a temp rise a some point in time.
XJ40 said:
Apparently the ocean waters absorb CO2 which cause the pH to drop, scientists seem to agree that this has a negative effect on marine life.
Apparently not. If the planet is heating up, then the surface oceans will heat up albeit more slowly and carbon dioxide will be degassing from the oceans because it's less soluble at higher temperatures - that degassing (according to the junkscience) will somehow make the oceans more acidic when the actual effect would be to make the waters more alkaline. Are you saying the planet and the surface oceans are cooling to cause this claimed acidification?
As to the 'scientists agree' (on a negative effect) this really ought to be the last time consensus is hinted at as a basis for belief (as opposed to objectivity as a means of proceeding) and in this case it's not even close anyway.
Thriving, growing corals make the water around them more acidic as they thrive and grow, this makes more sense than degassing junkscience in which warmer oceans LOSE carbon dioxide yet become MORE acidic. I cited Andersson et al not long ago in this thread, here's an account of their result.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28468-growi...
Another shock to the junkscience system, shell builders such as crabs / shrimp / lobsters "unexpectedly" build more shell when exposed to ocean 'acidification'.
http://www.livescience.com/7980-creatures-build-th...
XJ40 said:
I was reading that the polar ice traps methane, if it were to melt away then the said methane will enter the atmosphere.
Putting aside the absurdity of 'melting away' to get to the point about methane, you'll be pleased to know that what data rather than faith shows is that, like carbon dioxide, methane lags temperature - so events are in the wrong order (again) for causality. It's in Monnin et al, if you're interested.Edited by turbobloke on Friday 26th August 22:30
XJ40 said:
Well that's the crux of your arguement isn't it, one you obviously can't back down from despite me posting links to recent scientific evidence that clearly shows the contary. (one more time, why not - http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/s... )
I understand that you and others have made up your mind and won't be convinced by AGW, in the same way that those are convinced the other way.
You haven't posted anything that verifies your view, as my replies continually show.I understand that you and others have made up your mind and won't be convinced by AGW, in the same way that those are convinced the other way.
The irony is that the data doesn't support your position.
Only one position is credible. That supported by the data.
Could you explain, for example, how absorption over 5m rather than 10m makes for dangerous permanent warming?
XJ40 said:
I think one of the arguments 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...
XJ40 said:
Apparently the ocean waters absorb CO2 which cause the pH to drop, scientists seem to agree that this has a negative effect on marine life.
So as I understand the arguments - CO2 increases cause temperature to increase. And when CO2 increases it is absorbed by the oceans which recently explained the 'missing heat' and causes acidification, coral bleaching etc), and when temperature increases CO2 is released by the oceans - So does the ocean ph then go back to normal?Does the released CO2 then increase the temperature?
Does the temp increase lead to CO2 returning to the oceans?
Can you clarify this for me, I am having a hard time following this combination. Thanks
"The laboratory evidence is that the figure is about 1.7C."
The origin of this 'result' may be a surprise to PHers.
The historical temperature record was interpreted as showing that if CO2 in the atmosphere doubled, an increase in temperature of 1.7°C occurred (but causality has to be set aside to achieve this result, so it's junkscience).
Amazingly, calculations began to show the same figure, but commentators noted that this was unimpressive, and political will demanded a clear message, so 'secondary effects' were conjured up which were of the same order of magnitude as the causality-defying primary effect and the rise became ~3 deg C.
This is of course total hooey.
The origin of this 'result' may be a surprise to PHers.
The historical temperature record was interpreted as showing that if CO2 in the atmosphere doubled, an increase in temperature of 1.7°C occurred (but causality has to be set aside to achieve this result, so it's junkscience).
Amazingly, calculations began to show the same figure, but commentators noted that this was unimpressive, and political will demanded a clear message, so 'secondary effects' were conjured up which were of the same order of magnitude as the causality-defying primary effect and the rise became ~3 deg C.
This is of course total hooey.
Silver Smudger said:
XJ40 said:
I think one of the arguments 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...
XJ40 said:
Apparently the ocean waters absorb CO2 which cause the pH to drop, scientists seem to agree that this has a negative effect on marine life.
Can you clarify this for me, I am having a hard time following this combination. ThanksIt's a miracle of Gaian proportions.
The problem you're having, which I know you know, is that the two statements are quite clearly contradictory. The amazing thing is that somebody else hasn't spotted it.
It's common to global warming junkscience, twisting in the wind as it must do to escape the data and sound science. Modelling shows that hurricanes will become more frequent and less frequent, that snow will be a thing of the past yet more common, rain will only fall in biblical proportions or in drought-inducing scarcity, jet streams will weaken and drift closer to the poles yet normal variations in weather will be called 'extreme' and occur when one of the jet streams strengthens and moves away from the (north) pole. I've referenced these recently in this thread.
Jolly japes!
XJ40 said:
I was reading the NASA website earlier.
The 25degC figure I just picked out off the air as an arbitary number. If one were to accept AGW, then given enough fossil fuels and time there could be such a temp rise a some point in time.
Apparently the ocean waters absorb CO2 which cause the pH to drop, scientists seem to agree that this has a negative effect on marine life.
I was reading that the polar ice traps methane, if it were to melt away then the said methane will enter the atmosphere.
Might I suggest you attempt to read websites that are impartial - though I do accept that is very, very difficult to find. The 25degC figure I just picked out off the air as an arbitary number. If one were to accept AGW, then given enough fossil fuels and time there could be such a temp rise a some point in time.
Apparently the ocean waters absorb CO2 which cause the pH to drop, scientists seem to agree that this has a negative effect on marine life.
I was reading that the polar ice traps methane, if it were to melt away then the said methane will enter the atmosphere.
I should say if you are simply plucking arbitrary numbers then you are well suited to believing in AGW. Sorry.
And what is the correct PH for the ocean then? No doubt the scientists will have this answer. Going further, there is a very simple thing the oceans do (as we replicate when keeping fish) that means their "science" is unfounded.
I presume you mean that there is trapped methane in the polar ice caps that would be released if they melted. Good job the antartic extent is increasing then eh? Not to mention the again fairly simple question, what were the methane and CO2 levels when there were no ice caps?
But overall, if we do not know what is the "right" temperature or CO2 level, then we don't know what is wrong do we....
Jasandjules said:
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.
You keep on asking this but it's the wrong question. Both the levels of CO2 and temperatures of the planet go up and down as the graphs people have posted have shown. The issue that climate scientists have identified is that the human influences on the atmosphere, in particular CO2 emissions, are causing a change in climate that is likely to be very difficult for us to deal with - for example the number of people and value of infrastructure situated in low-lying areas where sea level rise will mean there is a need to move people or invest heavily in defences. Without the human-influence on climate, these changes would be taking place much more slowly and be easier to manage.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.
As for causality, well:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/...
Interesting that the BEST programme was referred to in a recent post. In the link given it appears there's no provenance to the analysis or info on who wrote the blog, so for me it's filed under the "bloke said on the inter web therefore it must be true" bin. But, following up on the BEST link it's interesting to see the conclusions that a team that was set up to independently review climate change data and science came to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conv...
As for the "gas taxes killing thousands every year" point, I'd be interested to see the data and analysis that shows this. However, if there is any truth in it, surely that's more about the political response rather than the climate science and down to inadequate winter payments than some dark plan by the UAE/Met Office/IUPCC?
Lotus 50 said:
Jasandjules said:
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.
You keep on asking this but it's the wrong question. Both the levels of CO2 and temperatures of the planet go up and down as the graphs people have posted have shown. The issue that climate scientists have identified is that the human influences on the atmosphere, in particular CO2 emissions, are causing a change in climate that is likely to be very difficult for us to deal with - 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.
Lotus 50 said:
That's an interesting link to offer up, very lengthy, notably with no commentary or indication as to points of relevance. Post and run with a hint of something somewhere.In which case, allow me.
Ch10 as linked said:
...statements such as ‘the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’ or ‘most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations...
Suggests; very likely; this is not detection and unambiguous attribution of climate change. It's speculation with word salad to go.Try the relevant SPM where misleading % IPCC confidence in IPPC faith is set out clearly as speculation by self-appointed 'experts'. The use of 90% increasing to 95% within The Pause (!) are suggestive of statistical confidence levels when there's no such basis behind speculation.
Causality has not only not been established, it's been shown not to exist as Monnin et al, Fischer et al, Caillon et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al and Humlum et al find on both geological timescales and contemporary decadal timescales that the order of events is the wrong way round: temperature changes first, then carbon dioxide (and methane for that matter).
Ch 10 also involves itself with local effects but notes dominance of internal (climate) variability in passing.
Lotus 50 said:
Again, from the link:Link said:
...the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases...
It appears likely. Hmmm, solid stuff, again 
There's not much point posting further speculative conclusions by vested interests. Why not just post a link to an unambiguously attributed human causal signal in global climate data, that would do. The answer is that the IPCC cannot, and nobody else can.
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
There's not much point posting further speculative conclusions by vested interests.
Lol! OK when you stop I will.My response to manmade warming word salad of the type you posted recently and which is seen repeatedly in attrition loops is to offer research-based data which flatly contradicts it with no weasel words needed as the temp-to-CO2 interval (wrong way round for causality) is outside the magnitude of experimental error.
Out of curiosity, which vested interests are present in research from scientists publishing results which refute AGW?
In the UK there's no money for such research (see Hansard extract as posted n times).
Is it Big Oil funding the Monnin, Fischer, Caillon, Petit, Jouzel and Humlum teams whose research I cited? Do you have evidence for this?
Justifying your parroting of my valid point may prove to be as difficult as posting that elusive visible causal human signal in global climate data.
Maybe next time try something more substantive?
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?I have also seen a lot of the world thanks to the RN.
As to XJ40s stating that CO2 has gone through the roof to 4000ppm, wasn't it at 400ppm during the Jurassic Period? There were no ice caps of any description, Antarctica wax covered in forest. Damn those V8 driving dinosaurs.
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?I have also seen a lot of the world thanks to the RN.
As to XJ40s stating that CO2 has gone through the roof to 400ppm, wasn't it at 4000ppm during the Jurassic Period? There were no ice caps of any description, Antarctica wax covered in forest. Damn those V8 driving dinosaurs.
Edited by Shar2 on Saturday 27th August 12:18
Edited by Shar2 on Saturday 27th August 12:19
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
There's not much point posting further speculative conclusions by vested interests.
Lol! OK when you stop I will.All real world data shows NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER - in fact the climate is if anything more benign and farming more productive, and all the supposed real problems are in the future - in models.
And yet still credible research emerges (the latest) showing ocean temperatures and HADCRUT better match sun activity and that there is no human signal in sea level etc.
And AGW papers get more and more transparently less scientific and more and more blatantly AGW advocacy/propaganda - preemptively attacking the coming cooling, explaining away inconvenient facts like the lack of sea level signal etc.
And AGW proponents still keep hijacking every weather event as proof of AGW here now.
Oh the smell of extreme desperation and the lost argument and the failed AGW hypothesis.
Shar2 said:
Cheers TB, I knew it was a lot higher than today.
The point you made is well worth taking further...Researcher Dr Butejko showed that lack of carbon dioxide lowers human cells’ uptake of oxygen so replicating earlier work from Bohr and Verigo way back.
The less carbon dioxide in the blood, the less oxygen is found in cells. Carbon dioxide is not only essential for the food chain to operate from photosynthesis up, it's critical to human health...it helps our bodies in many ways (oxygen, dilating capillaries, thinning the blood and supporting circulation).
In terms of healthy adult tolerance:
-current outdoor level: 400 ppmv
-comfort level: 600 ppmv
-ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppmv
-maximum within any 8 hour working period: 5000 ppmv E
ETA Nuclear submarine carbon dioxide levels range up to 10600 ppmv.
"We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8000 ppmv, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels."
– Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer
It's worth a search on "deserts greening from rising CO2".
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 27th August 14:17
turbobloke said:
Shar2 said:
Cheers TB, I knew it was a lot higher than today.
The point you made is well worth taking further...Researcher Dr Butejko showed that lack of carbon dioxide lowers human cells’ uptake of oxygen so replicating earlier work from Bohr and Verigo way back.
The less carbon dioxide in the blood, the less oxygen is found in cells. Carbon dioxide is not only essential for the food chain to operate from photosynthesis up, it's critical to human health...it helps our bodies in many ways (oxygen, dilating capillaries, thinning the blood and supporting circulation).
In terms of healthy adult tolerance:
-current outdoor level: 400 ppmv
-comfort level: 600 ppmv
-ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppmv
-maximum within any 8 hour working period: 5000 ppmv E
ETA Nuclear submarine carbon dioxide levels range up to 10600 ppmv.
"We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8000 ppmv, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels."
– Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer
It's worth a search on "deserts greening from rising CO2".
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 27th August 14:17
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff