Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
You can bet your last dollar that if the prediction revised upward they'd be telling all and sundry and every media outlet would have tales of coming doom.
Yes the values are in AR5. The public don't read those though do they. They read the news.
Anyway Durbs, my main point was models are not proof. They're just mathematical approximates with varying accuracy and precision. All they can hope to do is approximate.
Yes the values are in AR5. The public don't read those though do they. They read the news.
Anyway Durbs, my main point was models are not proof. They're just mathematical approximates with varying accuracy and precision. All they can hope to do is approximate.
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Durbs your Quoted AR4 that is one report out of date. AR5 is the current one.
Aye, that was deliberate. I was responding to the comment that the IPCC revised their projection from 0.7 per decade in 2013. I'm not sure it was ever that high was it? Maybe at the extreme end of the confidence level.And on that 'evidence' an innocent man would be hanged...
I think it's time for the politicians to revise their statements about future objectives.
They need to push things out further in order to ensure theories cannot be questioned.
So ... here we have tectonic plate movement changing the look of the surface area of the planet some more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-411...
I notice that the icecaps are not shown so I assume warmageddon finally comes about according to the models used.
It's immensely disappointing that no one has been thinking far enough ahead to come up with a plan to Fight Plate movement and so protect human legacy for millennia to come.
An opportunity being missed I think.
They need to push things out further in order to ensure theories cannot be questioned.
So ... here we have tectonic plate movement changing the look of the surface area of the planet some more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-411...
I notice that the icecaps are not shown so I assume warmageddon finally comes about according to the models used.
It's immensely disappointing that no one has been thinking far enough ahead to come up with a plan to Fight Plate movement and so protect human legacy for millennia to come.
An opportunity being missed I think.
LongQ said:
I think it's time for the politicians to revise their statements about future objectives.
They need to push things out further in order to ensure theories cannot be questioned.
So ... here we have tectonic plate movement changing the look of the surface area of the planet some more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-411...
I notice that the icecaps are not shown so I assume warmageddon finally comes about according to the models used.
It's immensely disappointing that no one has been thinking far enough ahead to come up with a plan to Fight Plate movement and so protect human legacy for millennia to come.
An opportunity being missed I think.
PH to the fore!They need to push things out further in order to ensure theories cannot be questioned.
So ... here we have tectonic plate movement changing the look of the surface area of the planet some more.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-411...
I notice that the icecaps are not shown so I assume warmageddon finally comes about according to the models used.
It's immensely disappointing that no one has been thinking far enough ahead to come up with a plan to Fight Plate movement and so protect human legacy for millennia to come.
An opportunity being missed I think.
I already responded to the long-term environmental threat mentioned by another PHer on the thread by indicating the obvious way to tackle long-term climate change - politicians should tax the Sun, starting now. They only have a few billion years to offset red giant status preceded by core collapse producing a white dwarf. The polar bears would be totally f
ked without a Sun tax, though The Team may well appreciate subsequent cooling to a black dwarf as there would be no chance of any more warming in the solar system on any meaningful timescale. Unless they model a closed universe and want to avoid the Big Crunch, though the tax involved would be astronomical and there would be no Gordon Brown Dwarf around to save the world.Moonhawk said:
We know from the fossil record that our planet naturally goes through greenhouse and icehouse states - and that it spends much more of it's time (80%) in the greenhouse state.
Sort of - we know that from lots of things besides the fossil record.Moonhawk said:
Why wouldn't warming of the earth be considered a natural consequence of it simply bouncing around the equilibrium point.
Because there is no single equilibrium point, rather the climate is always moving towards a new equilibrium in response to various geological and astrological processes/changes over time.Moonhawk said:
Given the earth has only spent 20% of it's history in an icehouse state (i.e. a state we are currently in - with permanent ice caps) - rather than being viewed as a disaster to be avoided, should warming and a loss of the ice caps actually be expected at some point as simply part of the natural cycle of the earth returning to it's 'norm'?
I think you're being a bit short-termist. If the earth remains in a icehouse state for the next few hundred million years it would become the more 'normal' state and the greenhouse state less common. Why stop the clock now? On the other hand crocodiles returning to the arctic would make for some good fights with polar bears for the 2 millionth series of Planet Earth (providing they haven't evolved into whales or something).plunker said:
the greenhouse state
That should be climate optimum state. There's no credible evidence anywhere that any so-called ghg such as carbon dioxide (weak) or methane (a bit less weak) has caused a temperature shift.
Data available with the requisite time resolution has both carbon dioxide and methane lagging any temperature increase rather than preceding it on all relevant timescales.
There's a lot of speculation from those that wish it so; that's not the same thing at all.
After the temperature rises, and e.g. carbon dioxide levels rise later, there's never been anything remotely resembling a positive feedback runaway - even Stern's ludicrous "irreversible melting of ice" gibberish is easily falsified by the fact that ice caps have disappeared completely and returned.
Naturally with those for whom "the data don't matter" the mere trifle of having no cresible observational evidence will be easily armwaved aside using the usual heady mix of spin and faith supported by politics.
plunker said:
Moonhawk said:
We know from the fossil record that our planet naturally goes through greenhouse and icehouse states - and that it spends much more of it's time (80%) in the greenhouse state.
Sort of - we know that from lots of things besides the fossil record.Moonhawk said:
Why wouldn't warming of the earth be considered a natural consequence of it simply bouncing around the equilibrium point.
Because there is no single equilibrium point, rather the climate is always moving towards a new equilibrium in response to various geological and astrological processes/changes over time.That would explain a lot ....
plunker said:
Moonhawk said:
Given the earth has only spent 20% of it's history in an icehouse state (i.e. a state we are currently in - with permanent ice caps) - rather than being viewed as a disaster to be avoided, should warming and a loss of the ice caps actually be expected at some point as simply part of the natural cycle of the earth returning to it's 'norm'?
I think you're being a bit short-termist. If the earth remains in a icehouse state for the next few hundred million years it would become the more 'normal' state and the greenhouse state less common. Why stop the clock now? On the other hand crocodiles returning to the arctic would make for some good fights with polar bears for the 2 millionth series of Planet Earth (providing they haven't evolved into whales or something)."Forward to the Past".
Presumably the Polar Bears would have resorted to darker fur colouring by that time making them more threatening and less cuddly - not that they ever have been cuddly except as hearth rugs. (A Great Aunt of mine had 2 pelts used for that purpose and wonderfully tactile things they were too.)
Never mind gigo models running on expensive sooperdoopercompooters, the waxwing has spoken twittered and it's going to be a harsh winter. Allegedly.
http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/rare-birds-th...
The above link is a few days old now. It was found after driving past a group of what appeared to be paps but which were in fact twitchers, earlier today. Parked up to see a small group of winter waxwings (an 'irruption' apparently) scoffing berries while being closely monitored by men with beards and large lenses trying to hold on to any warmth. No sign of Phil Jones.
http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/rare-birds-th...
The above link is a few days old now. It was found after driving past a group of what appeared to be paps but which were in fact twitchers, earlier today. Parked up to see a small group of winter waxwings (an 'irruption' apparently) scoffing berries while being closely monitored by men with beards and large lenses trying to hold on to any warmth. No sign of Phil Jones.
turbobloke said:
plunker said:
the greenhouse state
That should be climate optimum state. There's no credible evidence anywhere that any so-called ghg such as carbon dioxide (weak) or methane (a bit less weak) has caused a temperature shift.
Data available with the requisite time resolution has both carbon dioxide and methane lagging any temperature increase rather than preceding it on all relevant timescales.
There's a lot of speculation from those that wish it so; that's not the same thing at all.
After the temperature rises, and e.g. carbon dioxide levels rise later, there's never been anything remotely resembling a positive feedback runaway - even Stern's ludicrous "irreversible melting of ice" gibberish is easily falsified by the fact that ice caps have disappeared completely and returned.
Naturally with those for whom "the data don't matter" the mere trifle of having no cresible observational evidence will be easily armwaved aside using the usual heady mix of spin and faith supported by politics.
I'm quite surprised at the 'science' community over all this really. You expect the general public, journos and politicians to be clueless about what is and is not the scientific method.
For the science community not to call out (loudly) the replacement of science (you know, testing a hypothesis with data) with "adjustment of data until it fits the modelled trend that we want" is very disappointing.
For the science community not to call out (loudly) the replacement of science (you know, testing a hypothesis with data) with "adjustment of data until it fits the modelled trend that we want" is very disappointing.
plunker said:
Variations in the amount of bovine scatter in the atmosphere are implicated as an important factor in just about all the epochs of the earth and it is so because the physical properties of climate wang in pseudo science is well understood. You can wave it away as wishful thinking all you like, it doesn't affect real science.
Edited to make sense!!! Back to waxwings, almost.
Given that causality is ignored or spun away magically in carbon dioxide and global warming considerations, at least on the part of faithful believers, the 'waxwing winter' effect has prompted thoughts of a 'swallow summer' effect.
One swallow doesn't make a summer but two might / could / maybe / possibly do the trick (I think I'm getting the hang of agw-speak). We should be told how many swallows arrived in the hot'n'hazy summers of the mid-70s to the mid-90s compared to later years with rare and wonderful snowy winters that led to millions of children being wondrously perplexed, and associated UK Met Office BBQ summers ho ho ho.
Clearly more swallows might / may / possibly cause hotter summers, with causality being no big deal.
Another saving on supercomputing time and a new ornithological forcing to add to the list of missing factors in IPCC dreck.
Given that causality is ignored or spun away magically in carbon dioxide and global warming considerations, at least on the part of faithful believers, the 'waxwing winter' effect has prompted thoughts of a 'swallow summer' effect.
One swallow doesn't make a summer but two might / could / maybe / possibly do the trick (I think I'm getting the hang of agw-speak). We should be told how many swallows arrived in the hot'n'hazy summers of the mid-70s to the mid-90s compared to later years with rare and wonderful snowy winters that led to millions of children being wondrously perplexed, and associated UK Met Office BBQ summers ho ho ho.
Clearly more swallows might / may / possibly cause hotter summers, with causality being no big deal.
Another saving on supercomputing time and a new ornithological forcing to add to the list of missing factors in IPCC dreck.
powerstroke said:
plunker said:
Variations in the amount of bovine scatter in the atmosphere are implicated as an important factor in just about all the epochs of the earth and it is so because the physical properties of climate wang in pseudo science is well understood. You can wave it away as wishful thinking all you like, it doesn't affect real science.
Edited to make sense!!! Radio 4 Any Questions today...
Owen Paterson not concerned about minuscule temp increase in 50 years and happy to see greening of the planet underway...
Enraged woman scientist "will have to take you to task over that..rising sea levels...extreme weather....doom, doom, doom...I know nothing about it but overwhelming consensus"
Loud whoops from wannabee durbster selected audience. ...
Margaret Beckett..."just to remind everybody that 0.5deg is significant because there is only a 2deg difference since the last ice age when we were under miles of ice..."
FFS...giveth me an concrete wall upon which I might bangeth mine head until it doth really, really hurt...
Owen Paterson not concerned about minuscule temp increase in 50 years and happy to see greening of the planet underway...
Enraged woman scientist "will have to take you to task over that..rising sea levels...extreme weather....doom, doom, doom...I know nothing about it but overwhelming consensus"
Loud whoops from wannabee durbster selected audience. ...
Margaret Beckett..."just to remind everybody that 0.5deg is significant because there is only a 2deg difference since the last ice age when we were under miles of ice..."
FFS...giveth me an concrete wall upon which I might bangeth mine head until it doth really, really hurt...
mybrainhurts said:
Radio 4 Any Questions today...
Owen Paterson not concerned about minuscule temp increase in 50 years and happy to see greening of the planet underway...
Enraged woman scientist "will have to take you to task over that..rising sea levels...extreme weather....doom, doom, doom...I know nothing about it but overwhelming consensus"
Loud whoops from wannabee durbster selected audience. ...
Margaret Beckett..."just to remind everybody that 0.5deg is significant because there is only a 2deg difference since the last ice age when we were under miles of ice..."
FFS...giveth me an concrete wall upon which I might bangeth mine head until it doth really, really hurt...
The biased BBC, a brainwashed numpty politician and a climate model on legs could only be the recipe for a headache. Owen Paterson not concerned about minuscule temp increase in 50 years and happy to see greening of the planet underway...
Enraged woman scientist "will have to take you to task over that..rising sea levels...extreme weather....doom, doom, doom...I know nothing about it but overwhelming consensus"
Loud whoops from wannabee durbster selected audience. ...
Margaret Beckett..."just to remind everybody that 0.5deg is significant because there is only a 2deg difference since the last ice age when we were under miles of ice..."
FFS...giveth me an concrete wall upon which I might bangeth mine head until it doth really, really hurt...
Why did you partake of the information pollution for more than about 2 seconds you glutton you?!
turbobloke said:
PH to the fore!
I already responded to the long-term environmental threat mentioned by another PHer on the thread by indicating the obvious way to tackle long-term climate change - politicians should tax the Sun, starting now. They only have a few billion years to offset red giant status preceded by core collapse producing a white dwarf. The polar bears would be totally fked without a Sun tax, though The Team may well appreciate subsequent cooling to a black dwarf as there would be no chance of any more warming in the solar system on any meaningful timescale. Unless they model a closed universe and want to avoid the Big Crunch, though the tax involved would be astronomical and there would be no Gordon Brown Dwarf around to save the world.
Only 1bn years to go as the Sun will be too hot by then and all our water will have evaporated.I already responded to the long-term environmental threat mentioned by another PHer on the thread by indicating the obvious way to tackle long-term climate change - politicians should tax the Sun, starting now. They only have a few billion years to offset red giant status preceded by core collapse producing a white dwarf. The polar bears would be totally f
ked without a Sun tax, though The Team may well appreciate subsequent cooling to a black dwarf as there would be no chance of any more warming in the solar system on any meaningful timescale. Unless they model a closed universe and want to avoid the Big Crunch, though the tax involved would be astronomical and there would be no Gordon Brown Dwarf around to save the world.TX.
powerstroke said:
plunker said:
Bravo, I bet you write on toilet walls good too.
Na leave that to people like you ...Trump made you angry has he ?? I predict more foot stamping and toy throwing from the climate riders !!!
I predict 4 years (or less) of lol moments.
He's your hero then is he?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff