Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

jshell said:

Even 'The Sun' getting onto the cooling bandwagon: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1904563/planet-earth...

Conversely if there are no sunspots and the Earth doesn't cool down then does that add a feather into the cap of AGW???

Given enough time no doubt all the unknowns will become slightly less unknown and a balance opinion will be derived and possibly improved with each passing decade.

However since obviously things are only going one way there is no political time for that ... so these observations will be irrelevant. Once it has been established that everything is possible you can claim that any action undertaken or any theory promulgated must have been right, "win" or "lose".

So the basis of you question has no worthwhile foundation for any sort of meaningful insight.

Sadly.

[Gandahar]

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

jshell said:

Even 'The Sun' getting onto the cooling bandwagon: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1904563/planet-earth...

Conversely if there are no sunspots and the Earth doesn't cool down then does that add a feather into the cap of AGW???

Given enough time no doubt all the unknowns will become slightly less unknown and a balance opinion will be derived and possibly improved with each passing decade.

However since obviously things are only going one way there is no political time for that ... so these observations will be irrelevant. Once it has been established that everything is possible you can claim that any action undertaken or any theory promulgated must have been right, "win" or "lose".

So the basis of you question has no worthwhile foundation for any sort of meaningful insight.

Sadly.

A yes or no would have sufficed, thanks.

I did chuckle at the Sun claim

"But it’s looking as smooth as a billiard ball right now and sunspots are appearing at the lowest rate for 10,000 years as solar activity slows down."

As humans have been writing for less than half that time I do wonder where they got their source from for that one. Who recorded it 10 000 years back when people where actually hunter gathering? Agriculture had not even properly got off the ground. But the Sun has a source. Ug from the Nile delta perhaps, with his trusty Tasco binoculars made out of flint.



Considering the sunspot cycle is 22 years this

ICE AGE

will last than a decade. Shortest on record. Mind you, it does mean I will get some use out of my Michelin Cross Climate tyres that I bought in 2015 and still have seen no snow. I need to get on the PH winter tyre thread with those bad boyz and relate how I pulled a snowplough out of a hedge.

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

jshell said:

Even 'The Sun' getting onto the cooling bandwagon: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1904563/planet-earth...

Conversely if there are no sunspots and the Earth doesn't cool down then does that add a feather into the cap of AGW???

Given enough time no doubt all the unknowns will become slightly less unknown and a balance opinion will be derived and possibly improved with each passing decade.

However since obviously things are only going one way there is no political time for that ... so these observations will be irrelevant. Once it has been established that everything is possible you can claim that any action undertaken or any theory promulgated must have been right, "win" or "lose".

So the basis of you question has no worthwhile foundation for any sort of meaningful insight.

Sadly.

A yes or no would have sufficed, thanks.

I'm sure it would.

Still meaningless either way, as you know.

[Mephistofleas]

Already regretting this but here goes...

I listen to R4 a lot as it is pretty much the only tolerable radio station I can listen to in the car.

They're not alone of course bet there seems to be numerous times when anyone who speaks about Global Climate Warming Cooling Change refers to recent weather events as being caused by man. It happened again when Heathrow was being discussed on some debate show they have.

Is it fair for them to suggest that, for example, the flooding last December in the lakes (which I was caught up in near Newby Bridge, scary) is caused by MMCC?

I hope this doesn't breach the rules for the Science! forum but I do want to know the answer (if there is one), scientifically speaking.

[Einion Yrth]

Mephistofleas said:

Is it fair for them to suggest that, for example, the flooding last December in the lakes (which I was caught up in near Newby Bridge, scary) is caused by MMCC?

It would be "fair" for them to claim it was caused by demons, and they'd have about as much evidence for the claim.

[LongQ]

Mephistofleas said:

Already regretting this but here goes...

I listen to R4 a lot as it is pretty much the only tolerable radio station I can listen to in the car.

They're not alone of course bet there seems to be numerous times when anyone who speaks about Global Climate Warming Cooling Change refers to recent weather events as being caused by man. It happened again when Heathrow was being discussed on some debate show they have.

Is it fair for them to suggest that, for example, the flooding last December in the lakes (which I was caught up in near Newby Bridge, scary) is caused by MMCC?

I hope this doesn't breach the rules for the Science! forum but I do want to know the answer (if there is one), scientifically speaking.

I'm sure Gandahar or hairykrishna or plunker or one or two others will be along at some point to provide the proof you seek.

I see that today the Press Association is putting about a press release to the effect that climate change causes occasional extremely cold winters. Something suggested a few times before so I assume that there is a good chance that this may be something in some way connected to the need to keep the story at the forefront of people's consciousness for reasons as yet not well understood.

So, in headline summary, climate change, but only the sort the may possibly be influenced a little my human activity, may possibly be connected to winters that are warmer, colder, drier and wetter. Presumably therefore they may also be brighter or darker for the same reasons.

The only sort of winter that will probably be very unlikely to ever hit the headlines is the Average Winter.

[Kawasicki]

Gandahar said:

LongQ said:

Apparently reservoirs play a significant part in Global Warming.

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantia...

Should we drain them now?

If not, why not?

Because the plus points outweigh environmental impact.

Caveat: generally, but not always.

Maybe we should drain all lakes, manmade or otherwise. Even if it reduces global warming by just 0.12 degrees in the next 80 years it will have been worth it. Ok, so sea level will go up slightly, but acidification will be reduced.

[Toltec]

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

[PRTVR]

Toltec said:

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

If that was the case should not the number of hurricanes in the Caribbean have increased ? I am sure I read a report where numbers are down.

[LongQ]

Toltec said:

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

By what mechanism?

And is the change detrimental overall?

If is it is, why so?

And what aspect of current human development suggest that managing the changes that have been and will be observed is something

a) within the competence of humanity

b) that such competence to make changes, should it exist, is also a competence to make beneficial changes?


Anyone who can answer these general questions - and a few more along similar lines - may find themselves held in high regard by mere earthlings.

[Toltec]

PRTVR said:

Toltec said:

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

If that was the case should not the number of hurricanes in the Caribbean have increased ? I am sure I read a report where numbers are down.

You would have to factor severity and duration as well as quantity, you also have to look at the whole system rather than one aspect. My background is physics, mathematics and engineering not climate science so it makes sense that the more energy you have in a system the greater the energy flows you can have in it.

[Toltec]

LongQ said:

By what mechanism?

And is the change detrimental overall?

If is it is, why so?

And what aspect of current human development suggest that managing the changes that have been and will be observed is something

a) within the competence of humanity

b) that such competence to make changes, should it exist, is also a competence to make beneficial changes?


Anyone who can answer these general questions - and a few more along similar lines - may find themselves held in high regard by mere earthlings.

Personally I'm not convinced any heating is being driven by co2 levels, I remember seeing some evidence that co2 may be following temperature.

The rate of change is going to be an issue if it occurs too quickly, it will be particularly bad if CC mob keep pushing all efforts into co2 reduction rather than preparing for and managing for environmental changes. I don't think we are even close to being able to control the climate and as you point out the chances of us not mucking it up even if we could is high.

While I strongly think we need to develop more sustainable sources of power (yes solar perhaps, nuclear definitely) and control pollution it cannot happen without breaking a few eggs. It just seems like the greens refuse to entertain anything that will cause a leaf to fall now even if in the long term it lead to an improvement in the environment.

Edited by Toltec on Thursday 27th October 22:31

[mondeoman]

Toltec said:

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

B**sh**t.

[LongQ]

mondeoman said:

Toltec said:

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

B**sh**t.

Hmm.

Is there any other source of "more energy" than the Sun?

The Warmist position is that Greenhouse gasses, augmented by the human controlled burning of fossil fuels, retains more energy than would otherwise be the case AND that many of the pollutants of the same burning process have prevented warming in the past by reflecting incoming energy back to space. Or if not that then preventing reaching the surface of the earth which is where most of the CO2 effect is thought to occur.


So it was a semi-self-regulating process until regulation apparently started to clean things up.

Or it would have been if not for "soot" which settled on snow and limited its albedo effect thus making it warmer resulting in melting snow and ice that causes sea level rise ..... etc., etc. Apparently.

All of those positions seem to me to be about grasping any concept that looks like it may resonate with some people.

It generally ignores questions about population growth (where it exists) and the effects on consumption that growth and "development" of the low carbon budget users could be expected to bring.

Why?

If everything else is as an apparently worthwhile target in the Green arena why not the one thing that humans do understand and can control reasonably well?

[LongQ]

Apparently the recently apparent rise in the number of shark attacks on humans is due to Global Warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/shark-at...

And here's the headline.


"Humans and global warming to blame for sharp rise in shark attacks, study finds"

Read the article and consider the journalistic skill involved.

Here are some graphs about shark attacks.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shark-attacks-told-graphs...


All down to global warming of course.


Maybe the result of the American election could be blamed on Global Warming.

The claim could be made now, in advance, since the result does not matter to the message and quite probably not to the success or failure of the next 4 year term.

[PRTVR]

Toltec said:

PRTVR said:

Toltec said:

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

If that was the case should not the number of hurricanes in the Caribbean have increased ? I am sure I read a report where numbers are down.

You would have to factor severity and duration as well as quantity, you also have to look at the whole system rather than one aspect. My background is physics, mathematics and engineering not climate science so it makes sense that the more energy you have in a system the greater the energy flows you can have in it.

The climate is a chaotic system with so many variables, to attribute a change in temperature to a minute change in a trace gas is madness, if you put a single polystyrene bead in your loft would it make the house warmer? It must because it's an insulator, could you measure the change in the loft with all the variables acting on the roof ? Not accurately.
I understand that Green house gases do not operate the same as loft insulation but in any system of delaying heat loss size matters,on this point a colourless inert gas that is CO2 fails.

[durbster]

LongQ said:

Apparently the recently apparent rise in the number of shark attacks on humans is due to Global Warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/shark-at...

And here's the headline.


"Humans and global warming to blame for sharp rise in shark attacks, study finds"

Read the article and consider the journalistic skill involved.

Here are some graphs about shark attacks.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shark-attacks-told-graphs...


All down to global warming of course.


Maybe the result of the American election could be blamed on Global Warming.

The claim could be made now, in advance, since the result does not matter to the message and quite probably not to the success or failure of the next 4 year term.

This is in the science thread?

[Jinx]

Toltec said:

More energy, i.e. heat, in the atmosphere allows for and leads to more extreme weather events. Whatever the cause there is evidence that there has been warming of the planetary environment.

No. Not even wrong. Global warming theory is dependent on the poles warming more rapidly than the tropics. This reduces the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. With a reduced gradient storms become less severe and less likely (as the data shows in the last few decades - showing that the earth has indeed warmed).
So either the earth has warmed and therefore is suffering less storms (as the data shows) or the earth hasn't warmed (or is on a cooling trajectory) and we are getting more storms. To claim the storms are worse is to deny global warming.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

LongQ said:

Apparently the recently apparent rise in the number of shark attacks on humans is due to Global Warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/shark-at...

And here's the headline.


"Humans and global warming to blame for sharp rise in shark attacks, study finds"

Read the article and consider the journalistic skill involved.

Here are some graphs about shark attacks.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shark-attacks-told-graphs...


All down to global warming of course.


Maybe the result of the American election could be blamed on Global Warming.

The claim could be made now, in advance, since the result does not matter to the message and quite probably not to the success or failure of the next 4 year term.

This is in the science thread?

It is indeed durbster.

As far as I could tell all of the media outlets pushing the announcement of the paper were treating it as science and I did not spot any mention of politics.

So here it sits in all its glory.

[Kawasicki]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

LongQ said:

Apparently the recently apparent rise in the number of shark attacks on humans is due to Global Warming.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/shark-at...

And here's the headline.


"Humans and global warming to blame for sharp rise in shark attacks, study finds"

Read the article and consider the journalistic skill involved.

Here are some graphs about shark attacks.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shark-attacks-told-graphs...


All down to global warming of course.


Maybe the result of the American election could be blamed on Global Warming.

The claim could be made now, in advance, since the result does not matter to the message and quite probably not to the success or failure of the next 4 year term.

This is in the science thread?

It is indeed durbster.

As far as I could tell all of the media outlets pushing the announcement of the paper were treating it as science and I did not spot any mention of politics.

So here it sits in all its glory.

fish activity is linked closely to water temperature.