Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Another standard Durbster evasion. Answer the question.

Some help. You obviously need it

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-clima...

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:40

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:51

Wow, have you actually read the last article you posted? If it was an attempt to demonstrate the benefits of warming and show that humans have nothing to do with the current changes to climate it's a bit of an own goal. I've already posted in response to your question re 'what temp is the right temp' but you seem intent on ignoring the info I've provided. In summary, yes a small amount of warming may be a good thing BUT the implications of even that are serious. Historical evidence suggests that current CO2 levels equate to a sea level between 6-9m higher than the currently are which would have massive implications for us as well as low-lying countries globally. There's a lag between temp change and sea level rise so the next 2-300 years are very likely to present a significant challenge that we're already locked into. So in answer to your question 'whats the right temp' the answer should be along the lines of 'avoid adding to the changes that occur naturally as far as we can while balancing the costs of doing so against the costs of the changes we're causing'.

Anyway, back to the New Scientist article you posted:

"The warming, which lasted 200,000 years, was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. It was thought to have come from the thawing of methane clathrates in deep ocean sediments, but the latest theory is that it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption that heated up coal deposits. In other words, the PETM is an example of catastrophic global warming triggered by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

"In between ice ages, some lesser peaks of temperature have occurred a number of times, especially around 125,000 years ago. At this time, temperatures may have been about 1°C to 2°C degrees warmer than today. Sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher than today – a rise sufficient to inundate most of the world’s coastal cities (IPCC report, pdf format). This peak was triggered by the orbital cycles."

"The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.

Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the world (see box at end of this article)."

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Another standard Durbster evasion. Answer the question.

Some help. You obviously need it

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-clima...

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:40

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:51

Wow, have you actually read the last article you posted? If it was an attempt to demonstrate the benefits of warming and show that humans have nothing to do with the current changes to climate it's a bit of an own goal. I've already posted in response to your question re 'what temp is the right temp' but you seem intent on ignoring the info I've provided. In summary, yes a small amount of warming may be a good thing BUT the implications of even that are serious. Historical evidence suggests that current CO2 levels equate to a sea level between 6-9m higher than the currently are which would have massive implications for us as well as low-lying countries globally. There's a lag between temp change and sea level rise so the next 2-300 years are very likely to present a significant challenge that we're already locked into. So in answer to your question 'whats the right temp' the answer should be along the lines of 'avoid adding to the changes that occur naturally as far as we can while balancing the costs of doing so against the costs of the changes we're causing'.

Anyway, back to the New Scientist article you posted:

"The warming, which lasted 200,000 years, was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. It was thought to have come from the thawing of methane clathrates in deep ocean sediments, but the latest theory is that it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption that heated up coal deposits. In other words, the PETM is an example of catastrophic global warming triggered by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

"In between ice ages, some lesser peaks of temperature have occurred a number of times, especially around 125,000 years ago. At this time, temperatures may have been about 1°C to 2°C degrees warmer than today. Sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher than today – a rise sufficient to inundate most of the world’s coastal cities (IPCC report, pdf format). This peak was triggered by the orbital cycles."

"The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.

Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the world (see box at end of this article)."

Perfect!. So the answer is, we have no bloody idea! Never mind, lets spend $trillions in a vain attempty to er, do something!!!

[DibblyDobbler]

Lotus 50 said:

The answer should be along the lines of 'avoid adding to the changes that occur naturally as far as we can while balancing the costs of doing so against the costs of the changes we're causing'.

Remarkably sensible

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Another standard Durbster evasion. Answer the question.

Some help. You obviously need it

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-clima...

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:40

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:51

Do you realise how obvious it is that you've just scrambled around the internet to find a source that looks credible?

Oh well. I asked where you got your information from about climate change - that you claim to have studied extensively - and this is your answer? An obscure right-wing American website and New Scientist, which doesn't support your position in any way shape or form.

Great work

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Another standard Durbster evasion. Answer the question.

Some help. You obviously need it

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-clima...

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:40

Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:51

Do you realise how obvious it is that you've just scrambled around the internet to find a source that looks credible?

Oh well. I asked where you got your information from about climate change - that you claim to have studied extensively - and this is your answer? An obscure right-wing American website and New Scientist, which doesn't support your position in any way shape or form.

Great work

I use you as an example. You have still evaded the question.

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

Where is that quote from?

Edited by plunker on Thursday 30th March 15:38

Me on PH - HTH (I am able to construct arguments and formulate ideas independently of websites) .

You seem incapable of separating the science from the man. Tol believes in global warming and yet he is still able to show that Cook's paper was a steaming pile of horse excrement. I call that a double whammy.

Tol believes in global warming, that there's a consensus amongst climate scientists that man is the cause, and that Cook and co's finding is "unremarkable".

Contrast that with your claims that "there is no consensus", "it's a lie", "a fabrication" - as shown by Tol!

I haven't read much into Tol's claims about bad practice by Cook & co - doesn't seem worth the effort given he hasn't made any claim about their conclusion being wildy wrong, and I can see where the consensus is without Cook & co stating the bleeding obvious.

Edited by plunker on Friday 31st March 12:05

[durbster]

robinessex said:

I use you as an example. You have still evaded the question.

Righto: up.

You haven't answered my question. You claim to have studied this topic and formed your own opinions based on your own research. Where did you get your information from to form your opinion?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

I use you as an example. You have still evaded the question.

Righto: up.

You haven't answered my question. You claim to have studied this topic and formed your own opinions based on your own research. Where did you get your information from to form your opinion?

Another evasion. My question is the fundemental one. Nothing else matters.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Another evasion. My question is the fundemental one. Nothing else matters.

What? I answered it.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Another evasion. My question is the fundemental one. Nothing else matters.

What? I answered it.

You've never answered it. Yes or no is the only word you need. Simple.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

You've never answered it. Yes or no is the only word you need. Simple.

robinessex said:

The temperature of the planet NEVER stays still. Is it better for it to go up, or down?.

Yes

[DibblyDobbler]

some good Friday fun Gents

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

You've never answered it. Yes or no is the only word you need. Simple.

robinessex said:

The temperature of the planet NEVER stays still. Is it better for it to go up, or down?.

Yes

Best evasion I've ever seen

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Best evasion I've ever seen

Can anyone help me out here? I honestly don't know what he wants.

[Lotus 50]

It seemed to me that he wanted to know either: what the right temperature of the planet should be, or should the temp go up or down...

and for you to answer it with a yes or no.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

I haven't read much into Tol's claims about bad practice by Cook & co - doesn't seem worth the effort given he hasn't made any claim about their conclusion being wildy wrong, and I can see where the consensus is without Cook & co stating the bleeding obvious.

And that is why you will never make a good scientist. And why most of the climate science papers are guff. When you get the answer you want it is very easy to ignore the process that got you there and very easy to ignore any errors. The paper should have been withdrawn due to the amount of errors in the methodology and in the conclusions drawn from poorly generated results - but because it got the answer it wanted and matched the prejudices of the reviewers it got published. A fine example of pal review.
Bad science is bad science and needs to be destroyed as it poisons all the subsequent science that references it!

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Perfect!. So the answer is, we have no bloody idea! Never mind, lets spend $trillions in a vain attempty to er, do something!!!

Nope you're wrong again. We have a very clear idea that CO2 is causing the Earth's surface temp to increase and that the impacts of these changes could be significantly damaging although there is uncertainty around the detail and timing of those impacts. In terms of the responses made to them it seems to me that, starting with Mrs T's Conservative Govt, successive governments in the UK have adopted proportionate and sensible responses in the light of those uncertainties.

Seeing as one of your questions seems to be around proof/causality, how about the following. As has been set out before there's a huge amount of data to back this up. It's not just confined to the IPCC work (which in itself is based on thousands of scientific papers so even if you take the view that it's politics you need to consider the supporting info in itself) which basically centre on the 'no plausible alternative cause approach' i.e. whilst volcanoes, the Earth's orbit around the sun, solar radiation changes and things like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can all affect climate no other cause aside from anthropogenic CO2 can explain the temp changes over the last 150-250 years. The paper below summarises this (it was produced by a group of sceptics who were looking to test analysis):

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Pap...

There's more though - for example a quick rummage through Google Scholar provides papers on direct attribution (or 'causality') studies such as:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47619...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-01...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-01...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-01...
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6316
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1557086
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS102833...

Does that answer your question?

and does anyone really take the 'win £100k' competition seriously?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 31st March 17:09

Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 31st March 17:10

[PRTVR]

Lotus 50 said:

Nope you're wrong again. We have a very clear idea that CO2 is causing the Earth's surface temp to increase and that the impacts of these changes could be significantly damaging although there is uncertainty around the detail and timing of those impacts. In terms of the responses made to them it seems to me that, starting with Mrs T's Conservative Govt, successive governments in the UK have adopted proportionate and sensible responses in the light of those uncertainties.


and does anyone really take the 'win £100k' competition seriously?

Proportionate and sensible response, keep taking the tablets, you think it's sensible to shut down our few coal fired power stations when Asia is building massive numbers of them ?
You think it's sensible to convert some of them to run on wood transported half way round the world when the economics of wood only works with waste at a lumber yard, anything else and you might have just used the diesel from each part of the process, then we come to renewables, that don't work when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow so we have to have 100% back up with real power stations, it's even more idiotic when you consider the low amount of CO2 the UK emits.

The £100k prize, if you are so sure why not just go for it, my view is the science is lacking and will not stand up to examination.

[Lotus 50]

Hehe, well ok you may have a point with the woodchippery stuff that's going on - but in terms of the general approach to energy supply there's a lot of sense in reducing our reliance on external suppliers whilst also increasing the use of renewables to cut down emissions. And even Asia is reducing their rate of investment in coal-fired power plants. There's also a lot of no-regrets type decision making in infrastructure investments whereby it's resilient to change to a reasonable extent whilst monitoring change so that more action can be taken when and if needed. Anyway, this is getting into political responses and we both know where that discussion should be...!

[deeen]

Lotus 50 said:

Nope you're wrong again. We have a very clear idea that CO2 is causing the Earth's surface temp to increase and that the impacts of these changes could be significantly damaging although there is uncertainty around the detail and timing of those impacts. In terms of the responses made to them it seems to me that, starting with Mrs T's Conservative Govt, successive governments in the UK have adopted proportionate and sensible responses in the light of those uncertainties.

Seeing as one of your questions seems to be around proof/causality, how about the following. As has been set out before there's a huge amount of data to back this up. It's not just confined to the IPCC work (which in itself is based on thousands of scientific papers so even if you take the view that it's politics you need to consider the supporting info in itself) which basically centre on the 'no plausible alternative cause approach' i.e. whilst volcanoes, the Earth's orbit around the sun, solar radiation changes and things like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can all affect climate no other cause aside from anthropogenic CO2 can explain the temp changes over the last 150-250 years. The paper below summarises this (it was produced by a group of sceptics who were looking to test analysis):

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Pap...

I've just read this.

Here's a quote from their summary: "Thus, for this very simple model,
solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global
warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled
by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy"

In other words, because they can devise a model that retrospectively fits the data, they choose to dismiss other explanations. Not impressed!

Edited by deeen on Saturday 1st April 21:27