Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
TransverseTight said:
Then ask this.... if you have a multi trillion dollar industry, how much of that would you be willing to spend on fake science and intelligent automated blogging (as trained computers that post the same stuff all over the net in as many diverse unrelated sites as possible). If you can extend your unregulated business for even 1 extra month you make billions extra in profit. And maintain your share price.
Discuss....
TransverseTight said:
and about 100,000 deep water offshore turbines to be built (using exisiting oil rig technology). Simple.
Yeah, but no. This is my business - subsea technology, particularly deep-water - and submerged turbines will be more of a disaster than wind turbines ever were.Won't happen except in the minds of fantasists.
There's some science for this science thread.
Next...
TransverseTight said:
mybrainhurts said:
You have absolute faith in your sources, do you?
You must be a robot. Anyone who questions someone's sources means they don't know how to think for themselves or do their own research and therefore has no intelligence (i.e a preprogrammed robot). It's also the easiest way to try and discredit someone's point of view by asking if they are sure of their source. So now I know you are a robot working for an energy company. OK a Wikipedia graph isn't the best source, but it reminds me of my grandmother. And besides, it's on wiki - surely it's cant be wrong.
Where is the warming?
TransverseTight said:
You must be a robot. Anyone who questions someone's sources means they don't know how to think for themselves or do their own research and therefore has no intelligence (i.e a preprogrammed robot). It's also the easiest way to try and discredit someone's point of view by asking if they are sure of their source. So now I know you are a robot working for an energy company.
OK a Wikipedia graph isn't the best source, but it reminds me of my grandmother. And besides, it's on wiki - surely it's cant be wrong.
Any and all wikipedia articles related to climate change have been edited many times by William ConnolleyOK a Wikipedia graph isn't the best source, but it reminds me of my grandmother. And besides, it's on wiki - surely it's cant be wrong.
So should not be used as a source in the Climate change science thread. As to your other points about CO2 - you have a lot of catching up to do. Significant points being if CO2 AGW was correct there would be a "hot spot" in the troposphere - measurements have shown there isn't one. If CO2 AGW was correct there would be a correlation with increase CO2 driving temperatures - there isn't (though temperatures tend to drive CO2 which fits with the out gassing by the oceans). If CO2 AGW was correct the tropics would have the greatest temperature increase (solar irradience is weakest at the poles - less IR to "trap" ) - the data you've guessed it shows the opposite.
So tell me again why CO2 is a problem when every prediction regarding AGW has been falsified?
TransverseTight said:
funkyrobot said:
If co2 is so bad, why are we clearing co2 absorbing areas (forests etc.) to make way for biofuel plantations? That doesn't make sense to me at all.
Because energy companies don't make money from selling trees, they make it from selling liquid fuels derived from palm oil. PS I should have a signature that says, I have no qualifications in energy, but I know more about it than anyone else I know (and I work for an energy company). Still think I might get off to the OU one day to get some credentials, but that would take time that I could spend reading and learning more useful stuff instead ;-)
Just look at wind farms. I read something a month or so ago that stated the companies making wind turbines wouldn't make any profit without subsidies. When the subsidies dry up, so will the wind turbine manufacturers.
jshell said:
Yeah, but no. This is my business - subsea technology, particularly deep-water - and submerged turbines will be more of a disaster than wind turbines ever were.
Won't happen except in the minds of fantasists.
There's some science for this science thread.
Next...
Won't happen except in the minds of fantasists.
There's some science for this science thread.
Next...
No silly. A wind turbine floating on a tethered oil rig platform that can be kept out of site of the nimbys so they forget how much they are paying in subsidies.
Even Shell have been trialling this to see what mods need to be made to the land based turbines.
jshell said:
Yeah, but no. This is my business - subsea technology, particularly deep-water - and submerged turbines will be more of a disaster than wind turbines ever were.
Won't happen except in the minds of fantasists.
There's some science for this science thread.
Next...
A quick check on the balance sheets shows they make billions from fossil sales and only millions from alternatives. Till that changes I expect the public consensus will be driven by robots. Won't happen except in the minds of fantasists.
There's some science for this science thread.
Next...
TransverseTight said:
Question to people who think AGW is bunkum...
Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
Is this really the best Warming Central has to offer?Which one of these statements is false?
1) CO2 is a climate warming gas? Ie. without it the earth would be cooler.
2) Burning stuff emits CO2.
3) We are burning enough stuff to increase atmospheric CO2 by 0.5% per year.
4) CO2 levels have increase from 250ppm to just about 400ppm. Something not seen since before man walked the planet.
If you answer honestly the answer is none of the above are false.
So much effort to build such an obvious Strawman case is really quite insulting to the various well-educated denizens of this forum.
IainT said:
Is this really the best Warming Central has to offer?
So much effort to build such an obvious Strawman case is really quite insulting to the various well-educated denizens of this forum.
Indeed. Whether or not each fact is correct, it is false logic to link them. As in 'The sky is blue, therefore everything that is blue is sky'. But it fools most people most of the time, and is used by those with other agendas to ply their trade. And if you say something often enough, even more people believe it. Notably 'God made the world in seven days' had a good run.So much effort to build such an obvious Strawman case is really quite insulting to the various well-educated denizens of this forum.
TransverseTight said:
All around but mostly in the sea.
Have you looked at any graphs? One that go back further than 1997? I wouldn't try and predict anything for the next 10 years if I only had 15 years of data to use.
Yeah, but even studies from mega-green-society-land (Norway) show CO2 lagging sea temperatures so that doesn't work. http://www.omsj.org/issues/global-warming/tempsfol...Have you looked at any graphs? One that go back further than 1997? I wouldn't try and predict anything for the next 10 years if I only had 15 years of data to use.
TransverseTight said:
Have you looked at any graphs? One that go back further than 1997? I wouldn't try and predict anything for the next 10 years if I only had 15 years of data to use.
What data do you have, and how far back does it go? The longest-running quasi-global record, HadCRUT, starts in 1850.What instruments were being used, to collect your data, that were accurate to one-tenth of a degree?
IainT said:
Is this really the best Warming Central has to offer?
So much effort to build such an obvious Strawman case is really quite insulting to the various well-educated denizens of this forum.
I understand the strawman concept as an argument very well. Please explain why this is a strawman.So much effort to build such an obvious Strawman case is really quite insulting to the various well-educated denizens of this forum.
Is it insulting becuase condensed to simple undispuatble scientific facts like this means theres something that needs to be looked at further?
Please understand Im not a climate change "supporter". But have read lots (more than anyone I know) and have become convinced to about 75% that its real and man made. Just use the Occams Razor principle, the simplest explanation is probably the right one, unless you can come up with something better. Labelling me as this or that is actually quite insulting.
If you didnt have. such as long posting history Id assume you were a robot posting short retorts from the database of common denailist phrases
Why of why can not people see that the original 4 statements are what matters. The argument is around how much C02 will cause how much warming!
To others Simply saying Show me the evidence for CO2 and are you sure.... thats not an argument. You put the onus on me to prevent evidence. Sorry, I am not paid to be your teacher. DYOR (do you own research). And i dont mean log on to your own favourite denialst blog, I mean spend hundreds of hours a year reading all the sides and then make your own judgements. Dont let the media distract you. Particularly look for evidence that challenges your own view point and understand it.
Thats how I got to my position... every counter claim made by denialists has a counter counter claim by warmists and a counter counter claim....
Im sitting here in the middle thinking the warmists are winning, with the odd own goal (UEA which was all bulls
t leaked from a targetted attack on them But they didnt help themselves). Thats why I find it insulting to call me a representative of Warming Central. Its like calling me a scouser becuase I passed comment on a Liverpool VS Everton game when actually I yam a brummie eh it.
funkyrobot said:
Why are the companies making biofuels then? Historically, they have worked with oil and gas etc. Why would they move from such lucrative fossil fuel refinement if there wasn't an incentive?
Just look at wind farms. I read something a month or so ago that stated the companies making wind turbines wouldn't make any profit without subsidies. When the subsidies dry up, so will the wind turbine manufacturers.
The Chinese have more wind turbines than us even when expressed as a percentage rather than MW. They dont build them to get subsidies, they build them to get energy from them. Even the chinese know they cant buy all the coal in the world so need alternative. Thats just economics not climate science. And that is really what Im trying to focus on... through research and development stimulated by government intervention and increased demand, the cost of PV has fallen from £4,000 per kwPeak to about £1,300 / kwPeak now. In about 5 years. Once it gets to about £800 per kw peak... it will be cost comparble with grid electric. It might take 2 years or 5, bu pretty soon you wont need FITs or Green Deal to get people to buy solar, people will buy them as they want them. Perosnally I think theyre wasted in the UK due to our low insolation levels, but if they have a decent ROI... why not. To maximuse global energy production theyd be better off installed near the equator,, which is not much use if you live in the UK.Just look at wind farms. I read something a month or so ago that stated the companies making wind turbines wouldn't make any profit without subsidies. When the subsidies dry up, so will the wind turbine manufacturers.
The incentive for making biofules is that even oil companies know it wont last for ever... in fact theyre the only ones who know the REAL reserves available. So getting the market prepped and understanding how to improve efficiency needs to start now. It cant be left till 2030 when unleaded might be £5 a litre. Again... nothing to do with CO2 here, just business and economics. An oil company exec has to balance every million invested with potential returns. Does he drill a new well or buy a bit farm land and plant jatropha? Or lease some sea and grow algae. The incentives are there to get the research done so that longer term we all benefit. These arent magic bullets... well have to try them all and pick the most cost effective, whther its nuclear, space mirrors or desert solar farms.
Jinx said:
Any and all wikipedia articles related to climate change have been edited many times by William Connolley
So should not be used as a source in the Climate change science thread. As to your other points about CO2 - you have a lot of catching up to do. Significant points being if CO2 AGW was correct there would be a "hot spot" in the troposphere - measurements have shown there isn't one. If CO2 AGW was correct there would be a correlation with increase CO2 driving temperatures - there isn't (though temperatures tend to drive CO2 which fits with the out gassing by the oceans). If CO2 AGW was correct the tropics would have the greatest temperature increase (solar irradience is weakest at the poles - less IR to "trap" ) - the data you've guessed it shows the opposite.
So tell me again why CO2 is a problem when every prediction regarding AGW has been falsified?
Sorry, I was being tongue in cheek amd its didnt translate I forgot the [rolls eyes].So should not be used as a source in the Climate change science thread. As to your other points about CO2 - you have a lot of catching up to do. Significant points being if CO2 AGW was correct there would be a "hot spot" in the troposphere - measurements have shown there isn't one. If CO2 AGW was correct there would be a correlation with increase CO2 driving temperatures - there isn't (though temperatures tend to drive CO2 which fits with the out gassing by the oceans). If CO2 AGW was correct the tropics would have the greatest temperature increase (solar irradience is weakest at the poles - less IR to "trap" ) - the data you've guessed it shows the opposite.
So tell me again why CO2 is a problem when every prediction regarding AGW has been falsified?
Really. If someone cant tell me where the source that graph is from they have absolutely NO leg to stand on when it comes to debating climate science. It means they haven't even read the source documents that are the basis if which further argument can be made on. If you are an active climate debater pro or anti, you should at least have read the IPCC 4th assesment report summary for policy makers. And then gone onto read the 3 detailed documents from the working groups about evidence, adaptation and mitigation.
Only then can you claim to know what the argument is all about and then go looking for flaws in the models and methods.
I'd post a link but im on my phone and all that pastes is the google search page address. But if you type "ipcc ar4 summary for policy makers" into google... its the first pdf... page 4.
Interesting to note... when you google ipcc ar5 most of the hits that come up are from anti gw sites. Lol. Its why I gave up arguing about it.
Most people argue without having read any of the evidence. And I can usually source where their argument has come from.. and in 5 minutes find a counter argument. So its all pointless.
Regardless of what people think about AGW cars are getting more efficient. That should make us all happy as the fuel we have will last longer.
Interesting about Wikipedia editing by the way.
One think I must disagree with is when people say such and such has been discredited. Have you then gone on to read the discrediting of the discredits? Or are you seeking evidence to support your view point?
I dont need to do any catching up... taking you point on the troposphere hot spot as a finger print of AGW. You are now arguing we should rely on "discredited" computer models which predicted a hotspot that doesnt actually exist as the proof it cant be happening. Should we use the models to support an argument or shouldnt we?
ll say again I've read and reread and argued the same arguments and the same myths keep coming up... all which have a source explanation.
All I can ask anyone is stay on your guard its an information war and a fight for your opinion. Always read both sides.
Eg I read BBC news and Al Jazeera. The Guardian, Telgraph and the Daily mail (for fun)
As Mulder says...trust no one.
PS JINX is not a robot. The answer was too long and specific to be from a list of responses to specific key word phrases.
Edited by TransverseTight on Tuesday 23 July 13:14
TransverseTight said:
IainT said:
Is this really the best Warming Central has to offer?
So much effort to build such an obvious Strawman case is really quite insulting to the various well-educated denizens of this forum.
I understand the strawman concept as an argument very well. Please explain why this is a strawman.So much effort to build such an obvious Strawman case is really quite insulting to the various well-educated denizens of this forum.
Is it insulting becuase condensed to simple undispuatble scientific facts like this means theres something that needs to be looked at further?
Your four points, which may well be individually true, are not actually the crux of the argument.
The argument is not about CO2, it's act as a greenhouse component or our contribution to increasing amounts. The argument is far far subtler and is one of degrees.
- What effect does increasing CO2 have on temperatures? [clue: the models get it wrong]
- What is the main cause of rising CO2? [clue: it's more complex than burning fossil fuels]
- What is the normal level of CO2? [clue: it's been massively higher naturally in the 'recent' past]
- What is the correct temperature for the planet? [clue: we're actually in a particularly cold period]
- What are the impacts of rising temperatures? Are they largely bad, good or balanced? [clue: life exploded when it was far warmer]
- Where is the missing heat? [clue: not where the models say it should be; try behind the sofa]
- Why do models completely fail against all objective measures? [clue: because they're wrong]
- Are the model assumptions based in reality or policy? [clue: they're only as good as teh understanding of the modellers]
TransverseTight said:
Just use the Occams Razor principle, the simplest explanation is probably the right one, unless you can come up with something better. Labelling me as this or that is actually quite insulting.
You'll have Occam slitting his wrists in despair!The simpler solution is natural variability not AGW.
But you can't tax nature.
TransverseTight said:
Sorry, I was being tongue in cheek amd its didnt translate I forgot theReally. If someone cant tell me where the source that graph is from they have absolutely NO leg to stand on when it comes to debating climate science. It means they haven't even read the source documents that are the basis if which further argument can be made on. If you are an active climate debater pro or anti, you should at least have read the IPCC 4th assesment report summary for policy makers. And then gone onto read the 3 detailed documents from the working groups about evidence, adaptation and mitigation.
No - avoid the summary for policy makers it detracts form the actual science in AR4 and minimalises the uncertainty.TransverseTight said:
Only then can you claim to know what the argument is all about and then go looking for flaws in the models and methods.
I'd post a link but im on my phone and all that pastes is the google search page address. But if you type "ipcc ar4 summary for policy makers" into google... its the first pdf... page 4.
Interesting to note... when you google ipcc ar5 most of the hits that come up are from anti gw sites. Lol. Its why I gave up arguing about it.
Most people argue without having read any of the evidence. And I can usually source where their argument has come from.. and in 5 minutes find a counter argument. So its all pointless.
I was following the Socratic method of argument - following the premise of "if CO2 AGW was true" and then finding the contradiction. Therefore showing the premise was false.I'd post a link but im on my phone and all that pastes is the google search page address. But if you type "ipcc ar4 summary for policy makers" into google... its the first pdf... page 4.
Interesting to note... when you google ipcc ar5 most of the hits that come up are from anti gw sites. Lol. Its why I gave up arguing about it.
Most people argue without having read any of the evidence. And I can usually source where their argument has come from.. and in 5 minutes find a counter argument. So its all pointless.
Just because you can find assertations claiming to refute the refutation most will be smokescreens.
TransverseTight said:
Regardless of what people think about AGW cars are getting more efficient. That should make us all happy as the fuel we have will last longer.
30,000 extra deaths due to fuel poverty in the UK alone last winter. But I get an extra 5 miles per gallon on fuel that costs me twice as much. And that's a good thing?TransverseTight said:
Interesting about Wikipedia editing by the way.
One think I must disagree with is when people say such and such has been discredited. Have you then gone on to read the discrediting of the discredits? Or are you seeking evidence to support your view point?
I dont need to do any catching up... taking you point on the troposphere hot spot as a finger print of AGW. You are now arguing we should rely on "discredited" computer models which predicted a hotspot that doesnt actually exist as the proof it cant be happening. Should we use the models to support an argument or shouldnt we?
Science - real science and not post-normal-non-science has a simple process. Observe - create hypothesis on what is causing the observation - predict using hypothesis - Observe - if observation contradicts hypothesis change the hypothesis. The models are an embodiment of the hypothesis. Observations have contradicted the models ergo have contradicted the hypothesis. Hence the hypothesis needs changing.One think I must disagree with is when people say such and such has been discredited. Have you then gone on to read the discrediting of the discredits? Or are you seeking evidence to support your view point?
I dont need to do any catching up... taking you point on the troposphere hot spot as a finger print of AGW. You are now arguing we should rely on "discredited" computer models which predicted a hotspot that doesnt actually exist as the proof it cant be happening. Should we use the models to support an argument or shouldnt we?
TransverseTight said:
ll say again I've read and reread and argued the same arguments and the same myths keep coming up... all which have a source explanation.
All I can ask anyone is stay on your guard its an information war and a fight for your opinion. Always read both sides.
Eg I read BBC news and Al Jazeera. The Guardian, Telgraph and the Daily mail (for fun)
As Mulder says...trust no one.
PS JINX is not a robot. The answer was too long and specific to be from a list of responses to specific key word phrases.
Brain the size of a planet.....All I can ask anyone is stay on your guard its an information war and a fight for your opinion. Always read both sides.
Eg I read BBC news and Al Jazeera. The Guardian, Telgraph and the Daily mail (for fun)
As Mulder says...trust no one.
PS JINX is not a robot. The answer was too long and specific to be from a list of responses to specific key word phrases.
Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. The great thing about science is it's simplicity - data trumps theory everytime. Keep that in mind and you won't go far wrong.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff