Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Dangerous2]

my simple analysis suggests that the political debate is an older thread than the scientific thread.

[ExChrispy Porker]

turbobloke said:

Every Saturday for the foreseeable future, finer and dryer if you feel the faith of the new religion

Which I would guess you don't but correct that if wrong.

Otherwise the scientific appraisal of ENSO relates more to possible impact on global measures e.g. awaiting May release of April's data here and beyond April into the summer.

Frankly I don't know what to believe.
Then again, I don't suppose my opinion matters.
FWIW though I think pollution is probably a bad idea.

[chris watton]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Frankly I don't know what to believe.
Then again, I don't suppose my opinion matters.
FWIW though I think pollution is probably a bad idea.

This is why I hate loony tunes environmentalists so much – if you don’t ‘believe’ in MMGW/CC – you are automatically pigeon holed as anti all environment. I do not believe any of the fake proof for MMGW/CC – and the more desperate they become with their shrill predictions and put downs of anyone who questions them, the more flaky their arguments become.
I DO care about the environment, in fact, we are seemingly the only family on our street that actually pays the extra £40 per year on top of our extortionate council tax for the council to empty our recycle bin – yes – you have pay more to be ‘Green’, despite being told that if we don’t curb our greedy capitalist ways, the Earth will die – if you pay extra though, it will be saved……
This seems to be the case and the underlying reason for indoctrination – making other people richer – which is kind of ironic when you consider just how many of the environmentalist orks pretend to hate greed and capitalism.

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Frankly I don't know what to believe.
Then again, I don't suppose my opinion matters.
FWIW though I think pollution is probably a bad idea.

This is why I hate loony tunes environmentalists so much – if you don’t ‘believe’ in MMGW/CC – you are automatically pigeon holed as anti all environment. I do not believe any of the fake proof for MMGW/CC – and the more desperate they become with their shrill predictions and put downs of anyone who questions them, the more flaky their arguments become.
I DO care about the environment, in fact, we are seemingly the only family on our street that actually pays the extra £40 per year on top of our extortionate council tax for the council to empty our recycle bin – yes – you have pay more to be ‘Green’, despite being told that if we don’t curb our greedy capitalist ways, the Earth will die – if you pay extra though, it will be saved……
This seems to be the case and the underlying reason for indoctrination – making other people richer – which is kind of ironic when you consider just how many of the environmentalist orks pretend to hate greed and capitalism.

Indeed.

Also carbon dioxide is an essential naturally occurring trace atmospheric gas where there is no credible evidence of doing harm in past present or future levels so not pollution in absolute terms, though politicians who have swalloiwed the AGW information pollution junkscience, particularly over the pond may conspire to disagree and get their agents to generate nonsensical policy as a result.

Pollution bad - so get old buses with large diesel engines off the road and old diesel engined trains off the tracks. Large diesel engines under load produce the two most genotoxic carcinogens known to science in 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP.

Then for good measure, just taste that yummy NOx and particulates cocktail, mmmmm.

[The Excession]

Now if only we could hook up all this pedaling to some king of generator perhaps all our energy needs could be met...

AMAP said:

Ice in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is melting dramatically faster than was earlier projected and could raise global sea levels by as much as 1.6 metres by 2100, says a new study.

The study released on Tuesday by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) said there is a "need for greater urgency" in fighting global warming as record temperatures have led to the increased rate of melting.

The AMAP report said the correspondending rise in water levels will directly threaten low-lying coastal areas such as Florida and Bangladesh, but would also affect islands and cities from London to Shanghai. The report says it will also increase the cost of rebuilding tsunami barriers in Japan.

"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," said the report.

"In the future, global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 metres to 1.6 metres by 2100 and the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution," it added.

The rises had been projected from levels recorded in 1990.

Time to buy a lot of land on Greenland? Might be a good investment for the grand children...



linky

[VPower]

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Also carbon dioxide is an essential naturally occurring trace atmospheric gas where there is no credible evidence of doing harm in past present or future levels so not pollution in absolute terms, though politicians who have swalloiwed the AGW information pollution junkscience, particularly over the pond may conspire to disagree and get their agents to generate nonsensical policy as a result.

Pollution bad - so get old buses with large diesel engines off the road and old diesel engined trains off the tracks. Large diesel engines under load produce the two most genotoxic carcinogens known to science in 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP.

Then for good measure, just taste that yummy NOx and particulates cocktail, mmmmm.

TB can I ask you a question about diesel fumes please?
I have noticed when following modern diesel cars, an almost bleach like smell that sort of makes my lungs complain.
I have to drop back and shut of the air vent.
I believe that they inject another chemical into the diesel combustion, any info on what this is and if it is harmful?

[turbobloke]

VPower said:

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Also carbon dioxide is an essential naturally occurring trace atmospheric gas where there is no credible evidence of doing harm in past present or future levels so not pollution in absolute terms, though politicians who have swalloiwed the AGW information pollution junkscience, particularly over the pond may conspire to disagree and get their agents to generate nonsensical policy as a result.

Pollution bad - so get old buses with large diesel engines off the road and old diesel engined trains off the tracks. Large diesel engines under load produce the two most genotoxic carcinogens known to science in 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP.

Then for good measure, just taste that yummy NOx and particulates cocktail, mmmmm.

TB can I ask you a question about diesel fumes please?
I have noticed when following modern diesel cars, an almost bleach like smell that sort of makes my lungs complain.
I have to drop back and shut of the air vent.
I believe that they inject another chemical into the diesel combustion, any info on what this is and if it is harmful?

Sounds to me like you're getting a nose, mouth and lungful of nitrogen dioxide, one of the NOx family. A diesel speciality. It's disgusting. Just walking along Oxford St in London has the same effect every few metres as the buses crawl along, almost empty at that.

[Dangerous2]

diesel cars should only be run in a fume hood.

[turbobloke]

[VPower]

turbobloke said:

Sounds to me like you're getting a nose, mouth and lungful of nitrogen dioxide, one of the NOx family. A diesel speciality. It's disgusting. Just walking along Oxford St in London has the same effect every few metres as the buses crawl along, almost empty at that.

Thanks, I'll just have to overtake them!!

[odyssey2200]

Dangerous2 said:

my simple analysis suggests that the political debate is an older thread than the scientific thread.

or that it is more of a politically motivated issue than a scientifically proven one?

[PRTVR]

odyssey2200 said:

Dangerous2 said:

my simple analysis suggests that the political debate is an older thread than the scientific thread.

or that it is more of a politically motivated issue than a scientifically proven one?

Perhaps the thread name is wrong also, perhaps it needs a Pseudo in it,
it appears to fit, see link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

[VPower]

Or it could be that there is just NO Science to support Catastrophic Climate Change, let alone any Man Made aspect to it?

[turbobloke]

New solar forcing paper link via the bush telegraph:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763...

PH value added bit: "The large UV variability reported here is especially of importance to the climate community because..."

Read on

Good to see UV considered as it is, the authors must have read my posts on climate threads over the past ~9 years

And after all that it's still 'only' irradiance, solar eruptivity forcing is another matter.

[Kawasicki]

it wos da sun shine wot did it!

[DieselGriff]

For those interested BishopHill is blogging live today from this event-

BishopHill on 9th May said:

Next week, I'm off down south for a couple of days. The purpose of the visit is to attend a conference to which I've been invited. This promises to be fun, with a positively stellar list of speakers:

Phil Jones
Andrew Watson (of "Morano is an asshole" fame)
Mike Lockwood (of "Svensmark is all wrong" fame)
Henrik Svensmark (of "no I'm not" fame)
Nils Axel Morner
Ian Plimer
John Mitchell (of "no IPCC working papers" fame)
Nigel Lawson
Vaclav Klaus

The balance of speakers is not quite right, with nobody there to put the Stern review side of the economic arguments, but it's hard to argue with the calibre of speaker the organisers have recruited. The suggestion in the invitation was that the organisers see the event as forming an opportunity for compromise between the two sides of the global warming debate.

I will try to liveblog at least some of the proceedings on Tuesday, wifi availability and battery life permitting. Josh will be on hand to do the visuals.

If anyone wants to help defray the cost of the trip, your contributions to the tip box will be gratefully received.

[The conference is invitation-only, but Phil Jones is doing a repeat of his talk at the University of Lancaster on Friday (h/t Aztek) for those who are interested.]

(Bumped)

[jesta1865]

just read the thread and as usual i am not sure i follow everything, but i am trying (very according to the wife).

what did worry me was that someone who was pro agw (and against what i believe) seems to have been banned from the debate?

are we not in danger of becoming as religiously fundamental about being anti agw as the other side and trying to silence all criticism, or have i missed something prof p said elsewhere?

[mybrainhurts]

Guam said:

...how Ironic is this then? Vatican holds Conference on Glacial melt ROFLMAO

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=11...

Oh, strewth...

Here comes another Inquisition, and it's worse than previously thought...

Run for the hills...

[DieselGriff]

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

Oh, strewth...

Here comes another Inquisition, and it's worse than previously thought...

Run for the hills...

Whole new string of Python sketches in this one if the boys did a comeback series

ummm - Isn't Palin a fully paid up Greenie? I'm sure it was him that said he could fly all over the earth on our behalf and film it, and we shouldn't (needn't) be granted the privilege.

[The Excession]

Guam said:

I can see it now "Catholicism, the world true eco religion"

Steady on some of us are putting up with the big 'C' on a day by day basis here. Still at the end of the day it's all God's intention/fault, right?


ETA: Thinking on if we start a 'climate change the religious debate' thread, have we got all bases covered?

Edited by The Excession on Tuesday 10th May 20:54