Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
@durbster
Would you take a few moments to watch this speech by Judith Curry?
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate."
I think her position on this subject reflects many of the PH 'deniers' views and opinions which often gets lost in th noise of these topics.
Just to reinforce the view of many here - it has become a state of 'Data vs Dogma'.
@Everyone on these threads
As has been seen over the years, nay decades in fact, here on PH, many many attempts have been made to resolve the issue of 'Data vs Dogma', and it does a massive disservice to all contributors to resort to name calling.
Would you take a few moments to watch this speech by Judith Curry?
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate."
I think her position on this subject reflects many of the PH 'deniers' views and opinions which often gets lost in th noise of these topics.
Just to reinforce the view of many here - it has become a state of 'Data vs Dogma'.
@Everyone on these threads
As has been seen over the years, nay decades in fact, here on PH, many many attempts have been made to resolve the issue of 'Data vs Dogma', and it does a massive disservice to all contributors to resort to name calling.
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
I don't claim to know either way, but it does appear to be mobile pack ice coming out of the arctic and heading south according to the reports.
The Arctic research guy points to a climate change aspect:
Essentially, the Arctic ice, because of climate change, is having its thickness reduced which in turn allows the ice to become more mobile. The ice was able to escape the Arctic to the Labrador current and make its way south. Barber says that situation works as a microcosm that showcases the need for Canada to start planning for the transformation climate change is, and will, bring, as it will affect our everyday activities and trade routes. "We're really at the beginning of this," said Barber. "It's only going to get worse."
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/arctic-climate-...
The coast guard points to a weather aspect (wind):
Trevor Hodgson, the Canadian Coast Guard's superintendent of ice operations for the Atlantic region, said the heavy ice is more than two metres thick in some areas off the province's northeast coast.
"We had a bit of stuff that forms over the winter, the normal ice in the area," he said. "What we're experiencing now is the ice that has come south through the Arctic due to melting up there."
What's unusual this year, Hodgson said, is the way the winds have pushed the thick pack ice towards land rather than out to sea.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thick-arctic-ice-pack...
do you remember a ship called the titanic hitting a big white thing some time in the past ? what might that white thing have been,and where may it have come from ? shifts in the beaufort gyre and transpolar drift can move multi year ice over long distances.The Arctic research guy points to a climate change aspect:
Essentially, the Arctic ice, because of climate change, is having its thickness reduced which in turn allows the ice to become more mobile. The ice was able to escape the Arctic to the Labrador current and make its way south. Barber says that situation works as a microcosm that showcases the need for Canada to start planning for the transformation climate change is, and will, bring, as it will affect our everyday activities and trade routes. "We're really at the beginning of this," said Barber. "It's only going to get worse."
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/arctic-climate-...
The coast guard points to a weather aspect (wind):
Trevor Hodgson, the Canadian Coast Guard's superintendent of ice operations for the Atlantic region, said the heavy ice is more than two metres thick in some areas off the province's northeast coast.
"We had a bit of stuff that forms over the winter, the normal ice in the area," he said. "What we're experiencing now is the ice that has come south through the Arctic due to melting up there."
What's unusual this year, Hodgson said, is the way the winds have pushed the thick pack ice towards land rather than out to sea.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thick-arctic-ice-pack...
multi year ice moving out of the arctic is nothing new,it is just reported as such.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/circ...
Back to the sea ice; I realise that multi-year sea ice coming out of the arctic is nothing new, but I don't know how normal is for this particular neck of the woods to be affected by it in this way, so difficult to judge. The loss of multi-year sea ice in the arctic has been quite dramatic recently hasn't it - https://phys.org/news/2016-10-arctic-sea-ice-bulwa...
Flibbiddydibbiddydob said:
@durbster
Would you take a few moments to watch this speech by Judith Curry?
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate."
I think her position on this subject reflects many of the PH 'deniers' views and opinions which often gets lost in th noise of these topics.
OK, I've listened to it and I disagree, I don't think her position is reflected here by the majority anti-AGW posters at all. Curry is rational, accepts the basic science, accepts warming is happening and is merely pushing for data and good science to lead the debate. I have no problem with her position at all - in fact I think it's absolutely crucial.Would you take a few moments to watch this speech by Judith Curry?
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate."
I think her position on this subject reflects many of the PH 'deniers' views and opinions which often gets lost in th noise of these topics.
Whereas here we have people who reject the basic science, don't accept there has been warming, or refuse to acknowledge the data when it doesn't fit their view. These are not a group of people striving for evidence and science-based decision making, it's a group of people fighting an ideological cause fuelled by propaganda. You see it clearly from the celebrations when research is cut or scientists are sacked.
Judith Curry's website - that Big Oil sponsored, climate-change denialist and heretic...
https://judithcurry.com/
There is a fundamental difference between JC and the assorted CAGW advocacy mouthpeices (including the BBC) in that JC is of the opinion that the science is very much NOT settled (not heard that often on the BBC for instance)
Whilst anyone with decent background in physics would not doubt the veracity of the assorted interactions at their most basic level, there is some doubt that all intereactions and their effects have been assessed, doubt regarding how each interaction may affect each other when operating in consort and even greater doubt as to whether there can ever be useful modelling conducted i.e. provide forecast with any bounds useful for policymaking.
This post is topical:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/06/04/paris-accord-qt...
https://judithcurry.com/
There is a fundamental difference between JC and the assorted CAGW advocacy mouthpeices (including the BBC) in that JC is of the opinion that the science is very much NOT settled (not heard that often on the BBC for instance)
Whilst anyone with decent background in physics would not doubt the veracity of the assorted interactions at their most basic level, there is some doubt that all intereactions and their effects have been assessed, doubt regarding how each interaction may affect each other when operating in consort and even greater doubt as to whether there can ever be useful modelling conducted i.e. provide forecast with any bounds useful for policymaking.
This post is topical:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/06/04/paris-accord-qt...
Curry said:
The proponents of reducing CO2 as an urgent issue to be dealt with to ‘save the climate and the planet’ simply don’t walk the talk. They rack up the frequent flyer miles flying around to proseletize, while working to block nuclear power, natural gas pipelines and fracking, all of which reduce CO2 emissions. How urgent do they really think this problem is? Or is this simply political posturing?
Further, the angst over the $100B climate fund seems beyond ironic.
Edited for speelingFurther, the angst over the $100B climate fund seems beyond ironic.
durbster said:
OK, I've listened to it and I disagree, I don't think her position is reflected here by the majority anti-AGW posters at all.
OK, Are you disagreeing with Judith Curry or the PH mob? (Mob - being posters here and for want of a better term).durbster said:
Curry is rational, accepts the basic science, accepts warming is happening and is merely pushing for data and good science to lead the debate. I have no problem with her position at all - in fact I think it's absolutely crucial.
Having spent a while trying to mod these threads, I'm surprised that you agree with her and oppose the 'deniers' that frequent these discussions.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Ice Science guys think the Global Warming is real enough - but couldn't get home to tell everyone
Keep up at the back - awkward
dickymint said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Ice Science guys think the Global Warming is real enough - but couldn't get home to tell everyone
Keep up at the back - awkward
It's Groundhog Day all over again.
Still, a great indicator of the variability of ice cover/thickness/extent is worth repeating.
As is that it has yet to be demonstrated that this is in any way unusual.
There is quite clearly a problem and a relevant feedback-loop.
Reliance has been placed upon 'science' with the fundamental presumption that all scientists are decent, honest, altruistic, operate entirely devoid of self-interest and outside of any sense of the advantages money can buy.
Then there is the requirement to seek funding via grants from government paymasters.
The positive feedback loop is 'greater scare story' => 'greater funding'
Win/Win - magic moneytree picks up the tab - and anyway - no harm done, all for the greater good.
Can anyone see any problems?
Reliance has been placed upon 'science' with the fundamental presumption that all scientists are decent, honest, altruistic, operate entirely devoid of self-interest and outside of any sense of the advantages money can buy.
Then there is the requirement to seek funding via grants from government paymasters.
The positive feedback loop is 'greater scare story' => 'greater funding'
Win/Win - magic moneytree picks up the tab - and anyway - no harm done, all for the greater good.
Can anyone see any problems?
Dams could 'permanently damage Amazon'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4027...
The Amazon basin could suffer significant and irreversible damage if an extensive dam building programme goes ahead, scientists say.
Currently, 428 hydroelectric dams are planned, with 140 already built or under construction.
Researchers warn that this could affect the dynamics of the complex river system and put thousands of unique species at risk.
The study is published in the journal Nature.
"The world is going to lose the most diverse wetland on the planet," said lead author Prof Edgargo Latrubesse, from the University of Texas at Austin, US...................Continues
Conclusion is ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4027...
The Amazon basin could suffer significant and irreversible damage if an extensive dam building programme goes ahead, scientists say.
Currently, 428 hydroelectric dams are planned, with 140 already built or under construction.
Researchers warn that this could affect the dynamics of the complex river system and put thousands of unique species at risk.
The study is published in the journal Nature.
"The world is going to lose the most diverse wetland on the planet," said lead author Prof Edgargo Latrubesse, from the University of Texas at Austin, US...................Continues
Conclusion is ?
Juncker rejects US climate deal re-negotiation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4027...
Speaking to the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker categorically ruled out any re-negotiation of the Paris climate agreement.
The European Commission President said: "We have spent 20 years negotiating", and now was the time for implementation.
Er, so we've made a f
kwit assumption, and we ain't changing it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4027...
Speaking to the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker categorically ruled out any re-negotiation of the Paris climate agreement.
The European Commission President said: "We have spent 20 years negotiating", and now was the time for implementation.
Er, so we've made a f
kwit assumption, and we ain't changing it.robinessex said:
Dams could 'permanently damage Amazon'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4027...
The Amazon basin could suffer significant and irreversible damage if an extensive dam building programme goes ahead, scientists say.
Currently, 428 hydroelectric dams are planned, with 140 already built or under construction.
Researchers warn that this could affect the dynamics of the complex river system and put thousands of unique species at risk.
The study is published in the journal Nature.
"The world is going to lose the most diverse wetland on the planet," said lead author Prof Edgargo Latrubesse, from the University of Texas at Austin, US...................Continues
Conclusion is ?
Unless they intend to clear fell the dam basins first this will result in a lot of dead trees rotting and releasing methane; this will help no end.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4027...
The Amazon basin could suffer significant and irreversible damage if an extensive dam building programme goes ahead, scientists say.
Currently, 428 hydroelectric dams are planned, with 140 already built or under construction.
Researchers warn that this could affect the dynamics of the complex river system and put thousands of unique species at risk.
The study is published in the journal Nature.
"The world is going to lose the most diverse wetland on the planet," said lead author Prof Edgargo Latrubesse, from the University of Texas at Austin, US...................Continues
Conclusion is ?
robinessex said:
Dams could 'permanently damage Amazon'
Conclusion is ?
Petrobras and Brazil.Conclusion is ?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/business/intern...
Extortion of Western monies given sentimenatalities under the Paris agreement would be eezy peezy for these guys - not nice - but a door left ajar may have unintended consequences.
Canada's oldest wind-farm to close. Replacement not economically feasible without government subsidy:
http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/oldest-co...
http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/oldest-co...
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
It isn't a game and we and our descendants ALL have something to loose way beyond a pension.
If you are that worried - don't have any descendants and, to help everyone else who may be born at some point in the future, abandon your life of consumption today to make the world a better place.If you cannot or will not do that, don't preach at others.
That's my generic advice for anyone wishing to make a strong case in support of "green" social policies.
You would agree with that I assume?
What level of consumption do you have in mind before an opinion on PH can be seen as worthy then? From your perspective does that mean that you leave the lights on all the time just to stick it to the man?
DapperDanMan said:
Where do you get worried from? Where is the preaching?
What level of consumption do you have in mind before an opinion on PH can be seen as worthy then? From your perspective does that mean that you leave the lights on all the time just to stick it to the man?
Only on Earth day dear boy, anything else would be gauche.What level of consumption do you have in mind before an opinion on PH can be seen as worthy then? From your perspective does that mean that you leave the lights on all the time just to stick it to the man?
durbster said:
That's the NSIDC that monitors total arctic sea ice levels - here is their latest data:
unfortunately due to the archaic nature of this forum i do not post pics .however there is a distinct link between the amo (atlantic decadal oscillation) and the amount of arctic sea ice. not surprising as the bulk of the ocean exchange with the arctic basin is via the atlantic. the amount of energy reaching the arctic through sunlight, co2 charged or not is orders of magnitude less than the amount leaving the planet for good via the arctic atmosphere. the chart you post is basically equal to the warm half of the amo cycle. once we have the subsequent cool phase we will have a better idea where temperature trends are doing in the relatively (to climate) short timescales.
this is where the importance of science related "denier" blogs comes in. there are several articles showing charts similar to the one you just posted with the amo cycle overlaid .
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL0...
https://sunshinehours.net/2012/09/30/amazing-graph...
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017...
wc98 said:
this is where the importance of science related "denier" blogs comes in. there are several articles showing charts similar to the one you just posted with the amo cycle overlaid .
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL0...
From the first one:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL0...
Miles et al said:
However, the authors stress that although this natural variability should not be ignored, other causes, primarily greenhouse-gas induced warming, must also be regarded as factors in explaining the massive Arctic sea ice losses of recent years, which have occurred primarily in summer in areas far from the North Atlantic.
durbster said:
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
It isn't a game and we and our descendants ALL have something to loose way beyond a pension.
If you are that worried - don't have any descendants and, to help everyone else who may be born at some point in the future, abandon your life of consumption today to make the world a better place.If you cannot or will not do that, don't preach at others.
That's my generic advice for anyone wishing to make a strong case in support of "green" social policies.
You would agree with that I assume?
What level of consumption do you have in mind before an opinion on PH can be seen as worthy then? From your perspective does that mean that you leave the lights on all the time just to stick it to the man?
Ok, does that mean your are not really totally committed to the philosophy behind the arguments to seem to put forward and support?
Are you, as people used to say, just talking the talk rather than walking the walk?
A worthy opinion is still no more than an opinion. Who knows whether any "worthiness" will ultimately be associated with it. Indeed, can an opinion be considered to be "worthy" without action to follow it up?
LongQ said:
So the sentence I highlighted does not express any concern or worry on your part? Nor do you think of it as preaching?
Ok, does that mean your are not really totally committed to the philosophy behind the arguments to seem to put forward and support?
Are you, as people used to say, just talking the talk rather than walking the walk?
A worthy opinion is still no more than an opinion. Who knows whether any "worthiness" will ultimately be associated with it. Indeed, can an opinion be considered to be "worthy" without action to follow it up?
Reminds me of when Emma Thompson was interviewed which on a CC protest, and the interviewer asked what she did for the cause. Her answer - she always carries a recyclable shopping bag in with her handbag! If that's not 100% commitment, I don't know what is! Ok, does that mean your are not really totally committed to the philosophy behind the arguments to seem to put forward and support?
Are you, as people used to say, just talking the talk rather than walking the walk?
A worthy opinion is still no more than an opinion. Who knows whether any "worthiness" will ultimately be associated with it. Indeed, can an opinion be considered to be "worthy" without action to follow it up?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff