Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
robinessex said:
Fracking to be banned immediately in Scotland
http://news.sky.com/story/environmental-groups-wel...
The Scottish government has announced an immediate ban on fracking, following overwhelming public opposition to the controversial process.
Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said the gas extraction technique will be outlawed after more than two years of consultation and research into potential impacts...................WWF Scotland said: "The climate science is clear. The vast majority of fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground. It's fantastic Scottish ministers agree that we need to start placing them off limits."
Carry on drilling in the North Sea until the oil runs out then
Why does the WWF statement refer to Fossil Fuel "reserves" and then say they need to be left in the ground - which clearly means they are not to be considered as "reserves"?http://news.sky.com/story/environmental-groups-wel...
The Scottish government has announced an immediate ban on fracking, following overwhelming public opposition to the controversial process.
Scottish energy minister Paul Wheelhouse said the gas extraction technique will be outlawed after more than two years of consultation and research into potential impacts...................WWF Scotland said: "The climate science is clear. The vast majority of fossil fuel reserves need to be left in the ground. It's fantastic Scottish ministers agree that we need to start placing them off limits."
Carry on drilling in the North Sea until the oil runs out then
cookie118 said:
the gavin schmidt quote is hysterical. pot, kettle ,black etc. the bates story was misrepresentation of his position ,though anyone that followed the story at the time will appreciate he did some serious backtracking when he realised the s
tstorm he created.certainly made quite a few of the well known sceptics look a bit stupid . this is what happens when politics and science meet. there isn't actually any argument regarding the "data" being wrong,karlization of temp data will not be looked upon kindly in the future.cookie118 said:
Yep, but it won't make a difference to anyone who got excited by the story at the time. They will simply sweep the facts under the huge psychological carpet in their mind. They're inexorably drawn to whatever falsehood fits their fantasy world because it's much easier than acknowledging an uncomfortable reality.durbster said:
cookie118 said:
Yep, but it won't make a difference to anyone who got excited by the story at the time. They will simply sweep the facts under the huge psychological carpet in their mind. They're inexorably drawn to whatever falsehood fits their fantasy world because it's much easier than acknowledging an uncomfortable reality.Don't assume everyone is as limited in views as you assume.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
There's very little evidence of open minds.
Bear in mind this is page 106 of the fourth volume of this thread.
Projection again durbs Bear in mind this is page 106 of the fourth volume of this thread.
Matthew 7:5
durbster said:
Not really. I've already changed my mind once on this topic, and since the reasons for doing so (clear and overwhelming evidence) still exists, I see no good reason to change it again.
If you could post some of that clear and overwhelming evidence that might help a bit.....Nothing from SkS or other paid for advocate blogs please
Jinx said:
durbster said:
Not really. I've already changed my mind once on this topic, and since the reasons for doing so (clear and overwhelming evidence) still exists, I see no good reason to change it again.
If you could post some of that clear and overwhelming evidence that might help a bit.....NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/cl...
European Space Agency:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D...
This is a nice and clear presentation:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warm...
Jinx said:
durbster said:
Nothing from SkS or other paid for advocate blogs please
OK, your turn. Remember, proper science organisations only - no internet commenters or advocate blogs.
durbster said:
(clear and overwhelming evidence)
Don't have much time but here's a starting point:
NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/cl...
European Space Agency:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D...
proper science organisations only - no internet commenters
All of the above are commenting on the internet...any appeal to authorities is a fail anyway.Don't have much time but here's a starting point:
NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/cl...
European Space Agency:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D...
proper science organisations only - no internet commenters
None of the above offer clear and overwhelming evidence, they offer opinion.
Evidence would be a visible causal human signal in any global climate data (energy, temperature) but this doesn't exist.
The ability to discern a radiative imbalance at TOA due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide forcing also does not exist.
All of this is not news but it is politics and economics.
Lovin' how the RS puts physics and climate models close together to try to borrow some respectability for models (which are not evidence) when the physics in models is very limited and tuned parameterisations are used instead. Who tunes? Three guesses...
durbster said:
We're doing that one over on the science thread - splicing non-compatible non-normalised time series of different data sets onto the same chart is a definite no-no. Correlation does not equal causation and the CO2 series only correlates at the trivial level. Lack of any evidence of imminent catastrophe. durbster said:
The Royal Society:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/cl...
Again the correlation/causation issue. The lack of awareness that Arrhenius's experiments were all in dry air and that he had to correct himself later so the "since the mid 1800's" is patently nonsense. The isotope issue - based on the conclusion that fossil fuels have no C14 isotope is a bit of miss direction given the correlation/causation problem at the start. Also lack of any evidence of imminent catastrophe. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/cl...
durbster said:
European Space Agency:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D...
Huh? Objectives and scope of the CCI - nothing here about evidence for AGW. Also lack of any evidence of imminent catastrophe.http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D...
durbster said:
This is a nice and clear presentation:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warm...
Holy crap - so poor - and correlation does not equal causation and the CO2 series only correlates at the trivial level.https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warm...
Also lack of any evidence of imminent catastrophe.
durbster said:
That's funny, because without advocate blogs and internet commenters, the opponents of AGW would lose almost their entire argument.
OK, your turn. Remember, proper science organisations only - no internet commenters or advocate blogs.
Proper statistics 101OK, your turn. Remember, proper science organisations only - no internet commenters or advocate blogs.
Correlation does not equal causation.
The correlation of CO2 increase and temperature increase is only a trivial one and if localised and viewed at other timescales does not correlate in the right direction - increase in temperature leads to an increase in CO2.
CO2 is a GHG but so is H2O - all of the CO2 evidence based on the work in the 19th Century was done in dry air (no H2O). CO2 only absorbs IR in two narrow bands and via dipole moment changes - H2O absorbs IR over a much wider band via rotational and vibrational transitions. H2O is also present in all 3 states in the atmosphere which have different absorption profiles and can change states in the atmosphere.
Is this the entire argument for AGW? Is this why the data gets "corrected" regularly? That as soon as the correlation even at the trivial level disappears the whole thing will fall apart? Wow.
Todays Beeb CC story
Sydney and Melbourne could face 50C days 'within decades'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41493682
Australia's two biggest cities could swelter through 50C (122F) days within a few decades, a study has found.
Sydney and Melbourne are likely to endure such summers even if global warming is contained to the Paris accord limit of a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels, scientists said.
Limiting warming to below that would make 50C days less likely, they said.
Sydney reached a record 45.8C in 2013 while Melbourne hit 46.4C in 2009, the nation's Bureau of Meteorology said.
The study examined only forecasts for Victoria and New South Wales, but researchers said the rest of Australia could also expect rises.
"One of the hottest years on record globally - in 2015 - could be an average year by 2025," said lead researcher Dr Sophie Lewis from the Australian National University.......................continues. "The research, also involving the University of Melbourne and published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, drew on observational data and climate modelling to predict future temperatures."
They even put the guess word 'could' in the title!! Then "observational data and climate modelling" ! Well, all cut and dried then, isn't it?
Sydney and Melbourne could face 50C days 'within decades'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41493682
Australia's two biggest cities could swelter through 50C (122F) days within a few decades, a study has found.
Sydney and Melbourne are likely to endure such summers even if global warming is contained to the Paris accord limit of a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels, scientists said.
Limiting warming to below that would make 50C days less likely, they said.
Sydney reached a record 45.8C in 2013 while Melbourne hit 46.4C in 2009, the nation's Bureau of Meteorology said.
The study examined only forecasts for Victoria and New South Wales, but researchers said the rest of Australia could also expect rises.
"One of the hottest years on record globally - in 2015 - could be an average year by 2025," said lead researcher Dr Sophie Lewis from the Australian National University.......................continues. "The research, also involving the University of Melbourne and published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, drew on observational data and climate modelling to predict future temperatures."
They even put the guess word 'could' in the title!! Then "observational data and climate modelling" ! Well, all cut and dried then, isn't it?
Jinx said:
Proper statistics 101
Correlation does not equal causation.
The correlation of CO2 increase and temperature increase is only a trivial one and if localised and viewed at other timescales does not correlate in the right direction - increase in temperature leads to an increase in CO2.
CO2 is a GHG but so is H2O - all of the CO2 evidence based on the work in the 19th Century was done in dry air (no H2O). CO2 only absorbs IR in two narrow bands and via dipole moment changes - H2O absorbs IR over a much wider band via rotational and vibrational transitions. H2O is also present in all 3 states in the atmosphere which have different absorption profiles and can change states in the atmosphere.
Is this the entire argument for AGW? Is this why the data gets "corrected" regularly? That as soon as the correlation even at the trivial level disappears the whole thing will fall apart? Wow.
Correlation does not equal causation.
The correlation of CO2 increase and temperature increase is only a trivial one and if localised and viewed at other timescales does not correlate in the right direction - increase in temperature leads to an increase in CO2.
CO2 is a GHG but so is H2O - all of the CO2 evidence based on the work in the 19th Century was done in dry air (no H2O). CO2 only absorbs IR in two narrow bands and via dipole moment changes - H2O absorbs IR over a much wider band via rotational and vibrational transitions. H2O is also present in all 3 states in the atmosphere which have different absorption profiles and can change states in the atmosphere.
Is this the entire argument for AGW? Is this why the data gets "corrected" regularly? That as soon as the correlation even at the trivial level disappears the whole thing will fall apart? Wow.
durbster said:
OK, your turn. Remember, proper science organisations only - no internet commenters or advocate blogs.
You failed to meet the criteria. This is the internet; I can find somebody's opinion arguing any side of any subject all day long. This is a matter of science and I cited the world's top science organisations.
What science are you basing your opinion on? Please provide sources.
durbster said:
You failed to meet the criteria.
This is the internet; I can find somebody's opinion arguing any side of any subject all day long. This is a matter of science and I cited the world's top science organisations.
What science are you basing your opinion on? Please provide sources.
Source?This is the internet; I can find somebody's opinion arguing any side of any subject all day long. This is a matter of science and I cited the world's top science organisations.
What science are you basing your opinion on? Please provide sources.
Sound science - Arrhenius is not.
Sources:
Monnin et al
Fischer et al
Petit et al
Jouzel et al
Humlum et al
Stephens et al
Christy (various)
From the above:
No visible causal human signal in any global temperature data. No temperature-tax gas signal.
Temperature changes occur first, before carbon dioxide and methane shifts. No causality to humans.
The small TOA radiative imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux, as a result the measured fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with carbon dioxide forced climate change. No energy signal either.
Monnin et al
Fischer et al
Petit et al
Jouzel et al
Humlum et al
Stephens et al
Christy (various)
From the above:
No visible causal human signal in any global temperature data. No temperature-tax gas signal.
Temperature changes occur first, before carbon dioxide and methane shifts. No causality to humans.
The small TOA radiative imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux, as a result the measured fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with carbon dioxide forced climate change. No energy signal either.
Doug Hoffmann said:
What this means is that all current climate models are based on bad assumptions. And because the raw output of those models do not reproduce the actual state of the environment, climate modellers have applied “adjustments” to get the numbers to work out. The result is that climate models are both fundamentally wrong and have been wrongly adjusted.
No spokesperson or small committee of activists in any organisation can do or say anything materially relevant to alter the above.durbster said:
You failed to meet the criteria.
This is the internet; I can find somebody's opinion arguing any side of any subject all day long. This is a matter of science and I cited the world's top science organisations.
What science are you basing your opinion on? Please provide sources.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/3030529/hilarious-gra...This is the internet; I can find somebody's opinion arguing any side of any subject all day long. This is a matter of science and I cited the world's top science organisations.
What science are you basing your opinion on? Please provide sources.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
The links provided by durbster don't meet any worthwhile criteria in any case. It was an exercise in making appeals to increasingly discredited 'authorities'.
The 'scientific organisation' line offers nothing at all beyond the logical fallacy of any appeal to authority. The individual zealot or small committee of activists demonstrably cannot and do not speak for their members and fellows. There have been resignations due to improper behaviour (hurricane specialist Dr Chris Landsea from IPCC due to Trenberth's fake news), Nobel Laureate Prof Hal Lewis publicly resigned from APS, tens of RS fellows wrote an open letter criticising the unscientific approach of the RS in terms of its statements on climate change, tens of former NASA staffers did the same with NASA, and a whistleblower took the lid off NOAA. All of these have been posted on PH climate threads several times.
Emissions from a PR spokesperson, like committee activist faith statements, are no more than hot air about modelled hot air, with no fundamental merit. Great for a politics thread, however, as politics is what the faith statements are all about.
The 'scientific organisation' line offers nothing at all beyond the logical fallacy of any appeal to authority. The individual zealot or small committee of activists demonstrably cannot and do not speak for their members and fellows. There have been resignations due to improper behaviour (hurricane specialist Dr Chris Landsea from IPCC due to Trenberth's fake news), Nobel Laureate Prof Hal Lewis publicly resigned from APS, tens of RS fellows wrote an open letter criticising the unscientific approach of the RS in terms of its statements on climate change, tens of former NASA staffers did the same with NASA, and a whistleblower took the lid off NOAA. All of these have been posted on PH climate threads several times.
Emissions from a PR spokesperson, like committee activist faith statements, are no more than hot air about modelled hot air, with no fundamental merit. Great for a politics thread, however, as politics is what the faith statements are all about.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
You failed to meet the criteria.
This is the internet; I can find somebody's opinion arguing any side of any subject all day long. This is a matter of science and I cited the world's top science organisations.
What science are you basing your opinion on? Please provide sources.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/3030529/hilarious-gra...This is the internet; I can find somebody's opinion arguing any side of any subject all day long. This is a matter of science and I cited the world's top science organisations.
What science are you basing your opinion on? Please provide sources.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
(hint: that's not science)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff