Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
jet_noise said:
kerplunk said:
durbster said:
If you want to provide any kind of proof that there is anything other than overwhelming scientific support for AGW, but I've been asking for years so I wont hold my breath. Well, there's Judith Curry and... err...
Nope not Judith Curry - she's part of the consensus on AGW.Prof. Mann says she's a denier.
Polls aside, I've never seen her dispute the fundamental radiative forcing from increasing CO2 (like many here on PH do), she's more about the climate's sensitivity to that forcing and the uncertainties around that.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 11:30
kerplunk said:
durbster said:
If you want to provide any kind of proof that there is anything other than overwhelming scientific support for AGW, but I've been asking for years so I wont hold my breath. Well, there's Judith Curry and... err...
Nope not Judith Curry - she's part of the consensus on AGW.But she is still the one they think is on their side, and the name that comes up when you ask for somebody with some credibility that supports their position.
kerplunk said:
Polls aside, I've never seen her dispute the fundamental radiative forcing from increasing CO2 (like many here on PH do), she's more about the climate's sensitivity to that forcing and the uncertainties around that.
i haven't seen anyone on here dispute it either . given the radiative forcing from the extra atmospheric co2 alone does very little to increase atmospheric temperature but relies on the small amount of warming it produces to increase water vapour ,a far more potent greenhouse gas than co2, to achieve the warming that is supposed to be a problem.Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 11:30
water has multiple roles in the atmosphere in its many different states,the effects of some of them are not well understood. this why there is plenty scope for the natural world to deal with increased atmospheric co2 in ways that don't result in "dangerous warming". the current divergence between models and reality suggest that is the case.
gadgetmac said:
Surely they don't need external experts. They have their own prestigious authority to draw upon.
Credible unmolested empirical data beats any experts' opinions, including the climate gurus you favour.wc98 said:
water has multiple roles in the atmosphere in its many different states,the effects of some of them are not well understood. this why there is plenty scope for the natural world to deal with increased atmospheric co2 in ways that don't result in "dangerous warming". the current divergence between models and reality suggest that is the case.
Data shows that an already warm atmosphere can lose energy to space at a significantly faster rate than inadequate models are programmed with. This programming is the required state of affairs to stop faith levels becoming worse than previously thought.
gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
How little you know.
Even with a little knowledge it's clear that you are no professor.
and believe everything I read on the internet especially when it involves posters aggrandizing themselves on forums.wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
Polls aside, I've never seen her dispute the fundamental radiative forcing from increasing CO2 (like many here on PH do), she's more about the climate's sensitivity to that forcing and the uncertainties around that.
i haven't seen anyone on here dispute it either . Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 11:30
You must be blind.wc98 said:
given the radiative forcing from the extra atmospheric co2 alone does very little to increase atmospheric temperature but relies on the small amount of warming it produces to increase water vapour ,a far more potent greenhouse gas than co2, to achieve the warming that is supposed to be a problem.
According to theory about 1C for a doubling - one could argue that's quite impressive lifting power for a trace gas, but not a calamity of course.wc98 said:
water has multiple roles in the atmosphere in its many different states,the effects of some of them are not well understood. this why there is plenty scope for the natural world to deal with increased atmospheric co2 in ways that don't result in "dangerous warming". the current divergence between models and reality suggest that is the case.
Ok fine but appealing to unceratinty over something that could go one way or the other doesn't do much to ameliorate risk. It increases it if anything. This is the paradox of the 'lukewarmers' - they appeal to uncertainty over things like cloud response and the degree to which natural variability is contributing, but they think global warming can be constrained to a much narrower range than the IPCC does. That doesn't sound like 'uncertainty' to me and more like believerdom.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 14:54
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 16:44
wc98 said:
i haven't seen anyone on here dispute it either .
Give over. Many (most?) of your fellow sceptics believe that CO2 does essentially nothing. Or that it's effect is already saturated. Or that the fact that a lot of it's absorption bands overlap with water means it's irrelevant. Diderot said:
Why would I need to lie? As I said you know so little ...
Why wouldn't you lie? You're anonymous and on an internet forum...possibly the biggest source of lies in the known universe.It's why I never state who I am, what I do etc as it's not really something that can be validated or that I would be prepared to supply proof of.
To get a point across people on just about every thread of PH will tell lies of one description or another. Misrepresentations are lies...even lies of omission are still lies.
And if I'm being truthful this thread contains the most numerous and persistent misrepresentations of any I've seen on PH.
El stovey said:
Vanden Saab said:
You really are not doing yourself any favours, claiming that you know an anonymous person on the Internet isn't who he says he is puts into doubt everything you also claim to know about climate change.
We all know that you’re a returning banned poster. durbster said:
kerplunk said:
durbster said:
If you want to provide any kind of proof that there is anything other than overwhelming scientific support for AGW, but I've been asking for years so I wont hold my breath. Well, there's Judith Curry and... err...
Nope not Judith Curry - she's part of the consensus on AGW.But she is still the one they think is on their side, and the name that comes up when you ask for somebody with some credibility that supports their position.
I had however thought she was a proper sceptic - listening, considering positions on their merit, willing to discuss dissenting views without rancour, questioning, always questioning.
I can't however see an alarmist stating the below which contains much ground which both, er, sides might find common.
It's quite a lot of words so bear with, and apologies if it's a bit sciency for this thread
...her blog 23012019 said:
In order to have any confidence in the IPCC and NCA attribution statements, much greater effort is needed to understand the role multi-decadal to millennial scales of internal climate variability.
Much more effort is needed to understand not only the early 20th century warming, but also the ‘grand hiatus’ from 1945-1975. Attempting to attribute these features to aerosol (stratospheric or pollution) forcing haven’t gotten us very far. The approach taken by Xie’s group is providing important insights.
Once we do satisfactorily explain these 20th century features, then we need to tackle the 19th century — overall warming, with global sea level rise initiating ~1860, and NH glacier melt initiating ~1850. And then we need to tackle the last 800 years – the Little Ice Age and the ‘recovery’. (See my previous post 400 years(?) of global warming). The mainstream attribution folk are finally waking up to the importance of multidecadal ocean oscillations — we have barely scratched the surface re understanding century to millennial scale oscillations, as highlighted in the recent Gebbie and Huybers paper discussed on Ocean Heat Content Surprises.
There are too many climate scientists that expect global surface temperature, sea ice, glacier mass loss and sea level to follow the ‘forcing’ on fairly short time scales. This is not how the climate system works, as was eloquently shown by Gebbie and Huybers. The Arctic in particular responds very strongly to multidecadal and longer internal variability, and also to solar forcing.
Until all this is sorted out, we do not have a strong basis for attributing anything close to ~100% of the warming since 1950 to humans, or for making credible projections of 21st century climate change.
Much more effort is needed to understand not only the early 20th century warming, but also the ‘grand hiatus’ from 1945-1975. Attempting to attribute these features to aerosol (stratospheric or pollution) forcing haven’t gotten us very far. The approach taken by Xie’s group is providing important insights.
Once we do satisfactorily explain these 20th century features, then we need to tackle the 19th century — overall warming, with global sea level rise initiating ~1860, and NH glacier melt initiating ~1850. And then we need to tackle the last 800 years – the Little Ice Age and the ‘recovery’. (See my previous post 400 years(?) of global warming). The mainstream attribution folk are finally waking up to the importance of multidecadal ocean oscillations — we have barely scratched the surface re understanding century to millennial scale oscillations, as highlighted in the recent Gebbie and Huybers paper discussed on Ocean Heat Content Surprises.
There are too many climate scientists that expect global surface temperature, sea ice, glacier mass loss and sea level to follow the ‘forcing’ on fairly short time scales. This is not how the climate system works, as was eloquently shown by Gebbie and Huybers. The Arctic in particular responds very strongly to multidecadal and longer internal variability, and also to solar forcing.
Until all this is sorted out, we do not have a strong basis for attributing anything close to ~100% of the warming since 1950 to humans, or for making credible projections of 21st century climate change.
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Vanden Saab said:
You really are not doing yourself any favours, claiming that you know an anonymous person on the Internet isn't who he says he is puts into doubt everything you also claim to know about climate change.
We all know that you’re a returning banned poster. hairykrishna said:
Give over. Many (most?) of your fellow sceptics believe that CO2 does essentially nothing. Or that it's effect is already saturated. Or that the fact that a lot of it's absorption bands overlap with water means it's irrelevant.
i doubt many people would dispute it's one of the main components of life on earth.without it none of us would be here.it does lots of things. one of them is create a tiny amount of warming and the postulated response to this by water vapour is warming of a significant nature. i say postulated as that water vapour response should be showing up as a significant "hot spot" in the troposphere,easily detectable by satellite and weather balloons . so far it hasn't been found.kerplunk said:
Ok fine but appealing to unceratinty over something that could go one way or the other doesn't do much to ameliorate risk. It increases it if anything.
This is the paradox of the 'lukewarmers' - they appeal to uncertainty over things like cloud response and the degree to which natural variability is contributing, but they think global warming can be constrained to a much narrower range than the IPCC does. That doesn't sound like 'uncertainty' to me and more like believerdom.
i'm not interested in ameliorating risk. mainly due to the fact i don't think there is anything being risked by current levels of co2 output . the problems that concern me such as pollution, waste, deforestation,general habitat loss ,over fishing and lack of enforcement of current fishing rules in many places around the globe including the western developed world are there to be addressed right now.This is the paradox of the 'lukewarmers' - they appeal to uncertainty over things like cloud response and the degree to which natural variability is contributing, but they think global warming can be constrained to a much narrower range than the IPCC does. That doesn't sound like 'uncertainty' to me and more like believerdom.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 14:54
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 16:44
i'm also not interested in anyone's estimated range of temperatures in the future. earth's history already gives us a good idea what they are anyway.somewhere between an ice age and hothouse earth,though given the long term cooling trend of the planet the latter is unlikely. by most metrics the last 30 years have been some of the most benign in terms of weather human history has known. some of this is down to better resilience due to advances in technology but mostly it's down to the lack of big weather driven natural disasters. i just don't see anything to worry about and certainly nothing to invoke the devils spawn that is the "precautionary principle".
hairykrishna said:
sceptics believe that CO2 does essentially nothing.
Belief is the domain of the agw faithfulData shows that the incremental effect of adding small amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (~5% perturbtion to natural annual cycling) is not discernible.
Saying that "CO2 does nothing" is both a generalisation too far (nothing) and an over-simplification of what does happen.
Adding incremental amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has been having less and less of an impact which is to be expected from the physics. At this point adding more has an imperceptible effect.
Heat was never trapped (nonscience) and what happened in the past was to add an insignificant and transient delay in cooling. Thought experiment: switch off the Sun, is heat in the atmosphere really trapped? No the planet and its atmosphere cool and head off towards the temperature of space nearby. There is a delay in getting there as the asymptote is approached while the heat escapes.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
thegwpf
then again, if you are only here to troll why would you bother reading links.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff