Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
mondeoman said:
Empirical evidence with Geomagnetic activity and hurricanes.
https://youtu.be/Fm6Y5mETVk4
and not a single carbon to be seen.
Who are "Suspicious Observers" and why should we pay attention to their YouTube videos?https://youtu.be/Fm6Y5mETVk4
and not a single carbon to be seen.
Edit: Apologies, it's Suspicious 0bservers (with a zero).
Edit 2: Ah, they're a contributor to the conspiracy theorist website Natural News
What a surprise.
Edited by durbster on Saturday 21st October 13:58
jjlynn27 said:
robinessex said:
" that means there's no reliable temperature data at all."
Well done Durbs, you got that bit correct !!
So, he went to the trouble to explain his position, and you reply with that?Well done Durbs, you got that bit correct !!
Almost as clever as your wifi post. (Thanks for that one btw, it was very funny).
robinessex said:
jjlynn27 said:
robinessex said:
" that means there's no reliable temperature data at all."
Well done Durbs, you got that bit correct !!
So, he went to the trouble to explain his position, and you reply with that?Well done Durbs, you got that bit correct !!
Almost as clever as your wifi post. (Thanks for that one btw, it was very funny).
durbster said:
Who are "Suspicious Observers" and why should we pay attention to their YouTube videos?
Edit: Apologies, it's Suspicious 0bservers (with a zero).
Edit 2: Ah, they're a contributor to the conspiracy theorist website Natural News
What a surprise.
They are using 'Chladni Plates' to 'predict' natural disasters. Edit: Apologies, it's Suspicious 0bservers (with a zero).
Edit 2: Ah, they're a contributor to the conspiracy theorist website Natural News
What a surprise.
Edited by durbster on Saturday 21st October 13:58
BWAHAHAHA. (sometimes
is just not enough).They make chemtrail nutjobs look very very normal. Mondeoman, well done, thanks for that. This thread never disappoints.
durbster said:
This seems like a stretch credit is due for actually proposing something rather than just b
hing about other people's projections like most, even though you have given yourself a 20 year safety net 
Anyway, I've looked up how the AMO fits into all this and the top results read like turbobloke's bookmarks - including of course, those proven bullstters: No Tricks Zone. That's not a promising start.
But there's a bigger problem with your theory.
You're basing your argument on the AMO. The AMO HadISST record is from the Met Office. The Met Office are the same people that give us the HadCRUT data that you described as "largely made up nonsense".
How can you ask us to trust a different dataset from the exact same people that you've accused of falsifying data? In the same post!
the chart is made up ,if you want to refute that bash on, but you will be wrong. the term isn't falsifying data, it is extrapolation of temps from other areas using mathematical equations ,this could well be the man made part of global warming. i take it you haven't had a look at the problems surrounding the equipment change for measuring air temps in germany and australia? these issues will likely affect many other areas. the areas actually measured are in the minority when it comes to near surface air temperatures. i have no problem stating there has been some warming in the northern hemisphere ,mainly in the winter.hing about other people's projections like most, even though you have given yourself a 20 year safety net Anyway, I've looked up how the AMO fits into all this and the top results read like turbobloke's bookmarks - including of course, those proven bulls
tters: No Tricks Zone. That's not a promising start.But there's a bigger problem with your theory.
You're basing your argument on the AMO. The AMO HadISST record is from the Met Office. The Met Office are the same people that give us the HadCRUT data that you described as "largely made up nonsense".
How can you ask us to trust a different dataset from the exact same people that you've accused of falsifying data? In the same post!
the amo moves from a cool phase to a warm phase . we are moving into the cool phase , how much cooler it will be or how much it will affect the arctic sea ice i do not know, but i do know it will have an effect. if you think what i have said won't happen and you have so much faith in the climate science community would you be willing to have a bet ?
the planet has warmed and cooled in the past, rates of warming and cooling in modern times are well within the boundaries of what has happened in the past. that is all the physical evidence i need to suggest the same will happen in the future.
the satellite data go through as much , if not more , mathturbation than the surface air temps. could you provide predictions for glacier retreat and permafrost melt rates from 20 years ago ,i haven't seen any accurate predictions on those metrics, just handwaving and alarmism. the arctic death spiral certainly doesn't seem to be going to plan, nor the predictions of a certain mr wadhams, an expert in the field i believe.
no tricks zone along with many other blogs, both pro agw and sceptic hosts a variety of articles. each article needs to be treated on its own merits . some are guff, some not.
Edited by wc98 on Saturday 21st October 16:44
jjlynn27 said:
robinessex said:
jjlynn27 said:
robinessex said:
" that means there's no reliable temperature data at all."
Well done Durbs, you got that bit correct !!
So, he went to the trouble to explain his position, and you reply with that?Well done Durbs, you got that bit correct !!
Almost as clever as your wifi post. (Thanks for that one btw, it was very funny).
Todays Beeb CC story
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
All sea life will be affected because carbon dioxide emissions from modern society are making the oceans more acidic, a major new report will say...........continues
You soon come across the 'could', may', 'some', 'suggest' & 'might' words. Just wondering how the planet survived when CO2 was much higher, not at the near all time low we have now?
And the report is a synthesis. Wouldn't be selective by any chance, would it?
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
All sea life will be affected because carbon dioxide emissions from modern society are making the oceans more acidic, a major new report will say...........continues
You soon come across the 'could', may', 'some', 'suggest' & 'might' words. Just wondering how the planet survived when CO2 was much higher, not at the near all time low we have now?
And the report is a synthesis. Wouldn't be selective by any chance, would it?
robinessex said:
Todays Beeb CC story
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
As I understand it the oceans are slightly alkaline, and more CO2 would make them more neutral. Not that it is clear to me whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.The Great Barrier Reef doesn't seem to have read the script:
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/opinion/...
grumbledoak said:
robinessex said:
Todays Beeb CC story
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
As I understand it the oceans are slightly alkaline, and more CO2 would make them more neutral. Not that it is clear to me whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.The Great Barrier Reef doesn't seem to have read the script:
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/opinion/...
Thus they to make a connection to how ships rust so much and think that undersea turbines and the infrastructure that goes with them for tidal power generation much be a really good idea because the water will make sure they are clean all the time.
I have always understood that part of the BBC charter was about "educating" but these days it seems to be about something else.
That said one could make the same comment about educational establishments.
LongQ said:
grumbledoak said:
robinessex said:
Todays Beeb CC story
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
As I understand it the oceans are slightly alkaline, and more CO2 would make them more neutral. Not that it is clear to me whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.The Great Barrier Reef doesn't seem to have read the script:
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/opinion/...
Thus they to make a connection to how ships rust so much and think that undersea turbines and the infrastructure that goes with them for tidal power generation much be a really good idea because the water will make sure they are clean all the time.
I have always understood that part of the BBC charter was about "educating" but these days it seems to be about something else.
That said one could make the same comment about educational establishments.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/z89jq6f/rev...
Clearly to go to more acidic you need to pass through neutral (7) anything else is a reduction in alkalinity.
That the Earths climate is changing must surely be beyond doubt, as it has done nothing but change, since the Earths formation over four and half billion years ago. It may also be true that `man' is responsible for some of that change.
The bit I cannot get my head around, is that if indeed `man' is responsible for some of the changes, WHY are we spewing out `man' in ever greater numbers?
To go on about `man made' climate change, but say or do nothing about the fact that we are increasing `man' at the same time, is the equivalent of discovering a serious fire, but instead of trying to put it out, we are putting increasing amounts of the material which is creating the fire in the first place, on top of it.
We have to accept that the bottom line for any species on the face of the Earth is to propagate the species, all creatures do this automatically, but on top of this, us little ole humans have the idea punched into us from birth. and so we respond by increasing the number of humans on the planet, at a rate never before seen on Earth .
We cannot help it, it is what we have been programmed both genetically, and by bombardment to do. So even more humans will beget even more humans. If this is what we are genetically programmed, and subsequently bombarded to do, then so be it, but we must also accept that a price must be paid for doing so. the initial price could well be the Soylent Green scenario, but after that, who can guess?
The bit I cannot get my head around, is that if indeed `man' is responsible for some of the changes, WHY are we spewing out `man' in ever greater numbers?
To go on about `man made' climate change, but say or do nothing about the fact that we are increasing `man' at the same time, is the equivalent of discovering a serious fire, but instead of trying to put it out, we are putting increasing amounts of the material which is creating the fire in the first place, on top of it.
We have to accept that the bottom line for any species on the face of the Earth is to propagate the species, all creatures do this automatically, but on top of this, us little ole humans have the idea punched into us from birth. and so we respond by increasing the number of humans on the planet, at a rate never before seen on Earth .
We cannot help it, it is what we have been programmed both genetically, and by bombardment to do. So even more humans will beget even more humans. If this is what we are genetically programmed, and subsequently bombarded to do, then so be it, but we must also accept that a price must be paid for doing so. the initial price could well be the Soylent Green scenario, but after that, who can guess?
Pan Pan Pan said:
That the Earths climate is changing must surely be beyond doubt, as it has done nothing but change, since the Earths formation over four and half billion years ago. It may also be true that `man' is responsible for some of that change.
The bit I cannot get my head around, is that if indeed `man' is responsible for some of the changes, WHY are we spewing out `man' in ever greater numbers?
To go on about `man made' climate change, but say or do nothing about the fact that we are increasing `man' at the same time, is the equivalent of discovering a serious fire, but instead of trying to put it out, we are putting increasing amounts of the material which is creating the fire in the first place, on top of it.
We have to accept that the bottom line for any species on the face of the Earth is to propagate the species, all creatures do this automatically, but on top of this, us little ole humans have the idea punched into us from birth. and so we respond by increasing the number of humans on the planet, at a rate never before seen on Earth .
We cannot help it, it is what we have been programmed both genetically, and by bombardment to do. So even more humans will beget even more humans. If this is what we are genetically programmed, and subsequently bombarded to do, then so be it, but we must also accept that a price must be paid for doing so. the initial price could well be the Soylent Green scenario, but after that, who can guess?
The forecasts are that population growth, based on all known influencing factors (we are told) will plateau in around 100 years so long as living standards around the world come to match those of the "west" where, in general, reproduction it at or slightly below replacement rate despite (or due to, depending on you POV) the efforts of medicine (primarily) and the effect of a relatively peaceful political period leading to the absence of very large scale human conflicts over extended periods. (Mainly).The bit I cannot get my head around, is that if indeed `man' is responsible for some of the changes, WHY are we spewing out `man' in ever greater numbers?
To go on about `man made' climate change, but say or do nothing about the fact that we are increasing `man' at the same time, is the equivalent of discovering a serious fire, but instead of trying to put it out, we are putting increasing amounts of the material which is creating the fire in the first place, on top of it.
We have to accept that the bottom line for any species on the face of the Earth is to propagate the species, all creatures do this automatically, but on top of this, us little ole humans have the idea punched into us from birth. and so we respond by increasing the number of humans on the planet, at a rate never before seen on Earth .
We cannot help it, it is what we have been programmed both genetically, and by bombardment to do. So even more humans will beget even more humans. If this is what we are genetically programmed, and subsequently bombarded to do, then so be it, but we must also accept that a price must be paid for doing so. the initial price could well be the Soylent Green scenario, but after that, who can guess?
One might argue that Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, to take a few examples, might contradict that opinion but it seems to be one that holds sway in Europe.
On the other hand our knowledge of humanity and history is really quite limited and includes a lot of speculation and unexplained "stuff".
In recent days I saw report of the discover of what we are told are some close to pre-human teeth that are supposedly millions of years old.
On the other hand National Geographic presents a more muted view of the claim.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/ancien...
Nice to discover some non-consensus discussions!
Given that it is generally accepted that "modern" humans have existed for approximately 15k years, +/- a margin for error, and have developed a lot in that time - in fact a lot very early on and in several advances and retreats subsequently in different parts of the planet, one sort of wonders now and again whether the might be multiple advancement and regression cycles to be discovered in coming eras.
Thus perhaps there might be some natural cycle that human development inflicts upon itself to control its growth?
Stuff in my garden seemed to grow this year without many of the usual and normal diseases from which plants are prone to suffer and, as has been observed widely recently, the number of insects of the more visible kind - like wasps, that will be obviously noticed without needing to go looking for them - seemed far lower than has been usual.
Is this natural?
Or are we, as self-conscious humans, willing to take the rap for the apparent sudden decline because we have a collective self opinion about out knowledge and control of everything that cannot accept that things can happen naturally?
Maybe at some point soon it will humanity's to experience a sudden natural decline ans thus solve all of the planet's problems. (Or so we might think.)
LongQ said:
grumbledoak said:
robinessex said:
Todays Beeb CC story
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
As I understand it the oceans are slightly alkaline, and more CO2 would make them more neutral. Not that it is clear to me whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.The Great Barrier Reef doesn't seem to have read the script:
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/opinion/...
The ocean's PH has dropped from ~8.2 to ~8.1 over the last 200 years which is a 20-30% increase of acidity.
As anybody who has kept a reef tank knows, this *is* a problem because it slows/stops the growth of SPS coral skeletons which form the structure of the reef.
Note: this is a largely separate issue to bleaching, which is caused by loss of the zooxanthellae primarily due to temperature and other types of pollution, e.g. copper, zinc etc.
budgie smuggler said:
The ocean is quite literally being made more acidic by the mechanism of adding an acid, CO2.
The ocean's PH has dropped from ~8.2 to ~8.1 over the last 200 years which is a 20-30% increase of acidity.
As anybody who has kept a reef tank knows, this *is* a problem because it slows/stops the growth of SPS coral skeletons which form the structure of the reef.
Note: this is a largely separate issue to bleaching, which is caused by loss of the zooxanthellae primarily due to temperature and other types of pollution, e.g. copper, zinc etc.
pH is 0 (strongly acidic) to 14 (strongly alkaline). 7 is bang centre, 8.2 or even 8.1 is alkaline. No way is that a "20-30%" change. It is also incorrect to describe "less alkaline" as "more acidic".The ocean's PH has dropped from ~8.2 to ~8.1 over the last 200 years which is a 20-30% increase of acidity.
As anybody who has kept a reef tank knows, this *is* a problem because it slows/stops the growth of SPS coral skeletons which form the structure of the reef.
Note: this is a largely separate issue to bleaching, which is caused by loss of the zooxanthellae primarily due to temperature and other types of pollution, e.g. copper, zinc etc.
Some "sciency sounding stuff", from reef tanks in fact, but I'll stop there:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/chemistry
budgie smuggler said:
LongQ said:
grumbledoak said:
robinessex said:
Todays Beeb CC story
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
As I understand it the oceans are slightly alkaline, and more CO2 would make them more neutral. Not that it is clear to me whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.The Great Barrier Reef doesn't seem to have read the script:
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/opinion/...
The ocean's PH has dropped from ~8.2 to ~8.1 over the last 200 years which is a 20-30% increase of acidity.
As anybody who has kept a reef tank knows, this *is* a problem because it slows/stops the growth of SPS coral skeletons which form the structure of the reef.
Note: this is a largely separate issue to bleaching, which is caused by loss of the zooxanthellae primarily due to temperature and other types of pollution, e.g. copper, zinc etc.
0.1 change out of a possible 70 (7-14 in steps of 0.1) = 1.4% . Which isn’t 20-30%. At all.
And if it’s in the alkaline region, a change towards ph7 is less alkaline. Not more acidic. It doesn’t show acidic properties until it’s in the acidic range. And even then, you’re looking for a ph of <5 before fish reproduction is impacted.
budgie smuggler said:
LongQ said:
grumbledoak said:
robinessex said:
Todays Beeb CC story
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
More acidic oceans 'will affect all sea life'
...
As I understand it the oceans are slightly alkaline, and more CO2 would make them more neutral. Not that it is clear to me whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.The Great Barrier Reef doesn't seem to have read the script:
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/opinion/...
The ocean's PH has dropped from ~8.2 to ~8.1 over the last 200 years which is a 20-30% increase of acidity.
As anybody who has kept a reef tank knows, this *is* a problem because it slows/stops the growth of SPS coral skeletons which form the structure of the reef.
Note: this is a largely separate issue to bleaching, which is caused by loss of the zooxanthellae primarily due to temperature and other types of pollution, e.g. copper, zinc etc.
If this nuance is lost on those who seem to have some real knowledge to rely on ... (should I check Wiki for matching character strings?) then we are in a more critical state of broad knowledge than I thought and the chances of really rational discussion seems ever more remote.
That observation would be for the Science community I suppose. No hope at all for the politicos.
grumbledoak said:
pH is 0 (strongly acidic) to 14 (strongly alkaline). 7 is bang centre, 8.2 or even 8.1 is alkaline. No way is that a "20-30%" change. It is also incorrect to describe "less alkaline" as "more acidic".
I must retract my "No way". If you are counting the H+ ion activity that does work out at 25% rise.https://www.ysi.com/ysi-blog/water-blogged-blog/20...
But it's swings and roundabouts, another 25% rise of H+ won't get you as far as pH 8.0, which would still be alkaline.
budgie smuggler said:
The ocean is quite literally being made more acidic by the mechanism of adding an acid, CO2.
The ocean's PH has dropped from ~8.2 to ~8.1 over the last 200 years which is a 20-30% increase of acidity.
As anybody who has kept a reef tank knows, this *is* a problem because it slows/stops the growth of SPS coral skeletons which form the structure of the reef.
The ocean is alkaline and is becoming marginally less alkaline, as per previous episodes. Corals have survived 'worse' than this in terms of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they've survived for ~500 million years, amazingly.The ocean's PH has dropped from ~8.2 to ~8.1 over the last 200 years which is a 20-30% increase of acidity.
As anybody who has kept a reef tank knows, this *is* a problem because it slows/stops the growth of SPS coral skeletons which form the structure of the reef.
If global warming is afflicting the world including the oceans, and given that carbon dioxide is significantly less soluble at higher temperatures, it should be degassing from warmer oceans. Degassing is the opposite of adding CO2, just in case anybody doesn't get the message.
Coral reefs 'acidify' i.e. slightly neutralise the ocean around them when they're healthy and growing, and thrive in these conditions. This result from Dr Andreas Andersson's team over at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography is based on observational data and has been posted in several PH climate threads including this one back in April.
As I pointed out previously, Andersson was at first puzzled by the team's results due to the hype around coral reefs and ocean 'acidification', due to the conditioning bestowed on scientists unwlling or unable to approach investigations with an open mind free from preconceptions. As a result, whenever a bell rings, such scientists may salivate and shout "global warming!" before rushing off to complete another grant application. Computer modelling of the salivation process would no doubt help here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff