Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
robinessex said:
Durbster. Here's another. References at the bottom of the picture.
OK, I've had a quick look at yet another f
king awful website (why are anti-AGW websites always so bad!?).One thing's puzzling me. You're constantly saying that models are worthless e.g.
robinessex said:
No worrry TB. Most of this alamist bks is what the MODELS SAY !!
Or inevitably parroting a turbobloke catchphrase:ks is what the MODELS SAY !!robinessex said:
... in these so called proofs, plus the GIGO models.
But it seems you're absolutely fine with this graph, which is entirely based on models. The paper is even called:GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME
Please explain why you consider the use of climate models to be acceptable here - making estimates 600 millions years into the past - but you absolutely refuse to accept climate models with regards to AGW?
Non-conformist i.e. anti-AGW websites aren't appealing to believers for obvious reasons.
AGW adherents lack objectivity ("the data don't matter" etc unless it's being diddled at the time) and the appearance of credible data and logic and sound science just won't go down well.
Then there's the heresy against doctrine side of things. Very shaky to the faith but faith can still win out over data and logic and sound science as we see.
AGW adherents lack objectivity ("the data don't matter" etc unless it's being diddled at the time) and the appearance of credible data and logic and sound science just won't go down well.
Then there's the heresy against doctrine side of things. Very shaky to the faith but faith can still win out over data and logic and sound science as we see.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/14/world/sutter-ice...
Er no it should not
"And most important: None of this has anything to do with man-made climate change.
The problem: That last detail -- the climate one -- is misleading at best.
At worst, it's wrong."
"But there is some dispute about whether there is enough evidence to tie the breakoff of this particular piece of ice to global warming.
In a widely quoted statement, Martin O'Leary, a Swansea University glaciologist who was part of the team studying Larsen C, said that the iceberg calving was "a natural event" and that "we're not aware of any link to human-induced climate change."
Not everyone agrees with that assessment, however."
No, like you pal !
Oh honestly.
I'm interested in the Arctic and Antarctic and don't fail to spot BS posts by skeptics when I see them on the subject, but this is equally bad.
2017 in the Arctic is looking to be an "average" year weather wise as was 2016, so it will be interesting to compare back to back, so far they are equal. We can forget the low years of 2007 and 2012 as outliers.
Er no it should not
"And most important: None of this has anything to do with man-made climate change.
The problem: That last detail -- the climate one -- is misleading at best.
At worst, it's wrong."
"But there is some dispute about whether there is enough evidence to tie the breakoff of this particular piece of ice to global warming.
In a widely quoted statement, Martin O'Leary, a Swansea University glaciologist who was part of the team studying Larsen C, said that the iceberg calving was "a natural event" and that "we're not aware of any link to human-induced climate change."
Not everyone agrees with that assessment, however."
No, like you pal !
Oh honestly.
I'm interested in the Arctic and Antarctic and don't fail to spot BS posts by skeptics when I see them on the subject, but this is equally bad.
2017 in the Arctic is looking to be an "average" year weather wise as was 2016, so it will be interesting to compare back to back, so far they are equal. We can forget the low years of 2007 and 2012 as outliers.
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge."
How true of the state of CAGW 'science'.
The consensus that heavier than air flight was impossible probably held the achievement back years, Scientific America still refused to believe a year after!
The CAGW belief/consensus is similarly holding back mankind's progress.
How true of the state of CAGW 'science'.
The consensus that heavier than air flight was impossible probably held the achievement back years, Scientific America still refused to believe a year after!
The CAGW belief/consensus is similarly holding back mankind's progress.
robinessex said:
No link here:-
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
From above:-
We still see the impact of Fourier’s answer today, with the recent news that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements surpassed 400 parts per million, and the ongoing debates of how to limit and adapt to a changing climate. It is, you might say, a hot topic.
Re, yes, the LOWEST it's ever been. The planet can just about survive with this level
Can you stop posting these stupid graphs from the past which are supposed to show something about AGW when they have no meaning at all in the current context.https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
From above:-
We still see the impact of Fourier’s answer today, with the recent news that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements surpassed 400 parts per million, and the ongoing debates of how to limit and adapt to a changing climate. It is, you might say, a hot topic.
Re, yes, the LOWEST it's ever been. The planet can just about survive with this level
Edited by robinessex on Sunday 16th July 21:31
Edited by robinessex on Sunday 16th July 21:32
It's a bit like saying your tap wont get clogged up with calcium because in the past they had stalagmites and stalactites.
robinessex said:
Durbster. Here's another. References at the bottom of the picture.
Can you stop posting these stupid graphs from the past which are supposed to show something about AGW when they have no meaning at all in the current context.It's a bit like saying your tap wont get clogged up with calcium because in the past they had stalagmites and stalactites.
Mr GrimNasty said:
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge."
How true of the state of CAGW 'science'.
The consensus that heavier than air flight was impossible probably held the achievement back years, Scientific America still refused to believe a year after!
The CAGW belief/consensus is similarly holding back mankind's progress.
And how is it holding it back exactly, care to give some figures for the entire globe? Some quantities rather than what you think from your mindset.How true of the state of CAGW 'science'.
The consensus that heavier than air flight was impossible probably held the achievement back years, Scientific America still refused to believe a year after!
The CAGW belief/consensus is similarly holding back mankind's progress.
PS Can you give some details on how heavier than air flight was impossible held back aviation? Perhaps starting from the Montgolfier brothers ???
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 19th July 01:08
turbobloke said:
Non-conformist i.e. anti-AGW websites aren't appealing to believers for obvious reasons.
AGW adherents lack objectivity ("the data don't matter" etc unless it's being diddled at the time) and the appearance of credible data and logic and sound science just won't go down well.
Then there's the heresy against doctrine side of things. Very shaky to the faith but faith can still win out over data and logic and sound science as we see.
bAGW adherents lack objectivity ("the data don't matter" etc unless it's being diddled at the time) and the appearance of credible data and logic and sound science just won't go down well.
Then there's the heresy against doctrine side of things. Very shaky to the faith but faith can still win out over data and logic and sound science as we see.
ks, you would say that though as you are not level headed and cannot think things through I have come to realise. You have a hobby horse called Shergar. He's 40 hands high.I've been following skeptic websites for donkeys years and one of the reasons they are not appealing is the majority seem to be in the USA.
Does that mean the USA people are more "clever" than us folk who try to follow scientific reasoning and let them decide? Judging by their new president I don't think so. Basically the US person hates to be told what to do, from guns to trade to science.
I'm surprised you have not cottoned on to this fact yet.
Role back a few years and you had acid lakes and the Ozone hole being disputed in the US. What do you hear of them now? It's settle science no? Or are you still disputing that? Of course that was before the internet really got going on bored people deciding to have a hobby
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Durbster. Here's another. References at the bottom of the picture.
OK, I've had a quick look at yet another fking awful website (why are anti-AGW websites always so bad!?).One thing's puzzling me. You're constantly saying that models are worthless e.g.
robinessex said:
No worrry TB. Most of this alamist bks is what the MODELS SAY !!
Or inevitably parroting a turbobloke catchphrase:ks is what the MODELS SAY !!robinessex said:
... in these so called proofs, plus the GIGO models.
But it seems you're absolutely fine with this graph, which is entirely based on models. The paper is even called:GEOCARB III: A REVISED MODEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 OVER PHANEROZOIC TIME
Please explain why you consider the use of climate models to be acceptable here - making estimates 600 millions years into the past - but you absolutely refuse to accept climate models with regards to AGW?
turbobloke said:
Non-conformist i.e. anti-AGW websites aren't appealing to believers for obvious reasons.
AGW adherents lack objectivity ("the data don't matter" etc unless it's being diddled at the time) and the appearance of credible data and logic and sound science just won't go down well.
Then there's the heresy against doctrine side of things. Very shaky to the faith but faith can still win out over data and logic and sound science as we see.
Here's another reason why anti AGW websites aren't appealing , they make things upAGW adherents lack objectivity ("the data don't matter" etc unless it's being diddled at the time) and the appearance of credible data and logic and sound science just won't go down well.
Then there's the heresy against doctrine side of things. Very shaky to the faith but faith can still win out over data and logic and sound science as we see.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Not only did the graph got altered, without any comment on such, but they didn't check with one of the authors before giving their summation on what it meant.
I emailed one of the authors who came back with
"thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming.
Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future). This article I have also attached to my email."
How damning is that?
I did the leg work there when THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR should have done it before posting. But he would never have posted then would he
Non AGW and AGW websites are both unsavioury when they both put spin on it, like I showed with CNN above.
Of course most people on here are biased skeptic so they ignore the s
te given by skeptic American websites and lap it up.Shame FAKE SCIENCE !! Sad!
As Donald would say.
From the political blog Climate Depot:
Swiss Physicist Concludes UN IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’ as CO2 is a ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’
From the abstract of Reinhart 2017:
Swiss Physicist Concludes UN IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’ as CO2 is a ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’
From the abstract of Reinhart 2017:
Abstract said:
Based on all these facts, we conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. We emphasize that our simplifying assumptions are by no means trying to minimize the absorption potential of CO2. To the contrary, they lead to overestimating the limiting values. The (IPCC) assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics. We conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification. The main problem is probably caused by the lack of considering the occupation probabilities of the energy levels.
We have calculated ?Fmax and ?Tmax for four concentrations namely 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 2000 ppm and 4000 ppm. The results are listed in Table I. They can be quite accurately fitted with logarithmic concentration dependence.
A doubling (to 800 ppmv) of the present level of CO2 results in ?T [temperature change] < 0.24 K.
The tenfold value of [the present CO2 concentration, or 4,000 ppmv yields ?T < 0.80 K.
There's more.We have calculated ?Fmax and ?Tmax for four concentrations namely 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 2000 ppm and 4000 ppm. The results are listed in Table I. They can be quite accurately fitted with logarithmic concentration dependence.
A doubling (to 800 ppmv) of the present level of CO2 results in ?T [temperature change] < 0.24 K.
The tenfold value of [the present CO2 concentration, or 4,000 ppmv yields ?T < 0.80 K.
More from Reinhart who said:
Lu et al (2013) establish a correlation of ?T with solar activity, cosmic rays and ozone reactions with fluorocarbons in the stratosphere. According to his result, CO2 only plays a minor role in the temperature evolution since pre-industrial times. Our calculation is compatible with his finding.
There remains the question of the existence of feedback. This effect is thought to amplify or attenuate a small temperature change. Such mechanisms are easy to imagine, but they are extremely difficult to quantify and to observe. Lindzen has tried to observe feedback by complicated correlation studies. He found a tendency to negative feedback that attenuates induced temperature changes because, in this perspective, the weak CO2 concentration effect is not magnified.
And that is the theoretical max from the input side, with experimental data showing that heat is lost more rapidly from the atmosphere to space than gigo agw models allow for.There remains the question of the existence of feedback. This effect is thought to amplify or attenuate a small temperature change. Such mechanisms are easy to imagine, but they are extremely difficult to quantify and to observe. Lindzen has tried to observe feedback by complicated correlation studies. He found a tendency to negative feedback that attenuates induced temperature changes because, in this perspective, the weak CO2 concentration effect is not magnified.
Reaction from a believer said:
It (the paper) is not much more than a blog post by some climate denier (he mentions Lindzen, a well-known denier)..
Stunning reasoning the likes of which we see on here most weeks from the faith side.Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 19th July 08:14
Gandahar said:
robinessex said:
No link here:-
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
From above:-
We still see the impact of Fourier’s answer today, with the recent news that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements surpassed 400 parts per million, and the ongoing debates of how to limit and adapt to a changing climate. It is, you might say, a hot topic.
Re, yes, the LOWEST it's ever been. The planet can just about survive with this level
Can you stop posting these stupid graphs from the past which are supposed to show something about AGW when they have no meaning at all in the current context.https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/wh...
From above:-
We still see the impact of Fourier’s answer today, with the recent news that atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements surpassed 400 parts per million, and the ongoing debates of how to limit and adapt to a changing climate. It is, you might say, a hot topic.
Re, yes, the LOWEST it's ever been. The planet can just about survive with this level
Edited by robinessex on Sunday 16th July 21:31
Edited by robinessex on Sunday 16th July 21:32
It's a bit like saying your tap wont get clogged up with calcium because in the past they had stalagmites and stalactites.
California votes to extend cap-and-trade climate law to 2030
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40640445
California legislators have voted to extend a law to cut carbon emissions, weeks after President Donald Trump said the US would withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
The policy, which requires firms to purchase permits to release pollutants, will be extended to the year 2030.
California Governor Jerry Brown said Republicans and Democrats had taken "courageous action" with the move.
The US state aims to cut greenhouse gases by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030.
"Tonight, California stood tall and once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time," Mr Brown said in a statement on Monday. "That's what good government looks like," he added........................continues
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40640445
California legislators have voted to extend a law to cut carbon emissions, weeks after President Donald Trump said the US would withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
The policy, which requires firms to purchase permits to release pollutants, will be extended to the year 2030.
California Governor Jerry Brown said Republicans and Democrats had taken "courageous action" with the move.
The US state aims to cut greenhouse gases by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030.
"Tonight, California stood tall and once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time," Mr Brown said in a statement on Monday. "That's what good government looks like," he added........................continues
robinessex said:
California votes to extend cap-and-trade climate law to 2030
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40640445
California legislators have voted to extend a law to cut carbon emissions, weeks after President Donald Trump said the US would withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
The policy, which requires firms to purchase permits to release pollutants, will be extended to the year 2030.
California Governor Jerry Brown said Republicans and Democrats had taken "courageous action" with the move.
The US state aims to cut greenhouse gases by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030.
"Tonight, California stood tall and once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time," Mr Brown said in a statement on Monday. "That's what good government looks like," he added........................continues
Perfect timing.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40640445
California legislators have voted to extend a law to cut carbon emissions, weeks after President Donald Trump said the US would withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
The policy, which requires firms to purchase permits to release pollutants, will be extended to the year 2030.
California Governor Jerry Brown said Republicans and Democrats had taken "courageous action" with the move.
The US state aims to cut greenhouse gases by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030.
"Tonight, California stood tall and once again, boldly confronted the existential threat of our time," Mr Brown said in a statement on Monday. "That's what good government looks like," he added........................continues
Reinhart 2017 conclusion said:
Therefore, demands for sequestering CO2 are unjustified and trading of CO2 certificates is an economic absurdity.
Anything else is what governance by delusion looks like - see under Brown, California.Gandahar said:
Role back a few years and you had acid lakes and the Ozone hole being disputed in the US. What do you hear of them now? It's settle science no? Or are you still disputing that? Of course that was before the internet really got going on bored people deciding to have a hobby
this is the bit i like about alarmism, whether it be ozone or agw, the believers always seem a few steps behind the science but right up to speed on the politics 
ozone you say ? you do know atmospheric levels are measured now ? there has been no annual change over and above the seasonal variation since cfc's were banned . now if you know your onions you might challenge this statement by mentioning the residence time of ozone in the atmosphere ,fair enough, but if so you better mention it to those making the proclamations that must be political as they are not based on fact ,like this lot https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/3...
just for fun here is yet another paper claiming agw is nonsense ,this time from that well know cabal of deniers at the swiss institute of technology . i haven't read it so have no idea how well the claims stack up ,but it is nice to see some people are actually looking at alternatives to the co2 is bad meme. http://www.entrelemanetjura.ch/BLOG_WP_351/wp-cont...
ps , i have read many statements from scientists over the years stating there is no natural process that creates cfc,s . there are obvious connotations to that statement. recently i read a paper where a couple of scientists have apparently discovered a process where cfc,s are generated by plankton i believe . i can't find it at the moment but will keep looking. the point is it is worth keeping one eye on new developments as many accepted paradigms always seem to shift .
Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 19th July 08:30
Here a CC joke for Durbster.
A CC scientist (we’ll call him that), had a girl relationship problem. He just couldn’t approach them, getting panic attacks as he did so. So he trotted of to see a psychologist. “Tell me Mr. Grim, what’s your problem ?” “Well, it’s like this doctor. Every time I see an attractive lady, and start to approach her, I get a panic attack”. ”Ah”, said the doctor.” What you need, is the ‘bit at a time’ approach. When you next see a pretty girl, just move half the distance you are away from her, sit down for a while to relax, and then repeat when you feel comfortable”. “Oh great”, said Mr Grim, “that sounds good, I’ll put that it into practise”. A few weeks later, Mr Grim goes back to the doctor. “How did you get on Mr. Grim” the doctor asked. “Well, not so good actually. I sat and thought about it for a while, and decided I’d analyse your solution mathematically. And the answer I got , if I kept going half the distance the girl was away from me, I’d never get there”. The doctor got up, approached Mr. Grim, putting his arm around him. “Don’t worry about that, after 10 moves, you’ll be so close, it won’t fking matter.”
A CC scientist (we’ll call him that), had a girl relationship problem. He just couldn’t approach them, getting panic attacks as he did so. So he trotted of to see a psychologist. “Tell me Mr. Grim, what’s your problem ?” “Well, it’s like this doctor. Every time I see an attractive lady, and start to approach her, I get a panic attack”. ”Ah”, said the doctor.” What you need, is the ‘bit at a time’ approach. When you next see a pretty girl, just move half the distance you are away from her, sit down for a while to relax, and then repeat when you feel comfortable”. “Oh great”, said Mr Grim, “that sounds good, I’ll put that it into practise”. A few weeks later, Mr Grim goes back to the doctor. “How did you get on Mr. Grim” the doctor asked. “Well, not so good actually. I sat and thought about it for a while, and decided I’d analyse your solution mathematically. And the answer I got , if I kept going half the distance the girl was away from me, I’d never get there”. The doctor got up, approached Mr. Grim, putting his arm around him. “Don’t worry about that, after 10 moves, you’ll be so close, it won’t f
king matter.”Gandahar said:
Role back a few years and you had acid lakes and the Ozone hole being disputed in the US. What do you hear of them now? It's settle science no? Or are you still disputing that? Of course that was before the internet really got going on bored people deciding to have a hobby
We don't hear about them because the so-called interventions did nothing much at all to help. Nothing has been fixed. Nobody on the faith side wants to advertise environ mentalist errors and failures.Regarding acid rain, papers such as the one by Lewis and Weibezahn attribute acid rain conditions in their target area (S America) to NOx from seasonal vegetation burning, not 4x4s or factories in other countries blkowing over. Not power stations or emissions from Prince Charles' estates or Al Gore'smansions. Does vegetation burning take place anywhere else, one might ask. Believers wedded to the hand of man as destroyer turned mister fixer might like to read "Unfinished Business: why the acid rain problem is not solved" from the Clean Air Task Force at Boston MA. After the prescribed actions had been taken, the problems remained, so there could be only one reason...more is needed! That's more of something ineffective, as in "more EU" to fix the problems of the EU.
The ozone issue hasn't gone away because it's solved. It's gone away because it's not solved. The links below worked at the time of the previous believer ozone attrition loop but may have moved since then. That changes nothing (except the URLs).
For those who remain blissfully unaware of what a massive 'success' the 1989-1997 (and ongoing) Montreal Protocol has been:
2001 the ozone hole problem is getting worse
http://www.wnd.com/2001/06/9757/
2003 the ozone hole problem is getting better
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/08...
2006 the ozone hole problem is getting worse again
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/feb/16/env...
2010 the ozone hole problem is getting better
http://www.nature.com/srep/2011/110714/srep00038/f...
2013 the ozone hiole problem is getting worse
http://www.livescience.com/40609-ozone-hole-bigges...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2648...
2016 the ozone hole problem is getting better
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/3...
Anyone would think it's a pre-existing cyclic phenomenon linked to stratospheric temperatures and solar UV variations.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff