Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Gandahar]

mybrainhurts said:

240B sums it up ------> Al Gore's success is a graphic statement on the stupidity of the American public, and how easily they are duped.

Meanwhile yet another US web blogger who is anti AGW makes silly claims

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/arctic-ice...

I can give you the figures to show a load of rubbish if you are interested enough.

Bloggers = no editorial control

[Ali G]

NASA lose mars lander due to incompetence

Tricky things, those units of measure, particularly for boffins at NASA.

[Otispunkmeyer]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/15/over-100000...

oh dear

that wasn't predictable at all...

[turbobloke]

Otispunkmeyer said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/15/over-100000...

oh dear

that wasn't predictable at all...

Indeed.

Wonder what CMD's father-in-law will make this year off the backs of pensioners in fuel poverty.

[mko9]

mybrainhurts said:

240B sums it up ------> Al Gore's success is a graphic statement on the stupidity of the American public, and how easily they are duped.

Not forgetting our durby....

Hey, we're not that stupid. We didn't elect him to the Presidency. It was a near thing, though.

[turbobloke]

mko9 said:

Hey, we're not that stupid. We didn't elect him to the Presidency.

Fair point!

mko9 said:

It was a near thing, though.

A miss is as good as a mile.

[jshell]

Gandahar said:

jshell said:

robinessex said:

Todays Beeb CC story:-

Nasa carbon space observatory 'watches Earth breathe'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4160...

A Nasa satellite has provided remarkable new insights on how CO2 is moved through the Earth's atmosphere.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) tracked the behaviour of the gas in 2015/2016 - a period when the planet experienced a major El Niño event.
This climate phenomenon boosts the amount of CO2 in the air.
The US space agency's OCO satellite was able to show how that increase was controlled by the response of tropical forests to heat and drought.
The forests' ability to draw down carbon dioxide, some of it produced by human activity, was severely curtailed. ........................continues

Of course humans contribute to CO2. We breath the dam stuff out !!

Of course NASA supports efforts to combat climate change, they're making careers and a fortune by believing in it! It's all that's keeping NASA alive...

Any facts to back that claim up?

Well they're not going to admit it are they? But, it's pretty obvious. They have a few probes going and a metric-fkload of satellites and global wombling monitoring and science going on since they stopped all manned or supply missions.

[grumbledoak]

Australia backing off renewables, aiming to be more pragmatic
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/cabinet-dump...

[wc98]

Gandahar said:

I can give you the figures to show a load of rubbish if you are interested enough.

go on then, i am interested. good chance ron would have a look in to respond to what you post as well, as long as someone lets him know where it is

[mybrainhurts]

mko9 said:

mybrainhurts said:

240B sums it up ------> Al Gore's success is a graphic statement on the stupidity of the American public, and how easily they are duped.

Not forgetting our durby....

Hey, we're not that stupid. We didn't elect him to the Presidency. It was a near thing, though.

Errr.....nobody did, he didn't make it, but he's cashing in on his failure at the world's expense.

[robinessex]

Frome the Beeb today

A brief history of the Earth's CO2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4167...

Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. Carbon dioxide is is the primary driver of global warming. Prof Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London explains why this gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth's climate...................continues on for 94 pages.

Obviously a commissioned story by the Beeb. I wonder how she got to be a Professor then ? A quote from mid story "All these factors complicate the picture. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the global temperature rise over the past century is a result of human-produced GHGs, mainly CO2." Lots of other unsubstantiated quotes there, and selective facts.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Frome the Beeb today

A brief history of the Earth's CO2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4167...

Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. Carbon dioxide is is the primary driver of global warming. Prof Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London explains why this gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth's climate...................continues on for 94 pages.

Obviously a commissioned story by the Beeb. I wonder how she got to be a Professor then ? A quote from mid story "All these factors complicate the picture. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the global temperature rise over the past century is a result of human-produced GHGs, mainly CO2." Lots of other unsubstantiated quotes there, and selective facts.

Why don't you look her up on the internet and find out rather than doing your usual grump about something that you don't personally agree with that the Beeb has published and implying that the individual concerned isn't qualified to comment/doesn't know what they're talking about?

Here:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.haigh

"Joanna has been Co-Director of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College since 2014. For the previous 5 years she was Head of the Department of Physics. Jo's scientific interests include radiative transfer in the atmosphere, climate modelling, radiative forcing of climate change and the influence of solar irradiance variability on climate. She has published widely on these topics in the scientific literature and also contributed to numerous items to the written and broadcast popular media. She has been President of the Royal Meteorological Society, Editor of Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society and of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, a Lead Author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and acted on many UK and international panels. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society, the Institute of Physics, the City & Guilds and the Royal Meteorological Society and an Honorary Fellow of Somerville College Oxford. She was awarded the Institute of Physics Charles Chree Medal and Prize 2004, the Royal Meteorological Society Adrian Gill Prize 2010 and appointed CBE in the 2013 New Years Honours."

[Ali G]

Clearly, being a staunch advocate of CAGW has not hindered her career then.

[wc98]

Lotus 50 said:

Why don't you look her up on the internet and find out rather than doing your usual grump about something that you don't personally agree with that the Beeb has published and implying that the individual concerned isn't qualified to comment/doesn't know what they're talking about?

Here:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.haigh

"Joanna has been Co-Director of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College since 2014. For the previous 5 years she was Head of the Department of Physics. Jo's scientific interests include radiative transfer in the atmosphere, climate modelling, radiative forcing of climate change and the influence of solar irradiance variability on climate. She has published widely on these topics in the scientific literature and also contributed to numerous items to the written and broadcast popular media. She has been President of the Royal Meteorological Society, Editor of Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society and of the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, a Lead Author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and acted on many UK and international panels. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society, the Institute of Physics, the City & Guilds and the Royal Meteorological Society and an Honorary Fellow of Somerville College Oxford. She was awarded the Institute of Physics Charles Chree Medal and Prize 2004, the Royal Meteorological Society Adrian Gill Prize 2010 and appointed CBE in the 2013 New Years Honours."

i have to say, as appeals to authority go, that is a pretty damn impressive one !

[Lotus 50]

Apparently not (to AliG). But I'd still suspect she's better qualified than you or Robinessex to make statements about what causes climate change.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 19th October 15:42

[Ali G]

It would certainly be interesting to hear her explanation of why 25 times more H2O than CO2, operating in the same manner, is deemed less 'dangerous' than the anthroprogenically generated proportion of CO2.

[Lotus 50]

Ali G said:

It would certainly be interesting to hear her explanation of why 25 times more H2O than CO2, operating in the same manner, is deemed less 'dangerous' than the anthroprogenically generated proportion of CO2.

Well, you could ask her - (her email is given on the Grantham institute link I gave earlier). At a guess I'd suggest its something to do with the rate of change in levels of atmospheric H2O vs the change in CO2 and/or the differences in the way they retain heat. I had a quick scan through her fuller ref list (theres a link to it at the bottom of the Grantham page) and spotted this which may help:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.207...

[turbobloke]

The change in CO2 is unremarkable, like the current level. Far more remarkable is the lack of causality CO2 to temperature.

Look at this mish-mash.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/...

Water tax? Lovely.

[Ali G]

Lotus 50 said:

Ali G said:

It would certainly be interesting to hear her explanation of why 25 times more H2O than CO2, operating in the same manner, is deemed less 'dangerous' than the anthroprogenically generated proportion of CO2.

Well, you could ask her - (her email is given on the Grantham institute link I gave earlier). At a guess I'd suggest its something to do with the rate of change in levels of atmospheric H2O vs the change in CO2 and/or the differences in the way they retain heat. I had a quick scan through her fuller ref list (theres a link to it at the bottom of the Grantham page) and spotted this which may help:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.207...

Fair enough, but leave the guessing to hypotheses yet to be supported by evidence would be my advice.

There are already far to many eager to believe (for whatever perverse reason) as opposed to those waiting to be convinced by evidence - including a valid GHG mechanism which is not in conflict with other scientific laws.

I look forward to learning and understanding more, prior to accepting, carte blanche, CAGW.

[dickymint]

Lotus 50 said:

Apparently not (to AliG). But I'd still suspect she's better qualified than you or Robinessex to make statements about what causes climate change.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 19th October 15:42

Do you think that Her opening statement ...... "Carbon dioxide is is the primary driver of global warming" is anywhere near the truth?