Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
durbster said:
Why else would you refuse to engage with somebody who actually knows what they're talking about, and instead choose to believe a bunch of comforting nonsense you've read on a car forum?
I'm more than happy to engage scientists about this topic. The only reason you would be uncomfortable doing that is if you were afraid of discovering you were wrong.
True. And all the physical evidence supports AGW.
just to put this sI'm more than happy to engage scientists about this topic. The only reason you would be uncomfortable doing that is if you were afraid of discovering you were wrong.
True. And all the physical evidence supports AGW.
te to bed regarding what you think are non experts on various forums and blogs . here is a quote from micro6500 on wuwt.( his own blog is well worth a read regarding the role of water vapour)"And since this is solving simultaneous differential equations by time step, where you have to allow all nodes to reach numerical stability prior to the next step. Each of these nodes carry the uncertainty into the next iteration. And they are modeling an abstraction of the real system.
I’ll point out I spent 15 years as a simulation subject matter expert, covered about a dozen simulators, and created models and circuits that got checked out and reviewed by engineers who had actually build the real thing and tested it extensively on a lab bench. Including simulators that operate like gcm’s operate. Also designed a chip for NASA GSFC, fastest design for them at the time."
now i am telling you , if you think any, and i mean any , multi discipline climate scientist has anything like his level of expertise in his particular field you are talking out your arse. the vast majority of them are jacks of all trades with one very narrow specialism. they may well be very smart jacks but individual field specialists wipe the floor with them. for instance there is not one single climate scientist on the level of steve mcintyre when it comes to stats. you have these people up on a pedestal unjustifiably ,they are all capable of mistakes and the group think driving the massive increase in funding for the sector over the last twenty years is a very big reason not to upset the apple cart. there are now so many of them in the field even mcdonalds would struggle to take up the slack should it turn out co2 is not the devil reincarnate .
LongQ said:
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.)
It could be that the Earth is like a lifeboat for the human species, and all the others we share the world with, Like a lifeboat it will have a set of supplies which will sustain its occupants for a limited time, but when those supplies have all been used up, we can only hope that we have found another place to continue with. At the moment it seems as though we are using up our supplies as fast as possible by rapidly increasing the numbers who want tom access those supplies, such that all in the lifeboat will perish, `before' any new place, or solutions might be found to our genetic need to propagate the species.
Just as survivors in lifeboats before, have turned to the Soylent Green option to enable them to survive for just a little bit longer, the Soylent Green stage (if we get that far) might just be the first indicator, that the time remaining to find a solution to our position is approaching. Climate change is just a symptom, it is not the major problem that faces us, as we are probably the major problem that faces us, much as many may not want to even think about that, let alone admit it..
With all due respect to other posters here, some of the climatic problems they describe are just the symptoms of what is going on.
Why are we cutting down square miles of rain forest, the alleged lungs of the planet? why are we extracting more, not less minerals including oil, from the Earth? Why are natural habitats being encroached upon, with the attendant loss of the species in them? Why are square miles of natural habitat being lost under the pen stock lakes of hydro electric schemes? Why are marine species being taken to extinction, with industrial fishing fleets hoovering fish out of the sea? Why are the seas acidifying as some have stated?.
The answer to these questions and many more like them, is that it is all being done to meet the needs of an already colossal, and still rapidly increasing human population. A finite planet with a limited set of resources, set against a burgeoning (human population, which is not only increasing in size (at a rate not seen before on Earth), but also seems to want to increase its per capita take up of resources. Where does common sense suggest this policy is likely to lead?
As mentioned earlier we cannot help ourselves, since what we are doing, is what our genetic programming (and in the case of humans specifically our bombardment of messages to procreate) compels us to do. with each generation naturally wanting better conditions, and opportunities to be available for those that they bring into the world.
With the net growth of the global human population ranging between 287 and 342 thousand per day, how long will the Earth be able to sustain that level of growth, and how will the planet respond to what is happening? Perhaps climate change might be just one initial response in way the Earth will react to what is happening on it?
Why are we cutting down square miles of rain forest, the alleged lungs of the planet? why are we extracting more, not less minerals including oil, from the Earth? Why are natural habitats being encroached upon, with the attendant loss of the species in them? Why are square miles of natural habitat being lost under the pen stock lakes of hydro electric schemes? Why are marine species being taken to extinction, with industrial fishing fleets hoovering fish out of the sea? Why are the seas acidifying as some have stated?.
The answer to these questions and many more like them, is that it is all being done to meet the needs of an already colossal, and still rapidly increasing human population. A finite planet with a limited set of resources, set against a burgeoning (human population, which is not only increasing in size (at a rate not seen before on Earth), but also seems to want to increase its per capita take up of resources. Where does common sense suggest this policy is likely to lead?
As mentioned earlier we cannot help ourselves, since what we are doing, is what our genetic programming (and in the case of humans specifically our bombardment of messages to procreate) compels us to do. with each generation naturally wanting better conditions, and opportunities to be available for those that they bring into the world.
With the net growth of the global human population ranging between 287 and 342 thousand per day, how long will the Earth be able to sustain that level of growth, and how will the planet respond to what is happening? Perhaps climate change might be just one initial response in way the Earth will react to what is happening on it?
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Tuesday 24th October 10:25
grumbledoak said:
You might get different responses on a Human Population Explosion thread.
On the Global Thermal Armageddon threads the correct response is "what climatic problems?"
The problem is that the Earths climate has never stopped changing in the Earths entire history. I don't even argue with the point that human activity is / can be having an effect on it. But those who bang on about man made climate change seem to me to be like a group of `believers' huddled around the exhaust pipe of a car, who scream with indignation at each puff of smoke that comes out of it, whilst at the same time being able to completely ignore the vehicle itself, which is creating those puffs of smoke. They should be looking at the root cause, not the symptoms.On the Global Thermal Armageddon threads the correct response is "what climatic problems?"
Pan Pan Pan said:
grumbledoak said:
You might get different responses on a Human Population Explosion thread.
On the Global Thermal Armageddon threads the correct response is "what climatic problems?"
The problem is that the Earths climate has never stopped changing in the Earths entire history. I don't even argue with the point that human activity is / can be having an effect on it. But those who bang on about man made climate change seem to me to be like a group of `believers' huddled around the exhaust pipe of a car, who scream with indignation at each puff of smoke that comes out of it, whilst at the same time being able to completely ignore the vehicle itself, which is creating those puffs of smoke. They should be looking at the root cause, not the symptoms.On the Global Thermal Armageddon threads the correct response is "what climatic problems?"
The Pope, to take one example amongst a number of "world leaders" with some widespread influence, is apparently both a strong believer in CAGW and a very strong proponent for population growth policies. Make of that what you will but the likelihood of fairly blatant cognitive dissonance seems high.
On the whole "societies" are based on a Ponzi scheme of growth that more or less depends on expansion to survive.
Possible solutions to perceived problems are decried - Nuclear for example - because of the perceived risks yet they would seem to be no greater than alleged threat they would help to reduce or the ever present potential for some sort of large meteor strike or volcanic/tectonic plate based catastrophe.
I stopped expecting logical (one might say scientific) responses to human perceived problems,self induced or not, some years ago. They are quite rare at the individual level, rare at group levels and as things become global and groups larger, logical responses, other than inbuilt "fight or flee" decisions, become harder and harder to find. No point in expecting them.
Thus everything will eventually turn on political decisions made along the way, whether influenced by "the masses" or simply handed down by dictators, and I would have no wish to suggest that there is a clear path that woule lead us to an explanation of how that might or will work out.
However I would guess that at some point, after a global disaster as survivors once again discover the benefits of "energy sources" to reduce manual effort, someone will discover coal ..... but only after they have exhausted what is possible from the use of more readily accessible materials.
LongQ said:
I'm really disappointed to write this budgie smuggler but I rather think you have confirmed my point - other than being part of "the great unwashed" I assume.
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.
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.
I can neither confirm, nor deny that I am a member of said group. I am however fully aware of what pH represents, I was trying to explain why the term acidification is used *despite* the water still being basic.
Don't take my word for it though:
EPOCA said:
The ocean is not acidic, and model projections say the oceans won’t ever become acidic. So why call it ocean acidification?
Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value. For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale), increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are still raising the ocean's acidity and lowering its pH. In comparison, this language is similar to the words we use when we talk about temperature. If the air temperature moves from -40°C to -29°C (-40°F to -20°F), it is still cold, but we call it “warming.” — James Orr, Senior Scientist, Laboratory for the Sciences of Climate and Environment, France; Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA; Robert Key, Research Oceanographer, Princeton University, USA
and regarding this...Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value. For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale), increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are still raising the ocean's acidity and lowering its pH. In comparison, this language is similar to the words we use when we talk about temperature. If the air temperature moves from -40°C to -29°C (-40°F to -20°F), it is still cold, but we call it “warming.” — James Orr, Senior Scientist, Laboratory for the Sciences of Climate and Environment, France; Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA; Robert Key, Research Oceanographer, Princeton University, USA
turbobloke said:
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.
250 million years ago they were nearly extinct partly due to ocean article said:
“The important take-home message of this is that the rate of increase of CO2 during the Permian mass extinction is about the same rate as the one to which we are exposing the ocean to today,” said Professor Rachel Wood of the University of Edinburgh.
“We have found that the oceans 252 million years ago experienced dramatic acidification and that this coincided with a significant rise in carbon dioxide levels. The data is compelling and we really should be worried in term of what is happening today,” Professor Wood said.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ocean-acidification-killed-off-more-than-90-per-cent-of-marine-life-252-million-years-ago-scientists-10165989.html“We have found that the oceans 252 million years ago experienced dramatic acidification and that this coincided with a significant rise in carbon dioxide levels. The data is compelling and we really should be worried in term of what is happening today,” Professor Wood said.
For avoidance of doubt, I do not suggest acidification is the only factor in the extinction, rather that it is something worthy of concern.
Edited by budgie smuggler on Tuesday 24th October 14:52
I love the fact that scientists are sure that 90% of the planet's marine life was wiped out 250 million years ago, but also they admit that they have feck all idea about how many species there really are down there. IIRC the number discovered so far is 130,000, but estimates for total numbers ranges between 1 million and 10 million. You could not make it up and get away with it ... unless you were a so called scientist.
Diderot said:
I love the fact that scientists are sure that 90% of the planet's marine life was wiped out 250 million years ago, but also they admit that they have feck all idea about how many species there really are down there. IIRC the number discovered so far is 130,000, but estimates for total numbers ranges between 1 million and 10 million. You could not make it up and get away with it ... unless you were a so called scientist.
Not only, but also damned smart critters able to monitor oceanic levels of pH and record this for posterity!Perhaps we are overlooking ancient alien tech and knowledge stored in area 51.
Ali G said:
Diderot said:
I love the fact that scientists are sure that 90% of the planet's marine life was wiped out 250 million years ago, but also they admit that they have feck all idea about how many species there really are down there. IIRC the number discovered so far is 130,000, but estimates for total numbers ranges between 1 million and 10 million. You could not make it up and get away with it ... unless you were a so called scientist.
Not only, but also damned smart critters able to monitor oceanic levels of pH and record this for posterity!Perhaps we are overlooking ancient alien tech and knowledge stored in area 51.
kwits. 
budgie smuggler said:
LongQ said:
I'm really disappointed to write this budgie smuggler but I rather think you have confirmed my point - other than being part of "the great unwashed" I assume.
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.
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.
I can neither confirm, nor deny that I am a member of said group. I am however fully aware of what pH represents, I was trying to explain why the term acidification is used *despite* the water still being basic.
Don't take my word for it though:
EPOCA said:
The ocean is not acidic, and model projections say the oceans won’t ever become acidic. So why call it ocean acidification?
Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value. For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale), increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are still raising the ocean's acidity and lowering its pH. In comparison, this language is similar to the words we use when we talk about temperature. If the air temperature moves from -40°C to -29°C (-40°F to -20°F), it is still cold, but we call it “warming.” — James Orr, Senior Scientist, Laboratory for the Sciences of Climate and Environment, France; Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA; Robert Key, Research Oceanographer, Princeton University, USA
and regarding this...Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value. For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale), increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are still raising the ocean's acidity and lowering its pH. In comparison, this language is similar to the words we use when we talk about temperature. If the air temperature moves from -40°C to -29°C (-40°F to -20°F), it is still cold, but we call it “warming.” — James Orr, Senior Scientist, Laboratory for the Sciences of Climate and Environment, France; Christopher L. Sabine, Supervisory Oceanographer, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, USA; Robert Key, Research Oceanographer, Princeton University, USA
turbobloke said:
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.
250 million years ago they were nearly extinct partly due to ocean article said:
“The important take-home message of this is that the rate of increase of CO2 during the Permian mass extinction is about the same rate as the one to which we are exposing the ocean to today,” said Professor Rachel Wood of the University of Edinburgh.
“We have found that the oceans 252 million years ago experienced dramatic acidification and that this coincided with a significant rise in carbon dioxide levels. The data is compelling and we really should be worried in term of what is happening today,” Professor Wood said.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ocean-acidification-killed-off-more-than-90-per-cent-of-marine-life-252-million-years-ago-scientists-10165989.html“We have found that the oceans 252 million years ago experienced dramatic acidification and that this coincided with a significant rise in carbon dioxide levels. The data is compelling and we really should be worried in term of what is happening today,” Professor Wood said.
For avoidance of doubt, I do not suggest acidification is the only factor in the extinction, rather that it is something worthy of concern.
Edited by budgie smuggler on Tuesday 24th October 14:52
Flammable and Inflammable come to mind. Apparently, officially and historically, they meant the same thing whereas, for example, Hospitable and Inhospitable mean the opposite.
Carefully chosen words used judiciously for specific purposes can be very influential over people's impressions about what they are hearing and the decisions they make based on what they think they understand.
Those who would take it upon themselves to change "society" in significant ways usually understand that very well indeed.
Cold said:
If that doesn't show the Beeb’s biased re CC & AGW, nothing will. Is anyone going to challenge the Beeb on it’s one side, biased, stance on this? They never report anything with the opposing view, and bend facts and data in the news stories to continue to promote CC. Staggering !!!In 2014 the BBC Trust stated the corporation has "a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately".
Well, that they certainly never do.
robinessex said:
If that doesn't show the Beeb’s biased re CC & AGW, nothing will. Is anyone going to challenge the Beeb on it’s one side, biased, stance on this? They never report anything with the opposing view, and bend facts and data in the news stories to continue to promote CC. Staggering !!!
In 2014 the BBC Trust stated the corporation has "a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately".
Well, that they certainly never do.
So the Beeb gave Lawson an opportunity to put his views across then didn't challenge him when he said something that is at least highly questionable if not demonstrably incorrect (and something that the GWPF also admit was wrong) and you're back on your 'Beeb is biased' high horse..?In 2014 the BBC Trust stated the corporation has "a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately".
Well, that they certainly never do.
Lotus 50 said:
robinessex said:
If that doesn't show the Beeb’s biased re CC & AGW, nothing will. Is anyone going to challenge the Beeb on it’s one side, biased, stance on this? They never report anything with the opposing view, and bend facts and data in the news stories to continue to promote CC. Staggering !!!
In 2014 the BBC Trust stated the corporation has "a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately".
Well, that they certainly never do.
So the Beeb gave Lawson an opportunity to put his views across then didn't challenge him when he said something that is at least highly questionable if not demonstrably incorrect (and something that the GWPF also admit was wrong) and you're back on your 'Beeb is biased' high horse..?In 2014 the BBC Trust stated the corporation has "a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately".
Well, that they certainly never do.
ks at the end of the article goes unchallenged. Or do you you still think that stat isn't highly questionable or demonstrably incorrect? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff