Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Ali G]

Who let the chimps out of the Brexit threads?

They know they're not allowed out without adult supervision.

There's gonna be a whole lot faeces to clean up now.

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

In order to settle this matter what measurement could be taken, by whom and how would they go about taking it?

one might be a good start. measuring the tropospheric hot spot, a basic tenet of the hypothesis. climate models predict two to three times the rate of surface warming for the troposphere,only trouble is it hasn't happened.

there are a few papers in recent years claiming to find some warming of the troposphere,all rely on selective data (throwing out the bits that don't agree) and none find the rates claimed by models. they are all late to the party though, this was stated well before we pumped the majority of anthropogenic co2 into the atmosphere.

atmospheric scientists would take the measurements using the equipment they have that was designed to measure temperature at various heights in the atmosphere. that being radiosondes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde .

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

LoonyTunes said:

In order to settle this matter what measurement could be taken, by whom and how would they go about taking it?

one might be a good start. measuring the tropospheric hot spot, a basic tenet of the hypothesis. climate models predict two to three times the rate of surface warming for the troposphere,only trouble is it hasn't happened.

there are a few papers in recent years claiming to find some warming of the troposphere,all rely on selective data (throwing out the bits that don't agree) and none find the rates claimed by models. they are all late to the party though, this was stated well before we pumped the majority of anthropogenic co2 into the atmosphere.

atmospheric scientists would take the measurements using the equipment they have that was designed to measure temperature at various heights in the atmosphere. that being radiosondes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde .

So here we have another thing that's tricky to measure but many so-called sceptics are adamant doesn't exist.

Are you going to post something that's evidence against 'cagw' (as you put it) though? As far I know the hotspot is a predicted outcome of global warming in general (ie for a variety of possible forcings) and would act as a negative feedback to surface warming.

[durbster]

The looniest thread on Pistonheads just won't die will it

wc98 said:

how many measurements do we have that support cagw due to the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere ? last time i looked it was zero.

1. We know the effect of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2. We know how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human made.

These are really, really basic facts. It's amazing that anyone who's been participating in this thread for years doesn't know this stuff.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

The looniest thread on Pistonheads just won't die will it

wc98 said:

how many measurements do we have that support cagw due to the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere ? last time i looked it was zero.

1. We know the effect of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2. We know how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human made.

These are really, really basic facts. It's amazing that anyone who's been participating in this thread for years doesn't know this stuff.

Oh no you don't!

You do not know how much forcing CO2 has, and even that has to be amplified by water vapour!

[kerplunk]

durbster said:

The looniest thread on Pistonheads just won't die will it

wc98 said:

how many measurements do we have that support cagw due to the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere ? last time i looked it was zero.

1. We know the effect of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2. We know how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human made.

These are really, really basic facts. It's amazing that anyone who's been participating in this thread for years doesn't know this stuff.

To be fair WC98 referred the ill-defined concept of 'cagw' (catastrophic agw) and just having a pretty good idea of what the forcing from CO2 is doesn't get you to catastrophic (whatever that actually means!) on it's own.

[Kawasicki]

jjlynn27 said:

turbobloke said:

No need for lies / strawmen.,

How would you get to 80k+ thousand posts otherwise? This thread is the same as above mentioned anti-vaxxers thread. Few nutjobs stroking each other and tell themselves how everyone else is wrong. They also used 'believers' to describe people who were not anti-vaxxers.

Few names and few articles would change, but basic mo of conspiracy theorists always stays the same. 'Where is the proof?!?!' 'Oh, that, that doesn't count they are paid to say that', 'No, that data is doctored!'.

Typical Infowars and Rush Limbaugh audience.

What is/are Infowars, who is Rush Limbaugh?

I’m skeptical/not convinced of human driven unusual climate change simply because I see no credible evidence for unusual climate change. The interglacial period we are living in is relatively cool, and, hmmm...that’s about the end of the discussion for me.

Oh, yes, your insults are unnecessary and not really effective, though they might entertain some.

[durbster]

kerplunk said:

To be fair WC98 referred the ill-defined concept of 'cagw' (catastrophic agw) and just having a pretty good idea of what the forcing from CO2 is doesn't get you to catastrophic (whatever that actually means!) on it's own.

Ah yes, good point. Adding the undefinable C is the safety net when they finally concede the AGW bit is real.

[LongQ]

jjlynn27 said:

kerplunk said:

Well his repeated blah about TOA (top the atmosphere) radiative imbalance measurements (from Stephens et al) reminds me of that daft game we used to play where you place your hand under someone's chin and then say 'get out of that without moving!'. Or put another way - similar to the way anti-Darwinists try to use gaps in the fossil record to claim absence of evidence = evidence of absence. He's clearly delighted to have found a measurement that we don't have (because it's a very difficult thing to measure) that he can sell as 'evidence of absence' to the unwary.

You are wasting your time. You can't explain to conspiracy nutjobs that they are conspiracy nutjobs. But you can enjoy the show.

No he's not. He's just amusing himself - as you do.

It can be very gratifying for one's ego it seems.

KP has been around long enough to decide whether he or she is, in his or her opinion, wasting time.

If they agree with you I think they would have departed long ago.

So your reason for wasting your time is what?

[jjlynn27]

Kawasicki said:

What is/are Infowars, who is Rush Limbaugh?

I’m skeptical/not convinced of human driven unusual climate change simply because I see no credible evidence for unusual climate change. The interglacial period we are living in is relatively cool, and, hmmm...that’s about the end of the discussion for me.

Oh, yes, your insults are unnecessary and not really effective, though they might entertain some.

You don't know 'what is Infowars'? Do you know how to use google? I even provided links to both earlier, so you can check them yourself.
They also deny climate change, but wait for it; Infowars store has this;

infowars store said:

The All-New Supercharged Brain Force PLUS™: Because There's A War On For Your Mind!
Top scientists and researchers agree: we are being hit by toxic weapons in the food and water supply that are making us fat, sick, and stupid.

6000 reviewers can't be wrong
http://www.infowarsshop.com/Brain-Force-Plus_p_161...

As for the rest; would you call flat-earthers conspiracy nutjobs? Please don't ask me what 'flat-earthers' are. You should be able to find out.
What about anti-vaxxers? This thread is the same, few blokes egging each other, repeating ad-nauseam about 'puff-pieces' perpetuated by that leftist mouthpiece that is BBC.

[Kawasicki]

jjlynn27 said:

Kawasicki said:

What is/are Infowars, who is Rush Limbaugh?

I’m skeptical/not convinced of human driven unusual climate change simply because I see no credible evidence for unusual climate change. The interglacial period we are living in is relatively cool, and, hmmm...that’s about the end of the discussion for me.

Oh, yes, your insults are unnecessary and not really effective, though they might entertain some.

You don't know 'what is Infowars'? Do you know how to use google? I even provided links to both earlier, so you can check them yourself.
They also deny climate change, but wait for it; Infowars store has this;

infowars store said:

The All-New Supercharged Brain Force PLUS™: Because There's A War On For Your Mind!
Top scientists and researchers agree: we are being hit by toxic weapons in the food and water supply that are making us fat, sick, and stupid.

6000 reviewers can't be wrong
http://www.infowarsshop.com/Brain-Force-Plus_p_161...

As for the rest; would you call flat-earthers conspiracy nutjobs? Please don't ask me what 'flat-earthers' are. You should be able to find out.
What about anti-vaxxers? This thread is the same, few blokes egging each other, repeating ad-nauseam about 'puff-pieces' perpetuated by that leftist mouthpiece that is BBC.

You seem to think I am a conspiracy nutjob, though I think I am the opposite of that. Flat earthers are wrong, because the physical evidence shows that. Similar story for anti-vaxxers, moon landings, chem trails, etc.

There are plenty of examples where major mainstream science was wrong though. It is good to be sceptical. Base your decisions on data, and as someone who has some experience modelling complex systems, be very, very careful about accepting model predictions as evidence.

Still, you keep assuming whatever you like about me, or the others on the sceptical side.

Mainstream science has global temperature data going back a few ice ages...the current interglacial period is a relatively cool one. Do you agree?

[zygalski]

There's a flaw in your logic.
You're basing your decision making process on data which Turbospam is copying/pasting from right wing AGW conspiracy blogs & posting on a car owners website.
If you were more serious about forming a more rounded view, I'd imagine you'd have already taken part in a similar thread on a pro-consensus website and discuss there.
You're just being preached to/preaching at as part of a small, devout congregation in here.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

1. We know the effect of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2. We know how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human made.

These are really, really basic facts. It's amazing that anyone who's been participating in this thread for years doesn't know this stuff.

Ref 1. No we don't. It's a bloody guess and hypothesis
Ref 2. No we don't. It's a again between a guess and an estimate

And sums up perfectly your understing of AGW. Zero

[Jinx]

zygalski said:

There's a flaw in your logic.
You're basing your decision making process on data which Turbospam is copying/pasting from right wing AGW conspiracy blogs & posting on a car owners website.
If you were more serious about forming a more rounded view, I'd imagine you'd have already taken part in a similar thread on a pro-consensus website and discuss there.
You're just being preached to/preaching at as part of a small, devout congregation in here.

Climate Etc good enough for you or is that a conspiracy blog?

Oh and did you read the climate gate email that explains what "realclimate" is for (give you a clue it is not science)?

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

So here we have another thing that's tricky to measure but many so-called sceptics are adamant doesn't exist.

Are you going to post something that's evidence against 'cagw' (as you put it) though? As far I know the hotspot is a predicted outcome of global warming in general (ie for a variety of possible forcings) and would act as a negative feedback to surface warming.

negative feedback ? how so ? it is a positive feedback or amplification of the effect of an increase in atmospheric co2. co2 is supposed to cause some warming,this causes an increase in atmospheric water vapour (by various effects). it is the increase in atmospheric water vapour that supposedly brings about the rise atmospheric temps.

the tricky to measure bit of your post is the money shot. this is not in dispute, the problem for me is the degree of certainty people (on both sides of the debate) put on various "data" sets. imo they are all not fit for purpose. some may be better than others for various uses, but to determine certainty for claims of cagw (please note the c in cagw is all that matters, if the amount of warming as result of mans activities on earth either has no effect or a net benefit ,even if small, there is no problem or need to spend billions of taxpayers money addressing a non issue) requires quality of data we do not have.

here is a good discussion on the issue. note how people on opposing sides frame their responses then come back and tell me what you think about "certainty". carl mears is involved, after reading this what occurred at the end of his career is now not so much of a surprise.
https://www.mwenb.nl/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot...

[wc98]

durbster said:

1. We know the effect of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2. We know how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human made.

These are really, really basic facts. It's amazing that anyone who's been participating in this thread for years doesn't know this stuff.

i think you will find we do not know the things you claim we do.

we know the effect of an increase in co2 in a lab experiment. if we knew the end game in the atmosphere we wouldn't be having this debate/slanging match.

we know how much co2 humans produce (in a near enough way) but we do not know year to year how much of that human element is in the atmosphere. the co2 cycle is dominated by the oceans and in a warming world it would be expected the oceanic component would increase.

"In spite of almost no growth in emissions, the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a record-high in 2015 and could be a record high again in 2016, at 23 and 25 Gt CO2 per year, respectively, compared to an average of 16 Gt CO2 per year in the previous decade. Atmospheric CO2 levels have exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) in 2015, 44 percent above pre-industrial levels [data NOAA/ESRL]. This is the highest level in at least the last 800,000 years."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-growth-atmospheric-c...

[wc98]

zygalski said:

There's a flaw in your logic.
You're basing your decision making process on data which Turbospam is copying/pasting from right wing AGW conspiracy blogs & posting on a car owners website.

you didn't read his post did you ?

[PRTVR]

zygalski said:

There's a flaw in your logic.
You're basing your decision making process on data which Turbospam is copying/pasting from right wing AGW conspiracy blogs & posting on a car owners website.
If you were more serious about forming a more rounded view, I'd imagine you'd have already taken part in a similar thread on a pro-consensus website and discuss there.
You're just being preached to/preaching at as part of a small, devout congregation in here.

You can think what you want, but for myself I have read enough over the years to understand that it is impossible to prove MMGW, the understanding of the climate is not at a stage when we can attribute a minute addition to a trace gas in our atmosphere to anything, remember correlation is not causation when you don't fully understand the chaotic system that is our climate,
Also remember there is limited science , mostly models and theory's , not very good ones at that.

[LoonyTunes]

turbobloke said:

Can't and won't speak for wc98 but that's a rhetorical question presumably.

Otherwise, given the position you <appear to> display on this thread, you support a hypothesis, agw, for which you have no idea where the evidence will be / should be found. Are you on the fence by any chance?

You also appear to have no idea of the significance of basic information presented to you, in this thread, today.

Faith in all its 'glory'.

Nonsense.

I wanted to know how these statements of yours and others could be falsified. So what would be needed to be measured and why hasn't it been done already and as a consequence the science settled if its that obvious a flaw in the argument put forward by those who support AGW.

You keep saying "no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data" so what data would convince you and how might that data be obtained and by whom?

For instance, I don't believe the Queen has ever walked through my lounge but a photograph, from a reputable source would convince me.

What would be your 'photograph'? Yes it's simplistic but humour me.

[zygalski]

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

There's a flaw in your logic.
You're basing your decision making process on data which Turbospam is copying/pasting from right wing AGW conspiracy blogs & posting on a car owners website.
If you were more serious about forming a more rounded view, I'd imagine you'd have already taken part in a similar thread on a pro-consensus website and discuss there.
You're just being preached to/preaching at as part of a small, devout congregation in here.

You can think what you want, but for myself I have read enough over the years to understand that it is impossible to prove MMGW, the understanding of the climate is not at a stage when we can attribute a minute addition to a trace gas in our atmosphere to anything, remember correlation is not causation when you don't fully understand the chaotic system that is our climate,
Also remember there is limited science , mostly models and theory's , not very good ones at that.

But FFS why not err on the side of caution?
So what if it can't be proven 100% to your satisfaction? Our environment is hardly a trivial matter.