Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
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.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'.
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 said:
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,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.
Also remember there is limited science , mostly models and theory's , not very good ones at that.
So what if it can't be proven 100% to your satisfaction? Our environment is hardly a trivial matter.
First, can you identify what environmental detriment may accrue from the modestly increasing (for arguments sake as that's why we're here
) temperatures reported?Also, let's for arguments sake, say that reducing CO2 may mitigate said detriment.
What are the downsides of this mitigation and do they outweigh the detriment?
First do no harm.
My impression is that the impact on modern society and especially the poorer parts of it is far, far, more detrimental than any environmental impact.
And that detriment is happening now, not a Hermie away - high energy prices, arable land being used for fuel rather than food, forcing less developed countries to avoid fossil fuels by rationing development funding.
Further what are the benefits of increased CO2, do they further outweigh any detriment?
My impression is that the increased yield from and drought tolerance of plants is a good thing.
Drive a V8, feed a tree.
zygalski said:
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.
It doesn’t really matter if what you are saying is the most likely situation and thus the scientific consensus.So what if it can't be proven 100% to your satisfaction? Our environment is hardly a trivial matter.
Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
wc98 said:
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.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.
wc98 said:
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.
What about dagw (dangerous agw)? Or ragw (risky agw)?How certain can we be of nbagw (net beneficial agw)? (and who/what would be the winners and losers in that calculation?)
Saying Cagw is all that matters is blinkered - should we have to prove C will certainly happen before we do anything? How can you prove something that hasn't happened yet? When the proof-pudding arrives it'll be too late to do anything about it. I say you first - prove nbagw. But you can't because that';s just as un-knowable as cagw at least.
wc98 said:
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...
Thanks yes I've seen that before, it's an informative discussion. What I don't see in it is anyone saying that the presence (or not) of the 'hotspot' tells us anything about cagw (or ragw or nbagw...) unless I've missed it. You seem to think it does tell us something about cagw - that's the context you introduced it in so please illuminate.https://www.mwenb.nl/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot...
LoonyTunes said:
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.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'.
I wanted to know how these statements of yours and others could be falsified. . .
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?
Firstly to correct another aspect of your lack of grip, they're not 'my' statements. The data is telling both of us what's going on...and not going on...but it looks as though you're not prepared to look and listen. We'll see if that's amenable to change.
There is no causality to humans in any temperature data or trend, from interglacial (Monnin et al and several other research groups) to decadal timescales (Humlum et al). The way to falsify this result, in which temperature changes occur first so the carbon dioxide changes that follow cannot possibly be a cause of the temperature changes - wrong order of events - is to wait for published peer-reviewed research with high time resolution data showing the correct order.
At the moment, interglacial and decadal data show that the lag is not only the 'wrong way round' for agw, it's larger than experimental error, meaning that experimental error isn't a reason to change the order of events. The results stand until other data emerges with the same high time resolution but the opposite order such that experimental error cannot be a reason to 'believe' in a reversed order of events. With nearly half a dozen research groups obtaining the same data/result you may not want to hold your breath on that one.
With regard to the lack of any visible anthropogenic forcing in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (energy) data, i.e. no manmade global warming in sight, and no visible causal human signal in any temperature data, again the data as we currently have it is what it is.
You're like the IPCC on this one, knowing that there's no attributable human signal anywhere and not knowing when to expect it. As the expected impact from successive ppmv increments of carbon dioxide emissions decrease with each addition, this is another reason not to hold your breath.
What can't refute any of the above - being based on data rather than opinion - is anybody else's opinion that invisible things that ought to be visible really can be seen. The absurdity of this position is beyond comment at this stage. It's hardly surprising that believers get tetchy and post sarc/abuse/verbiage/yet another pointless opinion. What they can't post is any credible empirical data, which happens to be the only thing that could work, but it doesn't exist. If this makes you stop and wonder what's going on, you need to recall the unscientific principles by which agw junkscience operates.
Many years ago and still applicable Chris Folland said:
The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data, we're basing them on climate models.
In this way, the data I refer to is simply ignored, and inadequate climate model gigo gets to be used instead, even though to produce this gigo requires an assumption that the effect being sought is happening (it's not, see above) which is excellent as circular reasoning goes.If you think that's scientific and makes any sense whatsoever then you are a lost cause.
Don't panic if so - you're not alone, as evident from trolling in this thread and MSM coverage.
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
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.
It doesn’t really matter if what you are saying is the most likely situation and thus the scientific consensus.So what if it can't be proven 100% to your satisfaction? Our environment is hardly a trivial matter.
Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
I suppose it's a good job for all our futures that they seem to have absolutely zero clout.
zygalski said:
Understood.
I suppose it's a good job for all our futures that they seem to have absolutely zero clout, and of course we have atrophy to help us too
Quite.I suppose it's a good job for all our futures that they seem to have absolutely zero clout, and of course we have atrophy to help us too
It seems odd though because they seem to trust other aspects of science, it’s just the climate change consensus that they think is all wrong.
Perhaps I’ve missed the other threads where a handful of posters are saying evolution is a scam or gravity is just faith.
Phud said:
Kerplunk, the change is relative to SALR and DALR, where the push is altered to the proposed rate used for temp changes, all relates to the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Nothing to do with CO2 really. But push the political approach
It's an expectation from warming by any cause - already said that. Why have you bought up CO2 specifically?Nothing to do with CO2 really. But push the political approach
El stovey said:
It doesn’t really matter if what you are saying is the most likely situation and thus the scientific consensus.
Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
Yes of course it is Stovey - you have us all bang to rights and no one is capable of assessing science except the cabal of "consensus scientists". We all have deep rooted prejudices based only on emotive impulses and lack the introspection required to reassess our motivations... Truly you are an oracle of omnipotent insight that merely by skim reading responses posted on a car enthusiast forum you are able to shine a light on our malformed souls and bring enlightenment to the masses.Most here oppose it, not on scientific grounds but on political grounds. Even if you’re had 100% proof, it wouldn’t matter. It’s all about lefties and organisations (full of experts) telling people what to do.
The same people posting against your position are anti the BBC the EU, experts, organisations, young people, optimism, anything looking like liberalism, political correctness etc etc climate change is just part of this ideological package.
Your words of wisdom will shine down the ages as a beacon of fallacious arguments never mind the cum hoc ergo propter hoc of consensus CO2 wisdom...........
kerplunk said:
It's an expectation from warming by any cause - already said that. Why have you bought up CO2 specifically?
Because CO2 is seen as the leader for AGW, lapse rates are never a constant as the DALR and SALR are based on a set of parameters not designed to cover all lapse rates Why did you raise lapse rates as if they are accepted for all atmospheric conditions?
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
Understood.
I suppose it's a good job for all our futures that they seem to have absolutely zero clout, and of course we have atrophy to help us too
Quite.I suppose it's a good job for all our futures that they seem to have absolutely zero clout, and of course we have atrophy to help us too
It seems odd though because they seem to trust other aspects of science, it’s just the climate change consensus that they think is all wrong.
Perhaps I’ve missed the other threads where a handful of posters are saying evolution is a scam or gravity is just faith.
But keep trolling then hiding under your bridge as even the Billy Goats Gruff would find it amusing.
El stovey said:
Quite.
It seems odd though because they seem to trust other aspects of science, it’s just the climate change consensus that they think is all wrong.
Perhaps I’ve missed the other threads where a handful of posters are saying evolution is a scam or gravity is just faith.
Because the truth is that there is very little science, the we have seen that the people who are connected with climate change are less than truthful, not the way I expect people of science to behave, if you are prepared to ignore this fact OK ,but you have to question why they act as they do ?It seems odd though because they seem to trust other aspects of science, it’s just the climate change consensus that they think is all wrong.
Perhaps I’ve missed the other threads where a handful of posters are saying evolution is a scam or gravity is just faith.
Phud said:
kerplunk said:
It's an expectation from warming by any cause - already said that. Why have you bought up CO2 specifically?
Because CO2 is seen as the leader for AGW, lapse rates are never a constant as the DALR and SALR are based on a set of parameters not designed to cover all lapse rates Why did you raise lapse rates as if they are accepted for all atmospheric conditions?
We're getting off track a bit - does this tell us anything about the planets sensitivity to increasing GHGs? That was the context the hotspot was introduced in.
I think it's a popular sceptic talking point because it involves a missing temperature increase and missing temperature increases must be an AGW failure to launch, right?
I'm just not sure if it's that consequential to the big picture. Not many scientists seem to think so.
kerplunk said:
I didn't know I did.
We're getting off track a bit - does this tell us anything about the planets sensitivity to increasing GHGs? That was the context the hotspot was introduced in.
I think it's a popular sceptic talking point because it involves a missing temperature increase and missing temperature increases must be an AGW failure to launch, right?
I'm just not sure if it's that consequential to the big picture. Not many scientists seem to think so.
Please can you explain how CO2, a fundamental gas for plants is a GHG? Water vapour has a larger impact.We're getting off track a bit - does this tell us anything about the planets sensitivity to increasing GHGs? That was the context the hotspot was introduced in.
I think it's a popular sceptic talking point because it involves a missing temperature increase and missing temperature increases must be an AGW failure to launch, right?
I'm just not sure if it's that consequential to the big picture. Not many scientists seem to think so.
In my experience no person who looks at the lack of evidence in raw data leaps on lapse rates, most leap on the fact that water vapour was not input in the model, nor clouds and that raw data inputs are not out in the open for any models used and outputs which have been determined to be the truth.
A question for you, why is only Western Europe and America CO2 seen as the one needed to be cut? Can you explain to me how Indian and Chinese output is not a worry?
Phud said:
kerplunk said:
I didn't know I did.
We're getting off track a bit - does this tell us anything about the planets sensitivity to increasing GHGs? That was the context the hotspot was introduced in.
I think it's a popular sceptic talking point because it involves a missing temperature increase and missing temperature increases must be an AGW failure to launch, right?
I'm just not sure if it's that consequential to the big picture. Not many scientists seem to think so.
Please can you explain how CO2, a fundamental gas for plants is a GHG? We're getting off track a bit - does this tell us anything about the planets sensitivity to increasing GHGs? That was the context the hotspot was introduced in.
I think it's a popular sceptic talking point because it involves a missing temperature increase and missing temperature increases must be an AGW failure to launch, right?
I'm just not sure if it's that consequential to the big picture. Not many scientists seem to think so.
kerplunk said:
I'm just not sure if it's that consequential to the big picture. Not many scientists seem to think so.
How many have you 'seemed' to consult on this point? Alternatively it's green bloggery regurgitated and reheated, hardly scientific."The data don't matter"
Wrong.
It's a fundamental failure of the agw hypothesis, one of many, and it's ignored by The Team players for convenience along with the rest of the failures. As you know, I suspect.
If AGW proof is good enough for ExxonMobil, it's good enough for me.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues...
'The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.'
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues...
'The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.'
zygalski said:
If AGW proof is good enough for ExxonMobil, it's good enough for me.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues...
'The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.'
Green blob, attrition loops, appeals to authority, no consensus!https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues...
'The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff