Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Jinx said:
durbster said:
Prove me wrong.
There are thousands of research pieces on climate. Show me one scientific paper from the last half century that has predicted something that can be described as "an apocalypse" as its most likely scenario.
Stand by for absolute silence from Diderot and a link to an advocacy blog post of newspaper and magazine articles from somebody else.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-1...There are thousands of research pieces on climate. Show me one scientific paper from the last half century that has predicted something that can be described as "an apocalypse" as its most likely scenario.
Stand by for absolute silence from Diderot and a link to an advocacy blog post of newspaper and magazine articles from somebody else.
less than 10 seconds of google
That’s not apocalyptic is it? We’ve had superstorms they weren’t apocalyptic were they? Neither is sea level rise or ice melting.
That’s not an apocalyptic scenario.
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
You are actually joking aren’t you?
You mean like you are about being a scientist?I have quite a few professors and assistant professors in my building and he doesn't come close to being typical of the type listening to his posts.
I'd require proof of that claim in his case otherwise I'd dismiss it as wishful thinking.
I also know a PhD who works as a manager at a famous fast food outlet.
Edited by gadgetmac on Wednesday 9th January 09:09
El stovey said:
“Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous”
That’s not apocalyptic is it? We’ve had superstorms they weren’t apocalyptic were they? Neither is sea level rise or ice melting.
That’s not an apocalyptic scenario.
From the paper:That’s not apocalyptic is it? We’ve had superstorms they weren’t apocalyptic were they? Neither is sea level rise or ice melting.
That’s not an apocalyptic scenario.
"Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years"
"We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical."
Helps if you read more than the title.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Has the apocalypse arrived? No.
That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.
All the data you need is a prediction from your imagination? A rather difficult position to counter, that one. That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.
This is one of the laziest and most common strawman arguments; that climate scientists have been predicting an "apocalypse" that never came. They didn't, of course. Science doesn't really operate in that arena.
The reality is: they have predicted pretty much the rather mundane pattern of events that have happened for over half a century. Of course, in any projection you would have extremes of scenarios which is exclusively what the press report on. That's something that happens in all science reporting, sadly, but it's rarely real.
Er, unless you can point to a widely accepted, peer-reviewed paper that actually predicted "an apocalypse"...?
But the UN says catastrophe is imminent.
So,do you think that the UN has a fringe view, not supported by the scientific consensus?
Why are all the scientific organisations not extremely vocal/up in arms about that? That is blatant misrepresentation of their work, with far reaching consequences.
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
“Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous”
That’s not apocalyptic is it? We’ve had superstorms they weren’t apocalyptic were they? Neither is sea level rise or ice melting.
That’s not an apocalyptic scenario.
From the paper:That’s not apocalyptic is it? We’ve had superstorms they weren’t apocalyptic were they? Neither is sea level rise or ice melting.
That’s not an apocalyptic scenario.
"Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years"
"We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical."
Helps if you read more than the title.
Jinx said:
From the paper:
"Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years"
"We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical."
Helps if you read more than the title.
Again that doesn’t sound apocalyptic. Do you think something being described as a “global emergency” is “an apocalypse”?"Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years"
"We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical."
Helps if you read more than the title.
PRTVR said:
If the results are not going to be apocalyptic ,why are we doing anything to attempt to mitigate it ?
The point being made is that political side needs the apocalypse scenario to drive change.
+97The point being made is that political side needs the apocalypse scenario to drive change.
We also do not see the "climate science community" calling out (nasty phrase but apposite) anyone who promotes catastrophe.
Developed countries (to whom the invoices are sent/impositions are made) are spending huge amounts & resources on mitigation rather than on more pressing or deserving causes.
I'd expect scientists to be saying hang on, this is wild exaggeration/extrapolation from uncertain data.
dickymint said:
Oh he'll read it now well at least as far as until he thinks he's found something that confirms his bias. Failing that his usual trick is to wait until one of clan answers then jump back in with something totally off topic!
Looks like you were wrong as usual.Thanks for the attention though. Are you STILL annoyed I said you were a boiler engineer and not a real engineer or a scientist?
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Oh he'll read it now well at least as far as until he thinks he's found something that confirms his bias. Failing that his usual trick is to wait until one of clan answers then jump back in with something totally off topic!
Looks like you were wrong as usual.Thanks for the attention though. Are you STILL annoyed I said you were a boiler engineer and not a real engineer or a scientist?
Funnily enough my boiler packed up over the weekend and I have 4 boiler engineers lined up to come and give me quotes for a new boiler in the next 3 days.
I'll get back to you with their opinion on AGW as soon as I have it. It's bound to be more insightful than all of those dry crusty scientific papers on the subject. These guys really know how to control the temperature.
El stovey said:
Again that doesn’t sound apocalyptic. Do you think something being described as a “global emergency” is “an apocalypse”?
No? Surely by definition a global emergency must be apocalyptic in nature or it is not a global emergency. Merely a global inconvenience? Global slight bit of bother that should clear up by next Tuesday?Starter for ten list 15 global emergencies that have no apocalyptic component?
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Again that doesn’t sound apocalyptic. Do you think something being described as a “global emergency” is “an apocalypse”?
No? Surely by definition a global emergency must be apocalyptic in nature or it is not a global emergency. Merely a global inconvenience? Global slight bit of bother that should clear up by next Tuesday?Starter for ten list 15 global emergencies that have no apocalyptic component?
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Oh he'll read it now well at least as far as until he thinks he's found something that confirms his bias. Failing that his usual trick is to wait until one of clan answers then jump back in with something totally off topic!
Looks like you were wrong as usual.Thanks for the attention though. Are you STILL annoyed I said you were a boiler engineer and not a real engineer or a scientist?
Edit: and lo and behold your mate drops in the usual pincer movement and attack
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Again that doesn’t sound apocalyptic. Do you think something being described as a “global emergency” is “an apocalypse”?
No? Surely by definition a global emergency must be apocalyptic in nature or it is not a global emergency. Merely a global inconvenience? Global slight bit of bother that should clear up by next Tuesday?Starter for ten list 15 global emergencies that have no apocalyptic component?
dickymint said:
Never was or will be "annoyed". Your silly games amuse me as did your pedantic post above. You'll note that your reply IS diversionary and off topic
Edit: and lo and behold your mate drops in the usual pincer movement and attack
Someone is saying an apocalypse is the same as a global emergency in the context of climate papers. Which it isn’t.Edit: and lo and behold your mate drops in the usual pincer movement and attack
That’s what we’re discussing and it’s on topic.
You’re the one banging on about pincer movements and other nonsense.
Wrong twice now.
El stovey said:
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Again that doesn’t sound apocalyptic. Do you think something being described as a “global emergency” is “an apocalypse”?
No? Surely by definition a global emergency must be apocalyptic in nature or it is not a global emergency. Merely a global inconvenience? Global slight bit of bother that should clear up by next Tuesday?Starter for ten list 15 global emergencies that have no apocalyptic component?
"an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale"
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Oh he'll read it now well at least as far as until he thinks he's found something that confirms his bias. Failing that his usual trick is to wait until one of clan answers then jump back in with something totally off topic!
Looks like you were wrong as usual.Thanks for the attention though. Are you STILL annoyed I said you were a boiler engineer and not a real engineer or a scientist?
Funnily enough my boiler packed up over the weekend and I have 4 boiler engineers lined up to come and give me quotes for a new boiler in the next 3 days.
I'll get back to you with their opinion on AGW as soon as I have it. It's bound to be more insightful than all of those dry crusty scientific papers on the subject. These guys really know how to control the temperature.
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Oh he'll read it now well at least as far as until he thinks he's found something that confirms his bias. Failing that his usual trick is to wait until one of clan answers then jump back in with something totally off topic!
Looks like you were wrong as usual.Thanks for the attention though. Are you STILL annoyed I said you were a boiler engineer and not a real engineer or a scientist?
Funnily enough my boiler packed up over the weekend and I have 4 boiler engineers lined up to come and give me quotes for a new boiler in the next 3 days.
I'll get back to you with their opinion on AGW as soon as I have it. It's bound to be more insightful than all of those dry crusty scientific papers on the subject. These guys really know how to control the temperature.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff