Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing.
Well, apart from global warming obviously.
Curious isn't it. Half a century of temperatures following the trends project by the models, which become increasingly accurate over time and Diderot responds to this by just pretending it hasn't happened, even though everyone can go and check these things for themselves.
It looks like Diderot's intention here is merely to create a sense of doubt around the facts. To do this, you make simple statements implying there is more going on than it seems.
Every challenge to elaborate is met with silence so there's obviously no substance to it, but creating doubt around objective facts is a well-worn propaganda strategy: make people believe that facts aren't facts.
I just wonder how long until the "deep state" are involved.
Diderot said:
Glad to see you have all the arguments at your fingertips and can deploy them at will.
You can't even read 8 or 9 posts above this to see my answer so what chance have you got with global warming... Or earning a PhD come to that. 
Edited by gadgetmac on Friday 18th January 08:36
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Where is Loony with his lists when you need him?
Dickymint got him banned. Try catching up and read the last few pages
And you have 'form' for getting upset and hitting the button. More good news from the data, and another one bites the dust.
Coasts are growing not shrinking, and pacific islands grew in size during the period 1971-2014
This replicates and supports Donchyts et al 2016 about which co-author Baart said "We expected that the coast would start to retreat...but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world".
Déja vu applies: same surprise, different climate fairytale.
Andreas Andersson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and his colleagues carefully monitored a coral reef in Bermuda for five years, and found that spikes in acidity were linked to increased reef growth. “At first we were really puzzled by this,” says Andersson. “It’s completely the opposite to what we would expect in an ocean-acidification scenario.” Phytoplankton blooms were washing in and feeding the corals, resulting in a higher growth rate and greater acidity levels in the water around the reef. Thriving, growing corals 'adidify' (make slightly less alkaline) the water around them.
Yes that's him on a p.r. stunt. Watch out for green peas on your roof JP!
Coasts are growing not shrinking, and pacific islands grew in size during the period 1971-2014
Duvat in a 2019 paper said:
Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise. 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise.
Including, without adjustments and mindful of error bars, approximately zero.This replicates and supports Donchyts et al 2016 about which co-author Baart said "We expected that the coast would start to retreat...but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world".
Déja vu applies: same surprise, different climate fairytale.
Andreas Andersson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and his colleagues carefully monitored a coral reef in Bermuda for five years, and found that spikes in acidity were linked to increased reef growth. “At first we were really puzzled by this,” says Andersson. “It’s completely the opposite to what we would expect in an ocean-acidification scenario.” Phytoplankton blooms were washing in and feeding the corals, resulting in a higher growth rate and greater acidity levels in the water around the reef. Thriving, growing corals 'adidify' (make slightly less alkaline) the water around them.
New Scientist said:
Malcolm McCulloch of the University of Western Australia in Perth (and his colleagues) put boxes around corals at Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef and bubbled carbon dioxide into them, increasing acidity. Those corals didn’t seem affected at all in a simulation of the acidity expected by 2100.
This is something that John 'Snorkel' Prescott would have found interesting, not least as it blows apart his (and others') baseless hype on coral.Yes that's him on a p.r. stunt. Watch out for green peas on your roof JP!
turbobloke said:
More good news from the data, and another one bites the dust.
Coasts are growing not shrinking, and pacific islands grew in size during the period 1971-2014
This replicates and supports Donchyts et al 2016 about which co-author Baart said "We expected that the coast would start to retreat...but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world".
Déja vu applies: same surprise, different climate fairytale.
Good grief, your hypocrisy is beyond belief.Coasts are growing not shrinking, and pacific islands grew in size during the period 1971-2014
Duvat in a 2019 paper said:
Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise. 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise.
Including, without adjustments and mindful of error bars, approximately zero.This replicates and supports Donchyts et al 2016 about which co-author Baart said "We expected that the coast would start to retreat...but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world".
Déja vu applies: same surprise, different climate fairytale.
You have consistently claimed for years that climate scientists are corrupt, lying, falsifying data and producing fraudulent papers. That any findings contrary to some mysterious greater goal do not get funding, are blocked at peer-review, are told what to say for fear of having funding blocked or being fired or public humiliation.
Then, when a paper comes out that includes a couple of sentences that suit you, all of a sudden you accept what those same climate scientists are saying.
Now, considering your reputation for misrepresentation it's a fair assumption those sentences are probably out of context and not what you suggest, but nevertheless; make up your mind.
You've consistently told us these people you are citing here are untrustworthy liars. You can't have it both ways.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
I said Chaotic system can't be predicted.
The oceans are a chaotic system. Is it impossible to say when the tide will come in?Climate change: Is nuclear power the answer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-469...
Nuclear is good for the environment. Nuclear is bad for the environment. Both statements are true.
Why is it good? Nuclear power is planned to be a key part of the UK's energy mix.
The key benefit is that it helps keep the lights on while producing hardly any of the CO2 emissions that are heating the climate.
CO2 emissions come from traditional ways of creating electricity such as burning gas and coal.
And the government is expected to have halted emissions almost completely by 2050, to help curb damage to the climate....continues
Oh dear Mr. Haribo, we've just had 2 nuclear power stations cancelled. Opps !!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-469...
Nuclear is good for the environment. Nuclear is bad for the environment. Both statements are true.
Why is it good? Nuclear power is planned to be a key part of the UK's energy mix.
The key benefit is that it helps keep the lights on while producing hardly any of the CO2 emissions that are heating the climate.
CO2 emissions come from traditional ways of creating electricity such as burning gas and coal.
And the government is expected to have halted emissions almost completely by 2050, to help curb damage to the climate....continues
Oh dear Mr. Haribo, we've just had 2 nuclear power stations cancelled. Opps !!
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
More good news from the data, and another one bites the dust.
Coasts are growing not shrinking, and pacific islands grew in size during the period 1971-2014
This replicates and supports Donchyts et al 2016 about which co-author Baart said "We expected that the coast would start to retreat...but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world".
Déja vu applies: same surprise, different climate fairytale.
Good grief, your hypocrisy is beyond belief.Coasts are growing not shrinking, and pacific islands grew in size during the period 1971-2014
Duvat in a 2019 paper said:
Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise. 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise.
Including, without adjustments and mindful of error bars, approximately zero.This replicates and supports Donchyts et al 2016 about which co-author Baart said "We expected that the coast would start to retreat...but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world".
Déja vu applies: same surprise, different climate fairytale.
You have consistently claimed for years that climate scientists are corrupt, lying, falsifying data and producing fraudulent papers. That any findings contrary to some mysterious greater goal do not get funding, are blocked at peer-review, are told what to say for fear of having funding blocked or being fired or public humiliation.
Then, when a paper comes out that includes a couple of sentences that suit you, all of a sudden you accept what those same climate scientists are saying.
Now, considering your reputation for misrepresentation it's a fair assumption those sentences are probably out of context and not what you suggest, but nevertheless; make up your mind.
You've consistently told us these people you are citing here are untrustworthy liars. You can't have it both ways.
gadgetmac said:
Where are the studies showing cooling to offset this avalanche of studies showing warming?
You mean the models that forecasted the last 2 years of cooling? Indeed, where are they?There is certainly no cloak-and-dagger conspiracy; it's simply a coincidental and convenient conflation. No more, no less.
(ETA: sorry, my PC only showed me the 2 extra pages after I replied, so this post might now seem out of context)
Edited by Jacobyte on Friday 18th January 11:00
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Where is Loony with his lists when you need him?
Dickymint got him banned. Try catching up and read the last few pages
Why are you now trying to make out you didn’t?
Your campaign to get rid of anyone on the other side is both obvious and pathetic.
Jacobyte said:
gadgetmac said:
Where are the studies showing cooling to offset this avalanche of studies showing warming?
You mean the models that forecasted the last 2 years of cooling? Indeed, where are they?There is certainly no cloak-and-dagger conspiracy; it's simply a coincidental and convenient conflation. No more, no less.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.co...
El stovey said:
You reported him.
Why are you now trying to make out you didn’t?
Your campaign to get rid of anyone on the other side is both obvious and pathetic
Why are you now trying to make out you didn’t?
Your campaign to get rid of anyone on the other side is both obvious and pathetic
From hitting the report button to making snide comments that he hopes will be picked up by the moderators. It's as plain as the noise on his face.
turbobloke said:
More good news from the data, and another one bites the dust.
In that test, they used a single coral species, porites, which as stony coral goes is regarded as a tough, fast growing coral. It would be interesting if they tried the same test with more sensitive species e.g. an acropora species.New Scientist said:
Malcolm McCulloch of the University of Western Australia in Perth (and his colleagues) put boxes around corals at Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef and bubbled carbon dioxide into them, increasing acidity. Those corals didn’t seem affected at all in a simulation of the acidity expected by 2100.
This is something that John 'Snorkel' Prescott would have found interesting, not least as it blows apart his (and others') baseless hype on coral.If you grow acros in an aquarium, one of the things you always monitor is pH. When the pH drops due to CO2 in the room, acros always show signs of stress first.
If you're wondering what an acropora looks like, if you imagine a coral, it is probably what pops into your head:
It's an important species because it forms the foundation of many reefs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff