Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

robinessex

6,903 posts

120 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
Climate change: Ban gas grid for new homes 'in six years'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-473...

New homes should be banned from connecting to the gas grid within six years to tackle climate change, UK government advisers say.
They want new-build homes in the countryside to be warmed by heat pumps - and cooking done on induction hobs, rather than using gas boilers and hobs.
In cities, new housing estates and flats should be kept warm by networks of hot water, says the report.
The water could be heated by waste heat from industry.
An alternative approach is to use heat pumps, which draw warmth from the sea or lakes; or burn gas from waste.......continues

Battersea Power Sataion. No longer active. After the end of World War II, the London Power Company used the waste heat to supply the Pimlico District Heating Undertaking. Opps !!

gadgetmac

5,052 posts

47 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Accuracy 10/10. Do you get all your info from an Encyclopaedia, pigeon carrier, or the local library?
When I do I give them credit for it or post the link. You've taken on TB's trait of lifting your posts from others blogs and posting them as your own.

Tsk Tsk.

Still, it's another life lesson from your mentor that you've clearly mastered now.

robinessex

6,903 posts

120 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Accuracy 10/10. Do you get all your info from an Encyclopaedia, pigeon carrier, or the local library?
When I do I give them credit for it or post the link. You've taken on TB's trait of lifting your posts from others blogs and posting them as your own.

Tsk Tsk.

Still, it's another life lesson from your mentor that you've clearly mastered now.
Er, did I SAY it was my own?

gadgetmac

5,052 posts

47 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Accuracy 10/10. Do you get all your info from an Encyclopaedia, pigeon carrier, or the local library?
When I do I give them credit for it or post the link. You've taken on TB's trait of lifting your posts from others blogs and posting them as your own.

Tsk Tsk.

Still, it's another life lesson from your mentor that you've clearly mastered now.
Er, did I SAY it was my own?
Er, did you make it clear or even hint that it wasn't?

Try posting links to avoid confusion. Of course that means we'll all immediately see the blog source of your diatribe but at least it'll keep it honest.

And if it's anti MMGW it will be a blog source or disreputable site.

deeps

4,705 posts

180 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
Following on from the short Scott Adams video I posted up https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1gqGvnVYBYBGB

...he asks... "What would it take to convince me CO2 were a problem?"

I thought this answer was neat...

Commenter said:
1) someone would have to prove I am completely mistaken about the science and that natural variation does not exist and that speculative ideas about mythical feedbacks are actually science.

That won’t happen

2) Someone would have to convince me that climate academics are impartial.

Unless they are all sacked and new professionals from outwith the politicised arena of academia are brought in, that is not going to happen

3) Having replaced the present bunch of dishonest charlatans with credible professionals, I would need a purpose made temperature measurement system put in place that is capable of measuring the very small change that is being discussed and I would need to see a substantial period of warming larger than natural variation.

That doesn’t look like it will ever happen

4) I would then need to be convinced that despite cold being the biggest killer and rising CO2 being a boom to plants, that somehow warming is going to cause damage. Not by speculative hand waving carp, but by sound science supported by significant credibly measured trends and evaluated by impartial professionals and not politicised academics.

That looks very unlikely

5) And finally, I would need to see a full set of costings. I would for example need to see the direct and indirect energy costs of production windmills and be convinced that when all things are considered that there is a net saving of CO2 emissions from such technology. Having worked out the ACTUAL CO2 savings for each option and therefore the total costs of trying to stop CO2 rising I would need to compare this with the total costs of any damage and taking account of lost opportunity costs by wasting money now which our children could have used, I would need to see there is a cost benefit for action.

Again, I am very dubious, given the lack of any trends in severe weather and the wholesale dishonesty in this area, that anyone could ever convince me that increasing plant food and increasing warmth were a problem that warranted the eye watering costs of action with almost no effect when implemented.

Note by “academics” – I mean those who currently write the vast hoard of drivel about “global warming” and “Climate change” that is endlessly published in academic journals including Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist, etc.”

And if you think my demands are too high, like the Irish say …. “If I wanted to get there, I wouldn’t start from here”. If these types of changes had started when Climategate first revealed the appalling behaviour of academics, and politicians had acted, … we wouldn’t have had this vicious cycle of ever increasing groupthink resulting this almighty mess to clear up.
Advertisement

deeps

4,705 posts

180 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
What would it take to convince...

Commenter said:
All it would take for me is for someone, anyone, to provide objective, repeatable, verified evidence that changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on climate metrics, and by how much, with error bands.

I won’t accept playing with unverified, unvalidated computer games, running them without and then with “CO2 Forcing” as objective evidence of anything.

deeps

4,705 posts

180 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
Last interesting one (for now)...

Commenter said:
OK, I watched the Scott Adams video and revisited the Josh cartoon, both excellent. Scott Adams looks to me like a fairly intelligent person and his logic trains are good.

What would convince me?

I am a Geologist trained, certified, and experienced in Sequence Stratigraphy, which is the coherent world-wide (first order events) geologically preserved record of grand variance in sea level and the attendant glacial/interglacial events.

These events show 50 meters higher and 150 meters lower sea levels as normal events. Show me a clear signal that there is some abnormal acceleration in the movement of the current sea level towards either of these extremes and we can talk. By the way, Manns’ hockey stick was designed to show just this unusual acceleration and it is, thanks Scott Adams, BULLst1
laugh

hairykrishna

10,859 posts

142 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
deeps said:
What would it take to convince...

Commenter said:
All it would take for me is for someone, anyone, to provide objective, repeatable, verified evidence that changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on climate metrics, and by how much, with error bands.

I won’t accept playing with unverified, unvalidated computer games, running them without and then with “CO2 Forcing” as objective evidence of any thing.
But we have that. We predict a temperature rise, we've seen a temperature rise. If the global temperature records aren't enough for you, exactly what are you asking for? Spell it out. What, for you, is the evidence you're looking for?

El stovey

25,157 posts

202 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Er, did I SAY it was my own?
You’ve not linked to or said it was someone else’s. how on earth isn’t that supposed to look like your own. hehe

turbobloke

84,346 posts

199 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
Resilient and fragile coral species off Hawaii are both recovering after El Nino 2015 bleaching.
Unusually warm waters developed in the Pacific at that time, unrelated to human activity.
Carbon dioxide levels have not fallen since 2015 and El Nino is a natural event.
Tax gas on holiday.

https://mauinow.com/2019/01/22/coral-reefs-in-west...


wc98

7,511 posts

79 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
But we have that. We predict a temperature rise, we've seen a temperature rise. If the global temperature records aren't enough for you, exactly what are you asking for? Spell it out. What, for you, is the evidence you're looking for?
what is wrong with a small temperature rise ? the diurnal range in every area of the planet is orders of magnitude greater than any supposed rise we have had over the last 100 years. where is the problem ?

turbobloke

84,346 posts

199 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
But we have that. We predict a temperature rise, we've seen a temperature rise. If the global temperature records aren't enough for you, exactly what are you asking for? Spell it out. What, for you, is the evidence you're looking for?
Unambiguously established causality to human emissions; beyond speculative opinion this does not exist. IPCC confessions agree.

As to the 'models say warming' are you and others really reducing those expensive computer models to the non-skill of tossing a coin? There are many more variables that models need to get right and they don't. Sure modest and pedestrian warming has been the coin toss of the moment but as McKitrick and Christy showed, the rate and extent are not as predicted by models so they fail even on the headline variable. Others are also out. Models are inadequate.

turbobloke

84,346 posts

199 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
"We predict" hehe first person plural humour, lovin' it. What that 'we' predict is wrong wrong wrong.

Climate models get the degree and rate of troposphere warming wrong, the extent (not mere existence) of stratosphere cooling wrong, vertical distribution wrong, ocean warming wrong, sea level rise acceleration wrong, TCR wrong, ECS wrong, hydrology wrong, feedbacks wrong, impacts including ice mass change wrong. And more besides as set out in this and other threads.

The peer-reviewed publications relating to the above model failures are from: Lewis & Curry, McKitrick & Christy, Fife et al, Douglass et al, Christy et al, Hanna et al, Nguyen et al, Holgate, Douglas, Thompson et al, Allan, Spencer & Braswell, Lindzen & Choi, Mao et al.

gadgetmac

5,052 posts

47 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
Climate Scientists rubbish Richard Lindzen

https://www.carbonbrief.org/a-disservice-to-the-sc...

You'd think he'd get tired of apologising.

turbobloke

84,346 posts

199 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
The empire strikes back (again) though the apology re. Hayden and NASA GISS was necessary and right. When did Lindzen apologise to NASA GISS previously?

The SkSc acceptance of Dessler as gospel is only to be expected; it's by no means addressing any sort of error.

See below for those interested in the feedback debate, where Spencer sets out the problems with Dessler's paper..

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dessler-spence...


powerstroke

8,079 posts

99 months

Thursday 21st February
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Climate change: Ban gas grid for new homes 'in six years'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-473...

New homes should be banned from connecting to the gas grid within six years to tackle climate change, UK government advisers say.
They want new-build homes in the countryside to be warmed by heat pumps - and cooking done on induction hobs, rather than using gas boilers and hobs.
In cities, new housing estates and flats should be kept warm by networks of hot water, says the report.
The water could be heated by waste heat from industry.
An alternative approach is to use heat pumps, which draw warmth from the sea or lakes; or burn gas from waste.......continues

Battersea Power Sataion. No longer active. After the end of World War II, the London Power Company used the waste heat to supply the Pimlico District Heating Undertaking. Opps !!
Great we have so much spare electricity capacity lets get more electric cars on the road while were at it....

deeps

4,705 posts

180 months

Friday 22nd February
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
deeps said:
What would it take to convince...

Commenter said:
All it would take for me is for someone, anyone, to provide objective, repeatable, verified evidence that changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on climate metrics, and by how much, with error bands.

I won’t accept playing with unverified, unvalidated computer games, running them without and then with “CO2 Forcing” as objective evidence of any thing.
But we have that. We predict a temperature rise, we've seen a temperature rise. If the global temperature records aren't enough for you, exactly what are you asking for? Spell it out. What, for you, is the evidence you're looking for?
What has temperature rise got to do with causality? How can anyone be that dumb? I don't mean to sound rude in any way, I really don't, but temperature will go one way or the other, it's more or less a 50/50 shout.


deeps

4,705 posts

180 months

Friday 22nd February
quotequote all
But anyway, for me, warming should it hopefully occur, and that is completely unknown, would be good and wholly beneficial to life, and any increase in CO2 would be good and wholly beneficial to life. Likewise, cooling would be bad for life on a (ironically catastrophic) scale, but hopefully won't occur anytime soon, and decreasing CO2 would be bad for life. To me they're simple facts of life.

The fact that CO2 is even classed as a pollutant is astonishing. The fact that such a small number of 'scientists' created such a large wave, followed by the consequent greedy gravy train is almost as astonishing. But having said that, I live in the real world, I've seen how easily bullst baffles brains many times over, and how sheep readily jump on the band wagon.

It would actually be great if we could split the world into two halves, all the CO2 alarmists could then live a non fossil fuel life and suffer all the (much underestimated) misery that that entails happily in the knowledge that they're cooling and saving the planet, while the rest of us could get on with enjoying this great but most likely brief period of warm climate that we have (and take for granted) without having to constantly listen to the greatest lie ever bleated, and be expected to simply 'believe' without a shred of empirical evidence.

deeps

4,705 posts

180 months

Friday 22nd February
quotequote all


Interestingly, there's been about an inch of global warming in Las Vegas for the first time since 1937.




https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/21/first-measu...

Diderot

3,911 posts

131 months

Friday 22nd February
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
deeps said:
What would it take to convince...

Commenter said:
All it would take for me is for someone, anyone, to provide objective, repeatable, verified evidence that changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on climate metrics, and by how much, with error bands.

I won’t accept playing with unverified, unvalidated computer games, running them without and then with “CO2 Forcing” as objective evidence of any thing.
But we have that. We predict a temperature rise, we've seen a temperature rise. If the global temperature records aren't enough for you, exactly what are you asking for? Spell it out. What, for you, is the evidence you're looking for?
Pause/hiatus? Did the models predict that? (Rhetorical question). And you know how many papers were published attempting to explain why.