Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
How would asking an individual pilot to stop flying help the situation? Is he asking you or anyone else to give up driving?
Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
What about anyone who works in a power station or oil refinery or drives the tube or a boat or oil tanker or works in a petrol station. Who refuels the aircraft? Who built it? Are hospitals polluting? What about ambulances? The armed forces? How do they all sleep at night? Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
This current research is so hot it's not just cool it's ice cold.
Air temperature in 1899–1914 during three expeditions was 1.8–4.6 °C lower than the modern period in winter (Oct–Apr). However, during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010. Our results relate to what has been called the ‘1930s warming’, referred to by various authors in the literature as the ETCW or the ETCAW.
As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW using the latest research methods, including, primarily, climate models. An analysis of the literature shows that the cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear. There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are natural or anthropogenic, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors.
Arazny et al (2019).
The decided minority angling to a major role for human factors rely on the same inadequate climate models on which politicians rely for their daft energy policy decisions.
Air temperature in 1899–1914 during three expeditions was 1.8–4.6 °C lower than the modern period in winter (Oct–Apr). However, during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010. Our results relate to what has been called the ‘1930s warming’, referred to by various authors in the literature as the ETCW or the ETCAW.
As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW using the latest research methods, including, primarily, climate models. An analysis of the literature shows that the cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear. There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are natural or anthropogenic, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors.
Arazny et al (2019).
The decided minority angling to a major role for human factors rely on the same inadequate climate models on which politicians rely for their daft energy policy decisions.
gadgetmac said:
How would asking an individual pilot to stop flying help the situation? Is he asking you or anyone else to give up driving?
Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
It's not that ridiculous an argument though really. Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
If one believes in AGW, then curbing the 'A' bit should surely be the priority? And yet there's seemingly a reason why the 'A' bits cannot be cut.
How are the cuts that are needed going to happen?
It reminds me of government expenditure. Cuts are needed, but as soon as the government try, every group notes "ah but you can't do that one".
Belief in something "bad" is fine. But if you're not prepared or able to do something material about it then it's all so much hot air. Proving AGW becomes moot.
Taxing stuff and "carbon credits" etc aren't doing anything material about it IMO. Ditto being less heavy with your right foot etc. They are tinkering around the edges.
Rhyolith said:
Does alarmism work as a means of convincing people?
i asked my wife about this last night when we were discussing rising energy costs due to yet another cock up by scottish power with our bill. i informed her of what supposedly needs to be done or the end of the planet is nigh in just twelve short years. when i explained we need to reduce co2 output to stop the planet warming the answer was "why ? i like being warm". she is looking to get a new car around the beginning of summer. further discussions on climate alarmism suggests she might just get her first v8* ,so maybe the current method of arghh we are all going to die (nss) isn't quite working as intended.- probably not,though i am trying to convince her she needs an a45 amg in her life
turbobloke said:
More good news in what should be compulsory reading for politicians especially USA State Governors. A peer-reviewed study has poured cold water on climate alarmism as agw takes yet another blow: stronger hurricanes cannot be explained by higher CO2 levels.
The hurricane trend 1958-2005 has been examined (data!) and attribution of hurricane intensity to anthropogenic climate change is still not possible. "These results indicate that currently we cannot attribute changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity to human related forcings.” Trenary et al in GRL (2019).
Cool.
just like the north east atlantic at the moment The hurricane trend 1958-2005 has been examined (data!) and attribution of hurricane intensity to anthropogenic climate change is still not possible. "These results indicate that currently we cannot attribute changes in North Atlantic hurricane intensity to human related forcings.” Trenary et al in GRL (2019).
Cool.
turbobloke said:
This current research is so hot it's not just cool it's ice cold.
Air temperature in 1899–1914 during three expeditions was 1.8–4.6 °C lower than the modern period in winter (Oct–Apr). However, during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010. Our results relate to what has been called the ‘1930s warming’, referred to by various authors in the literature as the ETCW or the ETCAW.
As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW using the latest research methods, including, primarily, climate models. An analysis of the literature shows that the cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear. There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are natural or anthropogenic, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors.
Arazny et al (2019).
The decided minority angling to a major role for human factors rely on the same inadequate climate models on which politicians rely for their daft energy policy decisions.
the warming in the 30's was easily dealt with. they just adjusted past temps down and modern temps up a bit, et voila ,shiny new graph and no unexplained warming to be questioned !Air temperature in 1899–1914 during three expeditions was 1.8–4.6 °C lower than the modern period in winter (Oct–Apr). However, during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010. Our results relate to what has been called the ‘1930s warming’, referred to by various authors in the literature as the ETCW or the ETCAW.
As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW using the latest research methods, including, primarily, climate models. An analysis of the literature shows that the cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear. There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are natural or anthropogenic, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors.
Arazny et al (2019).
The decided minority angling to a major role for human factors rely on the same inadequate climate models on which politicians rely for their daft energy policy decisions.
wc98 said:
the warming in the 30's was easily dealt with. they just adjusted past temps down and modern temps up a bit, et voila ,shiny new graph and no unexplained warming to be questioned !
There's no need for a flux capacitor to go back to the Adjustocene!In Feb '31 the average temp was 10.7 deg C warmer (same research I cited).
If all the kids on strike head over to Weston Super Mare, Sarfend, Skeggy (etc as geographically applicable) and drop an iced lolly in the sea, all will be well. Each must do their bit.
Murph7355 said:
gadgetmac said:
How would asking an individual pilot to stop flying help the situation? Is he asking you or anyone else to give up driving?
Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
It's not that ridiculous an argument though really. Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
If one believes in AGW, then curbing the 'A' bit should surely be the priority? And yet there's seemingly a reason why the 'A' bits cannot be cut.
How are the cuts that are needed going to happen?
It reminds me of government expenditure. Cuts are needed, but as soon as the government try, every group notes "ah but you can't do that one".
Belief in something "bad" is fine. But if you're not prepared or able to do something material about it then it's all so much hot air. Proving AGW becomes moot.
Taxing stuff and "carbon credits" etc aren't doing anything material about it IMO. Ditto being less heavy with your right foot etc. They are tinkering around the edges.
But where do you start and just as importantly where do you end?
turbobloke said:
carbon dioxide levels are increasing from near-starvation levels on a greening Earth.
It's (not) funny how people don't realise this. I'm sure everyone on this thread understands the necessity of CO2 for photosynthesis, and I would hope most of us agree that being down in the 200ppm is a suicide route.My young lad told me he put his hand up in class (some 'social studies' class) the other week to counter the Teacher's spiel that CO2 is a pollutant. 'Miss it's plant food - with out CO2 we can't grow crops'.
And then he added 'Miss you do know that with out CO2 your body stops breathing? It's the main driver of respiration, with out enough CO2 all involuntary breathing stops...'.
You can imagine how well that went down, a Social Studies teacher called to task over CO2 being a pollutant by a 12 year old who knows a bit about photosynthesis and physiology.
I've asked him to ask her what level in ppm the 'curriculum' suggests we should be aiming for...
JustALooseScrew said:
It's (not) funny how people don't realise this. I'm sure everyone on this thread understands the necessity of CO2 for photosynthesis, and I would hope most of us agree that being down in the 200ppm is a suicide route.
My young lad told me he put his hand up in class (some 'social studies' class) the other week to counter the Teacher's spiel that CO2 is a pollutant. 'Miss it's plant food - with out CO2 we can't grow crops'.
And then he added 'Miss you do know that with out CO2 your body stops breathing? It's the main driver of respiration, with out enough CO2 all involuntary breathing stops...'.
You can imagine how well that went down, a Social Studies teacher called to task over CO2 being a pollutant by a 12 year old who knows a bit about photosynthesis and physiology.
I've asked him to ask her what level in ppm the 'curriculum' suggests we should be aiming for...
my kids were a nightmare for the teachers for teachers spouting the line when they were at school My young lad told me he put his hand up in class (some 'social studies' class) the other week to counter the Teacher's spiel that CO2 is a pollutant. 'Miss it's plant food - with out CO2 we can't grow crops'.
And then he added 'Miss you do know that with out CO2 your body stops breathing? It's the main driver of respiration, with out enough CO2 all involuntary breathing stops...'.
You can imagine how well that went down, a Social Studies teacher called to task over CO2 being a pollutant by a 12 year old who knows a bit about photosynthesis and physiology.
I've asked him to ask her what level in ppm the 'curriculum' suggests we should be aiming for...
Data says Japanese winters are cool, Finland is getting even cooler, Great Lakes ice grows,California snow pack hits a record and water level ('permanent drought') equalled the State's all-time record (JMA, NOAA, CDWR)
Meanwhile guess what the alarmist gigoesque agw predictions were/are...no detail is needed, 'wrong as usual' will do.
Meanwhile guess what the alarmist gigoesque agw predictions were/are...no detail is needed, 'wrong as usual' will do.
gadgetmac said:
JustALooseScrew said:
gadgetmac said:
but it requires a lead from those we've invested power in to come up with solutions.
Like China and India for example?Can't remember receiving my ballot cards for those.
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
JustALooseScrew said:
gadgetmac said:
but it requires a lead from those we've invested power in to come up with solutions.
Like China and India for example?Can't remember receiving my ballot cards for those.
As for my self imposed exile, I barely ever posted on that thread so it's hardly an exile now.
Anyway, it was (and still is) boring watching you getting your arse handed to you every time you post.
gadgetmac said:
Yes, I want a coordinated plan/response not somebody shouting "Oi, you, stop flying you hypocrite" on an internet forum.
As for my self imposed exile, I barely ever posted on that thread so it's hardly an exile now.
Anyway, it was (and still is) boring watching you getting your arse handed to you every time you post.
i haven't seen that happen yet, maybe you need new glasses As for my self imposed exile, I barely ever posted on that thread so it's hardly an exile now.
Anyway, it was (and still is) boring watching you getting your arse handed to you every time you post.
do you think politicians are going to do anything meaningful that might threaten their tenure ? it's been shown that cutting down ancient forest to be replaced by palm oil is stupid. the huge amount of plastic waste we produce is stupid.throwing half a million tonnes of perfectly edible fish away is stupid. all things within the powers of politicians the world over to address now and all they can do is pass the buck or pontificate while placating their backers by not introducing punitive legislation or enforcing protection where it already applies.Murph7355 said:
gadgetmac said:
How would asking an individual pilot to stop flying help the situation? Is he asking you or anyone else to give up driving?
Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
Taxing stuff and "carbon credits" etc aren't doing anything material about it IMO. . Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-359...
Diderot said:
Murph7355 said:
gadgetmac said:
How would asking an individual pilot to stop flying help the situation? Is he asking you or anyone else to give up driving?
Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
Taxing stuff and "carbon credits" etc aren't doing anything material about it IMO. . Does he build the aircraft himself?
Should all of the pro AGW taxi drivers to stop ferrying people around for a living?
Maybe we can ask pro AGW Ambulance drivers to give it a rest while we're at it?
This is a ridiculous argument.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-359...
1. That you never explained what the f
k you were going on about2. You got me and LoonyTunes mixed up
Professor.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff