Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
I was a bit conflicted as to where to post this (Science or NP&E), but chose the latter as it has more traffic.
Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
cherryowen said:
I was a bit conflicted as to where to post this (Science or NP&E), but chose the latter as it has more traffic.
Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
If you are genuinely interested rather than just a climate denier troll read the latest IPCC report. That sets out lots of information on the warming of land, atmosphere and oceans and also highlights problems with past data and gives confidence levels for conclusions that can be drawn from the data.
Esceptico said:
cherryowen said:
I was a bit conflicted as to where to post this (Science or NP&E), but chose the latter as it has more traffic.
Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
If you are genuinely interested rather than just a climate denier troll read the latest IPCC report. That sets out lots of information on the warming of land, atmosphere and oceans and also highlights problems with past data and gives confidence levels for conclusions that can be drawn from the data.
Esceptico said:
cherryowen said:
I'd rather a more impartial source than the IPCC
So you mean some climate change denier rather than an independent panel of experts drawing on peer reviewed scientific papers?Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
Climate: 100% organic farming would boost emissions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-501...
A new study suggests that a switch to 100% organic food production in England and Wales would see an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
While going fully organic would produce fewer direct emissions than conventional farming, researchers say it would limit food production.
As a result, more imports would be needed, resulting in up to five times more land being used overseas.
Overall emissions could rise by 21% compared to the conventional approach........continues
Oops! Back to the drawing board
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-501...
A new study suggests that a switch to 100% organic food production in England and Wales would see an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
While going fully organic would produce fewer direct emissions than conventional farming, researchers say it would limit food production.
As a result, more imports would be needed, resulting in up to five times more land being used overseas.
Overall emissions could rise by 21% compared to the conventional approach........continues
Oops! Back to the drawing board
robinessex said:
Climate: 100% organic farming would boost emissions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-501...
A new study suggests that a switch to 100% organic food production in England and Wales would see an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
While going fully organic would produce fewer direct emissions than conventional farming, researchers say it would limit food production.
As a result, more imports would be needed, resulting in up to five times more land being used overseas.
Overall emissions could rise by 21% compared to the conventional approach........continues
Oops! Back to the drawing board
Are you suggesting that all people who believe in man-made climate change and think that's something should be done about it think that we should all switch to 100% organic food? I don't. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-501...
A new study suggests that a switch to 100% organic food production in England and Wales would see an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
While going fully organic would produce fewer direct emissions than conventional farming, researchers say it would limit food production.
As a result, more imports would be needed, resulting in up to five times more land being used overseas.
Overall emissions could rise by 21% compared to the conventional approach........continues
Oops! Back to the drawing board
[quote=NoNeed]
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet[/
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. Growth relies on increased productivity. Increased productivity generally relies on replacing humans with machines. Machines run on energy (don’t forget that machines include computers - storage, manipulation and transmission of data now account for a significant and growing percentage of energy use). Growing economies and growing populations mean growing energy use. Renewables can’t fill that hole. That is why although globally much more energy is coming from renewable sources it is not enough to meet demand, which is being filled by fossil fuels (in developing countries often coal).
To really address global warming you would probably need an effort equivalent to what happened during WW2. The government would have to take over (in every country). Consumption would have to be limited. Capitalism would need to be stopped.
Is the above remotely possible from a political perspective? No.
By the way, I think the underlying cause of climate change denial is that those opposing climate change can’t stomach the solution and so for them it is easier to deny there is a problem. It can’t be coincidental that climate change deniers are generally right wing and vehemently against governments and any limitation on personal freedoms (by which the usually mean freedom TO oppress whereas those on the left more often interpret freedom as freedom FROM oppression).
Personally I don’t think action will be taken on global warming (if at all) until it is too late.
I am concerned about the future. Global warming will likely make many parts of the Middle East and Africa increasing unliveable. The risk of huge migration flows north (ie to Europe) is very high in my view. That would have severe consequences for the social, political and economic status of Europe.
I’ve already undertaken my own personal planning for my family by moving to NZ. Once we have a permanent right to remain and/or citizenship we may come back but at least we will have a bolt hole if we need it in the future. (That wasn’t the only reason we moved to NZ - I’ve always wanted to try it and I was drawn by the more laid back and active lifestyle - but it was one consideration).
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet[/
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. Growth relies on increased productivity. Increased productivity generally relies on replacing humans with machines. Machines run on energy (don’t forget that machines include computers - storage, manipulation and transmission of data now account for a significant and growing percentage of energy use). Growing economies and growing populations mean growing energy use. Renewables can’t fill that hole. That is why although globally much more energy is coming from renewable sources it is not enough to meet demand, which is being filled by fossil fuels (in developing countries often coal).
To really address global warming you would probably need an effort equivalent to what happened during WW2. The government would have to take over (in every country). Consumption would have to be limited. Capitalism would need to be stopped.
Is the above remotely possible from a political perspective? No.
By the way, I think the underlying cause of climate change denial is that those opposing climate change can’t stomach the solution and so for them it is easier to deny there is a problem. It can’t be coincidental that climate change deniers are generally right wing and vehemently against governments and any limitation on personal freedoms (by which the usually mean freedom TO oppress whereas those on the left more often interpret freedom as freedom FROM oppression).
Personally I don’t think action will be taken on global warming (if at all) until it is too late.
I am concerned about the future. Global warming will likely make many parts of the Middle East and Africa increasing unliveable. The risk of huge migration flows north (ie to Europe) is very high in my view. That would have severe consequences for the social, political and economic status of Europe.
I’ve already undertaken my own personal planning for my family by moving to NZ. Once we have a permanent right to remain and/or citizenship we may come back but at least we will have a bolt hole if we need it in the future. (That wasn’t the only reason we moved to NZ - I’ve always wanted to try it and I was drawn by the more laid back and active lifestyle - but it was one consideration).
Esceptico said:
NoNeed said:
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. <snip>Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
The answer to that form of political nonsense remains with contemporary peer-reviewed science as opposed to inadequately modelled junkscience in grey lit compendia.
For example:
Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences (2018)
"The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019)
"it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
More, with links, earlier in the thread following other baseless claims for tax gas. Talking of tax and gas with sixth-form politics still firmly in mind, radical socialist Figueres of the UN reckons decarbonisation will only cost £90trillion. So either capitalism pays or we go back to localised medieval lifestyles with all the death and misery in survival that entails. Chances of the latter? Zero. Of the former...not good atm.
turbobloke said:
Esceptico said:
NoNeed said:
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. <snip>Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
The answer to that form of political nonsense remains with contemporary peer-reviewed science as opposed to inadequately modelled junkscience in grey lit compendia.
For example:
Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences (2018)
"The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."
Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019)
"it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
More, with links, earlier in the thread following other baseless claims for tax gas. Talking of tax and gas with sixth-form politics still firmly in mind, radical socialist Figueres of the UN reckons decarbonisation will only cost £90trillion. So either capitalism pays or we go back to localised medieval lifestyles with all the death and misery in survival that entails. Chances of the latter? Zero. Of the former...not good atm.
The number of climatologists that accept AGW increases every year. I think it is now over 95%. You are on the losing side - scientifically. Unfortunately for the rest of us and the planet the scientists are being ignored and nothing is being done. In fact we are going backwards as Trump is either a denier or doesn’t care.
Esceptico said:
So you mean some climate change denier rather than an independent panel of experts drawing on peer reviewed scientific papers?
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
cherryowen said:
I was a bit conflicted as to where to post this (Science or NP&E), but chose the latter as it has more traffic.
Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
It's a fair question and the instrumental record confirms what you're saying (NH is warming faster than SH). Another thing is when looking at reconstructions of NH temps going back millenia, how much do they even reperesent the trend in both hemispheres? There's good evidence of hemispheric see-sawing at times - when the NH warms the SH cools and vice verca. Land also cools more quickly than ocean too.Many - if not most - temperature records and historical temp reconstructions use data from the Northern hemisphere (MBH '98 being a classic example). Forgive me if I am wrong, but as most of the Southern hemisphere is water and most of the Northern hemisphere is land, and land heats more quickly than water, will that not "skew" results for any "global" temp records / reconstructions?
Esceptico said:
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite.
After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
So many things have been pointed out wrong with Anthropogenic sourced CO2 forced Catastrophic Climate Change (tm) - that it is amazing anyone believes it (even the precautionary principle has been abused to support the nonsense). What is even more amazing is that in the IPCC AR5 if you read the impacts and the "likelihoods" you scratch your head as to how come anyone believes the climate hysteria that is currently in vogue.After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
There was no evidence that 2 degrees increase in an artificial number was anything but a net benefit to mankind so how come we are supposed to be panicing over a revised (by whom?) 1.5 degree increase in a artificial number? They can't even get a consensus on ECS after 30 years of trying so explain how this equates to E=MC^2?
Jinx said:
Esceptico said:
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite.
After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
So many things have been pointed out wrong with Anthropogenic sourced CO2 forced Catastrophic Climate Change (tm) - that it is amazing anyone believes it (even the precautionary principle has been abused to support the nonsense). What is even more amazing is that in the IPCC AR5 if you read the impacts and the "likelihoods" you scratch your head as to how come anyone believes the climate hysteria that is currently in vogue.After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
There was no evidence that 2 degrees increase in an artificial number was anything but a net benefit to mankind so how come we are supposed to be panicing over a revised (by whom?) 1.5 degree increase in a artificial number? They can't even get a consensus on ECS after 30 years of trying so explain how this equates to E=MC^2?
NoNeed said:
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
one quick win solution would be to use the type of person that uses the term "climate denier troll" (it obviously marks them out as congenital idiots due to the fact not one person on the entire planet "denies the climate") as a green energy source. my method would involve liquidising , then formed into dried pellets for biomass plants Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff