Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[Etypephil]

turbobloke said:

With one year and a couple of months to go before the Pentagon's climate prediction flunks just like the rest, they've kicked the can again. That was unexpected

The UK was meant to have a Siberian climate "by 2020" with European cities underwater just like New York was in 2015, ooops.



A hefty kick of the can has supposedly spared their blushes. Now it's 2039-2040 and we may be spared Siberia but the US military gets it in the privates



Obviously as the first prediction was ridiculously spot on or just plain ridiculous this latest punt has to be even more credible.

Don't dismiss the 2004 predictions just yet Turbobloke; 2020 is almost three months away, and I have noticed that the temperature has dropped several degrees even since July.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

Yeah no point in attempting to mitigate our possible impact on the planet that we live on if we can't 100% prove that impact to the satisfaction of every living person on the planet, eh?

When our impact is global greening (proven) I'm happy to continue

You have no proof global greening is man-made.

[insert number of pirates graph]

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

Yeah no point in attempting to mitigate our possible impact on the planet that we live on if we can't 100% prove that impact to the satisfaction of every living person on the planet, eh?

When our impact is global greening (proven) I'm happy to continue

You have no proof global greening is man-made.

Do researchers more widely?

Unless you're claiming that there is not even a single molecule of manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would be a remarkable u-turn as we're supposedly responsible for the continuing rise, then there's very recent peer-reviewed science which attributes 90% of the greening effect on ecosystems to 'aerial fertilization' by CO2 (Fernández-Martínez et al). So pick your contribution from manmade carbon dioxide to the atmosphreric level, and take 90% of it to give manmade greening, at which point your comment is in the long grass.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

Yeah no point in attempting to mitigate our possible impact on the planet that we live on if we can't 100% prove that impact to the satisfaction of every living person on the planet, eh?

When our impact is global greening (proven) I'm happy to continue

You have no proof global greening is man-made.

Do researchers more widely?

Unless you're claiming that there is not even a single molecule of manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would be a remarkable u-turn as we're supposedly responsible for the continuing rise, then there's very recent peer-reviewed science which attributes 90% of the greening effect on ecosystems to 'aerial fertilization' by CO2 (Fernández-Martínez et al). So pick your contribution from manmade carbon dioxide to the atmosphreric level, and take 90% of it to give manmade greening, at which point your comment is in the long grass.

The peer review system is broken. It's a rent-seeking travesty. The earth's green-ness varies naturally without any help from man. How far back to do the obs go? Science is never settled.

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

zygalski said:

Yeah no point in attempting to mitigate our possible impact on the planet that we live on if we can't 100% prove that impact to the satisfaction of every living person on the planet, eh?

When our impact is global greening (proven) I'm happy to continue

You have no proof global greening is man-made.

Do researchers more widely?

Unless you're claiming that there is not even a single molecule of manmade carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would be a remarkable u-turn as we're supposedly responsible for the continuing rise, then there's very recent peer-reviewed science which attributes 90% of the greening effect on ecosystems to 'aerial fertilization' by CO2 (Fernández-Martínez et al). So pick your contribution from manmade carbon dioxide to the atmosphreric level, and take 90% of it to give manmade greening, at which point your comment is in the long grass.

The peer review system is broken. It's a rent-seeking travesty. The earth's green-ness varies naturally without any help from man. How far back to do the obs go? Science is never settled.

Excellent.

Maybe now is the time to fall back on total nihilism. That should leave everyone in a position where nothing is important and therefore responsibility is meaningless.

Fits well with modern politics.

[kerplunk]

It's no greener now than it was in the medieval warm period when the barren wastes of scotland were covered in lush grapevines - and without a V8 in sight!

[kerplunk]

It's a colourless odourless trace gas!!!

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

The peer review system is broken. It's a rent-seeking travesty. The earth's green-ness varies naturally without any help from man. How far back to do the obs go? Science is never settled.

Now you are getting it!

[robinessex]

I've got a good idea. Lets cut CO2 as drastically as possible, and turn the planet into a giant snowball.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

The peer review system is broken. It's a rent-seeking travesty. The earth's green-ness varies naturally without any help from man. How far back to do the obs go? Science is never settled.

Now you are getting it!

Cool - a fellow traveller! Anyone else?

Think I might make get a youtube channel and see how many followers I can get.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

I've got a good idea. Lets cut CO2 as drastically as possible, and turn the planet into a giant snowball.

oops you're forgetting it's 'just a trace gas'

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

I've got a good idea. Lets cut CO2 as drastically as possible, and turn the planet into a giant snowball.

oops you're forgetting it's 'just a trace gas'

Which doesn't control planetary temperature.

Remember: the flavour of climate model which provides a good match for 'the latest data', as shown by Christy and others, is one which doesn't include the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect, in other words doesn't have the false agw assumption. Result!

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

I've got a good idea. Lets cut CO2 as drastically as possible, and turn the planet into a giant snowball.

oops you're forgetting it's 'just a trace gas'

Which doesn't control planetary temperature.

Remember: the flavour of climate model which provides a good match for 'the latest data', as shown by Christy and others, is one which doesn't include the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect, in other words doesn't have the false agw assumption. Result!

Isn’t that great news everyone?

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

I've got a good idea. Lets cut CO2 as drastically as possible, and turn the planet into a giant snowball.

oops you're forgetting it's 'just a trace gas'

Which doesn't control planetary temperature.

Remember: the flavour of climate model which provides a good match for 'the latest data', as shown by Christy and others, is one which doesn't include the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect, in other words doesn't have the false agw assumption. Result!

Isn’t that great news everyone?

I see what you did there

[kerplunk]

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Abstract

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/35...

[Esceptico]

kerplunk said:

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Abstract

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/35...

I admire your tenacity for keeping posting stuff and trying to rebut the nonsense on here but this will have zero impact on the tin hat brigade.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Abstract

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/35...

It’s the control knob for temperature and it also outgases massively from the oceans with increasing temperature.

Scary stuff. It’s a wonder there is any life on this planet at all!

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

I've got a good idea. Lets cut CO2 as drastically as possible, and turn the planet into a giant snowball.

oops you're forgetting it's 'just a trace gas'

Correction, the man made part is a small addition to a trace gas. Please keep up at the back.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

It’s the control knob for temperature and it also outgases massively from the oceans with increasing temperature.

Scary stuff. It’s a wonder there is any life on this planet at all!

I have no idea what point you think you are making. AGW is not going to wipe out all life on earth. However there have been at least five mass extinction events in the past where more than 50% of species were wiped out, so it is clear that the ecosystem is not always robust. I’m sure some humans will survive a mass extinction event, but I sure I don’t want to experience it nor want it for my daughter.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-timeline-o...

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

It’s the control knob for temperature and it also outgases massively from the oceans with increasing temperature.

Scary stuff. It’s a wonder there is any life on this planet at all!

I have no idea what point you think you are making. AGW is not going to wipe out all life on earth. However there have been at least five mass extinction events in the past where more than 50% of species were wiped out, so it is clear that the ecosystem is not always robust. I’m sure some humans will survive a mass extinction event, but I sure I don’t want to experience it nor want it for my daughter.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-timeline-o...

CO2 concentration is said to be principal temperature control knob for Earth.

So, CO2 increases a little because someone lit a campfire..the temperature goes up a little...then the oceans warm...and release more CO2...then the temperature goes up some more...then the oceans release more CO2....then the temperature goes up even more...releasing even more CO2...