Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[LongQ]

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...

Absent a large meteor strike or, possibly, some sort of rampant and rapidly developing disease for which no one can analyse and develop some form of resistance or cure quickly enough to be effective, the most likely outcome for your daughter is that the stories of eco-disaster will worry her to an early death if she takes then seriously.

On the other humans are quite capable of extending their abilities to scare each other into actions that are worth being concerned about.

Humans being what they are will want things to happen NOW - not several generations from now and to generations who may never be conceived.

This we end up with conflicts that spread to create major wars - or perhaps perpetual guerilla warfare on a global basis - for no rational reason other than the human ability to want one's own way about things.

Nuclear war would one obvious risk with immediate impacts, possibly worldwide, from which there would be no obvious way to escape.

A collapsing economic model could also be extremely devastating over a much shorter period than the projected climate problems on which so many seem to be focused. New Zealand might be a good place to be if that happens. Planting of land and livestock to feed 5 million. With luck the collapse would happen in a way that would limit the number of migrants that could find a way to cross the oceans to get there in large numbers.

Some of the proposed scientific solutions to the proposed problem of overheating - especially those that involve reducing the energy received form the sun by attempting 'global dimming' could rather easily get out of hand. Indeed it's unclear how they could possibly be controlled even if anyone was able to confirm they would work as expected and be controllable as required.

I could find other potentially problematic solutions that have been proposed over the years bit they all seem to require experimental work that might be very hard to co-ordinate (for humans and human nature). Moreover I cannot recall reading about any large scale environmental experiments using supposedly 'natural' methods that have worked successfully without any adverse aspects. Have you got any suggestions for success stories?

Meanwhile you have, iirc, decided to live on the back of a volcanic ridge.

Would it be right to say that you risk assessment considers volcanic activity to be a lower risk to you and your family than the less extreme projections for the guesses made about the effects of climate change?

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

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!

The CO2 increase from glacial conditions to interglacial is about 110ppm.
Man has increased it by about 130ppm since pre-industrial.
PTVR says this increase is small.
You say it's massive
It's so confusing

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

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...

Poor kawasicki - still doesn't understand the thing he disagrees with and flails about hopelessly.

[kerplunk]

Esceptico said:

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.

lol, I've been doing this for a while - I know already

[zygalski]

kerplunk said:

Poor kawasicki - still doesn't understand the thing he disagrees with and flails about hopelessly.

As I mentioned before, the PH Flat Earther brigade really need to get their script together as a cohesive argument.
They seem to think that any criticism refutes AGW, even if the criticisms totally contradict each other.

Let's face it, if you're a PH AGW denier conspiracy theorist, you've got to let an awful lot of stuff from folks supposedly on your own side go.

[voyds9]

So what is the correct amount of CO2 that we are aiming for.

With this runaway heating effect why did we enter an ice age at the end of the ordovician period when the CO2 level nearly 4500ppm

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

The CO2 increase from glacial conditions to interglacial is about 110ppm.
Man has increased it by about 130ppm since pre-industrial.
PTVR says this increase is small.
You say it's massive
It's so confusing

It's all small, we are talking parts per million, but I am sure you understand that, it's just an unfortunate truth.

[Etypephil]

zygalski said:

As I mentioned before, the PH Flat Earther brigade really need to get their script together as a cohesive argument.
They seem to think that any criticism refutes AGW, even if the criticisms totally contradict each other.

Let's face it, if you're a PH AGW denier conspiracy theorist, you've got to let an awful lot of stuff from folks supposedly on your own side go.

I haven't seen any posts here claiming that the earth is flat.

The last sentence make no sense, a little like the AGW argument: "you've got to let an awful lot of stuff from folks supposedly on your own side go." WTF?

[turbobloke]

Flat Earth references from agw faithful never fail to amuse.

https://twitter.com/FlatEarthOrg/status/1022016754...

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Poor kawasicki - still doesn't understand the thing he disagrees with and flails about hopelessly.

Personal insults - check.

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Poor kawasicki .- still doesn't understand the thing he disagrees with and flails about hopelessly.

Personal insults - check.

That sort of thing was written about over 20 years ago.

David Murray in 1997 said:

Activists have learned to dismiss those whose argument they cannot counter by attacking their integrity

It could have been worse In the same year the Wall Street Journal noted that agw supporters "tend to become apoplectic at anyone who dares suggest that the threat of global warming is theory, not established fact".

Junk'n'bunk need special measures.

More climate politics...how to celebrate the 2015 false prediction about New York being under water - kick the can and make it an art exhibit to gull the easily-led.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/roker-climate-ex...

"Roker hailed the display as 'the brainchild of Carol Becker' the dean of the School of the Arts at Columbia. She urged the importance of making an emotional appeal on climate change..."

Where reason fails just try to bypass it with emotion (pretty much the definition of propaganda).

[kerplunk]

voyds9 said:

So what is the correct amount of CO2 that we are aiming for.

One that doesn't change massively.

voyds9 said:

With this runaway heating effect why did we enter an ice age at the end of the ordovician period when the CO2 level nearly 4500ppm

This sceptic talking point is based on CO2 data with a resolution of 10 million years and a late Ordivician ice age that lasted half a million years. Can you see the problem?

Young 2009 finds evidence of a large drop in CO2:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/artic...

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

voyds9 said:

So what is the correct amount of CO2 that we are aiming for.

One that doesn't change massively.

voyds9 said:

With this runaway heating effect why did we enter an ice age at the end of the ordovician period when the CO2 level nearly 4500ppm

This sceptic talking point is based on CO2 data with a resolution of 10 million years and a late Ordivician ice age that lasted half a million years. Can you see the problem?

Carbon dioxide levels change all the time because SST changes all the time. The surface oceans contain significantly more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water and less soluble in warm water so when SST warms naturally a lot of carbon dioxide will degas into the atmosphere. Also, this partition equilibrium will work to offset any reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide at any given temperature e.g. now if 'we' try and succeed in lowering the level (temporarily). If carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere then more will degas from the surface oceans to replace it and maintain the equilibrium, which is constant at a given temperature.

It looks like somebody has been over to SkSc for some selective/disputed reading. According to research using spatio-temporal distribution of continental glacial deposits and glaciomarine sediments (supported by isotope studies from other researchers) the late ordovician ice age began -465 million years (ago) peaked -440 million years and had terminated -420 million years. See Poussart et al who also show that it's possible to maintain a permanent snow cover under 10x current CO2 levels, contemporary orbital parameters, a 4.5% reduction in solar luminosity and a length of day ~ 21.5 hours as per conditions at the time.

The half a million year cherry pick within that 45 million year timescale is a bit too ripe but it lends itself nicely to resolution obfuscation. It's not the only evidence of course. Other research looks superficially favourable for a shorter tax gas holiday e.g. Quinton et al which claims a reduction in carbon dioxide levels at -450 million years...only 15 million years too late for causation but in keeping with carbon dioxide following temperature changes not causing them. Resolution revolution

Our politicians are well up on this, maybe it's in Hansard somewhere.

[turbobloke]

Climate politics...Climate activists and global control freak aspirations at the United Nations have suffered a major setback thanks to Chile, where mass protests resulting from climate policy-driven high energy prices have erupted in Santiago. Protesting against expensive and pointless climate wibble, how dare they?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/expensive-climate-po...

[robinessex]

'I gave up a six-figure salary to join Extinction Rebellion'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50087022

Andrew Medhurst was a high-flyer. He earned a six-figure salary and had worked all over the world for the likes of Lloyds Bank and HSBC.
But he gave it all up to join Extinction Rebellion.
It was around Christmas last year when he suddenly snapped. He was designing pension plan policies aimed at encouraging young people to put money away for the future.
But after reading up on climate change, and as he reflected on the scorching summer of 2018, the 53-year-old came to the conclusion that pension schemes "looked almost fraudulent" because the effects of global warming threatened the future those young people were saving for....................continues

It looks as if he read the wrong stuff. ( How the hell does someone earn a 6 figure salary designing pension plans (National Employment Savings Trust)? No wonder most turn out to be bks if we pay that amount to someone with about O level math skills! )

[turbobloke]

"After reading up"

BBC, Guardian, Independent? IPCC greylitfest maybe?

Nowt wrong with giving up a six figure salary, or indeed giving up on quality of life, as long as salary sacrifices and a move towards more medieval conditions are voluntary for those so 'minded'.

[Scrump]

Continued over here:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...