Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 6)

Author
Discussion

Scrump

Original Poster:

13,093 posts

122 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all

Gadgetmac

11,012 posts

72 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
The thread of harmony has a new chapter. smile

DAVEVO9

3,242 posts

231 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
The thread of harmony has a new chapter. smile
How dare you !!

turbobloke

92,877 posts

224 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
An arresting situation, again. It's not just here that charges and sentences need to become more effective to deter repeat offending. Protesting isn't law-breaking, who knew.

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/jane-fonda-ted-d...

Somebody manages to whine about single use plasticuffs.

robinessex

9,172 posts

145 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
Wow Vol 6.

zygalski

7,267 posts

109 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
Should be vol 4 if you removed all the mis-quoted scientists posts.

turbobloke

92,877 posts

224 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
Potential good news continues on the climate politics front, this from Euractiv.

Global Climate Laws Threatened By Rise In Investor Lawsuits

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news...

Note misuse of the word 'protection' as though politicians can protect people from natural events by influencing those natural events via taxes and lifestyle controls.

silly

Good to see vol 6 of this thread, important as it is topic-wise, though it could be vol 2 without the pro-agw trolling posts rotate

kerplunk

4,889 posts

170 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
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 wink

Our politicians are well up on this, maybe it's in Hansard somewhere.
ok I'll accept the charge of cherry-picking - estimates vary, large uncertainties (to put it mildly). Glad to have shed some light on the uncertainties around a claim usually presented as a fact.

turbobloke

92,877 posts

224 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
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 wink

Our politicians are well up on this, maybe it's in Hansard somewhere.
ok I'll accept the charge of cherry-picking - estimates vary, large uncertainties (to put it mildly). Glad to have shed some light on the uncertainties around a claim usually presented as a fact.
Fair enough to a degree but there's more to it than the late ordovician debate, including reproducibility across Monnin et al, Petit et al, Fischer et al, Caillon et al, and the rest.

Uncertainties can be managed in every sense of the word. As per the recent attrition loop on feedbacks with methane to go. The Team suddenly found additional uncertainty in their gigo modelling so that when new data had the models parting company with reality, remarkably this new uncertainty which was greater than previously thought, this additional uncertainty which they had hitherto failed to spot somehow, coincided (fate!) with a need to stretch the equivalent of error bars (model gigo isn't empirical data) to retain threadbare overlap with actual empirical data. Less certainty in gigo managed to give more certainty in faith, Brian Rix would have been proud. These days it's back to 'mind the gap'.

Gadgetmac

11,012 posts

72 months

Saturday 26th October 2019
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Should be vol 4 if you removed all the mis-quoted scientists posts.
laugh

turbobloke

92,877 posts

224 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
Fewer but more accurate volumes without all the diddled data to report on, as a result of politicised 'science'.

https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP/photos/a.117...

Here's one of the latest ^ it's BoM Australia, an old friend in this regard, this time caught out by a member of their federal House of Representatives (Craig Kelly) no less who spotted the nation’s Bureau of Meteorology altering graphs showing the number of very hot days. This latest revisionism obscured the fact that 1952 had more very hot days than recent years, and by adding a "newly discovered” ho ho ho hot day in 2011 this made it appear that there wasn't a record low number in 2011 - 'and still they believe'.




Gadgetmac

11,012 posts

72 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
Kelly is a controversial ultra-right political figure so it's no surprise you have his musings on tap.

I quote:

Kelly, who was a furniture salesman before he entered parliament, also cited a study that said Tuvalu was growing not sinking. The peer-reviewed study shows the island’s land mass has grown owing to sedimention and reef growth, but Kelly ignored part of the same study that said climate change remained the single biggest threat to the low-lying Pacific islands and their future.

In a nutshell is like more information on the background to your post on order to check for context, accuracy etc before taking it as anywhere near honest.

turbobloke

92,877 posts

224 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Kelly is a controversial ultra-right political figure so it's no surprise you have his musings on tap.
Not on tap but I get news feeds which even you might manage if you try.

Returning to relevance, are you saying that left wingers wouldn't report on climate data diddling?

Your comment makes no difference at all to what happened with the data.

Another shoot-the-messenger ad hom fallacy bites the dust.

PRTVR

5,839 posts

185 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
A bit of light humour for a Sunday morning,
Everywhere is warming faster than the global average. hehe

https://youtu.be/S-CxkCtSnLU

robinessex

9,172 posts

145 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
A bit of light humour for a Sunday morning,
Everywhere is warming faster than the global average. hehe

https://youtu.be/S-CxkCtSnLU
Should run this on the Beeb. Never happen though.

Gadgetmac

11,012 posts

72 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kelly is a controversial ultra-right political figure so it's no surprise you have his musings on tap.
Not on tap but I get news feeds which even you might manage if you try.

Returning to relevance, are you saying that left wingers wouldn't report on climate data diddling?

Your comment makes no difference at all to what happened with the data.

Another shoot-the-messenger ad hom fallacy bites the dust.
Which bit of “context, accuracy” escaped your sherlockian analysis?

turbobloke

92,877 posts

224 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc) silly

Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...


Gadgetmac

11,012 posts

72 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
“IPCC mob” aka Climate Scientists hehe

Randy Winkman

9,486 posts

153 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc) silly

Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...
So climate change really is happening and might even be worse than previously suggested by scientists? Thanks for showing us that TB.

Esceptico

3,906 posts

73 months

Sunday 27th October 2019
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
Don't trust the IPCC mob, believe Oreskes and Stern instead (etc) silly

Potayto. Potarto. Same taste.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/10/2...
So climate change really is happening and might even be worse than previously suggested by scientists? Thanks for showing us that TB.
This is almost exactly like going to the doctor as a cancer patient and hearing “sorry we told you, you had a greater than 50% chance of surviving 5 years but actually that was being optimistic and it could be only 3 years” and then cheering because you thought that meant they were wrong about you having cancer.