Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Mrr T said:
durbster said:
The last ice age was only a 4 degree difference, putting large chunks of the northern hemisphere under hundreds of metres of ice.
So yes, a 2 degree difference in temperature is likely to have a significant impact.
Actually the studies claim 4-7 degrees. The problem with the studies is the only data is from ice cores. The problem is we know ice is affected by other factors, particularly by the level of snow fall. Its worth this quote from NASA on the temperature reconstruction.So yes, a 2 degree difference in temperature is likely to have a significant impact.
"The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature."
One of the major problems with some elements of the climate debate is claiming guess work is knowledge.
PRTVR said:
Mrr T said:
durbster said:
The last ice age was only a 4 degree difference, putting large chunks of the northern hemisphere under hundreds of metres of ice.
So yes, a 2 degree difference in temperature is likely to have a significant impact.
Actually the studies claim 4-7 degrees. The problem with the studies is the only data is from ice cores. The problem is we know ice is affected by other factors, particularly by the level of snow fall. Its worth this quote from NASA on the temperature reconstruction.So yes, a 2 degree difference in temperature is likely to have a significant impact.
"The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature."
One of the major problems with some elements of the climate debate is claiming guess work is knowledge.
Yet claims are still made that 0.7° C to 0.8° C over the past 100 years of adjusted data, from raw data almost flat for those 100 years in both hemispheres, is an unprecedented rise and the cause must be anthropogenic. That is indeed guesswork and not a random guess.
kerplunk said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Greeny said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?
There will always be outlyers, there are thousands of climate scientists. He's not one btw, he's a physicist.So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?
Here's some research from the net:
Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.”
In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration's National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E Newsreported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change.
Fossil Fuel Funding
William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 byPeabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition.
“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email.
So you decide.
The above poster could have disputed any of the claims made in the interview. Rather than that he attacks the man.
So what errors did Harper make in his statements?
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Greeny said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?
There will always be outlyers, there are thousands of climate scientists. He's not one btw, he's a physicist.So, I often see on this thread the “show me a scientist who does not agree with the con census” , or words to that effect.
Does the guy in the linked video count?
Here's some research from the net:
Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.”
In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration's National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E Newsreported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change.
Fossil Fuel Funding
William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 byPeabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition.
“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email.
So you decide.
The above poster could have disputed any of the claims made in the interview. Rather than that he attacks the man.
So what errors did Harper make in his statements?
This is the POLITICS thread. If you want to discuss the SCIENCE then guess where you should be posting...?
Refugees at 'increased risk' from extreme weather
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-506...
Refugees and people displaced within countries because of conflict are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather, experts say.
Humanitarian agencies told the BBC this posed significant challenges for their operations in different parts of the world.
Temporary camps for the displaced in Africa and Asia have been affected.
Extreme weather has even caused secondary displacements for populations that have already had to move.
Scientists say that extreme weather events will be the new normal if warming continues at its present rate.
BUT EXPERTS SAID CLIMATE CHANGE COULD NOT BE LINKED DIRECTLY TO THOSE WEATHER-RELATED DISASTERS.
However, they argue, many of them concur with scientific predictions that the intensity and frequency of extreme weather will grow in a warming world.
"This has become our major challenge," Shaima Mantoo, a spokesperson with the UNHCR (United Nations refugee agency), told the BBC.
"An increasing number of camps for refugees and internally displaced people are being hit by extreme weather events and managing them in such conditions is proving to be increasingly difficult."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-506...
Refugees and people displaced within countries because of conflict are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather, experts say.
Humanitarian agencies told the BBC this posed significant challenges for their operations in different parts of the world.
Temporary camps for the displaced in Africa and Asia have been affected.
Extreme weather has even caused secondary displacements for populations that have already had to move.
Scientists say that extreme weather events will be the new normal if warming continues at its present rate.
BUT EXPERTS SAID CLIMATE CHANGE COULD NOT BE LINKED DIRECTLY TO THOSE WEATHER-RELATED DISASTERS.
However, they argue, many of them concur with scientific predictions that the intensity and frequency of extreme weather will grow in a warming world.
"This has become our major challenge," Shaima Mantoo, a spokesperson with the UNHCR (United Nations refugee agency), told the BBC.
"An increasing number of camps for refugees and internally displaced people are being hit by extreme weather events and managing them in such conditions is proving to be increasingly difficult."
Climate change: Amazon oil boom under fire at UN talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
A report presented at COP25 says that plans are in place for a huge expansion of oil drilling in the upper Amazon.
The analysis says that Ecuador and Peru are set to sanction oil extraction across an area of forest the size of Italy...........continues
Oops, more kiddies at the party not playing to the rules!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
A report presented at COP25 says that plans are in place for a huge expansion of oil drilling in the upper Amazon.
The analysis says that Ecuador and Peru are set to sanction oil extraction across an area of forest the size of Italy...........continues
Oops, more kiddies at the party not playing to the rules!!
kerplunk said:
About CO2 forcing he doesn't say anything particularly interesting - a doubling of CO2 on it's own worth about 1C of warming = standard stuff. So what is the climate sensitivity to the CO2 forcing? High? Low? He doesn't know because he rejects models. Not much use.
He does not say much about forcing but he does cover the fact CO2 warming rate is logarithmic not linear. He does not reject the models he just, correctly, points out the model projections are all showing much higher temperature increase than is actually occurring. He also points out the latest hypothesis for the missing heat does not fit well with the physics of heat in water. The funny thing is he gets called a denier but he is clear he believes in AGW and there is likely a man made eliment he just does not believe its significant or dangerous.
Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 10th December 12:59
Greeny said:
No, I am not saying that.
If we change the way we live, does the science say, climate change will stop.
If not, and we are faced in the future with still having to adapt to climate change, why don’t we start doing that now with the abilities we have that will disappear in a fossil free world, If that is the path to be chosen. There are vast areas of the world that would become habitable in a warmer world, just maybe these could become new areas for life, just as they were in the past.
I’m not wishing to take the role of ‘denier’ or ‘believer’ , but I don’t see this part of the conversation raised usually.
It's nice that you ask him questions, but he doesn't have any answers. Like many, he just sits chucking pebbles into a pond - with exactly the same outcome each time. You're wasting your time. There are, however, posters on here that can put a balanced argument together on the doomsaying side...If we change the way we live, does the science say, climate change will stop.
If not, and we are faced in the future with still having to adapt to climate change, why don’t we start doing that now with the abilities we have that will disappear in a fossil free world, If that is the path to be chosen. There are vast areas of the world that would become habitable in a warmer world, just maybe these could become new areas for life, just as they were in the past.
I’m not wishing to take the role of ‘denier’ or ‘believer’ , but I don’t see this part of the conversation raised usually.
Mrr T said:
He does not say much about forcing but he does cover the fact CO2 warming rate is logarithmic not linear. He does not reject the models he just, correctly, points out the model projections are all showing much higher temperature increase than is actually occurring. He also points out the latest hypothesis for the missing heat does not fit well with the physics of heat in water.
The funny thing is he gets called a denier but he is clear he believes in AGW and there is likely a man made eliment he just does not believe its significant or dangerous.
Anyone not singing off the hysterical hymnsheet is labelled a denier. They don't want 'measured' or 'conservative', they want ACTION, and NOW!The funny thing is he gets called a denier but he is clear he believes in AGW and there is likely a man made eliment he just does not believe its significant or dangerous.
Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 10th December 12:59
There are many moderate real climate scientists who are very measured about the effects of global warming. They are not part of the 'faithful'.
Oh and a point of order, you can change the weather.
Cloud seeding.
I quote physics.org:
"Success has been claimed for trials in Australia, France, Spain and the US. In the Untied Arab Emirates, the technique is credited with the creation of 52 storms in the Abu Dhabi desert, while China boasts of having used the technology in reverse to keep the Beijing Olympic Games of 2008 dry."
Cloud seeding.
I quote physics.org:
"Success has been claimed for trials in Australia, France, Spain and the US. In the Untied Arab Emirates, the technique is credited with the creation of 52 storms in the Abu Dhabi desert, while China boasts of having used the technology in reverse to keep the Beijing Olympic Games of 2008 dry."
jshell said:
Actually it tends to be old school time-served real climate scientists who know their st. Not the new breed of convertion course, or newly knocked-up Masters/Post-Grad, Faithful curriculum courses that focus on true belief!
Honestly, every fker is a climate scientist now!
What do the "old school" ones think about the issue then?Honestly, every fker is a climate scientist now!
Climate change: Greenland ice melt 'is accelerating'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-483...
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than it was in the 1990s.
The assessment comes from an international team of polar scientists who've reviewed all the satellite observations over a 26-year period.
They say Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise is currently tracking what had been regarded as a pessimistic projection of the future.
It means an additional 7cm of ocean rise could now be expected by the end of the century from Greenland alone.................continues
Expected then. Just a guess then. Why is 1990 significant as the datum date?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-483...
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than it was in the 1990s.
The assessment comes from an international team of polar scientists who've reviewed all the satellite observations over a 26-year period.
They say Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise is currently tracking what had been regarded as a pessimistic projection of the future.
It means an additional 7cm of ocean rise could now be expected by the end of the century from Greenland alone.................continues
Expected then. Just a guess then. Why is 1990 significant as the datum date?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff