Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
It's sad - he was respected, he had scientific credentials, but it looks like he formed his views on global warming from the distorted misrepresentations of the science in the denialosphere - because he didn't like wind turbines. Past caring now though
Erm what denialsphere? That is a conspiracy theory right there.I can pretty much tell you what websites he was reading from some of the things he said
kerplunk said:
Mrr T said:
durbster said:
Mrr T said:
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. 
To put it more accurately, the models have correctly predicted the warming over the last 50 odd years to within a small percentage of the observed data.
But the propagandists will claim that because they're not 100% accurate - which nobody ever expected them to be or claimed they would be - they have failed. It's laughable, really.
The fact is, scientists in the 1970s predicted the global average temperate would steadily increase and they were right to within a small percentage. You have to be utterly consumed by ideology to fail to recognise that as being an amazing achievement.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 11th December 09:05
Not sure what you mean by accurately predict the warming. Most models have only been running 30 or less years. Any thing prior to that is hindcast. While during that period the models are not fixed to fit the data you would never publish a model which did not match the data. Since then no model predicted the hiatus so by now many are showing much higher levels of warming than has actually occurred.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0527-4
"Counter-intuitively, high-sensitivity climates, as well as having a higher chance of rapid decadal warming, are also more likely to have had historical ‘hiatus’ periods than lower-sensitivity climates."
All it says is models may produce hiatus. As we know we had a hiatus and no models predicted it. The validity of a model is its ability to forecast. As the IPCC summary I linked to explains the models did not predict the hiatus which means they mainly show much higher temperatures than we are observing.
Which means the models are not, current, usable for making policy decisions.
robinessex said:
So how does a few degrees hotter than normal 'spark bushfires'? Wood has to be bloody hot before it spontaneously combusts. More likely that an unrelated event started it all off, it matters little how hot it is, tinder-dry, and it catches alight. Common causes of bushfires include lightning, arcing from overhead power lines, arson, accidental ignition in the course of agricultural clearing, grinding and welding activities, campfires, cigarettes and dropped matches, sparks from machinery, and controlled burn escapes.
As fires continue to burn in different parts of Australia, investigators work to provide answers on the exact causes of devastating blazes.
Last week we learnt that the Binna Burra fire, which destroyed the historic Binna Burra Lodge in South East Queensland, was started by a carelessly discarded cigarette.
And the Gold Coast hinterland bushfires the week before may have been started by army live-firing exercises at the Kokoda Barracks, a spokesperson for the Australian Defence Force has conceded.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bus...
Many friends of mine are in the fire service in Australia.As fires continue to burn in different parts of Australia, investigators work to provide answers on the exact causes of devastating blazes.
Last week we learnt that the Binna Burra fire, which destroyed the historic Binna Burra Lodge in South East Queensland, was started by a carelessly discarded cigarette.
And the Gold Coast hinterland bushfires the week before may have been started by army live-firing exercises at the Kokoda Barracks, a spokesperson for the Australian Defence Force has conceded.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bus...
They think that humans cause the vast majority of fires...and that most are intentionally lit.
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
Mrr T said:
durbster said:
Mrr T said:
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. To put it more accurately, the models have correctly predicted the warming over the last 50 odd years to within a small percentage of the observed data.
But the propagandists will claim that because they're not 100% accurate - which nobody ever expected them to be or claimed they would be - they have failed. It's laughable, really.
The fact is, scientists in the 1970s predicted the global average temperate would steadily increase and they were right to within a small percentage. You have to be utterly consumed by ideology to fail to recognise that as being an amazing achievement.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 11th December 09:05
Not sure what you mean by accurately predict the warming. Most models have only been running 30 or less years. Any thing prior to that is hindcast. While during that period the models are not fixed to fit the data you would never publish a model which did not match the data. Since then no model predicted the hiatus so by now many are showing much higher levels of warming than has actually occurred.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0527-4
"Counter-intuitively, high-sensitivity climates, as well as having a higher chance of rapid decadal warming, are also more likely to have had historical ‘hiatus’ periods than lower-sensitivity climates."
All it says is models may produce hiatus. As we know we had a hiatus and no models predicted it. The validity of a model is its ability to forecast. As the IPCC summary I linked to explains the models did not predict the hiatus which means they mainly show much higher temperatures than we are observing.
Which means the models are not, current, usable for making policy decisions.
Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
kerplunk said:
I think it's you that has misunderstandings
Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
So let me get this clear. Models are modelling only an earth like planet not the earth. So we do not need to worry about the results? Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
I think the IPCC and most of those who work in the field will say they are definitely trying to model the earth.
So models cannot predict major climate events like El Nino/LA Nina but they can predict temperature? Even though most are not even doing that.
I have no problem with models it's a fascinating field. Just at the moment they should not be used for policy making.
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
I think it's you that has misunderstandings
Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
So let me get this clear. Models are modelling only an earth like planet not the earth. So we do not need to worry about the results? Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
I think the IPCC and most of those who work in the field will say they are definitely trying to model the earth.
So models cannot predict major climate events like El Nino/LA Nina but they can predict temperature? Even though most are not even doing that.
I have no problem with models it's a fascinating field. Just at the moment they should not be used for policy making.
robinessex said:
MX6 said:
robinessex said:
Climate change: Methane pulse detected from South Sudan wetlands
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Scientists think they can now explain at least part of the recent growth in methane (CH4) levels in the atmosphere.
Researchers, led from Edinburgh University, UK, say their studies point to a big jump in emissions coming from just the wetlands of South Sudan.
Satellite data indicates the region received a large surge of water from East African lakes, including Victoria.
This would have boosted CH4 from the wetlands, accounting for a significant part of the rise in global methane.
Perhaps even up to a third of the growth seen in the period 2010-2016, when considered with East Africa as a whole.
"There's not much ground-monitoring in this region that can prove or disprove our results, but the data we have fits together beautifully," said Prof Paul Palmer.
"We have independent lines of evidence to show the Sudd wetlands expanded in size, and you can even see it in aerial imagery - they became greener," he told BBC News...................continues
Planet Earth throws another fly into the CC ointment.
Robin, can I ask you - in your opinion, is there no way that there can be any AGW, given your understanding of the science? Or are you one of those who accept that there has to be some degree of AGW but doubt the severity of this?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Scientists think they can now explain at least part of the recent growth in methane (CH4) levels in the atmosphere.
Researchers, led from Edinburgh University, UK, say their studies point to a big jump in emissions coming from just the wetlands of South Sudan.
Satellite data indicates the region received a large surge of water from East African lakes, including Victoria.
This would have boosted CH4 from the wetlands, accounting for a significant part of the rise in global methane.
Perhaps even up to a third of the growth seen in the period 2010-2016, when considered with East Africa as a whole.
"There's not much ground-monitoring in this region that can prove or disprove our results, but the data we have fits together beautifully," said Prof Paul Palmer.
"We have independent lines of evidence to show the Sudd wetlands expanded in size, and you can even see it in aerial imagery - they became greener," he told BBC News...................continues
Planet Earth throws another fly into the CC ointment.
With regards to you saying our CO2 output is minimal, presumably the relatively massive and very sharp rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since meaningful human industrial activity started is just pure coincidence? The highest levels in 650,000 years apparently. Do you have an alternative reason for this rise, or do you dispute the figures?
Wayoftheflower said:
"Always will" and that simply is how deniers can operate in the face of overwhelming evidence. No evidence would, or could ever be enough.
Just wondering. I don't see anyone on here who completely rejects GHG theory in its entirety.Who do you see as 'Deniers'????
Is it those who don't subscribe to the Doomsday scenario?
kerplunk said:
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
I think it's you that has misunderstandings
Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
So let me get this clear. Models are modelling only an earth like planet not the earth. So we do not need to worry about the results? Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
I think the IPCC and most of those who work in the field will say they are definitely trying to model the earth.
So models cannot predict major climate events like El Nino/LA Nina but they can predict temperature? Even though most are not even doing that.
I have no problem with models it's a fascinating field. Just at the moment they should not be used for policy making.
kerplunk said:
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
I think it's you that has misunderstandings
Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
So let me get this clear. Models are modelling only an earth like planet not the earth. So we do not need to worry about the results? Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
I think the IPCC and most of those who work in the field will say they are definitely trying to model the earth.
So models cannot predict major climate events like El Nino/LA Nina but they can predict temperature? Even though most are not even doing that.
I have no problem with models it's a fascinating field. Just at the moment they should not be used for policy making.
Let me post a quote from the summary.
"Many important modes of climate variability and intraseasonal
to seasonal phenomena are reproduced by models, with some
improvements evident since the AR4. The statistics of the global
monsoon, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Niño-Southern Oscilla-
tion (ENSO), the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Quasi-Biennial Oscilla-
tion are simulated well by several models, although this assessment is
tempered by the limited scope of analysis published so far, or by limited
observations. There are also modes of variability that are not simulated
well. These include modes of Atlantic Ocean variability of relevance
to near term projections in Chapter 11 and ENSO teleconnections
outside the tropical Pacific, of relevance to Chapter 14. There is high
confidence that the multi-model statistics of monsoon and ENSO have
improved since the AR4. However, this improvement does not occur in
all models, and process-based analysis shows that biases remain in the
background state and in the strength of associated feedbacks. {9.5.3,
Figures 9.32, 9.35, 9.36}"
Why did you add volcanic eruptions to the list. I had made no mention of them and clearly we have no way currently of forecasting them.
t. How dare they! It's almost a consensus MX6 said:
I'm sure everything has been said over and over from both perspectives here so sorry to add to that repeatition, as someone dipping into the thread here I'm just curious as to where your side of the arguement is at on this now.
With regards to you saying our CO2 output is minimal, presumably the relatively massive and very sharp rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since meaningful human industrial activity started is just pure coincidence? The highest levels in 650,000 years apparently. Do you have an alternative reason for this rise, or do you dispute the figures?
There are a whole range of problems with the graph. With regards to you saying our CO2 output is minimal, presumably the relatively massive and very sharp rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since meaningful human industrial activity started is just pure coincidence? The highest levels in 650,000 years apparently. Do you have an alternative reason for this rise, or do you dispute the figures?
1. We have no way of measuring CO2 pre 1950. So the graph is proxy data then real data. The proxy is from bubbles in ice cores. That means the data covers a very small area of the world. We also know gas bubbles are not a great proxy because they are are heavily influenced by external factors such as the amount of snow. Can I suggest you look at the original NASA publication. I cannot find it at the moment but they claim the graph "indicates" the relative CO2 level. Now I have no idea what indicates mean as it have no statistical definition.
2. In earth terms 650k years is tiny. 0.014% of the earth's history.
3. Also look at the graph and the temperature history. You see we have significant warming from 1905 to 1950 when the level of CO2 does not change.
The graph only proves how little we actually know.
Mrr T said:
MX6 said:
I'm sure everything has been said over and over from both perspectives here so sorry to add to that repeatition, as someone dipping into the thread here I'm just curious as to where your side of the arguement is at on this now.
With regards to you saying our CO2 output is minimal, presumably the relatively massive and very sharp rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since meaningful human industrial activity started is just pure coincidence? The highest levels in 650,000 years apparently. Do you have an alternative reason for this rise, or do you dispute the figures?
There are a whole range of problems with the graph. With regards to you saying our CO2 output is minimal, presumably the relatively massive and very sharp rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since meaningful human industrial activity started is just pure coincidence? The highest levels in 650,000 years apparently. Do you have an alternative reason for this rise, or do you dispute the figures?
1. We have no way of measuring CO2 pre 1950. So the graph is proxy data then real data. The proxy is from bubbles in ice cores. That means the data covers a very small area of the world. We also know gas bubbles are not a great proxy because they are are heavily influenced by external factors such as the amount of snow. Can I suggest you look at the original NASA publication. I cannot find it at the moment but they claim the graph "indicates" the relative CO2 level. Now I have no idea what indicates mean as it have no statistical definition.
2. In earth terms 650k years is tiny. 0.014% of the earth's history.
3. Also look at the graph and the temperature history. You see we have significant warming from 1905 to 1950 when the level of CO2 does not change.
The graph only proves how little we actually know.
jshell said:
Wayoftheflower said:
"Always will" and that simply is how deniers can operate in the face of overwhelming evidence. No evidence would, or could ever be enough.
Just wondering. I don't see anyone on here who completely rejects GHG theory in its entirety.Who do you see as 'Deniers'????
Is it those who don't subscribe to the Doomsday scenario?
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
I think it's you that has misunderstandings
Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
So let me get this clear. Models are modelling only an earth like planet not the earth. So we do not need to worry about the results? Models model an earth-like planet at a century scale - they don't and aren't vaunted to forecast real world decadal variability. Think about it - does anyone say we can model El Nino/La Nina oscillations years in advance? No
I think the IPCC and most of those who work in the field will say they are definitely trying to model the earth.
So models cannot predict major climate events like El Nino/LA Nina but they can predict temperature? Even though most are not even doing that.
I have no problem with models it's a fascinating field. Just at the moment they should not be used for policy making.
Let me post a quote from the summary.
"Many important modes of climate variability and intraseasonal
to seasonal phenomena are reproduced by models, with some
improvements evident since the AR4. The statistics of the global
monsoon, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Niño-Southern Oscilla-
tion (ENSO), the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Quasi-Biennial Oscilla-
tion are simulated well by several models, although this assessment is
tempered by the limited scope of analysis published so far, or by limited
observations. There are also modes of variability that are not simulated
well. These include modes of Atlantic Ocean variability of relevance
to near term projections in Chapter 11 and ENSO teleconnections
outside the tropical Pacific, of relevance to Chapter 14. There is high
confidence that the multi-model statistics of monsoon and ENSO have
improved since the AR4. However, this improvement does not occur in
all models, and process-based analysis shows that biases remain in the
background state and in the strength of associated feedbacks. {9.5.3,
Figures 9.32, 9.35, 9.36}"
Mrr T said:
Why did you add volcanic eruptions to the list. I had made no mention of them and clearly we have no way currently of forecasting them.
ahh good you know that much at least Mrr T said:
MX6 said:
I'm sure everything has been said over and over from both perspectives here so sorry to add to that repeatition, as someone dipping into the thread here I'm just curious as to where your side of the arguement is at on this now.
With regards to you saying our CO2 output is minimal, presumably the relatively massive and very sharp rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since meaningful human industrial activity started is just pure coincidence? The highest levels in 650,000 years apparently. Do you have an alternative reason for this rise, or do you dispute the figures?
There are a whole range of problems with the graph. With regards to you saying our CO2 output is minimal, presumably the relatively massive and very sharp rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere since meaningful human industrial activity started is just pure coincidence? The highest levels in 650,000 years apparently. Do you have an alternative reason for this rise, or do you dispute the figures?
1. We have no way of measuring CO2 pre 1950. So the graph is proxy data then real data. The proxy is from bubbles in ice cores. That means the data covers a very small area of the world. We also know gas bubbles are not a great proxy because they are are heavily influenced by external factors such as the amount of snow. Can I suggest you look at the original NASA publication. I cannot find it at the moment but they claim the graph "indicates" the relative CO2 level. Now I have no idea what indicates mean as it have no statistical definition.
2. In earth terms 650k years is tiny. 0.014% of the earth's history.
3. Also look at the graph and the temperature history. You see we have significant warming from 1905 to 1950 when the level of CO2 does not change.
The graph only proves how little we actually know.
I'm also pretty sure the notion that ice core CO2 measurements aren't a reliable indicator of global background CO2 levels is made up too. To justify that claim you'd need to present plausible local CO2 sources/sinks that could affect the measurements. Not many of those on the frozen high plains of Antarctica 4km above sea level.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff