Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
More panic is required.
The Guardian sounded the alarm (literally, their headline featured 'alarm'). It's our old friend, arctic ice. This is the ice that, according to agw predictions, was meant to have vanished by 2008 / 2013 / 2015 / 2018 (more failures to come, watch this space).
Apparently the red rag was sounding an alarm as the main 'nursery' of arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October. We're not yet in early November but waiting might spoil the alarm.
Classic turbowaffle. Arctic ice has been in a steady long-term decline, as predicted.The Guardian sounded the alarm (literally, their headline featured 'alarm'). It's our old friend, arctic ice. This is the ice that, according to agw predictions, was meant to have vanished by 2008 / 2013 / 2015 / 2018 (more failures to come, watch this space).
Apparently the red rag was sounding an alarm as the main 'nursery' of arctic sea ice in Siberia has yet to start freezing in late October. We're not yet in early November but waiting might spoil the alarm.
And a video explainer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVXOC6a3ME
turbobloke said:
However this so-called “record” is based on numbers which only date back to 1979, in the middle of a period when the arctic was cooling
Here's the longer term record. Oh look, there's nothing special about 1979:
Turbobloke is trying to make you believe that 1979 was chosen deliberately to push an agenda (isn't it amazing that scientists in 1979 were preparing for a left-wing Marxist globalist conspiracy decades into the future!). The reality is 1979 is simply the year we introduced the technology to track the ice using satellites.
turbobloke said:
Dial back on the panic. It's all happened before (1922 and 1817, more impressive but different sources) as also posted on PH previously.
Obviously before satellites it was just about impossible to record the arctic ice extent, let alone its thickness to any useful degree, so historic records are not reliable and mostly anecdotal.All my information is from the NSIDC: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
El stovey said:
durbster said:
This is the latest movement of the ever-shifting sands of AGW denial.
They quietly abandoned arguing that there hasn't actually been any warming (that was the strategy ten years ago) because the evidence continues to make that position increasingly idiotic.
The new strategy is to convince people that yes the warming is happening but actually it's a good thing.
Who knows how the conspiracy theorists resolve this when it disproves their claims of some all-powerful gatekeepers suppressing any research into the benefits of warming but meh, just add it to the list of contradictions.
Yeah it’s pretty transparent and poor from someone claiming to be a scientist, we can look back at TBs past posts and see how he’s constantly been wrong over the years.They quietly abandoned arguing that there hasn't actually been any warming (that was the strategy ten years ago) because the evidence continues to make that position increasingly idiotic.
The new strategy is to convince people that yes the warming is happening but actually it's a good thing.
Who knows how the conspiracy theorists resolve this when it disproves their claims of some all-powerful gatekeepers suppressing any research into the benefits of warming but meh, just add it to the list of contradictions.
Nobody takes his climate change posts seriously any more.
He’s reduced now to posting misleading titles with no links to articles, trying to hide the source, which is invariably his climate change advocacy site the GWPF.
I assume he works for them or something to be churning out their propaganda every other day still.
Seems there’s a couple of followers on here that still buy into it, not surprising when their entire knowledge is based on TBs posts.
It’s been interesting watching their arguments collapse as time went on. It does show though that their arguments were all based on politics and their world view rather than any scientific basis.
Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-547...
China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-547...
China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
Edited by robinessex on Thursday 29th October 12:34
robinessex said:
Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'
China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
I assume your post means that you support initiatives aimed at limiting climate change? China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
Randy Winkman said:
robinessex said:
Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'
China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
I assume your post means that you support initiatives aimed at limiting climate change? China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
Randy Winkman said:
robinessex said:
Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'
China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
I assume your post means that you support initiatives aimed at limiting climate change? China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
Obviously it’s not an issue as most people ignore his comments but in this example it makes even less sense than normal as he hasn’t provided links or an indication of which bits are his or from the article.
Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-547...
turbobloke said:
Even more good news from ongoing confirmation that climate models exaggerate doom and gloom (Mitchell et al. 2020).
It's heartwarming to see agw faith remaining strong while the empirical evidence remains so very weak. After all, that's what faith is all about.
That’s just ideological mumbo jumbo. It's heartwarming to see agw faith remaining strong while the empirical evidence remains so very weak. After all, that's what faith is all about.
What kind of world do you live in where those that agree with the science are following faith and you who constantly quotes the GWPF and none of your predictions ever happened are the side of science.
Ignoring the evidence-free personal angle rhetoric - Let's not forget, CMIP5 exaggerated the scary-scary compared to empirical data, then CMIP6 arrived and were even more scary-scary (that's what the politician ordered, so-to-speak, 'give me certainty' etc) i.e. they're even more out of kilter with reality than before. But even more scary! Result. Panic, everyone! Or perhaps not.
turbobloke said:
Ignoring the evidence-free personal angle rhetoric - Let's not forget, CMIP5 exaggerated the scary-scary compared to empirical data, then CMIP6 arrived and were even more scary-scary (that's what the politician ordered, so-to-speak, 'give me certainty' etc) i.e. they're even more out of kilter with reality than before. But even more scary! Result. Panic, everyone! Or perhaps not.
This is just gibberish.El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
robinessex said:
Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated'
China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
I assume your post means that you support initiatives aimed at limiting climate change? China's aggressive policy of planting trees is likely playing a significant role in tempering its climate impacts.
An international team has identified two areas in the country where the scale of carbon dioxide absorption by new forests has been underestimated.
Taken together, these areas account for a little over 35% of China's entire land carbon "sink", the group says.
The researchers' analysis, based on ground and satellite observations, is reported in Nature journal.....continues
Doesn't matter, the climate models will still give the same answer, no matter what's been forgotten, or will be rediscovered in the future.
Obviously it’s not an issue as most people ignore his comments but in this example it makes even less sense than normal as he hasn’t provided links or an indication of which bits are his or from the article.
Climate change: China's forest carbon uptake 'underestimated' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-547...
Yes. The quote he provided tells me that "Achieving China's net-zero target by 2060, recently announced by the Chinese President Xi Jinping, will involve a massive change in energy production and also the growth of sustainable land carbon sinks,"So the link is telling us that what China is doing to combat climate change has the potential to be very successful. Ipso facto, climate change is a big deal and we should be trying to address it.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
It's heartwarming to see agw faith remaining strong while the empirical evidence remains so very weak. After all, that's what faith is all about.
You mean like you pretending arctic ice isn't in decline when the data says otherwise? That kind of faith?
At least duck quacks don't echo, allegedly. More good news! Let's not berry the data 
unlike agw faith and its mantra "the data don't matter" (wrong). Looking at recent research from Wohlfahrt et al (2020) - not a made up name - the last 80 ppmv increase in CO2 levels has increased the berry weight of cultivars by between 17% and 21% without any losses in berry quality indicators. Berry good news, really, but don't stop the panic, it's an emergency.
unlike agw faith and its mantra "the data don't matter" (wrong). Looking at recent research from Wohlfahrt et al (2020) - not a made up name - the last 80 ppmv increase in CO2 levels has increased the berry weight of cultivars by between 17% and 21% without any losses in berry quality indicators. Berry good news, really, but don't stop the panic, it's an emergency.turbobloke said:
At least duck quacks don't echo, allegedly. More good news! Let's not berry the data unlike agw faith and its mantra "the data don't matter" (wrong). Looking at recent research from Wohlfahrt et al (2020) - not a made up name - the last 80 ppmv increase in CO2 levels has increased the berry weight of cultivars by between 17% and 21% without any losses in berry quality indicators. Berry good news, really, but don't stop the panic, it's an emergency.
You really are scraping the barrel now. In fact, I'm not even sure you expected a reply. unlike agw faith and its mantra "the data don't matter" (wrong). Looking at recent research from Wohlfahrt et al (2020) - not a made up name - the last 80 ppmv increase in CO2 levels has increased the berry weight of cultivars by between 17% and 21% without any losses in berry quality indicators. Berry good news, really, but don't stop the panic, it's an emergency.Randy Winkman said:
turbobloke said:
At least duck quacks don't echo, allegedly. More good news! Let's not berry the data unlike agw faith and its mantra "the data don't matter" (wrong). Looking at recent research from Wohlfahrt et al (2020) - not a made up name - the last 80 ppmv increase in CO2 levels has increased the berry weight of cultivars by between 17% and 21% without any losses in berry quality indicators. Berry good news, really, but don't stop the panic, it's an emergency.
You really are scraping the barrel now. In fact, I'm not even sure you expected a reply. unlike agw faith and its mantra "the data don't matter" (wrong). Looking at recent research from Wohlfahrt et al (2020) - not a made up name - the last 80 ppmv increase in CO2 levels has increased the berry weight of cultivars by between 17% and 21% without any losses in berry quality indicators. Berry good news, really, but don't stop the panic, it's an emergency.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/7/2486/htm
It's just weird, frankly. They've given up trying to sell the fantasy that AGW isn't real and now are saying yeah it's real, but never mind about the sea-level rise and droughts and bushfires and extreme weather because:
The Effect of Elevated CO2 on Berry Development and Bunch Structure of Vitis vinifera L. cvs. Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon said:
Higher single berry weights (SBW), higher malic acid (MA), and lower tartaric acid (TAA) were examined at some stages during development of berries under eCO2 levels. Our study provides evidence that eCO2 did alter some bunch and berry parameters without a negative impact on fruit quality.
I'd say the deniers have run out of barrel to scrape.Satellites picture methane across the globe
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-545...
Want to understand what methane is doing in our atmosphere?
Take a look at the new interactive global map produced by Montreal firm GHGSat.
Its Pulse tool allows you to move around the world to see how concentrations of the powerful greenhouse gas vary in space and time.
From the highs above oil and gas fields in the southwestern United States, to the naturally elevated levels in permafrost regions during summer.
The map shows monthly averages which, GHGSat says it will update weekly......continues
https://pulse.ghgsat.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-545...
Want to understand what methane is doing in our atmosphere?
Take a look at the new interactive global map produced by Montreal firm GHGSat.
Its Pulse tool allows you to move around the world to see how concentrations of the powerful greenhouse gas vary in space and time.
From the highs above oil and gas fields in the southwestern United States, to the naturally elevated levels in permafrost regions during summer.
The map shows monthly averages which, GHGSat says it will update weekly......continues
https://pulse.ghgsat.com/
Economic growth is bad for the climate, Europe’s Science Academies claim
30 October 2020
Focus on GDP and economic growth is unhelpful for the climate, European group says
29 October 2020
Following
27 October 2020
Europe's economic crisis deepens as 200 airports face going bust
Muppetry in a dark shade of green.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff