Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
And still the Arctic sea ice remains.
Let us not forget that we have entered the era of global boiling so says the UN Idiot in Chief, and as can be amply demonstrated, ‘the oceans are boiling’ according to Nobel Laureate Al Gore. In spite of those coolish funts’ absurd claims, the pesky ice persists. So much so that ‘ice free’ now actually means less than a million square kilometres of summer sea ice. Talk about moving goalposts.
Here is what the ridiculous gutter rag The Guardian published in September 2012:
“ One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.
In what he calls a "global disaster" now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded, Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for "urgent" consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures.
In an email to the Guardian he says: "Climate change is no longer something we can aim to do something about in a few decades' time, and that we must not only urgently reduce CO2 emissions but must urgently examine other ways of slowing global warming, such as the various geoengineering ideas that have been put forward."
These include reflecting the sun's rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.
Wadhams has spent many years collecting ice thickness data from submarines passing below the arctic ocean. He predicted the imminent break-up of sea ice in summer months in 2007, when the previous lowest extent of 4.17 million square kilometres was set. This year, it has unexpectedly plunged a further 500,000 sq km to less than 3.5m sq km. "I have been predicting [the collapse of sea ice in summer months] for many years. The main cause is simply global warming: as the climate has warmed there has been less ice growth during the winter and more ice melt during the summer.
"At first this didn't [get] noticed; the summer ice limits slowly shrank back, at a rate which suggested that the ice would last another 50 years or so. But in the end the summer melt overtook the winter growth such that the entire ice sheet melts or breaks up during the summer months.
"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates".
Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming."
"As the sea ice retreats in summer the ocean warms up (to 7C in 2011) and this warms the seabed too. The continental shelves of the Arctic are composed of offshore permafrost, frozen sediment left over from the last ice age. As the water warms the permafrost melts and releases huge quantities of trapped methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas so this will give a big boost to global warming."
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012, the gutter rag that is the Guardian then, addressed its gullible readership with this emotionally charged begging note:“This is what we're up against
Teams of lawyers from the rich and powerful trying to stop us publishing stories they don’t want you to see.
Lobby groups with opaque funding who are determined to undermine facts about the climate emergency and other established science.
Authoritarian states with no regard for the freedom of the press.
Bad actors spreading disinformation online to undermine democracy.”
It’s almost as if some of the posters on here could have penned such conspiracy theories.
Dr Jordan Peterson replying to a climate crisis believer; worth 5 minutes of your time to brighten up the day 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeIgUJTkDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeIgUJTkDk
deeps said:
Dr Jordan Peterson replying to a climate crisis believer; worth 5 minutes of your time to brighten up the day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeIgUJTkDk
He doesn't understand much does he.... Where does carbon dioxide come from??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeIgUJTkDk
Definite proof presented, thanks.The undermining presented of the article and selective editting has got to leave questions in you head.....
Edited by mike9009 on Wednesday 3rd April 07:50
Diderot said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
And still the Arctic sea ice remains.Let us not forget that we have entered the era of global boiling so says the UN Idiot in Chief, and as can be amply demonstrated, ‘the oceans are boiling’ according to Nobel Laureate Al Gore. In spite of those coolish funts’ absurd claims, the pesky ice persists. So much so that ‘ice free’ now actually means less than a million square kilometres of summer sea ice. Talk about moving goalposts.
Here is what the ridiculous gutter rag The Guardian published in September 2012:
“ One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.
In what he calls a "global disaster" now unfolding in northern latitudes as the sea area that freezes and melts each year shrinks to its lowest extent ever recorded, Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University calls for "urgent" consideration of new ideas to reduce global temperatures.
In an email to the Guardian he says: "Climate change is no longer something we can aim to do something about in a few decades' time, and that we must not only urgently reduce CO2 emissions but must urgently examine other ways of slowing global warming, such as the various geoengineering ideas that have been put forward."
These include reflecting the sun's rays back into space, making clouds whiter and seeding the ocean with minerals to absorb more CO2.
Wadhams has spent many years collecting ice thickness data from submarines passing below the arctic ocean. He predicted the imminent break-up of sea ice in summer months in 2007, when the previous lowest extent of 4.17 million square kilometres was set. This year, it has unexpectedly plunged a further 500,000 sq km to less than 3.5m sq km. "I have been predicting [the collapse of sea ice in summer months] for many years. The main cause is simply global warming: as the climate has warmed there has been less ice growth during the winter and more ice melt during the summer.
"At first this didn't [get] noticed; the summer ice limits slowly shrank back, at a rate which suggested that the ice would last another 50 years or so. But in the end the summer melt overtook the winter growth such that the entire ice sheet melts or breaks up during the summer months.
"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates".
Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming."
"As the sea ice retreats in summer the ocean warms up (to 7C in 2011) and this warms the seabed too. The continental shelves of the Arctic are composed of offshore permafrost, frozen sediment left over from the last ice age. As the water warms the permafrost melts and releases huge quantities of trapped methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas so this will give a big boost to global warming."
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012, the gutter rag that is the Guardian then, addressed its gullible readership with this emotionally charged begging note:“This is what we're up against
Teams of lawyers from the rich and powerful trying to stop us publishing stories they don’t want you to see.
Lobby groups with opaque funding who are determined to undermine facts about the climate emergency and other established science.
Authoritarian states with no regard for the freedom of the press.
Bad actors spreading disinformation online to undermine democracy.”
It’s almost as if some of the posters on here could have penned such conspiracy theories.
Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
And still the Arctic sea ice remains.
As per the 2007 IPCC report the Arctic is expected to be ice free in the latter part of this century, and observations are tracking with those expectations. Has Tony Heller misinformed you again?
mike9009 said:
Whilst the opposite side were predicting a mini ice age. Both were wrong....except the mini ice age has been pushed back 15 years.....
Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
Both sides have predicted a mini ice age in the past, before global warming.Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
PRTVR said:
mike9009 said:
Whilst the opposite side were predicting a mini ice age. Both were wrong....except the mini ice age has been pushed back 15 years.....
Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
Both sides have predicted a mini ice age in the past, before global warming.Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
It wasn't before global warming at all. It came from the same period in the 1970s when scientists started looking seriously at the effects of changing composition of the atmosphere. There were a few scientists who initially concluded there would be a cooling effect but as the science became better understood, it became clear that warming was the most likely. When all things were considered, the warming effect of human activity would overwhelm any cooling effect.
Global cooling driven by changes in the composition of the atmosphere is still perfectly sound science so it's not equivalent to turbobloke science, which is proving to be wholly unsupported by the evidence and data.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
mike9009 said:
Whilst the opposite side were predicting a mini ice age. Both were wrong....except the mini ice age has been pushed back 15 years.....
Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
Both sides have predicted a mini ice age in the past, before global warming.Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
It wasn't before global warming at all. It came from the same period in the 1970s when scientists started looking seriously at the effects of changing composition of the atmosphere. There were a few scientists who initially concluded there would be a cooling effect but as the science became better understood, it became clear that warming was the most likely. When all things were considered, the warming effect of human activity would overwhelm any cooling effect.
Global cooling driven by changes in the composition of the atmosphere is still perfectly sound science so it's not equivalent to turbobloke science, which is proving to be wholly unsupported by the evidence and data.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
And still the Arctic sea ice remains.As per the 2007 IPCC report the Arctic is expected to be ice free in the latter part of this century, and observations are tracking with those expectations. Has Tony Heller misinformed you again?
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
mike9009 said:
Whilst the opposite side were predicting a mini ice age. Both were wrong....except the mini ice age has been pushed back 15 years.....
Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
Both sides have predicted a mini ice age in the past, before global warming.Nice undermining language too. Surely worth a few bonus points. Pat yourself on the back for eloquence.
It wasn't before global warming at all. It came from the same period in the 1970s when scientists started looking seriously at the effects of changing composition of the atmosphere. There were a few scientists who initially concluded there would be a cooling effect but as the science became better understood, it became clear that warming was the most likely. When all things were considered, the warming effect of human activity would overwhelm any cooling effect.
Global cooling driven by changes in the composition of the atmosphere is still perfectly sound science so it's not equivalent to turbobloke science, which is proving to be wholly unsupported by the evidence and data.
Diderot said:
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident ttfkery in 2012...
And we can be sure you said so at the time when you were adamant there was 30yrs of cooling ahead - however that was "self-evident tOn the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012...tfkery" on a much bigger scale 
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident ttfkery in 2012...
And we can be sure you said so at the time when you were adamant there was 30yrs of cooling ahead - however that was "self-evident tOn the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012...tfkery" on a much bigger scale Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident ttfkery in 2012...
And we can be sure you said so at the time when you were adamant there was 30yrs of cooling ahead - however that was "self-evident tOn the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012...tfkery" on a much bigger scale The amount of irrelevant waffle is sort-of admirable under the circumstances, which involve (as per part of the title of Fleming's book) the fall of carbon dioxide ideas of climate change. Use of climate models for setting political policy is under scrutiny these days more than ever, with overwhelming evidence supporting a full stop.
Fleming (2018) as cited previously n times but repeatedly ignored / forogotten.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7438-y
"there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect"
"results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate"
Likewise with Koutsoyiannis and Vournas (2023) looking at LW data covering 110 years.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047
"data also provide the basis to confirm or refute models and simulations, and this is imperative in science e.g. Koutsoyiannis et al (2023b) showed a disagreement between climate models and reality in terms of causality direction"
"using modern instrumental data of temperature and CO? concentration for the last 65 years...temperature change is a potential cause of CO? concentration change while causality in the opposite direction can be excluded as violating a necessary condition of causality"
"observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to more than 400 ppm has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect"
Also Ollila in 'Science of Climate Change (2023)' pdf link below
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uplo...
"these results mean that there is no climate crisis and a(ny) need for prompt CO2 reduction programs"
Ollila's other comment "...SW radiation anomaly, which is not included in GCM simulations in the AR6 calculations for 2019..." leads to Kato and Rose (2024), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0183117 which shows that absorbed shortwave irradiance has increased since 2000 at a rate of +0.68 W/m² / decade which can explain the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance...warming has had a largely solar origin as SW data accounts for the surface imbalance too.
Keeping out solar matters, to avoid fatal damage and protect the nothingsignificantburger from CO2 ^^^ and thus protect The Cause. More transparent than the planet's atmosphere.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident ttfkery in 2012...
And we can be sure you said so at the time when you were adamant there was 30yrs of cooling ahead - however that was "self-evident tOn the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012...tfkery" on a much bigger scale Standing back from your narrow focus on those predictions, if policy is being influenced at all by changes in the Arctic - including sea ice decline - it's well justified. As I've said before - it's pretty funny the way sceptics try to tell us the arctic obs are a win for them
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident ttfkery in 2012...
And we can be sure you said so at the time when you were adamant there was 30yrs of cooling ahead - however that was "self-evident tOn the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012...tfkery" on a much bigger scale Standing back from your narrow focus on those predictions, if policy is being influenced at all by changes in the Arctic - including sea ice decline - it's well justified. As I've said before - it's pretty funny the way sceptics try to tell us the arctic obs are a win for them
This is about idiotic policies based on idiotic scenarios (RCP 8.5 etc) which are used by politicians to bum the populace for tax. The entirely manufactured ’climate crisis/emergency’ rhetoric must stop, as Hausfather pointed out, it makes for bad policy decisions (Net Zero amongst other things). Do you believe there’s a crisis/emergency? Or will you agree that such appellations are hyperbolic nonsense?
I remember my grandfather saying to me that the government would tax the air we breathe if they could get away with it. He wasn’t far wrong.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident ttfkery in 2012...
And we can be sure you said so at the time when you were adamant there was 30yrs of cooling ahead - however that was "self-evident tOn the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012...tfkery" on a much bigger scale Standing back from your narrow focus on those predictions, if policy is being influenced at all by changes in the Arctic - including sea ice decline - it's well justified. As I've said before - it's pretty funny the way sceptics try to tell us the arctic obs are a win for them
This is about idiotic policies based on idiotic scenarios (RCP 8.5 etc) which are used by politicians to bum the populace for tax. The entirely manufactured ’climate crisis/emergency’ rhetoric must stop, as Hausfather pointed out, it makes for bad policy decisions (Net Zero amongst other things). Do you believe there’s a crisis/emergency? Or will you agree that such appellations are hyperbolic nonsense?
I remember my grandfather saying to me that the government would tax the air we breathe if they could get away with it. He wasn’t far wrong.
Well if so that's a problem for everyone isn't it - we have a steadily increasing GHG forcing, a decadal warming rate which if it continues will lead to profound changes (and may be accelerating) and natural variation is either:
Adding to GHG warming
Offsetting GHG warming
Not a signicant factor at all.
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
How did that prediction go (merely one amongst many of impending ‘ice free’ arctic predictions by 2013/14/15 (and previously) work out)? Lest we forget Wadhams was an IPCC contributing author and obviously a prof in a backwater post 1992 ex Poly.
On the back of such self-evident ttfkery in 2012...
And we can be sure you said so at the time when you were adamant there was 30yrs of cooling ahead - however that was "self-evident tOn the back of such self-evident t
tfkery in 2012...tfkery" on a much bigger scale Standing back from your narrow focus on those predictions, if policy is being influenced at all by changes in the Arctic - including sea ice decline - it's well justified. As I've said before - it's pretty funny the way sceptics try to tell us the arctic obs are a win for them
This is about idiotic policies based on idiotic scenarios (RCP 8.5 etc) which are used by politicians to bum the populace for tax. The entirely manufactured ’climate crisis/emergency’ rhetoric must stop, as Hausfather pointed out, it makes for bad policy decisions (Net Zero amongst other things). Do you believe there’s a crisis/emergency? Or will you agree that such appellations are hyperbolic nonsense?
I remember my grandfather saying to me that the government would tax the air we breathe if they could get away with it. He wasn’t far wrong.
Well if so that's a problem for everyone isn't it - we have a steadily increasing GHG forcing, a decadal warming rate which if it continues will lead to profound changes (and may be accelerating) and natural variation is either:
Adding to GHG warming
Offsetting GHG warming
Not a signicant factor at all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff