Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[PRTVR]

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Of course they don't know because it hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean that people cant make considered estimations based on best evidence does it? Same way we do on lots of things. In fact, most of what we all do works like that.

The main problem is their best estimates/predictions have been wrong so many times, they have no credibility, the only reason for them is to scare the plebs,
how we alow people to make wild claims and not hold them to account is beyond me.

[Randy Winkman]

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Of course they don't know because it hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean that people cant make considered estimations based on best evidence does it? Same way we do on lots of things. In fact, most of what we all do works like that.

The main problem is their best estimates/predictions have been wrong so many times, they have no credibility, the only reason for them is to scare the plebs,
how we alow people to make wild claims and not hold them to account is beyond me.

So the issue is whether we agree with what the predictions are then?

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

If we limit future warming to that we won't have done too badly

Howabout double that?

or triple?

Er, you avoided the question. Why ?

lol, not really - I'm just asking you to expand on the basis for 'the important question' that you think we should always begin with. Why not 2C or 3C etc?

Have you ruled those numbers out or something?

Ok, I'll change it. Does it matter if the world gets a few degrees hotter in the next 100 yrs?

Cool so now your question is a better reflection of the concerns for potential future warming that has led to mitigation policy aims to limit the amount of warming to much less than that, and closer to the number in your initial question

Welcome

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Of course they don't know because it hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean that people cant make considered estimations based on best evidence does it? Same way we do on lots of things. In fact, most of what we all do works like that.

The main problem is their best estimates/predictions have been wrong so many times, they have no credibility, the only reason for them is to scare the plebs,
how we alow people to make wild claims and not hold them to account is beyond me.

No the problem is the current surface warming rate of 0.2C/decade is in line with IPCC projections

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

No the problem is the current surface warming rate of 0.2C/decade is in line with IPCC projections

That is a manually adjusted figure that has no meaning than a total in a data set.
As I have pointed out before the daily min max temperature on the earth exceeds 100° C 0.2C is irrelevant,.
My point was about the failed multiple predictions for things like total loss of ice in the Arctic region etc.

[turbobloke]

Posting problems, trying again...

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Of course they don't know because it hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean that people cant make considered estimations based on best evidence does it? Same way we do on lots of things. In fact, most of what we all do works like that.

The main problem is their best estimates/predictions have been wrong so many times, they have no credibility, the only reason for them is to scare the plebs,
how we alow people to make wild claims and not hold them to account is beyond me.

No the problem is the current surface warming rate of 0.2C/decade is in line with IPCC projections

No, it's not, the problem is you're using near surface data which is unsuitable atm due to contributions related to LULC and GDP, plus substitution of warmer urban station data for cooler distant rural locations without a sensor, likewise cooler locations at high altitude, also substituting heat contaminated ship engine intake temperatures for SST by ditching more accurate / less heat contaminated scientific buoy measures to do so, thus inflating the warming trend.

Better sampling and lack of substitutions gives satellite data in UAH LTT v6 with a warming rate of 0.11 deg C per decade to 2dp so IPCC opinion is almost 100% in excess of data reality, trend for trend using your claimed value which is to 1dp.

Not forgetting that creating a headline number for the trend by adjusting data and tuning the parameterisations which stand in for complicated science in the models doesn't bode well for e.g. vertical profile, first derivative, and so on. If models were accurate it would be on all counts, not just the inaccurate headline bits for politicians, media and public consumption which get all the manmade attention.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Posting problems, trying again...

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Of course they don't know because it hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean that people cant make considered estimations based on best evidence does it? Same way we do on lots of things. In fact, most of what we all do works like that.

The main problem is their best estimates/predictions have been wrong so many times, they have no credibility, the only reason for them is to scare the plebs,
how we alow people to make wild claims and not hold them to account is beyond me.

No the problem is the current surface warming rate of 0.2C/decade is in line with IPCC projections

No, it's not, the problem is you're using near surface data which is unsuitable atm due to contributions related to LULC and GDP, plus substitution of warmer urban station data for cooler distant rural locations without a sensor, likewise cooler locations at high altitude, also substituting heat contaminated ship engine intake temperatures for SST by ditching more accurate / less heat contaminated scientific buoy measures to do so, thus inflating the warming trend.

Better sampling and lack of substitutions gives satellite data in UAH LTT v6 with a warming rate of 0.11 deg C per decade to 2dp so IPCC opinion is almost 100% in excess of data reality, trend for trend using your claimed value which is to 1dp.

Not interested in your surface data ignorals oh great empirical one. Whether you like it or not the surface temp trends are projected and the surface temp obs are how those projections are measured.

UAH trend is 0.13/dec overall and 0.15/dec for the 21st century btw.

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 6th April 13:58

[turbobloke]

Deep down, and after your reluctant acknowledgement some time back that the atmosphere simply cannot "trap" heat (if it did, a thought experiment in which the Sun is turned off, leads to frozen land surface and frozen oceans too as the planet cools slowly to the temperature of nearby space, but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience...nobody is claiming that land or seas trap heat, that rubbish would be too obviously rubbish). The planet is an open system for energy. Heat is lost to space at a rate faster than models allow. This is what the data shows and it also explains how IPCC soothsaying is exaggerating warming, which is neither permanent not dangerous (data). I'm more convinced as time goes by that you appreciate agw is a total fir cup, but you're plugging away either for entertainment value or for political/ideological reasons. Not asking or accusingm just inferring, and that's all and you can always deny it

[Ivan stewart]

robinessex said:

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Ask the people dying of the cold perhaps?
Seems the cold is by far the biggest killer ..

[turbobloke]

Ivan stewart said:

robinessex said:

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Ask the people dying of the cold perhaps?
Seems the cold is by far the biggest killer ..

Absolutely. By a factor of 17 from peer-reviewed research looking at the causes of millions of deaths in a number of countries encompassing an appropriate range of climates experienced on planet Earth. Led by a scientist at the LSH&TM iirc.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Deep down, and after your reluctant acknowledgement some time back that the atmosphere simply cannot "trap" heat (if it did, a thought experiment in which the Sun is turned off, leads to frozen land surface and frozen oceans too as the planet cools slowly to the temperature of nearby space, but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience...nobody is claiming that land or seas trap heat, that rubbish would be too obviously rubbish). The planet is an open system for energy. Heat is lost to space at a rate faster than models allow. This is what the data shows and it also explains how IPCC soothsaying is exaggerating warming, which is neither permanent not dangerous (data).

zzz

As I've said before and you keep mis-remembering, I'm fine with saying heat is 'trapped' in everyday language - like saying the insulating properties of a wooley jumper traps heat.

This shouln't be taken to infer a closed system whether it's wooly jumpers or greenhouse gases.

turbobloke said:

I'm more convinced as time goes by that you appreciate agw is a total fir cup, but you're plugging away either for entertainment value or for political/ideological reasons. Not asking or accusingm just inferring, and that's all and you can always deny it

Unjustified hubris on your part I'd say

[ChevronB19]

turbobloke said:

Deep down, and after your reluctant acknowledgement some time back that the atmosphere simply cannot "trap" heat (if it did, a thought experiment in which the Sun is turned off, leads to frozen land surface and frozen oceans too as the planet cools slowly to the temperature of nearby space, but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience...nobody is claiming that land or seas trap heat, that rubbish would be too obviously rubbish). The planet is an open system for energy. Heat is lost to space at a rate faster than models allow. This is what the data shows and it also explains how IPCC soothsaying is exaggerating warming, which is neither permanent not dangerous (data). I'm more convinced as time goes by that you appreciate agw is a total fir cup, but you're plugging away either for entertainment value or for political/ideological reasons. Not asking or accusingm just inferring, and that's all and you can always deny it

Sometimes (ok, all the time) I do feel that if someone disagrees with the consensus (which is fair enough), it would greatly help their case amongst others if they avoided the use of words such as ‘soothsaying’, ‘ideology’ and from your previous posts ‘indoctrination’ and ‘propoganda’.

It doesn’t exactly help the point you are trying to get over, and amongst a large amount of people it makes them automatically switch off.

You (politely) asked me my background, to which I answered, but I asked the same but haven’t had a response? Genuinely interested, and also think everyone should have an opinion, but it would be good to know where the basis of that opinion lies.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience.

But in a strange otherworldly thought experiment where the sun still shines, an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it will be warmer - and stay warmer.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

Cool so now your question is a better reflection of the concerns for potential future warming that has led to mitigation policy aims to limit the amount of warming to much less than that, and closer to the number in your initial question

Welcome

Wrong again. Why do we have to limit possible warming, why are there concerns? If it happens, maybe planet Earth will shrug her shoulders, adapt a little, and life will go on. Bloody Arrmagedon will certainly NOT happen.

PS. There is no scientific method to determine what the planet will do if/when the temperature changes up or down, which it sure as hell will do, it's done it for 4.5 billion years so far. It's all bloody guessing games.

[PRTVR]

[quote=ChevronB19]


Sometimes (ok, all the time) I do feel that if someone disagrees with the consensus (which is fair enough), it would greatly help their case amongst others if they avoided the use of words such as ‘soothsaying’, ‘ideology’ and from your previous posts ‘indoctrination’ and ‘propoganda’.

/quote]
My granddaughter, 8 years old comes home from school and we ask her what she had done today, every day its the same answer I forgot, one day she comes home telling us all about climate change, no prompting from us, it appears like indoctrination to us, why should an 8 year old need to know about such things?
It would not be so bad if they were managing to teach the basics but we have had to teach her maths at home, her understanding of numbers and mathematics was terrible.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience.

But in a strange otherworldly thought experiment where the sun still shines, an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it will be warmer - and stay warmer.

It hasn't done that in 4.5 billion years, why should it do it from now on?

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

Cool so now your question is a better reflection of the concerns for potential future warming that has led to mitigation policy aims to limit the amount of warming to much less than that, and closer to the number in your initial question

Welcome

Wrong again. Why do we have to limit possible warming, why are there concerns? If it happens, maybe planet Earth will shrug her shoulders, adapt a little, and life will go on. Bloody Arrmagedon will certainly NOT happen.

PS. There is no scientific method to determine what the planet will do if/when the temperature changes up or down, which it sure as hell will do, it's done it for 4.5 billion years so far. It's all bloody guessing games.

My post is factual - that's how it is.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

Cool so now your question is a better reflection of the concerns for potential future warming that has led to mitigation policy aims to limit the amount of warming to much less than that, and closer to the number in your initial question

Welcome

Wrong again. Why do we have to limit possible warming, why are there concerns? If it happens, maybe planet Earth will shrug her shoulders, adapt a little, and life will go on. Bloody Arrmagedon will certainly NOT happen.

PS. There is no scientific method to determine what the planet will do if/when the temperature changes up or down, which it sure as hell will do, it's done it for 4.5 billion years so far. It's all bloody guessing games.

My post is factual - that's how it is.

Evidence ?

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience.

But in a strange otherworldly thought experiment where the sun still shines, an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it will be warmer - and stay warmer.

It hasn't done that in 4.5 billion years, why should it do it from now on?

Are you saying the laws of thermo have changed over time?

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

but an atmosphere staying warm forever because the heat is trapped...absolute bill hooks and total nonscience.

But in a strange otherworldly thought experiment where the sun still shines, an atmosphere with more greenhouse gases in it will be warmer - and stay warmer.

It hasn't done that in 4.5 billion years, why should it do it from now on?

Are you saying the laws of thermo have changed over time?

You (deliberately) wandered off the original question. I'll ask again in case you've forgotten it. Will the planet's temperature change of a few degrees over 100 years be of any consequence?