Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Author
Discussion

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
Further interesting info regarding the odd choice of a temperature baseline for global warming.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart...

and my favourite quote....

"The choice of a baseline near the lower extreme of a variable parameter is uncommon in science."

..but mainstream climate science isn't really science anyway....is it?

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 8th November 2018
quotequote all
What could possibly go wrong?

Could thinning clouds combat climate change? Scientists propose radical plan.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-63...


There's a link to something of relevance at New Scientist and the paper has apparently been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

So before people go off on a "Daily Wail" rant, no matter how justified it might be from a reporting perspective since this particular re-writer has previous form, it might be worth considering that this is just one of many modelling based concepts that academia is being encouraged to consider for some reason. Presumably they all relate to obtaining research money to give academics something to do.

I have no problem with pure "research". I just hope that care is taken with considering the potential effect of any recommendations that are made when it is completed.

Edited by LongQ on Thursday 8th November 10:58

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
LongQ said:
What could possibly go wrong?
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?


Atomic12C

5,180 posts

216 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?
In the name of modern 1st world living of course. wink

Prevent those emissions and you're stating that we should all be cave men.


Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?
Remind me again how much CO2 and particles and chemicals are pumped into the atmosphere by plants and volcanoes and the oceans and all other life on this planet KP?

FFS it is a chaotic system which we haven't even measured properly and don't understand - all we actually know is that cold kills more than hot and anything we do to delay an ice age is an advantage to all life on this planet.


kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
kerplunk said:
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?
In the name of modern 1st world living of course. wink

Prevent those emissions and you're stating that we should all be cave men.
Yes, what could go wrong with all that? wink



kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?
Remind me again how much CO2 and particles and chemicals are pumped into the atmosphere by plants and volcanoes and the oceans and all other life on this planet KP?

FFS it is a chaotic system which we haven't even measured properly and don't understand - all we actually know is that cold kills more than hot and anything we do to delay an ice age is an advantage to all life on this planet.
I'm simply questioning LongQ's apparent deep concern for this particular man-made addition to the atmosphere wink

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?
Remind me again how much CO2 and particles and chemicals are pumped into the atmosphere by plants and volcanoes and the oceans and all other life on this planet KP?

FFS it is a chaotic system which we haven't even measured properly and don't understand - all we actually know is that cold kills more than hot and anything we do to delay an ice age is an advantage to all life on this planet.
I'm simply questioning LongQ's apparent deep concern for this particular man-made addition to the atmosphere wink
Then you have entirely missed the point.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?
Remind me again how much CO2 and particles and chemicals are pumped into the atmosphere by plants and volcanoes and the oceans and all other life on this planet KP?

FFS it is a chaotic system which we haven't even measured properly and don't understand - all we actually know is that cold kills more than hot and anything we do to delay an ice age is an advantage to all life on this planet.
I'm simply questioning LongQ's apparent deep concern for this particular man-made addition to the atmosphere wink
Then you have entirely missed the point.
Oh sorry I thought you were concerned about it being implemented (without due dilligence etc) because of potential mal-effects.

What was your point then?


LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
What, like compared to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases and wide variety of other chemicals, gases and particles we're pumping into the atmosphere you mean?
Remind me again how much CO2 and particles and chemicals are pumped into the atmosphere by plants and volcanoes and the oceans and all other life on this planet KP?

FFS it is a chaotic system which we haven't even measured properly and don't understand - all we actually know is that cold kills more than hot and anything we do to delay an ice age is an advantage to all life on this planet.
I'm simply questioning LongQ's apparent deep concern for this particular man-made addition to the atmosphere wink
Why not try and work it out for yourself?



Then you have entirely missed the point.
Oh sorry I thought you were concerned about it being implemented (without due dilligence etc) because of potential mal-effects.

What was your point then?

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 9th November 2018
quotequote all
LongQ said:
Why not try and work it out for yourself?
I've got enough work thanks - it's ok I'm not that bothered.

Professor Barney

179 posts

124 months

Thursday 13th December 2018
quotequote all
I listened to a radio broadcast a few weeks ago talking about some plant that had spores on its leaves that directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They also had fossil records of the same plants which indicated that in the distant past (they may have mentioned dinosaurs) that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was up to four times the current levels.

This got me thinking about one of the claims made in support of taking action on man-made carbon emissions that we are approaching a point of no return where the greenhouse effect will run out of control and turn the climate into something similar to Venus.

IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?



Edited by Professor Barney on Thursday 13th December 12:20

QuantumTokoloshi

4,161 posts

216 months

Thursday 13th December 2018
quotequote all
Professor Barney said:
I listened to a radio broadcast a few weeks ago talking about some plant that had spores on their leaves that directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They also had fossil records of the same plants which indicated that in the distant past (they may have mentioned dinosaurs) that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was up to four times the current levels.

This got me thinking about one of the claims made in support of taking action on man-made carbon emissions that we are approaching a point of no return where the greenhouse effect will run out of control and turn the climate into something similar to Venus.

IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?
Simple, else you cannot tax it or redistribute it.

grumbledoak

31,504 posts

232 months

Thursday 13th December 2018
quotequote all
Professor Barney said:
IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?
yes talk of "tipping points" on a planet that has 4 billion years to find them is unconvincing at best.

Flibble

6,470 posts

180 months

Thursday 13th December 2018
quotequote all
Professor Barney said:
I listened to a radio broadcast a few weeks ago talking about some plant that had spores on its leaves that directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They also had fossil records of the same plants which indicated that in the distant past (they may have mentioned dinosaurs) that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was up to four times the current levels.

This got me thinking about one of the claims made in support of taking action on man-made carbon emissions that we are approaching a point of no return where the greenhouse effect will run out of control and turn the climate into something similar to Venus.

IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?
It almost certainly won't. The IPCC has said that Venus levels of greenhouse effect are not plausible.

One thing that might occur though is a massive extinction event. The P-T extinction even may have been associated with a high level of CO2, something of the magnitude occurring again would probably kill all mammals (including Humans).

LoonyTunes

3,362 posts

74 months

Thursday 13th December 2018
quotequote all
Flibble said:
Professor Barney said:
I listened to a radio broadcast a few weeks ago talking about some plant that had spores on its leaves that directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They also had fossil records of the same plants which indicated that in the distant past (they may have mentioned dinosaurs) that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was up to four times the current levels.

This got me thinking about one of the claims made in support of taking action on man-made carbon emissions that we are approaching a point of no return where the greenhouse effect will run out of control and turn the climate into something similar to Venus.

IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?
It almost certainly won't. The IPCC has said that Venus levels of greenhouse effect are not plausible.

One thing that might occur though is a massive extinction event. The P-T extinction even may have been associated with a high level of CO2, something of the magnitude occurring again would probably kill all mammals (including Humans).
As an aside, it's certainly true that Humans couldn't have lived on this planet before the Cambrian age some 540m years ago. The Atmos was too hostile.

Terminator X

14,922 posts

203 months

Thursday 13th December 2018
quotequote all
LoonyTunes said:
Flibble said:
Professor Barney said:
I listened to a radio broadcast a few weeks ago talking about some plant that had spores on its leaves that directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They also had fossil records of the same plants which indicated that in the distant past (they may have mentioned dinosaurs) that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was up to four times the current levels.

This got me thinking about one of the claims made in support of taking action on man-made carbon emissions that we are approaching a point of no return where the greenhouse effect will run out of control and turn the climate into something similar to Venus.

IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?
It almost certainly won't. The IPCC has said that Venus levels of greenhouse effect are not plausible.

One thing that might occur though is a massive extinction event. The P-T extinction even may have been associated with a high level of CO2, something of the magnitude occurring again would probably kill all mammals (including Humans).
As an aside, it's certainly true that Humans couldn't have lived on this planet before the Cambrian age some 540m years ago. The Atmos was too hostile.
I read somewhere that doubling or trebling of CO2 levels doesn't double / treble the "problem" as temp. isn't directly linked to CO2 on a 1:1 basis? So a level of say 800 sounds terrifying but probably isn't? Anyone know?

TX.

jet_noise

5,631 posts

181 months

Friday 14th December 2018
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
LoonyTunes said:
Flibble said:
Professor Barney said:
I listened to a radio broadcast a few weeks ago talking about some plant that had spores on its leaves that directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They also had fossil records of the same plants which indicated that in the distant past (they may have mentioned dinosaurs) that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was up to four times the current levels.

This got me thinking about one of the claims made in support of taking action on man-made carbon emissions that we are approaching a point of no return where the greenhouse effect will run out of control and turn the climate into something similar to Venus.

IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?
It almost certainly won't. The IPCC has said that Venus levels of greenhouse effect are not plausible.

One thing that might occur though is a massive extinction event. The P-T extinction even may have been associated with a high level of CO2, something of the magnitude occurring again would probably kill all mammals (including Humans).
As an aside, it's certainly true that Humans couldn't have lived on this planet before the Cambrian age some 540m years ago. The Atmos was too hostile.
I read somewhere that doubling or trebling of CO2 levels doesn't double / treble the "problem" as temp. isn't directly linked to CO2 on a 1:1 basis? So a level of say 800 sounds terrifying but probably isn't? Anyone know?

TX.
LT - Atmos too hostile due to lack of O2 rather than excess CO2?
TX - You're querying something called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). This is one of the many, er, discussion points on climate. 1.5-4.5°C per doubling of CO2 concentration acc. to the IPCC. Lower limit revised down from 2° at the last issue. Even this "official" figure has, as you can see, a huge range. Sceptics observe that the actual figure is at least at the low end if not even lower. The more shrill alarmists consider scenarios with even higher values than the official range. You makes your choice etc

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Saturday 15th December 2018
quotequote all
jet_noise said:
Terminator X said:
LoonyTunes said:
Flibble said:
Professor Barney said:
I listened to a radio broadcast a few weeks ago talking about some plant that had spores on its leaves that directly correlated to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. They also had fossil records of the same plants which indicated that in the distant past (they may have mentioned dinosaurs) that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was up to four times the current levels.

This got me thinking about one of the claims made in support of taking action on man-made carbon emissions that we are approaching a point of no return where the greenhouse effect will run out of control and turn the climate into something similar to Venus.

IF the CO2 concentration in the past has been much, much higher, and the earth didn't suffer runaway warming, why would it now, with man-made CO2?
It almost certainly won't. The IPCC has said that Venus levels of greenhouse effect are not plausible.

One thing that might occur though is a massive extinction event. The P-T extinction even may have been associated with a high level of CO2, something of the magnitude occurring again would probably kill all mammals (including Humans).
As an aside, it's certainly true that Humans couldn't have lived on this planet before the Cambrian age some 540m years ago. The Atmos was too hostile.
I read somewhere that doubling or trebling of CO2 levels doesn't double / treble the "problem" as temp. isn't directly linked to CO2 on a 1:1 basis? So a level of say 800 sounds terrifying but probably isn't? Anyone know?

TX.
LT - Atmos too hostile due to lack of O2 rather than excess CO2?
TX - You're querying something called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). This is one of the many, er, discussion points on climate. 1.5-4.5°C per doubling of CO2 concentration acc. to the IPCC. Lower limit revised down from 2° at the last issue. Even this "official" figure has, as you can see, a huge range. Sceptics observe that the actual figure is at least at the low end if not even lower. The more shrill alarmists consider scenarios with even higher values than the official range. You makes your choice etc
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?

It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.





robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Saturday 15th December 2018
quotequote all
[quote=kerplunk

It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.


[/quote]

Climate is a Chaotic system. Now tell me how the maths works?