Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
stew-STR160 said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Something tells me you're not sincere mk09, but in reply - no the graph just sums up the IPCC assessment that most, if not all of the warming since 1950 is man-made.
Which tells you more about the IPCC than it does the science. 
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Something tells me you're not sincere mk09, but in reply - no the graph just sums up the IPCC assessment that most, if not all of the warming since 1950 is man-made.
Which tells you more about the IPCC than it does the science. Fine though, the graph, correlation = causation? It's nice that a graph can have two lines that fit together.
Because as I see that, it would suggest CO2 is the only thing that matters,or could possibly change the temperature.
stew-STR160 said:
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Something tells me you're not sincere mk09, but in reply - no the graph just sums up the IPCC assessment that most, if not all of the warming since 1950 is man-made.
Which tells you more about the IPCC than it does the science. Fine though, the graph, correlation = causation? It's nice that a graph can have two lines that fit together.
stew-STR160 said:
Because as I see that, it would suggest CO2 is the only thing that matters,or could possibly change the temperature.
The "most, if not all" part leaves room for other factors to be contributing so that looks like a mis-read to me.It could also suggest a search for other explanations has come to nought. I'm fine with the idea that we still don't understand natural variability well enough to say with great certainty that it's all GHGs.
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 27th September 10:30
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 27th September 10:32
New York State suing Big Oil/Exxon Mobil for misrepresenting to investors the way it was accounting for the economic risks climate change posed to its business.
There have been many, many attempts to stop this getting to trial, but to no avail. The state of New York case is far from the only effort to sue huge oil companies over their connection to and behaviour around the climate crisis.
This is particularly true after it emerged several years ago that as far back as the 1980s, a number of corporations apparently did their own research to work out what burning fossil fuels would do for global warming. Some even predicted with frightening accuracy what the consequences would be for sea level rises and severe weather events, among other things.
The ensuing effort of the oil industry and lobby to sow doubt in the minds of the public over the veracity of the science around climate change is well documented, but perhaps not as widely understood as it should be.
And so although the Exxon Mobil NY lawsuit is quite complex in terms of what it is actually accusing the corporation of doing, the damage inflicted may well be extensive. We may end up with a situation in which executives and researchers from one of the most powerful companies in the world have to testify under oath over what they knew and when about fossil fuels and climate change, and what they did about it.
Exxon denies all the accusations against it, but the NY trial has the whiff of the litigation onslaught against big tobacco in the 1990s.
In many ways that was the beginning of the end for smoking. Could this trial start the same process for our fossil fuel habit?
With people on the streets in their millions protesting about climate change, stranger things have happened.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-could-a-new-y...
Great news. The tide of science continues to wash over the deniers.
Wake me up when when court cases heading in the opposite direction begin. And I don’t mean the odd professor suing a university
There have been many, many attempts to stop this getting to trial, but to no avail. The state of New York case is far from the only effort to sue huge oil companies over their connection to and behaviour around the climate crisis.
This is particularly true after it emerged several years ago that as far back as the 1980s, a number of corporations apparently did their own research to work out what burning fossil fuels would do for global warming. Some even predicted with frightening accuracy what the consequences would be for sea level rises and severe weather events, among other things.
The ensuing effort of the oil industry and lobby to sow doubt in the minds of the public over the veracity of the science around climate change is well documented, but perhaps not as widely understood as it should be.
And so although the Exxon Mobil NY lawsuit is quite complex in terms of what it is actually accusing the corporation of doing, the damage inflicted may well be extensive. We may end up with a situation in which executives and researchers from one of the most powerful companies in the world have to testify under oath over what they knew and when about fossil fuels and climate change, and what they did about it.
Exxon denies all the accusations against it, but the NY trial has the whiff of the litigation onslaught against big tobacco in the 1990s.
In many ways that was the beginning of the end for smoking. Could this trial start the same process for our fossil fuel habit?
With people on the streets in their millions protesting about climate change, stranger things have happened.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-could-a-new-y...
Great news. The tide of science continues to wash over the deniers.
Wake me up when when court cases heading in the opposite direction begin. And I don’t mean the odd professor suing a university
Gadgetmac said:
Exxon denies all the accusations against it, but the NY trial has the whiff of the litigation onslaught against big tobacco in the 1990s.
In many ways that was the beginning of the end for smoking. Could this trial start the same process for our fossil fuel habit?
The result of the smoking efforts were mainly influenced by taxation and a general prohibition movement. In many ways that was the beginning of the end for smoking. Could this trial start the same process for our fossil fuel habit?
One success was that it has introduced the world to vaping ... which seems to be evolving a very immediate and rapid threat to health if recent reports are to be believed. Especially for young people apparently. Children in particular.
So it's a little bit like the knife ban in the UK which has clearly eliminated knife crime especially in the inner city youth communities.
Right?
Tobacco companies (perhaps worth remembering here that tobacco growing was a source of income the the Gore family) have mostly moved their business focus to other countries, often in what we call "the East". I suppose the incoming revenues that they generate help to pay for some taxes and quite a lot of the surviving pension funding in the developed countries. As, of course, does big oil when it's not being sued and handing that cash over to rich lawyers.
One interestingly different aspect of the attack on the fossil fuel businesses is that much local manufacturing in the developed world has been off-shored in the past 20 years or so. Mostly to places that do not currently have the same desire to get worked up about the "carbon" question as the "west".
Oh well, there will always be new empires to replace the old ones when they fail. The kids will learn to live with the changes that may come. Most will not have any alternative other than to adapt to whatever comes their way. It seems it will be something of their own making. I hope they are ready to accept the results.
So the dirty carbon habit has gone the same way as the dirty smoking habit. Offshored but the profits, when there are any, are still welcomed by the institutions and, perhaps unknowingly, by the populace as a whole.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 5th October 11:44
Gadgetmac said:
New York State suing Big Oil/Exxon Mobil for misrepresenting to investors the way it was accounting for the economic risks climate change posed to its business.
There have been many, many attempts to stop this getting to trial, but to no avail. The state of New York case is far from the only effort to sue huge oil companies over their connection to and behaviour around the climate crisis.
This is particularly true after it emerged several years ago that as far back as the 1980s, a number of corporations apparently did their own research to work out what burning fossil fuels would do for global warming. Some even predicted with frightening accuracy what the consequences would be for sea level rises and severe weather events, among other things.
The ensuing effort of the oil industry and lobby to sow doubt in the minds of the public over the veracity of the science around climate change is well documented, but perhaps not as widely understood as it should be.
And so although the Exxon Mobil NY lawsuit is quite complex in terms of what it is actually accusing the corporation of doing, the damage inflicted may well be extensive. We may end up with a situation in which executives and researchers from one of the most powerful companies in the world have to testify under oath over what they knew and when about fossil fuels and climate change, and what they did about it.
Exxon denies all the accusations against it, but the NY trial has the whiff of the litigation onslaught against big tobacco in the 1990s.
In many ways that was the beginning of the end for smoking. Could this trial start the same process for our fossil fuel habit?
With people on the streets in their millions protesting about climate change, stranger things have happened.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-could-a-new-y...
Great news. The tide of science continues to wash over the deniers.
Wake me up when when court cases heading in the opposite direction begin. And I don’t mean the odd professor suing a university
Wrong thread, this is the Science Thread, not the Politics Thread.There have been many, many attempts to stop this getting to trial, but to no avail. The state of New York case is far from the only effort to sue huge oil companies over their connection to and behaviour around the climate crisis.
This is particularly true after it emerged several years ago that as far back as the 1980s, a number of corporations apparently did their own research to work out what burning fossil fuels would do for global warming. Some even predicted with frightening accuracy what the consequences would be for sea level rises and severe weather events, among other things.
The ensuing effort of the oil industry and lobby to sow doubt in the minds of the public over the veracity of the science around climate change is well documented, but perhaps not as widely understood as it should be.
And so although the Exxon Mobil NY lawsuit is quite complex in terms of what it is actually accusing the corporation of doing, the damage inflicted may well be extensive. We may end up with a situation in which executives and researchers from one of the most powerful companies in the world have to testify under oath over what they knew and when about fossil fuels and climate change, and what they did about it.
Exxon denies all the accusations against it, but the NY trial has the whiff of the litigation onslaught against big tobacco in the 1990s.
In many ways that was the beginning of the end for smoking. Could this trial start the same process for our fossil fuel habit?
With people on the streets in their millions protesting about climate change, stranger things have happened.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-could-a-new-y...
Great news. The tide of science continues to wash over the deniers.
Wake me up when when court cases heading in the opposite direction begin. And I don’t mean the odd professor suing a university
Getting back to science.
There have bean a couple of hurricanes this year that were more intense than normal in the Atlantic rather than the Caribbean, Dorian and Lorenzo. These were jumped on as being a proof that global warming has made hurricanes bigger than before. This is still not the case though
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurri...
Having said that I do believe that global warming will increase hurricane intensity, it has just not been shown yet. As per the findings of the above link.
As the current argument is that large hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent I did some graphs for the atlantic and pacific taken from data at
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/
using the basin archives for atlantic and east pacific I graphed the number of named storms per year v the number of large hurricanes to see if the ratio of larger storms increased over the base line.
For Atlantic
For eastern Pacific
Neither shows a trend for bigger storms over time as a ratio against the total number of storms.
There have bean a couple of hurricanes this year that were more intense than normal in the Atlantic rather than the Caribbean, Dorian and Lorenzo. These were jumped on as being a proof that global warming has made hurricanes bigger than before. This is still not the case though
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurri...
Having said that I do believe that global warming will increase hurricane intensity, it has just not been shown yet. As per the findings of the above link.
As the current argument is that large hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent I did some graphs for the atlantic and pacific taken from data at
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/
using the basin archives for atlantic and east pacific I graphed the number of named storms per year v the number of large hurricanes to see if the ratio of larger storms increased over the base line.
For Atlantic
For eastern Pacific
Neither shows a trend for bigger storms over time as a ratio against the total number of storms.
Edited by Chester35 on Saturday 5th October 19:00
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Some even predicted with frightening accuracy what the consequences would be for sea level rises and severe weather events, among other things.
Have you had any technical training? Have you studied anything with a technical/scientific focus?Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Some even predicted with frightening accuracy what the consequences would be for sea level rises and severe weather events, among other things.
Have you had any technical training? Have you studied anything with a technical/scientific focus?Chester35 said:
< snipped observation that once again data does does not support any kind of catastrophe (or even change from the usual weather) >
Having said that I do believe that global warming will increase hurricane intensity, it has just not been shown yet. As per the findings of the above link.
Why do you hold this belief when you have already spotted that the data you have just posted does not support it? (assuming there has been "global warming" over the span of that data Having said that I do believe that global warming will increase hurricane intensity, it has just not been shown yet. As per the findings of the above link.
Edited by Chester35 on Saturday 5th October 19:00
) I've seen two hypotheses on storm frequency/intensity:
More energy in the system= more storms.
Less of a temperature gradient from equator to pole= less storms.
And one from the data:
No change.
Place your bets, ladies & gentlemen
jet_noise said:
Chester35 said:
< snipped observation that once again data does does not support any kind of catastrophe (or even change from the usual weather) >
Having said that I do believe that global warming will increase hurricane intensity, it has just not been shown yet. As per the findings of the above link.
Why do you hold this belief when you have already spotted that the data you have just posted does not support it? (assuming there has been "global warming" over the span of that data Having said that I do believe that global warming will increase hurricane intensity, it has just not been shown yet. As per the findings of the above link.
Edited by Chester35 on Saturday 5th October 19:00
) I've seen two hypotheses on storm frequency/intensity:
More energy in the system= more storms.
Less of a temperature gradient from equator to pole= less storms.
And one from the data:
No change.
Place your bets, ladies & gentlemen
kerplunk said:
I'm not sure the decreasing equator to pole temperature gradient is a factor for tropical storms and hurricanes/typhoon formation. Citation required.
I don't recall where I read the hypothesis. This may have been one place or at least in the comments.The paper and analysis thereof are, as they say, above my paygrade but the gist seems to be for (the paper) and against (the article) the more storms position.
jet_noise said:
kerplunk said:
I'm not sure the decreasing equator to pole temperature gradient is a factor for tropical storms and hurricanes/typhoon formation. Citation required.
I don't recall where I read the hypothesis. This may have been one place or at least in the comments.The paper and analysis thereof are, as they say, above my paygrade but the gist seems to be for (the paper) and against (the article) the more storms position.
You just keep saying 'storms'. You're replying to a discussion about *tropical* storms. Storms in the mid-latitudes are extra-tropical storms - different beasties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extratropical_cyclon...
"The mechanisms through which tropical cyclogenesis occurs are distinctly different from those through which temperate cyclogenesis occurs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclogenesi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclogenesi...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff