Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Oh no, not another mathmatical model. The University of East Anglia. Climategate rings a bell. PS don't claim a subsequent inquiry exonerated them, we can all read you know.
If you could read you’d have read the conclusions of the many independent inquires into it...not to mention watched the TV documentary that spelled it out for conspiraloons.Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chr...
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
Climategate Whitewash
https://cei.org/blog/climategate-whitewash/
The UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has issued its report into the so-called Climategate scandal. As might be expected, it’s pretty much a whitewash, except as detailed below. Only one MP dissented from its conclusions. There seem to me to be some serious errors and omissions in the reports, but I’m not the only one. For instance, Fred Pearce of New Scientist and The Guardian has some pretty serious things to say in his story, Hacked climate email inquiry cleared Jones but serious questions remain:
1. An article written in November 2009 from that well known climate change denier Christopher Booker (deceased). Written BEFORE any of the 3 Inquiries had even begun. He also disputed the link between passive smoking and cancer, and the dangers posed by asbestos.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cms...
2. "The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) which is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial."
Oil giant ExxonMobil has been one of CEI's top funders, contributing at least $2.1 million since 1997. Donors Trust (DT) has donated over $4 million to CEI as of 2013. DT has been described as the “dark money ATM of the conservative movement” for its ability to take in funds from anonymous donors and distribute them to recipient organizations.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_...
https://www.desmogblog.com/competitive-enterprise-...
Your sources need more credibility.
You won't like this one either:-
Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later
https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/legacy-of-clima...
And finally:-
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=...
Enjoy the reading. The last sentence is:-
"The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it leads."
You enthusiastically read and embrace the propaganda from the Oil companies, their advocacy groups and Non Scientists (some who believe in all sorts of other nonsense) but when it comes to climate change science won't read or listen to the thousands of the papers published by scientists and researchers in the field.
This is what an independent review looks like...
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said.
I don't need to shoot the messenger, like yourself on here they arrive mostly dead already.
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I can and did read their emails. I'm happy with my opinion of those involved.
There's a reason YOU'RE happy with them. It's the same reason you got the Sun/Earth orbital system wrong and didn't understand the graph that was posted to name just 2 of many examples.robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I can and did read their emails. I'm happy with my opinion of those involved.
There's a reason YOU'RE happy with them. It's the same reason you got the Sun/Earth orbital system wrong and didn't understand the graph that was posted to name just 2 of many examples.See KP’s comment above for a demo.
A couple more papers released today...
Extreme rainfall projected to get more severe, frequent with warming
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-extreme-rainfall-sev...
“The paper, published in the American Geophysical Union journal Earth's Future, finds that warming has a more profound effect on both the severity and frequency of extreme precipitation events than it does on common precipitation events.”
Climate change causes landfalling hurricanes to stay stronger for longer
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-climate-landfalling-...
“Climate change is causing hurricanes that make landfall to take more time to weaken, reports a study published 11th November 2020 in the journal Nature. The researchers showed that hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans carry more moisture and therefore stay stronger for longer after hitting land. This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm, hurricanes are more likely to reach communities farther inland and be more destructive.”
"The implications are very important, especially when considering policies that are put in place to cope with global warming," said Professor Pinaki Chakraborty, senior author of the study and head of the Fluid Mechanics Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST).
Extreme rainfall projected to get more severe, frequent with warming
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-extreme-rainfall-sev...
“The paper, published in the American Geophysical Union journal Earth's Future, finds that warming has a more profound effect on both the severity and frequency of extreme precipitation events than it does on common precipitation events.”
Climate change causes landfalling hurricanes to stay stronger for longer
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-climate-landfalling-...
“Climate change is causing hurricanes that make landfall to take more time to weaken, reports a study published 11th November 2020 in the journal Nature. The researchers showed that hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans carry more moisture and therefore stay stronger for longer after hitting land. This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm, hurricanes are more likely to reach communities farther inland and be more destructive.”
"The implications are very important, especially when considering policies that are put in place to cope with global warming," said Professor Pinaki Chakraborty, senior author of the study and head of the Fluid Mechanics Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST).
Gadgetmac said:
A couple more papers released today...
Extreme rainfall projected to get more severe, frequent with warming
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-extreme-rainfall-sev...
“The paper, published in the American Geophysical Union journal Earth's Future, finds that warming has a more profound effect on both the severity and frequency of extreme precipitation events than it does on common precipitation events.”
Climate change causes landfalling hurricanes to stay stronger for longer
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-climate-landfalling-...
“Climate change is causing hurricanes that make landfall to take more time to weaken, reports a study published 11th November 2020 in the journal Nature. The researchers showed that hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans carry more moisture and therefore stay stronger for longer after hitting land. This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm, hurricanes are more likely to reach communities farther inland and be more destructive.”
"The implications are very important, especially when considering policies that are put in place to cope with global warming," said Professor Pinaki Chakraborty, senior author of the study and head of the Fluid Mechanics Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST).
Have you any papers on positive effects?Extreme rainfall projected to get more severe, frequent with warming
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-extreme-rainfall-sev...
“The paper, published in the American Geophysical Union journal Earth's Future, finds that warming has a more profound effect on both the severity and frequency of extreme precipitation events than it does on common precipitation events.”
Climate change causes landfalling hurricanes to stay stronger for longer
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-climate-landfalling-...
“Climate change is causing hurricanes that make landfall to take more time to weaken, reports a study published 11th November 2020 in the journal Nature. The researchers showed that hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans carry more moisture and therefore stay stronger for longer after hitting land. This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm, hurricanes are more likely to reach communities farther inland and be more destructive.”
"The implications are very important, especially when considering policies that are put in place to cope with global warming," said Professor Pinaki Chakraborty, senior author of the study and head of the Fluid Mechanics Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST).
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Have you any papers on positive effects?
...nope. I'm sure there must be one somewhere though. Probably something around the short-term gain for a few species of plants I'd guess.Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Have you any papers on positive effects?
...nope. I'm sure there must be one somewhere though. Probably something around the short-term gain for a few species of plants I'd guess.robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
I can and did read their emails. I'm happy with my opinion of those involved.
Poseur - you don't give a s
t about the data.t about deceitful, manipulative scientists trying to 'adjust' the data.You don't give a s
t about the data, adjusted or not.robinessex said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Have you any papers on positive effects?
...nope. I'm sure there must be one somewhere though. Probably something around the short-term gain for a few species of plants I'd guess.
Best relax a little, things are only going to get worse for people with your conspiratorial leanings.
Gadgetmac said:
Biden's Covid plan "will be built on a bedrock of science".
I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
Excellent news and opinions starting to come through...I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
On environmental protection, Biden's election will mean a 180-degree turn from Trump policies
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-environmental-biden-...
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-biden-climate-global...
Although his 4 year tenure has been a disaster for for almost all aspects of environmental policy it could have been worse...it could have been an 8 year tenure.
Thankfully the American electorate came to their senses just in time. Scientific truth is set to resume it’s position at the top of the tree where environmental matters are concerned
One study that thinks we may be too late already... 
Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming: study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Extract:
Even if human-induced greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced to zero, global temperatures may continue to rise for centuries afterwards, according to a simulation of the global climate between 1850 and 2500 published in Scientific Reports.
Jorgen Randers and colleagues modelled the effect of different greenhouse gas emission reductions on changes in the global climate from 1850 to 2500 and created projections of global temperature and sea level rises.
The modelling suggests that under conditions where anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions peak during the 2030s and decline to zero by 2100, global temperatures will be 3°C warmer and sea levels 3 metres higher by 2500 than they were in 1850. Under conditions where all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced to zero during the year 2020 the authors estimate that, after an initial decline, global temperatures will still be around 3°C warmer and sea levels will rise by around 2.5 metres by 2500, compared to 1850. The authors suggest that global temperatures could continue to increase after anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have reduced, as continued melting of Arctic ice and carbon-containing permafrost may increase the greenhouse gases' water vapour, methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Melting of Arctic ice and permafrost would also reduce the area of ice reflecting heat and light from the sun.
To prevent the projected temperature and sea level rises, the authors suggest that all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would have had to be reduced to zero between 1960 and 1970. To prevent global temperature and sea level rises after greenhouse gas emissions have ceased, and to limit the potentially catastrophic impacts of this on Earth's ecosystems and human society, at least 33 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would need to be removed from the atmosphere each year from 2020 onwards through carbon capture and storage methods, according to the authors.
Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming: study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Extract:
Even if human-induced greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced to zero, global temperatures may continue to rise for centuries afterwards, according to a simulation of the global climate between 1850 and 2500 published in Scientific Reports.
Jorgen Randers and colleagues modelled the effect of different greenhouse gas emission reductions on changes in the global climate from 1850 to 2500 and created projections of global temperature and sea level rises.
The modelling suggests that under conditions where anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions peak during the 2030s and decline to zero by 2100, global temperatures will be 3°C warmer and sea levels 3 metres higher by 2500 than they were in 1850. Under conditions where all anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced to zero during the year 2020 the authors estimate that, after an initial decline, global temperatures will still be around 3°C warmer and sea levels will rise by around 2.5 metres by 2500, compared to 1850. The authors suggest that global temperatures could continue to increase after anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have reduced, as continued melting of Arctic ice and carbon-containing permafrost may increase the greenhouse gases' water vapour, methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Melting of Arctic ice and permafrost would also reduce the area of ice reflecting heat and light from the sun.
To prevent the projected temperature and sea level rises, the authors suggest that all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would have had to be reduced to zero between 1960 and 1970. To prevent global temperature and sea level rises after greenhouse gas emissions have ceased, and to limit the potentially catastrophic impacts of this on Earth's ecosystems and human society, at least 33 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would need to be removed from the atmosphere each year from 2020 onwards through carbon capture and storage methods, according to the authors.
Gadgetmac said:
Gadgetmac said:
Biden's Covid plan "will be built on a bedrock of science".
I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
Excellent news and opinions starting to come through...I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
On environmental protection, Biden's election will mean a 180-degree turn from Trump policies
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-environmental-biden-...
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-biden-climate-global...
Although his 4 year tenure has been a disaster for for almost all aspects of environmental policy it could have been worse...it could have been an 8 year tenure.
Thankfully the American electorate came to their senses just in time. Scientific truth is set to resume it’s position at the top of the tree where environmental matters are concerned
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
Gadgetmac said:
Biden's Covid plan "will be built on a bedrock of science".
I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
Excellent news and opinions starting to come through...I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
On environmental protection, Biden's election will mean a 180-degree turn from Trump policies
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-environmental-biden-...
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-biden-climate-global...
Although his 4 year tenure has been a disaster for for almost all aspects of environmental policy it could have been worse...it could have been an 8 year tenure.
Thankfully the American electorate came to their senses just in time. Scientific truth is set to resume it’s position at the top of the tree where environmental matters are concerned
So I copy and paste the latest science studies, this is after all the science thread and AGW has many aspects worthy of investigation and reporting. Try it yourself, you might like it. Of course finding some current scientific research dismissing AGW might prove a little bothersome.
As for the ‘politics’ angle, yes, you’re semi-correct. However it is about how actual Science is take prominence again in the worlds biggest polluting nation so...well...it has an element of crossover to it. It straddles both Politics and Science news.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
Gadgetmac said:
Biden's Covid plan "will be built on a bedrock of science".
I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
Excellent news and opinions starting to come through...I can hear the breeze of scientific realism sweeping away the hogwash from within the White House already.
On environmental protection, Biden's election will mean a 180-degree turn from Trump policies
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-environmental-biden-...
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-biden-climate-global...
Although his 4 year tenure has been a disaster for for almost all aspects of environmental policy it could have been worse...it could have been an 8 year tenure.
Thankfully the American electorate came to their senses just in time. Scientific truth is set to resume it’s position at the top of the tree where environmental matters are concerned
So I copy and paste the latest science studies, this is after all the science thread and AGW has many aspects worthy of investigation and reporting. Try it yourself, you might like it. Of course finding some current scientific research dismissing AGW might prove a little bothersome.
As for the ‘politics’ angle, yes, you’re semi-correct. However it is about how actual Science is take prominence again in the worlds biggest polluting nation so...well...it has an element of crossover to it. It straddles both Politics and Science news.
"copy and paste" is because you used somebody's words and passed them off as your own, with no link.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff