Climate Change

tomorton

Legendary member
7,262 970
The so called modelling and the famous hockey stick graph to push the warming narrative.


... except that through the climate gate scandal, they were caught fudging data to fit their narrative by omitting inconvenient data.



or the so called model that its prediction does not match reality which raises the question of its utility and the premise of its case




No matter how misguided or moronic is with the notion of flat earth, how is it even relevant to our conversation about climate change? Please point out the nexus.


Seriously. Point out to me the scientific data and I will point out to you the correlation between sun spot activities and the weather.



Is that simply an assertion?



your premise is based on the presupposition that it is broken. Is it?


In any intellectual debate, the most basic structure is that you make a case by stating your underlying premise and whatever associated facts or data there are in support of your argument. If I disagree with the warrant of your case, it is my job to offer undercutters or defeaters to undermine your argument. So what is the case that you are making or is it just some incoherent rants?


Seriously. You guys are insisting that climate change is man made and you are questioning whether it should be the arbiter. Maybe as you suggest, I am truly in an alternate universe because words no longer have meaning.


Show me the evidence and not assertions.



No downside to acting - seriously? There are no free lunches. It is estimated the cost to implement the Paris Accord is up to €46 trillion. What do get you in return? A 0.05 degree improvement.



If you are going to spend €46 trillion, make sure you get your facts right and not rely on some modelling that is highly questionable based on fudge data.



You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.

There are some scientists who support a contrary view, that global warming is not human-driven and is not occurring, or more slowly than others say. But that is the nature of science, with regards both past observations and future possible scenarios. The fact that there is a contrary view does not undermine the bulk of evidence in favour, beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
 

cantagril

Senior member
2,261 511
In any intellectual debate, the most basic structure is that you make a case by stating your underlying premise and whatever associated facts or data there are in support of your argument. If I disagree with the warrant of your case, it is my job to offer undercutters or defeaters to undermine your argument. So what is the case that you are making or is it just some incoherent rants?

Seriously. You guys are insisting that climate change is man made and you are questioning whether it should be the arbiter. Maybe as you suggest, I am truly in an alternate universe because words no longer have meaning.

Show me the evidence and not assertions.

No downside to acting - seriously? There are no free lunches. It is estimated the cost to implement the Paris Accord is up to €46 trillion. What do get you in return? A 0.05 degree improvement.

You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
I'm quite entertained by your use of the argumenta (ad absurdum /ignorantiam /verecundiam etc etc) but you're not the only on this thread who's been to school.

Proceeding on the basis that you not being deliberately disingenuous or obtuse:

The "case" as you put it is as simple as it gets. The world is warming up. At some point, if it continues to do so, human life will be unsustainable and getting to that point will be drawn-out and very painful. There is one school of thought that says that this is an entirely natural cycle and that we have no responsibility in it whatsoever.

There is a growing understanding which is becoming generally (but not universally) accepted that we can indeed cause great damage to the environment and that some of this is adding to the factors cause global warming.

My use of the "incoherent rant" as you put it would have been my own ad absurdum bit with regard to your earlier point on the acting or not, on an "if". The "if" being just this problem of whether by doing nothing we are sealing our fate.

Man-made global warming, hmmm. A rather obvious reduction from what I actually said which was "Why should "principally man-made" be the arbiter?". We do not know whether we are 20% responsible or 60% responsible so at what point on the scale and on the time line do we act? 51%? 80%?? The whole point is that nobody knows just how much we are responsible nor exactly when it will be too late to do anything......even if we can. I'm pretty much a fatalist myself but I'm not at all convinced that "Que sera, sera" is any kind of policy. I'd rather continue arguing and discussing and keeping an open mind with a view to a better understanding of our plight and whether by doing something in the immediate future we can mitigate what is yet to come. Sustainable development is on the palliative side but still helps toward reducing current rates of damage.

Again, pointing the finger at just one of the purposes of the Paris Accord does appear deliberately obtuse. I'm assuming that you know full well what the others are so I don't see any point in delving into the detail. IMO if we left out the first clause (the warming bit) the rest is more than enough reason to act and act now.

As to your entitlement to an opinion: of course! We can all post any crap we want - I know I do:)
 

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,232
Hi, cantagril. I agree with you, as most sensible people should. I think that the human species is going to die out but it does not mean that we should not go down fighting. Besides, it makes sense to me to try to keep the place clean and tidy, not chuck the debris into the oceans for the fish to eat--plastic and all. Chemicals are killing us all, so it can't be doing Mother Earth any good.

Brumby probably owns a chemical plant, somewhere. He certainly seems very positive that it is not our fault. I remember how cigarette manufacturers insisted that tobacco did not cause cancer.
 
Last edited:

cantagril

Senior member
2,261 511
Hi, cantagril. I agree with you, as most sensible people should. I think that the human species is going to die out but it does not mean that we should not go down fighting. Besides, it makes sense to me to try to keep the place clean and tidy, not chuck the debris into the oceans for the fish to eat--plastic and all. Chemicals are killing us all, so it can't be doing Mother Earth any good.

Bumsby probably owns a chemical plant, somewhere. He certainly seems very positive that it is not our fault. I remember how cigarette manufacturers insisted that tobacco did not cause cancer.
Now now!

Brumby is providing a valuable service and however it may seem I appreciate his input - he is clearly considering the issue quite seriously which is in stark contrast to a lot of people who should and probably do know better. Personally, I reckon it's probably a case of Brumby by name, Brumby by nature and I think the greater part of his motivation is to do with contempt for the herd and perceived political correctness and other assorted band-wagonry....subjects not too far from my own heart.

As an ex-smoker and ex-shareholder of BAT and other assorted sinners I can attest that it does take an awfully long time to change a culture. 1960s: Tobacco - Good. 40 odd years for it to become popularly acknowledged that on balance, maybe not quite so good after all:) Your example is just one of many and to my mind evidence that the herd is as contemptible as Brumby appears to think.

The same drawn-out process is happening with climate change but unfortunately there's no vaping on the horizon there to take up the slack.
 
Last edited:

Splitlink

Legendary member
10,850 1,232
Hi Brumby I misspelt your name. Hope it wasn't noticed. Unintentional and I apologise. That's not my style.
 

piphoe

Legendary member
10,038 194
to say you don't believe in climate change is like saying don't believe in back-testing..

:D
 

FXX

Experienced member
1,140 195
Watch this documentary detail Antarctic melting 60 times in the last 3 million years. They drill cores and study them as well as studying historic sea rises.




Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: wackypete2

Atilla

Legendary member
18,931 2,646
My half a century worth of life, experience and memories of weather in various parts of the World I've travelled to. What I've seen and read point to dramatic weather pattern changes not in 1000s or millions of years but simply 50 or so.

Moreover, with global communications news and pictures pretty obvious to me. I see it, hear the news and read about what's written.

This discussion comes up over and over and over again. Our capitalistic system of production has many disastrous flaws and dare I say it am instantly labelled a lefty and the noisy seagulls start squawking all kinds of tosh without knowing anything better.

Capitalism externalises costs to maximise profits. Buy sh1t with money one doesn't have! All disposable purchases.

Just one example is a fruit yogurt pot. Use extra plastic to make the package bigger to maximise profits. If you look at the pot about a cm or two from the bottom is hollow but stacks up taller. LOL WTHell is that all about then?

Another one! Easter eggs. Packaging is bigger and costs more to produce than the small quantity of cheap 30% chocolate. Absolutely amazing and yet like lemmings people buy the stuff.

Then there is all that stuff with emissions and pollution.

It doesn't stop there. Capitalism has skewed creation of wealth and distribution of incomes such that the wealth is in the hand of such few that banks have to print billions and trillions to continue this mad wheel of excessive production and pollution of the planet.

However, man hasn't evolved to develop new solutions and still measures and seeks correction using same methods. Invest, produce and consume more to sustain the madness. Wage war, claim resources destroy and recreate.

Circle of madness and here we are debating climate change is a lefty religious myth. :LOL::LOL::LOL:

Seems pretty obvious to me.






http://news.infoshop.org/climate-change/climate-change-the-basics/

Huge companies such as Shell and Exxon who trade in fossil fuels have deliberately funded campaigns of misinformation in order to try to preserve their method of generating profits.










 

Brumby

Established member
593 137
Thank you to those who had offered various rebuttals (in your own way) concerning my earlier postings on this thread. Frankly, climate change is not a subject of interest to me and the reason I have remain disengaged from this thread, until now. Recently I posted some comments as a counter argument to other posts which I feel do not represent the appropriate picture concerning climate change but are effectively mainstream narrative adulterated by politics rather than science.
What is climate change?
Climate change is merely a repackaged narrative of global warming concerning emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses on global temperatures. It is not about pollution control or waste management as some would like to frame the conversation. Having said that, what are the issues and the contention? Is it about saving the polar bears or reforestation as some would like to picture it?
Is there global warming?
The starting point I believe we need to address is whether indeed there is recent global warming as measured by available data. Ground-based temperatures stations indicate that the planet has warmed somewhere between 0.3 and 0.9 degrees Celsius since about 1850. Shorter sets of data collected by far more precise NASA satellites and weather balloons show a slight cooling trend in more recent years. While it has been argued that ground-based measurements are most reliable, the correlation coefficient between satellite and surface measurements is close to perfect agreement with computer models prediction supporting the correlation in warming between the lower atmosphere as at the surface.
Global climate models and their prediction value
Once I started to research on the subject of climate change the issues easily coagulate into two central themes : the efficacy of the models between prediction and observation; and the reliability of data sets going into the modelling. Once you understand the issues concerning these two themes, it would be disingenuous to conclude that the science on climate change is “settled”.
Largely on the basis of global climate models, which are based on what is known, what is assumed and simply guesses, the many models predict that continued emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses will increase global temperatures anywhere from 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius. What is notable is that most of the global climate models predict a far greater amount of warming than has actually occurred. The few climate models that come reasonably close to replicating past and present climatic conditions when historical data are entered are those that predict the least amount of future warming based on present trends. The two most prominent of those models, those of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the U.K. Meteorological Organization, predict warming of only 1.2 degrees Celsius and 1.3 degrees Celsius over the next 50 years; the lower-bound estimates reported by the IPCC.



As the IPCC notes, “When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account … most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity is used.” In the April 2018 Journal of Climate, Nic Lewis and Judith Curry have re-calculated the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) based upon the historical uptake of heat into the ocean and human emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. ECS is the net warming one expects for doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide. Their ECS ranges from 1.50 to 1.56 degrees Celsius. The average ECS from the UN is 3.4⁰C, roughly twice the Lewis and Curry values. It is not surprising that the observed rate of warming is now running at about half of the rate in the UN’s models.
Why has the global climate models failed?
The efficacy of any modeling is that it offers prediction that would subsequently be reasonably matched by observations. This had generally been not the case as demonstrated by the graphical presentation above.
Climate change is a complex subject and there are many things we do not know with certainty. Primary issues identified include :
Quality of data sets
The suspect quality of temperature data when they may be largely incompatible, imprecise, and incomplete nature of even recent land-based temperature records.
Masking
The idea behind the masking theory is that the most likely masking culprit according to the IPCC are anthropogenic aerosols, primarily sulfates, that reflect some of the sun’s rays back into space and thus have a cooling effect on the climate. As ambient concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols continue to decline (yes, global pollution is on the decline, not on the rise), the argument is that this artificial cooling effect will be eliminated and the full force of anthropogenic greenhouse gas loading will be felt in short order. However there are other observations that undermine this argument which I will not get into.

Climate sensitivity
The idea here is that the atmosphere is not as sensitive to anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the models assume. The argument for moderate climate sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions largely rests on three observations:
• Carbon sinks continue to absorb more carbon dioxide than can be explained.
• 98% of all greenhouse gases are water vapor, and many atmospheric physicists, most notably Richard Lindzen of MIT, doubt that a doubling of anthropogenic greenhouse gases would have much climate effect absent a significant change in the concentration of atmospheric water vapor.
• A warming planet would probably lead to increase cloud cover, which in turn would have uncertain affects on climate. Concedes the IPCC, “The single largest uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity to either natural or anthropogenic changes are clouds and their effects on radiation and their role in the hydrological cycle … at the present time, weaknesses in the parameterization of cloud formation and dissipation are probably the main impediment to improvements in the simulation of cloud effects on climate.”
Is there consensus?
It depends on your source, information selection and interpretation. If you are a global warming alarmist then your weight is on the IPCC report and in particular the executive summary of that report which is a product written not by the scientists who produced that report but by a small, politically appointed executive committee which states: “the balance of the evidence suggests” that human influences explain some of the detected warming. If you are into details then you will note the contrast in the statement with appears on page 439 of the report: “Finally, we come to the difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the large signal and noise uncertainties discussed ….” Or on page 411, the statement is even clearer: “Although these global mean results suggest that there is some anthropogenic component in the observed temperature record, they cannot be considered as compelling evidence of clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and changes in the Earth’s surface temperature.” (source:2nd assessment IPCC)
The contrasting view of IPCC’s cautious concern about the scientific evidence for global climate change is reflected in the Heidelberg Appeal signatories of 4,000+ scientists (70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners) which warns the industrialized world that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
A 2013 study done by the American Meteorological Society showed that 52% of professional members believed the cause of global warming was “mostly human”.
Bottom line what is the issue?
As mentioned, the various global climate models predict a range of 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius in global warming with the more reliable models to date indicating it to be in the lower range. The “sky is falling” crowd which has piggy backed on the higher range to push for immediate action has to-date proven to be alarmist by observed data against prediction and the assumed trajectory. The sceptics has argued that at the lower range it may well be within the range of climate variability rather than man made given the many unknowns. In terms of economics, in my view the Paris Accord is simply a fraud to push spending (estimated to be up to Euro 46 trillion) to seek an improvement of merely 0.05 degrees Celsius that is well within the scope of prediction range regardless of any action that may be taken or not.

 
Last edited:

tomorton

Legendary member
7,262 970
A thorough post Brumby but I'm only going to agree once you've got the majority of the world's scientists to back you up. Nothing personal, I take that view on every scientific subject, I can't think of a good reason not to.
 

Brumby

Established member
593 137
A thorough post Brumby but I'm only going to agree once you've got the majority of the world's scientists to back you up. Nothing personal, I take that view on every scientific subject, I can't think of a good reason not to.
None taken. My attitude in any discourse is to present my case in a manner that best reflects my understanding of a subject matter and to defend it as vigorously as facts, logic or reason would allow. Whether you agree with my position is irrelevant and unimportant to me. Nothing personal either.
 
Last edited:

cantagril

Senior member
2,261 511
The attachment is for for anyone's amusement but it was Brumby who reminded me of it - for reasons which will be obvious when you watch.

John Clarke and Brian Dawe are very well-known down under and do a good line in political commentary and environment / climate related issues. My personal favourite is called "The front fell off" though this one here below takes a good swipe at badly thought out projects - to which Australia is not completely immune:)


 

Atilla

Legendary member
18,931 2,646
Well a dangerous thought struck me on Thursday...

Read newspaper headlines - Heatwave strikes UK for may Bank Holiday.

As one would expect reading a little further into the small print 19C :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:


That's a heat wave!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


I dunno :rolleyes: maybe you have a point Brumby :)


:cool: Not worried I've got shades on :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brumby

Similar threads