Resisting Climate Hysteria

[SirRumpole]

How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?

I hope you are not denying that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of a wide range of air pollutants ?

 

[cynic]

I hope you are not denying that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of a wide range of air pollutants ?

I hope you are not denying that the climate brigade are largely fixated on CO2 emissions!

 

[luutzu]

How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?

Yes, those gases look exactly like my exhale during winter.

Maybe you should move next to places with those smoke stacks and see how you go. All natural and organic and what not.

 

[luutzu]

Perhaps.

Is that your sole reason for disputing the reported findings of those scientists?

I'd need to pay WSJ to read - so, no. But one can predict what they'd say right? What with sponsorship and advertising and general objectivity when it comes to business, greed and the environment.

The Forbes one I read...

ya dood... Popular Technology sounds like a magazine I'd quote against other popular scientific journals. What with them both on par when it comes to scientific rigour and the quality of research they publishes.

Serious man, I had actually wrote a final year research thesis where I was involved in an actual scientific research project. Mine was just to pass and get that degree and so won't see any peer to read, review and publish... and believe me, if the research Cook et. al. did were as sloppy as that "investigative journalist" from Forbes opinion piece were, they'd be laughed at and forwarded all over the place.

So until you have something more "in depth" than a Forbes article quoting a Popular Technology magazine, I'd stick with what those rocket scientists at NASA and other scientific bodies think are fair acceptable standard of science.

 

[cynic]

Yes, those gases look exactly like my exhale during winter.

Maybe you should move next to places with those smoke stacks and see how you go. All natural and organic and what not.

So in other words, you cannot differentiate between those gases and water vapour?

 

[cynic]

I'd need to pay WSJ to read - so, no. But one can predict what they'd say right? What with sponsorship and advertising and general objectivity when it comes to business, greed and the environment.

The Forbes one I read...

ya dood... Popular Technology sounds like a magazine I'd quote against other popular scientific journals. What with them both on par when it comes to scientific rigour and the quality of research they publishes.

Serious man, I had actually wrote a final year research thesis where I was involved in an actual scientific research project. Mine was just to pass and get that degree and so won't see any peer to read, review and publish... and believe me, if the research Cook et. al. did were as sloppy as that "investigative journalist" from Forbes opinion piece were, they'd be laughed at and forwarded all over the place.

So until you have something more "in depth" than a Forbes article quoting a Popular Technology magazine, I'd stick with what those rocket scientists at NASA and other scientific bodies think are fair acceptable standard of science.

It may interest you to know that "Cook et. al." are being "laughed at and forwarded all over the place."

 

[luutzu]

So in other words, you cannot differentiate between those gases and water vapour?

ohhhh... water vapours.

ha ha....

if it's one of those nuclear plants, yeahhh... Not those.

And please don't tell me to show where those stacks are located and what they burnt exactly. They're for illustrative purposes. btw, you're ignoring the city pic. Convenient or what?


Some years back I spent a week in Dalian, China. The cityscape looks a lot like those "vapour" pipes you're thinking.

Just that each morning I could see the mountain ranges over the horizon; the sky blue and that.

By lunch, the vapours somehow haze the entire sky to a dull grey, covering the sun. And everywhere - on the trees, the scrubs, the streets, the buildings - are covered in brown/reddish dust.

I thought it was just the weather and sand from the desert or something; also thought people coughing up and spitting out are from smoking. Lots and lots of frozen spit around.

Turns out every major factory there have their own coal powered power plant.


But yea, just vapours... kinda like our kitchen rangehood vapours. Not sure why we have to close all our windows each time the neighbour's wall exhaust are turned on in their kitchen.

 

[cynic]

ohhhh... water vapours.

ha ha....

if it's one of those nuclear plants, yeahhh... Not those.

And please don't tell me to show where those stacks are located and what they burnt exactly. They're for illustrative purposes. btw, you're ignoring the city pic. Convenient or what?


Some years back I spent a week in Dalian, China. The cityscape looks a lot like those "vapour" pipes you're thinking.

Just that each morning I could see the mountain ranges over the horizon; the sky blue and that.

By lunch, the vapours somehow haze the entire sky to a dull grey, covering the sun. And everywhere - on the trees, the scrubs, the streets, the buildings - are covered in brown/reddish dust.

I thought it was just the weather and sand from the desert or something; also thought people coughing up and spitting out are from smoking. Lots and lots of frozen spit around.

Turns out every major factory there have their own coal powered power plant.


But yea, just vapours... kinda like our kitchen rangehood vapours. Not sure why we have to close all our windows each time the neighbour's wall exhaust are turned on in their kitchen.

Did you know that CO2, unless frozen or in the process of thawing from a frozen state, is a colourless gas and invisible to the naked eye?

 

[luutzu]

It may interest you to know that "Cook et. al." are being "laughed at and forwarded all over the place."

obviously.

btw, can you forward us a survey of mothers' opinions on their children's good looks? I just want an unbiased survey of what parents think of their own children.

Oh, Climate Scientists reviewing each other's work - dam, they must all be in it too, right?

 

[luutzu]

Did you know that CO2, unless frozen or in the process of thawing from a frozen state, is a colourless gas and invisible to the naked eye?

Where did I say the picture "show" CO2? But CO2 is in there somewhere in that picture right?

But point was to rebutt your nonsense about these smog being the same stuff we breathe out.

Might want to stop nitpicking and focus on the bigger argument dude. Namely, industrialisation, the extraction and burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, polluted rivers and lakes... all these mean Mother Nature aren't as capable of absorbing and cleansing waste as she used to.

So your argument that Earth has been at it forever and now is no different... it kind of doesn't add up.

 

[cynic]

Where did I say the picture "show" CO2? But CO2 is in there somewhere in that picture right?

But point was to rebutt your nonsense about these smog being the same stuff we breathe out.

Might want to stop nitpicking and focus on the bigger argument dude. Namely, industrialisation, the extraction and burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, polluted rivers and lakes... all these mean Mother Nature aren't as capable of absorbing and cleansing waste as she used to.

So your argument that Earth has been at it forever and now is no different... it kind of doesn't add up.

Dude! The climate brigade prophecy is heavily reliant on the claim that increased levels of CO2 have humanity on a one way express trip to global doom!

And like it or not, CO2 is stuff that we breathe out!

 

[cynic]

obviously.

btw, can you forward us a survey of mothers' opinions on their children's good looks? I just want an unbiased survey of what parents think of their own children.

Oh, Climate Scientists reviewing each other's work - dam, they must all be in it too, right?

Only the apocalyptic ones. The others are dismissed as irrelevant and/or deniers by their apocalyptic brethren and thereby excluded from consideration.

 

[luutzu]

Dude! The climate brigade prophecy is heavily reliant on the claim that increased levels of CO2 have humanity on a one way express trip to global doom!

And like it or not, CO2 is stuff that we breathe out!

Maybe it's catchy to boil it down to CO2. What other elements are the public aware of? O2, H2O.

I had only scan through some more indepth article and there's Methane and blah blah other greenhouse gases. So you can't pin CO2 on Climate Scientists and their research then rebuke the entire field with CO2 alone.

Check out the various specialisation within Climate Science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

oceanographer, atmospheric, geological, geochemistry, ozone, meterology, palaeoclimatology, atmospheric physicist, cryosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions etc. etc.

 

[luutzu]

Only the apocalyptic ones. The others are dismissed as irrelevant and/or deniers by their apocalyptic brethren and thereby excluded from consideration.

I've heard in an interview where theey're saying Climate Scientists actually self-censor and try not to be too blunt or alarmist in case they're accused of being apocalyptic. i.e. it may actually be worst than the "hysteria" we're hearing.

Some are even saying that we ain't got another 100 years to switch over... got maybe 20 years, tops, before irreversible damage. i.e. the rate of change is accelerating faster than expected.

As an aside, the US plains that's producing most of its, and the world's, crops are expected to drain its entire aquifer reservoirs around 2050. China is going to run very dry next two decades...

Good luck to world peace and international cooperations this generation.

 

[cynic]

Maybe it's catchy to boil it down to CO2. What other elements are the public aware of? O2, H2O.

I had only scan through some more indepth article and there's Methane and blah blah other greenhouse gases. So you can't pin CO2 on Climate Scientists and their research then rebuke the entire field with CO2 alone.

Check out the various specialisation within Climate Science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

oceanographer, atmospheric, geological, geochemistry, ozone, meterology, palaeoclimatology, atmospheric physicist, cryosphere-hydrosphere-lithosphere interactions etc. etc.

I don't have to pin CO2 on the climate brigade, they have happily pinned it to themselves!

If you want to argue about methane, then I only need mention that Bryant and May have been selling the solution to that particular problem for years! I used to purchase boxes of 47 with pocket change!

 

[SirRumpole]

Nothing like a bit of hip pocket hurt to spur people into action:-


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/tasmanian-farmers-ask-for-climate-action-after-floods/7506710

 

[wayneL]

Nothing like a bit of hip pocket hurt to spur people into action:-


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/tasmanian-farmers-ask-for-climate-action-after-floods/7506710

Tsk, how tiresome. And linked on that very same story =>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/did-climate-change-cause-east-coast-low-storms/7483874

Talk of models etc (note that when the writer gets to data the story changes)

Was it climate change?

While the frequency of cool-season east coast lows looks likely to decrease in the future, changes in the big ones are a lot less certain.

However, east coast lows are very variable in frequency and hard to predict.

A road is completely flooded on Tasmania's east coast. June 6, 2016.
Photo: Studies have found little influence of climate change on Australian extreme rainfall so far. (Supplied: Natasha Scott Ham)

So far, there has not been any clear trend in the past 50 years, although east coast lows may have been more frequent in the past.

As for extreme rainfall, studies have found little influence of climate change on Australian extreme rainfall so far.

Climate variability, such as El Nino, currently plays a much larger role.

This does not mean climate change is having no effect; it just means it is hard to tell what impact a warming world is having at this stage.

So did climate change cause this weekend's storms? No ”” these events, including intense ones, often occur at this time of year.

 

[Tisme]

Raining again in Brisbane and environs!!!

Even the venerable, generational Queenslander, diehard Liberals in the area are starting to talk of climate calamity. Where's Tony when when you need a spokesman to publically deny the bleedin' obvious and calm the concerns?

I have figured out how the protagonists work out their cases: there's a bag of multivariate cats eyes marbles, each allocated to a certain weather event. When there's an anomaly the associated colour marbles are drawn out and if there is enough to satisfy the input variables then it's a catastrophe or normal depending on what side of the doogs circle you are crouching, if there isn't a enough cats eyes, the black mariah is put in play and the kids argue until they run out of puff.

 

[basilio]

Ah Wayne no change for you is there ? As selective in your quoting and disingenuous as ever. Real campaigner.

The article you you quoted also noted that

This does not mean climate change is having no effect; it just means it is hard to tell what impact a warming world is having at this stage.

So did climate change cause this weekend's storms? No ”” these events, including intense ones, often occur at this time of year.

But it is harder to rule out climate change having any influence at all.

For instance, what is the impact of higher sea levels on storm surges? And how much have record-warm sea temperatures contributed to rainfall and storm intensity?

We know these factors will become more important as the climate system warms further, so as the clean-up begins, we should keep an eye on the future.

 

[wayneL]

Oh bas. There is no disingenuity whatsoever, as by linking the article there is an invitation to read the whole.

I feel so sorry for you, struggling to see the dark side in everything, trying to alarm and depress all whom you come into contact with, obviously to try to mitigate some deep psychopathology of your own.

Why would you prefer to hold modelling and weasel statements above data and categorical and correct conclusions?

I rest my case.