Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Your not really taking in the content of my posts noco so I'm not going to bother with yours anymore either.

 

[noco]

Your not really taking in the content of my posts noco so I'm not going to bother with yours anymore either.

That is because you have got yourself in such a confused state over the whole matter......You are full of contradictions with that stuff coming out of your head.


:topic

 

[luutzu]

Or maybe they're not as expert as they would have the trusting populace believe!

If people who spent decades researching one area of speciality, who published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals (reviewed by other eggheads)... if those aren't experts, who would be the experts? Those brought to you by Big Oil/Coal/Gas/Automobile?

 

[luutzu]

Luu, haven't you read my last couple of posts?

I have just mentioned to you there are 77 paid by the UN to write stuff to suit their agenda.....97% of 77 = 75.

Why are still insisting that it is 97% of all World scientists?...there is also 31,470 scientists who are skeptics.

You know the whole thing is a farce and a scam.....

BTW, I was in Lae PNG in the early 80's when 45 inches fell on that city in 24 hours...I was confined to my hotel room the whole day.

That 97% weren't 97% of 77 UN-backed scientists.

I don't know where you got that 77 from. Well, maybe Murdoch and friends. But no, the 97% was a simple research paper counting all the peer-reviewed CC research ever published - with some filters to define what is a CC expert. e.g. those who published at least 5 or 10 research, those who have been at it 10 or more years etc.

So of all those papers, 97% concludes that CC is real and human activity play a big part contributing to it.


As to how many scientists made up that 97%, the paper didn't say. But it's not 77. You can count all the authors in all the papers they cited. Would be in the tens of thousands I'd imagine.

----

I'm sure there's been these kind of extreme weather before. But they weren't this frequent, and not in areas not designed for them.

Like that city in the article above. Most of the people that were killed in that sudden storm were on their way home and out of nowhere the stormwater floods and wash them away.

I think up North there, building regulation require hurricane bracing of all roofing to wall structure right? Just a loop of bracing from roof truss to top plates, a few dynabolt with washer onto bottom plate to slab/footing.

Those simple measure would help prevent roofs from being blown off in one of those events.

Down here, you don't need that kind of bracing. So if a freak storm, and if it occur more frequently... well, houses and rooftops could be open up like a can.

Then there's the road plumbing. The roads and infrastructures. Most are designed around the expected stresses of their region... higher frequency of "freak" weathers will first take lives, then either live with what's left or double up on the engineering.

 

[explod]

That is because you have got yourself in such a confused state over the whole matter......You are full of contradictions with that stuff coming out of your head.


:topic

If you are losing the argument then can the opposition, and as nastily as possible.

Agree, off topic and unproductive ole Pal

 

[wayneL]

If you are losing the argument then can the opposition, and as nastily as possible.

Agree, off topic and unproductive ole Pal

What's that saying about glass houses?

Well, at least climate moderates dont fantasize about blowing people up or incarcerating them.

 

[wayneL]

IOW Plod, you can't stake claim on.the moral high ground, from the moral cesspit of climate alarmism.

 

[basilio]

What's that saying about glass houses?

Well, at least climate moderates dont fantasize about blowing people up or incarcerating them.

Well that's a surprise!! Wayne has run out of anything intelligent to say and starts trolling . Maybe we should have a look at how to deal with such behaviour ?

If you fight fire with fire, everyone burns': how to catch a troll like Trump

Trolling experts offer tactics for dealing with ‘the world’s most effective button-pusher’, like meeting tantrums with facts

David Sax

Sunday 21 August 2016 21.30 AEST

In a crowded field, a new troll has established himself as the undisputed master of the art. To most people he’s repugnant, but to his peers he’s a formidable exemplar of a set of skills that have come to flourish in the era of online bile, useful only to those whose primary aim is destructive and reductive. He knows exactly the kind of incendiary comment that will bait his prey. And when the inevitable reaction comes, he basks in the reflected glory of his acolytes piling on, and turning a conversation into a battlefield. In so doing, he kills off any hope of a reasoned discussion, ensuring that name-calling, provocation and blatant hate take its place. This might not be good for the standards of public discourse, but it’s good for his ego – and it distracts from his ignorance.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/21/donald-trump-troll

 

[basilio]

Back to topic.

What are the consequences of the loss of our planets ice ? A look at our rapidly changing world and the collapse of sea ice in the Arctic

A Farewell to Ice by Peter Wadhams review – climate change writ large
The warning this book gives us about the consequences of the loss of the planet’s ice is emphatic, urgent and convincing
The loss of our sea ice will have dire consequences across the planet, not just at the poles, says Peter Wadhams. Photograph: Staff/Reuters

Horatio Clare

Sunday 21 August 2016 16.00 AEST


Shares
325

Becoming a world authority on sea ice has taken Peter Wadhams to the polar zones more than 50 times, travelling on foot and by plane, ship, snowmobile and several nuclear-powered submarines of the Royal Navy.

Nonscientists who read his astonishing and hair-raising A Farewell to Ice will agree that the interludes of autobiography it contains are engrossing, entertaining and, when one submarine suffers an onboard explosion and fire while under the ice, harrowing.

Any reader should find the science of sea-ice creation and the implications for us all of its loss – explored and explained here with clarity and style – beautiful, compelling and terrifying.

Wadhams thanks Ernest Hemingway for his title. Climate change, a cause and an effect of ice loss, brings conflict that would have interested the great author. Persecuted by trolls and climate-change deniers, Wadhams made news last year when three of his peers met premature deaths. One fell down stairs. One died in wilderness, possibly struck by lightning. A third, out cycling, was crushed by a lorry. Claiming that he had been targeted by a lorry while cycling, Wadhams speculated that oil companies or governments had it in for him and his ilk because of the conclusions to which their work has led them. But his book is more extraordinary than any conspiracy.

A Farewell to Ice proceeds methodically. Ice cores, tubes of compacted polar snow, record the last million years of atmospheric change, during which the Earth has oscillated between ice ages and warm periods. Now the pattern is breaking.

“Our planet has changed colour. Today, from space, the top of the world in the northern summer looks blue instead of white. We have created an ocean where there was once an ice sheet. It is Man’s first major achievement in reshaping the face of his planet,” Wadhams writes.

Polar ice is thinning and retreating with unprecedented speed. All our ingenuity cannot, at present, change that. Because ice only grows in winter but can melt year-round, its growth rate is limited, while melt rate is unlimited.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change

 

[basilio]

A little more background on Professor Peter Wadhams book " A Farewell to Ice"

Time to listen to the ice scientists about the Arctic death spiral
John Vidal

The Arctic’s ice is disappearing. We must reduce emissions, fast, or the human castastrophe predicted by ocean scientist Peter Wadhams will become reality
Arctic sea ice melt in May. ‘The Arctic sea ice is declining by 13% a decade.’ Photograph: NOAA

Thursday 18 August 2016 18.38 AEST
Last modified on Thursday 18 August 2016 21.10 AEST

Ice scientists are mostly cheerful and pragmatic. Like many other researchers coolly observing the rapid warming of the world, they share a gallows humour and are cautious about entering the political fray.

Not Peter Wadhams. The former director of the Scott Polar Research Institute and professor of ocean physics at Cambridge has spent his scientific life researching the ice world, or the cryosphere, and in just 30 years has seen unimaginable change.

When in 1970 he joined the first of what would be more than 50 polar expeditions, the Arctic sea ice covered around 8m sq km at its September minimum. Today, it hovers at around 3.4m, and is declining by 13% a decade. In 30 years Wadhams has seen the Arctic ice thin by 40%, the world change colour at its top and bottom and the ice disappear in front of his eyes.

In a new book, published just as July 2016 is confirmed by Nasa as the hottest month ever recorded, this most experienced and rational scientist states what so many other researchers privately fear but cannot publicly say – that the Arctic is approaching a death spiral which may see the entire remaining summer ice cover collapse in the near future.
‘Because Peter Wadhams says what other scientists will not, he has been slandered, attacked and vilified by denialists and politicians who have advised caution or non-action.’ Photograph: PR

The warming now being widely experienced worldwide is concentrated in the polar regions and Wadhams says we will shortly have ice-free Arctic Septembers, expanding to four or five months with no ice at all. The inevitable result, he predicts, will be the release of huge plumes of the powerful greenhouse gas methane, accelerating warming even further.

He and other polar experts have moved from being field researchers to being climate change pioneers in the vanguard of the most rapid and drastic change that has taken place on the planet in many thousands of years. This is not just an interesting change happening in a remote part of the world, he says, but a catastrophe for mankind.

“We are taking away the beautiful world of Arctic Ocean sea ice which once protected us from the impacts of climate extremes. We have created an ocean where there was once an ice sheet. It is man’s first major achievement in re-shaping the face of the planet,” he writes.

And, boy, are we seeing extremes. So far this year, the planet’s average temperature has been 1.3C warmer than the late 19th century, and 2016 is virtually certain be the hottest year ever recorded.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-disappearing-reduce-emissions-peter-wadhams

 

[basilio]

And just to finish off the topic. (Nah )

https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/tag/peter-wadhams/

 

[basilio]

Have you ever wondered what could the effect of a massive reduction human caused pollution ? For example closing down hundreds of coal fired power plants, quick smart movement to electric cars and so on ?

A Faustian Bargain, David Spratt, Climate Code Red
Glenn MacIntosh | Posted: February 16, 2012 | Updated: February 19, 2012

.......The new NASA study (and science brief) reaffirms that increased levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activity -- and not changes in solar activity -- are the primary force driving global warming. With new calculations of the Earth's energy imbalance, the study finds the planet’s surface continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010.

The study uses improved measurements from free-floating instruments to calculate the amount of heat that has been absorbed by the world’s oceans, and thus refines understanding of how heat and energy imbalances are distributed in the climate system. And that’s where news becomes more sobering.

One conclusion of the study is that "the overall cooling effect from aerosols could be about twice as strong as current climate models suggest".

So what’s the big deal? Human activity modifies the impact of the greenhouse effect by the release of airborne particulate pollutants known as aerosols. These include black-carbon soot, organic carbon, sulphates, nitrates, as well as dust from smoke, manufacturing, wind storms, and other sources. Aerosols have a net cooling effect because they reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground and they increase cloud cover. This is popularly known as "global dimming", because the overall aerosol impact is to mask some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases.

Hansen’s new study estimates this aerosol "dimming" at 1.2 degrees (plus or minus 0.2 °), much higher than previously figured. Aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere by rain on average every 10 days, so their cooling effect is only maintained because of continuing human pollution, the principal source of which is the burning of fossil fuels, which also cause a rise in carbon dioxide levels and global warming that lasts for many centuries.

So on the one hand, we desperately need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to zero, and quickly. Emissions need to fall off a cliff. Hansen has shown that to keep warming in the long run to a safe level of under one degree, fossil fuel emissions would need to be cut by 6% a year beginning in 2012, plus 100 billion tonnes of carbon reforestation drawdown this century. Other work finds that if global emissions do not peak until 2020, then to limit warming to the (unsafe) two-degree range, the rate of emissions reduction needs to hit 9-10% a year, and requires total de-carbonisation by 2035-45. Needless to say, those figures are not on the cabinet whiteboard, and would be greeted with incredulity by most climate policymakers.

On the other hand, rapid and deep reductions in fossil fuel emissions (and emissions from burning cleared vegetation from rainforest destruction) will cut the aerosols and their temporary cooling. If all aerosols were removed from the system, about half the 1.2 ° of lost cooling would appear very quickly as a pulse of warming, with the other half following over a few decades.

And that is the Faustian bargain. If we keep burning fossil fuels the way we are, the planet will head towards four degrees of warming by century’s end, and a carrying capacity of less than a billion people. And if we cut emissions rapidly, we lose aerosol cooling and get a pulse of warming that creates very dangerous conditions.

There are two conclusions that help us find a way out of this maze. The first is that part of the answer is to develop and deploy, at very large scale, methods that draw down carbon from the atmosphere (whether by reforestation, biochar or other means) to reduce the energy imbalance and the warming to come. The second is that some form of geo-engineering, that provides temporary cooling while carbon emissions and aerosols are run down and carbon drawdown is scaled up, is probably the least-worst option.

http://www.ecosanity.org/blogsanity/faustian-bargain-david-spratt-climate-code-red

 

[wayneL]

Well that's a surprise!! Wayne has run out of anything intelligent to say and starts trolling . Maybe we should have a look at how to deal with such behaviour ?



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/21/donald-trump-troll

Oh... I'm trolling, but Plod isn't?

Amusing glass house double down bas.

How far can you double down before running out of monopoly intellectual capital?

 

[wayneL]

Have you ever wondered what could the effect of a massive reduction human caused pollution ? For example closing down hundreds of coal fired power plants, quick smart movement to electric cars and so on ?


http://www.ecosanity.org/blogsanity/faustian-bargain-david-spratt-climate-code-red

So let's remove generative capacity and increade demand... Good plan LMAO

 

[basilio]

Oh... I'm trolling, but Plod isn't?

Amusing glass house double down bas.

How far can you double down before running out of monopoly intellectual capital?

Noco simply has a number of inaccurate, nonsensical talking points that he throws into the air and repeats in whatever order they come down.

They are rubbish the first time and disordered rubbish every other time. It isn't possible or worthwhile to respond to them because they don't even make sense.

You Wayne on the other hand choose to deflect the entire discussion to a specious attack on people you disagree with.

That's why I called you out.

If you have anything to say on the subject how about responding to the information on the effects of the loss of sea ice ?

(I noticed your response to the wicked problem of dealing with consequences of a fast track reduction in human pollutants. So lame..so Wayne..)

 

[Tisme]

What's the purpose of the fights between factions when it comes to anthropogenic climate change?

I see people on here arguing the toss and wonder what satisfaction it gives the protagonists. The rest of the world seems to have geared up and making a quid out of a new industry in renewables, whether the world is coming to and end or not, why not us?

Tony Abbott and his nonsensical stand against local industry has gone, now's the time to retool, rejig, reindustrialise into energy technologists (amongst other value add industry) IMO.

Spare a thought for all us DILLIGAFs out here.

 

[basilio]

What's the purpose of the fights between factions when it comes to anthropogenic climate change?

I see people on here arguing the toss and wonder what satisfaction it gives the protagonists. The rest of the world seems to have geared up and making a quid out of a new industry in renewables, whether the world is coming to and end or not, why not us?

Tony Abbott and his nonsensical stand against local industry has gone, now's the time to retool, rejig, reindustrialise into energy technologists (amongst other value add industry) IMO.

Spare a thought for all us DILLIGAFs out here.

Yeah. Totally agree with you. This forum is a waste of time/energy. There are far more productive ways to look at the issue.

Perhaps this thread ?

Business decisions related to climate change

 

[cynic]

Um, your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe reword? That question is assuming an increase in CO2 is required to support the population.

Do humans and much of their livestock exhale CO2?

Has the population of humans and their livestock increased since the industrial age?

Does that not necessitate an increased transitory presence of CO2 in our atmosphere?

Would it not be unsafe to attempt to artifically reduce CO2 levels before knowing what levels need to be present for our biological needs?

 

[Knobby22]

Do humans and much of their livestock exhale CO2?

Has the population of humans and their livestock increased since the industrial age?

Does that not necessitate an increased transitory presence of CO2 in our atmosphere?

Would it not be unsafe to attempt to artifically reduce CO2 levels before knowing what levels need to be present for our biological needs?

Q1 Yes,
Q2 Yes
Q3 Yes
Q4 - No
It is a waste product but needed for plant growth. We don't need it as part of our biology and in fact it reduces our breathing ability if there is too much. It is essentially a trace gas compared to nitrogen and oxygen, We have doubled the amount in the atmosphere and we aren't trying to reduce it, just slow down the increase. So your question is nonsensical hence I thought you had written it incorrectly.

 

[cynic]

Q1 Yes,
Q2 Yes
Q3 Yes
Q4 - No
It is a waste product but needed for plant growth. We don't need it as part of our biology and in fact it reduces our breathing ability if there is too much. It is essentially a trace gas compared to nitrogen and oxygen, We have doubled the amount in the atmosphere and we aren't trying to reduce it, just slow down the increase. So your question is nonsensical hence I thought you had written it incorrectly.

Your answer to question four doesn't address the issue of increased population!

What level is required, in ppm, for the human ecosystem to be viable with our current population?