This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
wayneL said:
This is getting way past boring and ridiculous. You accuse the optimists of what the pessimists are absolutely guilty of. ...
Click to expand...
wayne,
You think this is about "optimists" vs "pessimists" ... (?)

Try the "crossed-finger-brigade" vs "realists-hoping-they-are-at-least-half-wrong".

This is not a topic where you apply the normal tests.

Pretend for a moment that it's a 50-50 call (whether to act on CO2 or not) ... When the health of the planet at stake, arguably seriously in jeapardy, you must respond accordingly - call it erring on the side of safety

PS thinking back to some of your posts about hedonism "eat drink and be merry, and who cares if tomorrow we're stuffed" - I 'm not sure why you should be the only one around here to claim that it's useless to argue with people whose minds are set.
 
I have repeatedly debunked the purported "science" that underpins many of your links. You have never rebutted those aspects.
You consistently taint your posted remarks with language that degrades any semblance of reasoned debate: Debate that time and time I challenge you to, and time and time you avoid.
I see from you occasional links that purport "peer" review, when no such review is supported by the facts.
You mantra appears to be that Gore represents the "pro-warmers" and his lack of credibility is all that needs to be attacked to prove your point.
And you conclude any further discussion on a "well founded suspicion"
I let the facts speak for themselves.
 
Rob,

You are just so tiresome. Debunk this: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html
 
Ahhh... the gold old, my scientific empirical correlation is better than your scientific empirical correlation argument.
 
2020,

Your main approach seems to revolve around a variation Pascal's Wager.

I think you would be the first to reject the same.

Yes I continue to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle... perhaps more along the lines of Epicurus. But tomorrow we all die, whether there is GW or not. Therefore I will eat good and simple food, drink good European beer and wine and bloody well enjoy my life. Slow food...ever heard of it?

But you make the mistake of thinking my mind is set, rather than having made the best decision. That is wrong and strongly charactarizes CC pessimists rather than optimists. Also unintelligently ignores my and other optimist's total environmental view.
 

The only reason CFC's are bad for the ozone is due to a certain type of cloud that builds up above polar regions. This was not fully understood till 86/87.
That year the Montreal protocol was signed with the aim of completely eliminating CFC's. The treaty then underwent 7 revisions in ten years and been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation.
The ozone is expected to recover by 2050/2060.

Seems once the science was fully understood, Governments act.

Maybe the IPCC should meet annually to correlate their data with other operations? Nope, they refused. Next report out in 6 years
 
Several posts around here (both sides), want to compare this topic with religion.

Those who believe the UN's data (ala IPCC) that says it's getting warmer on the one hand - those who prefer to ignore it, or believe alternative data on the other. (including Exxon of course).

Just listening to Prof Robert Winston on TV - program on "The Story of God". He asks :- "Where do we go and what happens when we die? Professor Robert Winston attempts to answer these and many other etc "

"Suppose you DON'T believe in Heaven and Hell - and suppose you are wrong - and score Hell as a result."

Now I'm not about to believe in Heaven on these grounds (for myself personally) - I could give a damn - and I'm not about to try to believe something that there is no evidence for - ....

But (imo) there are some much closer and immediate parallels with the Global Warming theory (including the dire distress that the world will experience, temperature, deserts, storms, floods, locusts that dont die in winter, weevils, sea levels etc) - that SHOULD be included as an added factor - to encourage us to err on the safe side - similar reasoning, i.e. "what if we are wrong?".

PS this is the only planet we've got folks.

:topic It goes on to say
"by the time Galileo died, educated people were turning to scientists not priests. ... Nowadays, even the Vatican has its telescopes". Newton born the year that Galileo died. etc
 
2020
It's possible to move the debate forward, but not by dragging it back, as you keep doing.
The skeptics have a very simple remit: Show that radiative forcing from increased CO2 emissions dos not affect temperature. When they can show that, we have a new ball game.
 
PS. Here's one of the priests of my religion

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
Carl Sagan: Pale Blue Dot

... "there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand."

"There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the only home we've ever known: the pale blue dot."
 

all true
1, 2, and 3. good luck in pursuing that logical sequence lol. You have invited logical and specific points many times now.

btw, readers will be aware of the argument that starts "even if" yes? It advances a step in the opponents direction, towards an appeal to be reasonable - without admitting anything?

So, the point I was making or trying to make is that, EVEN IF it wasn't 100% absolute proven / guaranteed / known / locked in stone / perfectly modelled etc that the earth will or won't warm - we should surely have to play safe given the consequences of failure - we should use at least the same rules as say a bridge designer should use to decide on whether or not to strengthen a suspect beam.

( let's face it the economic downturn will delay things marginally - certainly it has reduced CO2 emissions for a year or two, especially in China - and the next solar activity cycle or two might be milder etc. Might give us the breathing space we need - but I digress from where I wanted to go ) ..

But back to that bridge analogy...
Anyone remember the bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed about 16 months ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge

I have read that the biggest engineering error was this one :-
The report also noted a concern about lack of redundancy in the main truss system, which meant the bridge had a greater risk of collapse in the event of any single structural failure.
Click to expand...

There was no "fall back" - no place to retreat if any single structural element failed. That is not unheard of in Engineering circles - BUT - you have to add a special factor of safety (load factor whatever) in such circumstances - according to Australian codes anyways. (penalty for non-redundancy)

Compare the way we treat the Earth - no fallback, no place to retreat etc . Or as Carl Sagan would say ...

When the bridge fell, it was still the most recent river crossing built on a new site in Minneapolis
Click to expand...
 
rederob said:
It's a long report with many aspects.
You pick one and I will debunk it.
Click to expand...

You'll have to do a better hatchet job than arch Fabian, George Manbiot, who was not only de-debunked, but suffered some debunking himself in a public slanging match. A humiliation.

Good luck Rederob
 
hey Spooly ,
I'm still waiting for you to post your opinion of whether or not monitoring the climate and trying to improve the models of its behaviour should (iyo) take prioity over spending on the LH Collider.

I'd also ask you whether we have to have every 't' crossed in the modelling dept before we act on this one, to reduce CO2 - assuming you don't need to be reminded of the consequences of failure.
 
rederob said:
The skeptics have a very simple remit: Show that radiative forcing from increased CO2 emissions dos not affect temperature. When they can show that, we have a new ball game.
Click to expand...

hey rob -
There was a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared (see post #215) - where all 6 participants concede that point

So some posters here are "out on their own" in the scepticism stakes.

You call some of these posters around here "sceptics" - I would define them as "denialists"

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rNttO8rAJNE
embedded:-
go to the 2m 20s mark and the 6m 20s mark

 
The science of ozone decomposition was shown by Chapman in 1930.
There was a bit of a gap in major advancements until in 1970 Crutzen showed that the nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 reacted catalytically (without themselves being consumed) with ozone, thereby accelerating the rate of reduction of the ozone content. Molina and Rowland's 1974 paper completed the basic science, but not the "modelling" needed to determine actual CFC impacts.
DuPont rallied its industry colleagues into a defence of CFC use because the science was dodgy, and they could prove it; which they tried vigilantly until the Montreal Protocol. Curiously they quickly changed tack, and DuPont have been strong supporters of the Montreal Protocol.
It gets less curious when you realise that while the CFC debate was raging, DuPont were scrambling for replacements they could manufacture, and steal a march on their competitors.
 

The LHC has all the funding it needs from Governments so it's a mute point. Particle physics has reached a point where only experiment can show the way forward. This is a stunning reality that climate scientists can only dream of.
Perhaps climate modelers could take advantage of 'The Grid', a technology developed for the LHC to correlate their data and computing power but the IPCC seem to have it all sussed and refused that idea too (can't find the link atm).

As for every 't' crossed before we act ....... didn't we just act? 5% by 2020. Not enough? Too little to late?

Observed warming is at most 1.5C per doubling CO2, not 3C! I'm sure the models can/will improve. This missing heat is supposedly being absorbed by the oceans, which is hard to prove or disprove, given our limited understanding of the deep ocean currents and temperatures.

All scientific models have restricted applicability, they should be thought of as representations of reality and not reality itself!
 
1. so we agree we did the right thing in making the first step (btw that still has to get through the Senate)
2. too little too late? very possibly - watch this space I guess.
3. I'm sure models will improve as well
4. The models are the best we've got. I would argue you could compare Winston Churchill :- "do what you can now with what you've got"

PS perhaps if we hadn't attacked Iraq, we could have had a few dozen LHC's (and significantly less CO2 as well)
 
2020hindsight said:
1. so we agree we did the right thing in making the first step (btw that still has to get through the Senate)
Click to expand...
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we've known that for 100 years.
I draw the line at alarmist projections and calls for 'tipping points' etc .... to assume humans are wholly responsible gives us way too much credit imo.
 

I think temperature is a very difficult area. Higher temperature causes moisture to rise which in turn increases cloud cover which then decreases temperature. Climite change is the thread topic and seems with my limited knowledge best means to observe. No doubt as data collection time and quality improves a wider spread of effects will show the way more clearly.
 
wayneL said:
You'll have to do a better hatchet job than arch Fabian, George Manbiot, who was not only de-debunked, but suffered some debunking himself in a public slanging match. A humiliation.

Good luck Rederob
Click to expand...
I did ask for a specific aspect of your choice.

In its absence, an overview:
Monckton makes a case that climate sensitivity, the amount that the global average temperature increases if CO2 doubles is much less than the IPCC estimate of 3 °C. Monckton reckons sensitivity is just 0.58K.
How does he come up with such a number?
He starts with an equation for forcing...so far so good.
Then he claims that the supposedly missing hotspot means that forcing has to be reduced by a factor of three. In doing this he misunderstands Lindzen (2007), But Lindzen (2007) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high, "we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm".
Note that this is a statement about sensitivity not CO2 forcing.
Next Monckton turns his attention to sensitivity and argues it's too high as well.
Monckton proceeds to "prove" that sensitivity will be less than the value implicit in IPCC (2007).
In his "proof" he assumes there is no delay in warming (unlikely!) and McKitrick's data is correct (although he confused degrees with radians and his paper is totally unreliable), to arrive at his low value of sensitivity.
If we also assume that the IPCC forcing and feedback values are correct, then their value of sensitivity must be too high; Monckton comes up with a number 20% less. But in a previous section Monckton argued that the IPCC forcing value was too high by a factor of three. Yet if we we use Monckton's number, the IPCC value of sensitivity is too low.

Put simply, Monckton's paper arrives at conclusions that are not supported by its own maths.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...