Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Well clever clogs what is there to understand about your position ? CC is " serious" but nothing is actually happening and won't be for ages.

But anyway all the climate scientists are just doom mongerers. Just can't believe em . Unless of course they say there is nothing wrong and then we believe them. But really whatever is happening is Chinas fault. Nothing we can do about it.

And if we do become scared because wild fires are sweeping Europe, North America , Australia in fact everywhere that is just rubbish because we have always had fires haven't we?

One could suggest you were talking out of both sides of your mouth - but that wouldn't be doing you justice Sean.

I think you just flood the room with xhit. That's the 21st Century way of destroying discussions about anything serious. Works everywhere else. Why not flood ASF when you have nothing better to do.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm no climate scientist but common sense tells me that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere ought have some effects. Indeed the big surprise would be if it didn't bring some impacts on something.

General knowledge of physics tells me that temperature is a likely impact. It's a common impact of many things.

As an engineering challenge the idea of building a non-emitting energy system is a decent challenge. It beats most other things we do in Australia these days, it's an actual challenge to solve it, it's not something dead easy.

But.....

What gives me serious doubts about the whole thing is the attitude of those who scream the loudest.

Engineers and other technical people don't go around looking for National Parks to destroy. Rather, they go looking for technically and economically suitable places to build wind farms, hydro, transmission lines and so on.

Now when it turns out that every good hydro site has already been claimed for a National Park or World Heritage, when it turns out that every available transmission route raises objections, when it turns out that even putting the wind farms on an island literally nobody other than the private owners ever goes to causes objections, when there's opposition to burying something radioactive in the ground in the same state it came out of, well then it all starts to look rather suspicious.

Then there's the response when discussion turns to what needs to happen and what the options are. Broadly speaking it's not the engineers, average people or even those who think there isn't a problem with climate who argue against building large scale infrastructure to fix it. No, it's those who scream loudly about the issue who are the ones who also scream loudly against attempts to fix it.

It's not engineers, political conservatives or even those who say there's no problem with CO2 who dislike big electrical projects be they wind, hydro, solar, nuclear or transmission. Most are more than happy with anything that's properly designed and built and which keeps the lights on, and most do see at least some benefit in not using fossil fuels even without the CO2 issue being considered.

No, the opposition comes from the very same end of the political spectrum that screams most loudly about climate change. The far Left.

So we have a situation where those calling most loudly for action are largely the ones standing in the way of it. They always say the same thing - they support renewables but not here, they support wind but not if it's "industrial scale", they support storage but not if it's large enough to actually replace gas, and so on. They want token efforts not actual solutions.

That may seem harsh but I've seen plenty of it first hand and it's the reality. Cut CO2 emissions 20% and everyone's your friend. Try and cut 100% and the Left will fight you all the way and beat you into submission. Been there, played this game.

As it stands right now, there's a quiet backdown going on. I don't expect there'll be any grand announcements but it's much like the pandemic as of ~two years ago. No grand announcements, just a shifting of focus and it faded into the background. I see the same thing afoot and it's really because governments have worked out they can't win. Fix it or don't fix it, the same people will object either way, and that being so the focus is shifting to the rest who are more worried about the price of energy than the emissions from it.

So we have WA dropping any thought of pumped hydro, which has also quietly disappeared completely off the agenda in SA, we've got most states saying gas can continue to be installed in new homes, there's plans for new fossil fuel projects, and so on.

If the climate activists aren't happy, they need to realise it was their kin who brought this about. Too many objections to building things made government realise it couldn't win no matter what it did, and that being so it's politically rational to avoid upsetting the rest.

Trouble is, there actually are a lot of reasons why we ought be getting off fossil fuels. Wars in the Middle East for a start.....

 

[Sean K]

Well clever clogs what is there to understand about your position ? CC is " serious" but nothing is actually happening and won't be for ages.

But anyway all the climate scientists are just doom mongerers. Just can't believe em . Unless of course they say there is nothing wrong and then we believe them. But really whatever is happening is Chinas fault. Nothing we can do about it.

And if we do become scared because wild fires are sweeping Europe, North America , Australia in fact everywhere that is just rubbish because we have always had fires haven't we?

One could suggest you were talking out of both sides of your mouth - but that wouldn't be doing you justice Sean.

I think you just flood the room with xhit. That's the 21st Century way of destroying discussions about anything serious. Works everywhere else. Why not flood ASF when you have nothing better to do.

Get a grip, buddy.

 

[basilio]

Get a grip, buddy.

Get real Sean..

 

[mullokintyre]

One day they models will get it right ...

 

[basilio]

One day they models will get it right ...
View attachment 165195

So did you put these pictures together yourself Mick or found them a climate denier forum and decided to pass them on ?
I'm guessing the later.

The most relevant research is the most recent one top left corner. It reflects just how quickly global heating is changing our climate and the effect on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

The overall story of what is happening with Arctic ice is worth a read.

Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[wayneL]

look at the date

 

[basilio]

look at the date

View attachment 165208

Indeed Wayne. So that gives you license to ignore all the evidence of continual rapid ice melt ? To pretend that its not actually happening or if it is there's nothing to worry about "hundreds of years " ?

 

[Sean K]

Check out the Global Warming.

Let's not forget a terrorist flag while we're at it.

 

[mullokintyre]

So did you put these pictures together yourself Mick or found them a climate denier forum and decided to pass them on ?
I'm guessing the later.

The most relevant research is the most recent one top left corner. It reflects just how quickly global heating is changing our climate and the effect on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

The overall story of what is happening with Arctic ice is worth a read.

Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Geez Baz,
Why is everything so black and white with you?
Why is it that anyone or anything that casts even a little doubt is immediately labelled "climate denier"?
I guess it saves you having to admit that the models have made numerous projections about dire consequences that did not materialise.
The thread heading says climate hysteria.
And that is exactly what you demonstrate.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Geez Baz,
Why is everything so black and white with you?
Why is it that anyone or anything that casts even a little doubt is immediately labelled "climate denier"?
I guess it saves you having to admit that the models have made numerous projections about dire consequences that did not materialise.
The thread heading says climate hysteria.
And that is exactly what you demonstrate.
Mick

Unfortunately ice melt is black and white and I really wish it wasn't.

Only two glaciers worldwide are gaining ice everything else is losing ice but the biggest issue is the polar ice caps.

I also really wish the implications were not so dire long term (not talking about rising sea levels least of the problems), but the continued mocking of this I really don't understand.

 

[basilio]

Geez Baz,
Why is everything so black and white with you?
Why is it that anyone or anything that casts even a little doubt is immediately labelled "climate denier"?
I guess it saves you having to admit that the models have made numerous projections about dire consequences that did not materialise.
The thread heading says climate hysteria.
And that is exactly what you demonstrate.
Mick

There is plenty of "nuance" in the detailed Wikipedia analysis. Unfortunately the issue of rapidly melting polar ice caps is black and white. The evidence behind how much and how fast is quite clear and very detailed. The use of "failed" projections to undermine the overall reality of the melting of our earth refrigerators is the issue Mick.

The overall science around global warming developed 40-60 years ago is rock solid Massive human generated greenhouse gases are trapping enormous additional amounts of solar energy which will result in increasing global temperatures. Exactly how fast this will progress, the consequences on our current ecology and the impact on our survival was still uncertain in the 1980's.

Forty years later the experiment is demonstrating the speed at which temperatures can increase and the effect this is having across the globe. And scientists would say that we have still not seen the full effects of current excess CO2. There is a lag still to be processed.

 

[mullokintyre]

There is plenty of "nuance" in the detailed Wikipedia analysis. Unfortunately the issue of rapidly melting polar ice caps is black and white. The evidence behind how much and how fast is quite clear and very detailed. The use of "failed" projections to undermine the overall reality of the melting of our earth refrigerators is the issue Mick.

The overall science around global warming developed 40-60 years ago is rock solid Massive human generated greenhouse gases are trapping enormous additional amounts of solar energy which will result in increasing global temperatures. Exactly how fast this will progress, the consequences on our current ecology and the impact on our survival was still uncertain in the 1980's.

Forty years later the experiment is demonstrating the speed at which temperatures can increase and the effect this is having across the globe. And scientists would say that we have still not seen the full effects of current excess CO2. There is a lag still to be processed.

View attachment 165216

You keep claiming that 'the science" is showing catastrophic global warming, yet you quote Wikpedia?
Mick

 

[basilio]

You keep claiming that 'the science" is showing catastrophic global warming, yet you quote Wikpedia?
Mick

Yep. If you went to the site you would have seen the summary of research on the topic and the references used.
This was as good an overview of the situation as one would find.

Certainly a lot more scientific than the misleading posts otherwise run of this thread - including yours.

 

[mullokintyre]

Yep. If you went to the site you would have seen the summary of research on the topic and the references used.
This was as good an overview of the situation as one would find.

Certainly a lot more scientific than the misleading posts otherwise run of this thread - including yours.

Really?
The same wikipedia that had to Ban William Connolly for his consistently wrongly editing Climate articles?

The part I put up are all screenshots from real articles, and you would be laughed off the planet if you suggested any of them were from "climate deniers".
here they are
CBC News
Science Alert
World Economic Forum
Cabin Radio


Mick

 

[basilio]

Thanks for that Mick. Very interesting find.

First point I would make is that I would find it very hard to accept information from Watts Up. In my experience it is just not credible. It is a crucible of distortions, lies and misdirection. It exists to create plausible deniability. The transparent figleaf of climate deniers and delayers and naysayers.

I'm quite sure that Watts up and co would have attempted to contribute to climate change articles on Wiki with their own particular take on reality. I also assume that climate scientists in the field would not have accepted these contributions and highlighted climate research that clearly disproved their claims.

I'll cite the most obvious and overarching example of Watts Up basic dishonesty in this debate. Its their effort at creating a graph to show that global warming just isn't significant.

The pretense that 2 degrees increase/or decrease in average global temperatures is insignificant and that people would not notice it by using the second graph is scientifically BS.. It

Global Surface Temperature Comparison​

NASA GISS 1880 – 2022 | Anomaly vs. Absolute Temperature​

Click for description/larger graphs:​

---

These two graphs show data from NASA GISTEMP, which is most often cited global temperature anomaly graph from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) for the entire globe, but done two ways. The top graph shows the magnified temperature anomaly, and the bottom graph shows the actual temperature as measured on the scale of normal human weather experience, typically 0° to 120° Fahrenheit.

The point of this display is to illustrate that if there were not statistical techniques such as anomaly analysis and scale amplification, humans would not likely be able to detect the mild rise in temperature since 1880. The bottom graph of absolute temperature shows this clearly and is essentially flat.

The top graph shows what is commonly displayed in the media, which is highly magnified. More details are here: New WUWT Global Temperature Feature: Anomaly vs. Real-World Temperature

Global Surface Temperature Comparison • Watts Up With That?

NASA GISS 1880 - 2022 | Anomaly vs. Absolute Temperature Click for description/larger graphs: These two graphs show data from NASA GISTEMP, which is most often cited global temperature anomaly graph from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) for the entire globe, but done two ways...

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[wayneL]

Climate alarmism had all the hallmarks of a cult/religion

Faithful adherents
Proselytation
Prophets of doom
End times prophecies that never come true, the date keeps getting shifted
Demons and Heretics(eg Watts)
etc
Ignoring reasonable science etc.
Have I missed anything?

They are the modern day Godbotherers

 

[mullokintyre]

There are so many examples of dubious science, but I thought this one was a perfect example.
From The USGS

So the results are from a simulation and satellite observations, but the article does not say what the observations were.
However, the simulation ignored any other variables that may have affected the flows in the Colorado, which has been changed by the introduction of Boulder Dam which created Lake mead in the 1930's.
There is also the affect of releases from Lake Powell further upstream that alters how much water flows into Lake mead in any given year.
Roy Spencer went and did the research that the USGS conveniently ignored.

Spencer has done some basic research on far more variables than the USGS simulation, and not surprisngly came to a different result.
But that does not fit into the climate alarmist basket, so it gets ignored.
Mick

 

[Sean K]

melting of our earth refrigerators is the issue Mick.

Bloody hell, the poles aren't the last part of this Holocene interglacial they are now refrigerators.

 

[basilio]

Bloody hell, the poles aren't the last part of this Holocene interglacial they are now refrigerators.

Yes Sean. The ice cover on the Poles are essential elements to keeping our current climate. Not to mention our current continents.

The Influence of Polar Ice Caps and Glaciers on Climate Change​

Despite the vast majority of humans not living in polar regions and seldom interacting with polar ice caps or glaciers, the snow and ice in Earth’s cryosphere have a profound effect on global climate systems.

Polar Ice Caps And Glaciers Explained: Their Role In Climate Change - ClimateRealTalk

Scientists consider these ice bodies as a kind of thermal shield for the Earth. The bright white surfaces of the polar ice caps and glaciers reflect a

climaterealtalk.org