XF Forum banner

221 - 240 of 274 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Mann in contempt for his hockey stick, UK summer now officially 'heatwave' at 20 deg. C, Oz fiddling Global Cooling, it's just a matter of time before these vermin do the Tyburn jig.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-01/aussie-weather-bureau-busted-tampering-climate-data
Neither the UK nor Australia equate to Global. I very much doubt scientists are tampering with data to show warming in Oz, it would be pointless. Fake news from a denier site. No ideas of their own or any cogent theories.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,985 Posts
But there is no Global really, is there?

Whatever CO2 is or is not doing to the climate, the effects will be very much localized.

For Russia the opening of the Arctic for year round navigation, fishing and oil exploration may be a huge boom as will be the moderation of its winters.

Bangladesh on the other hand may be largely submerged.

The issue is that the alarmist "scientist" made the jump to CO2 = bad consequences for everyone. And that is simply not the case. There will be winners and losers as in any change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #223
That is entirely contrary to the scientific method as I believe you are aware. You can only disprove a positive. Conversely there are some negatives you probably can prove. "Not all swans are white" is provable, whereas "all swans are white" can only be disproved. So you appear be absolutely wrong (again).
No climate scientist has got further than to propose a hypothesis that CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity is causing a catastrophic increase in average global temperatures (the CAGW hypothesis). Nobody has come close to establishing that this hypothesis can be justified as a workable theory. None of the GCM (as in zero) outputs have plausibly supported the hypothesis. No experimental verification of the hypothesis has been found. The best current data do not even reveal a rise in temperature that can be correlated to the rise in CO2 let alone provide any evidence of a causal relationship. Etc etc.

Your black swan example has been done already. You have it backwards. Read the book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
But there is no Global really, is there?

Whatever CO2 is or is not doing to the climate, the effects will be very much localized.

For Russia the opening of the Arctic for year round navigation, fishing and oil exploration may be a huge boom as will be the moderation of its winters.

Bangladesh on the other hand may be largely submerged.

The issue is that the alarmist "scientist" made the jump to CO2 = bad consequences for everyone. And that is simply not the case. There will be winners and losers as in any change.
Are you suggesting the world is flat? I'm reasonably sure it's a globe. I think the view is that rapid change in climate will be generally bad with the possibility of the good out weighing the bad being non-existent. A slight variation in climate is likely to cause mass extinctions. Man of course will adapt (that's what we do). The economic impact will be negative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
No climate scientist has got further than to propose a hypothesis that CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity is causing a catastrophic increase in average global temperatures (the CAGW hypothesis). Nobody has come close to establishing that this hypothesis can be justified as a workable theory. None of the GCM (as in zero) outputs have plausibly supported the hypothesis. No experimental verification of the hypothesis has been found. The best current data do not even reveal a rise in temperature that can be correlated to the rise in CO2 let alone provide any evidence of a causal relationship. Etc etc.

Your black swan example has been done already. You have it backwards. Read the book.
Err the book is about unlikely events and their effects it is not about the theory of science. The Black swan metaphor was used in the theory of science first and was used by Taleb in his musings.

You are simply wrong. All new data points to global warming at an unprecedented rate. The only explanation is man made CO2. The increase in CO2 has been verified, that it is man made CO2 has been verified. Whether AGW leads to CAGW rather depends on your definition...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #226 (Edited)
Err the book is about unlikely events and their effects it is not about the theory of science. The Black swan metaphor was used in the theory of science first and was used by Taleb in his musings.

You are simply wrong. All new data points to global warming at an unprecedented rate. The only explanation is man made CO2. The increase in CO2 has been verified, that it is man made CO2 has been verified. Whether AGW leads to CAGW rather depends on your definition...
You are not only wrong but misled by non facts dressed up as facts. Even if "all data" point (data is plural, just btw) to "global warming at an unprecedented rate" (which they don't, but feel free to find me that information and post the link) that is still no evidence at all that the claimed temperature rise is caused by human activity.

As for the the black swan metaphor argument you should just give up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,985 Posts
Are you suggesting the world is flat? I'm reasonably sure it's a globe. I think the view is that rapid change in climate will be generally bad with the possibility of the good out weighing the bad being non-existent. A slight variation in climate is likely to cause mass extinctions. Man of course will adapt (that's what we do). The economic impact will be negative.
The shape of the globe is of no consequence to the points I'm making. The point is that every country/region will have to determine the likely effects of climate change and create a very localized adaptation plan.

The adaptation plan for Russia may be to assert dominance over the Arctic. The adaptation plan for Miami may be to build a 3 foot seawall. The adaptation plan for Bangladesh may be to force Europe and (a non-Trump) US to pay for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
The shape of the globe is of no consequence to the points I'm making. The point is that every country/region will have to determine the likely effects of climate change and create a very localized adaptation plan.

The adaptation plan for Russia may be to assert dominance over the Arctic. The adaptation plan for Miami may be to build a 3 foot seawall. The adaptation plan for Bangladesh may be to force Europe and (a non-Trump) US to pay for it.
This sounds sensible, but I think it's a stretch to believe that the beneficiaries (if there are any) will compensate the dispossessed. There's no evidence that any country is that enlightened. Indeed the US might move to protect valuable markets, but let's say the US was more significantly affected than other areas, would anyone be in the mood to assist...especially given that the whole denier culture is US driven. I appreciate there are strong advocates of AGW in the US too - such a divided nation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
You are not only wrong but misled by non facts dressed up as facts. Even if "all data" point (data is plural, just btw) to "global warming at an unprecedented rate" (which they don't, but feel free to find me that information and post the link) that is still no evidence at all that the claimed temperature rise is caused by human activity.

As for the the black swan metaphor argument you should just give up.
In 1970, NASA launched the IRISsatellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm[SUP]-1[/SUP] to 1600 cm[SUP]-1[/SUP].In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recordedsimilar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes inoutgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation wasas follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
What they found wasa drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB])and methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation isconsistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "directexperimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".This result hasbeen confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellitelaunched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using datafrom the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching theexpected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empiricalevidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.Surface measurements of downward longwave radiationA compilation ofsurface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find anincreasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increasesin air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009).More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation overthe central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing dueto an enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).Taking this astep further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists toquantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "thisexperimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that noexperimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and globalwarming."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,985 Posts
This sounds sensible, but I think it's a stretch to believe that the beneficiaries (if there are any) will compensate the dispossessed. There's no evidence that any country is that enlightened. Indeed the US might move to protect valuable markets, but let's say the US was more significantly affected than other areas, would anyone be in the mood to assist...especially given that the whole denier culture is US driven. I appreciate there are strong advocates of AGW in the US too - such a divided nation
Oh, you are so right about that. Pre-Trump the US has been committing slow suicide. "We need to help China get into the WTO with favorable terms". We need to help Africa. We need to protect Europe and Japan. Blah, blah, blah.

And we were doing it again. Barak was celebrating the climate deal with China, which said that China could continue to build 1 new coal plant per week till 2030, while the US capped emissions. LOL.

Thank god we have Trump. Let Africa and Bangladesh and China worry about climate change. We don't care. We have the resources to build any wall, make our population fat with cheap food, etc, regardless of what the climate does. With Elon's help we can even colonize Mars if we have to.

If anyone wants the US to cut on CO2 emissions, then come pay us like we paid Africa.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Oh, you are so right about that. Pre-Trump the US has been committing slow suicide. "We need to help China get into the WTO with favorable terms". We need to help Africa. We need to protect Europe and Japan. Blah, blah, blah.

And we were doing it again. Barak was celebrating the climate deal with China, which said that China could continue to build 1 new coal plant per week till 2030, while the US capped emissions. LOL.

Thank god we have Trump. Let Africa and Bangladesh and China worry about climate change. We don't care. We have the resources to build any wall, make our population fat with cheap food, etc, regardless of what the climate does. With Elon's help we can even colonize Mars if we have to.

If anyone wants the US to cut on CO2 emissions, then come pay us like we paid Africa.
We're wandering off topic but (apologies) there are good economic reasons for protecting your largest foreign markets (e.g. Europe) and those holding all your lovely debt (China although that works both ways).

I don't understand free marketeers like you (going on your previous posts) who support protectionist Trump. I understand he looks after the religious types and oil industry (way to drain the swamp) but his economics (such as they are) are not really "Republican" are they? Apologies if my assumptions about you are misplaced
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,985 Posts
I don't support protectionism at all.

But there is one thing i dislike more than protectionism. And that is one-way protectionism. It is ridiculous that we allow Brazil to tax an American imported car by 80%-125%, while we tax imported Brazilian cars by 2.5%. That is the definition of stupidity. When applied to the scale of the Chinese trade with the US, it is planned suicide.

When you are the largest economy in the world, and the largest market in the world, all the trade rules should be bent to the benefit of the USA. Instead we intentionally wrote them to benefit the other countries. Ridiculous. Maybe it made sense in 1945-1950, when the US economy was 45-55% of global GDP. Now? No way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,985 Posts
As to being off topic, I disagree.

It is a very simple position. In order for the US to have 10 carrier battle groups and 48 nuclear submarines on patrol to protect Japan, Europe and South Korea, it requires 25 billion tons of CO2/year extra. End of story. Next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #234
In 1970, NASA launched the IRISsatellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm[SUP]-1[/SUP] to 1600 cm[SUP]-1[/SUP].In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recordedsimilar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes inoutgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation wasas follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
What they found wasa drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB])and methane (CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation isconsistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "directexperimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".This result hasbeen confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellitelaunched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using datafrom the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching theexpected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empiricalevidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.Surface measurements of downward longwave radiationA compilation ofsurface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find anincreasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increasesin air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009).More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation overthe central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing dueto an enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).Taking this astep further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists toquantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "thisexperimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that noexperimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and globalwarming."
Except that those old satellites cannot and so do not measure OLR with sufficient accuracy to support the remainder of the claims in the item you quoted. The USA is now in the process of launching just such a set of new highly accurate and, more importantly, very numerous satellites to measure OLR with more accuracy. It is hoped we will then actually be able to calculate OLR and compare that to TSI. Only then will we even know the Earth is actually warming up.

From records dating back to around 1850, albeit of unknown accuracy, and proxy record calculations we already know that the Earth has warmed up a bit since the end of the Little Ice Age. We also know it cooled down after the MWP, and the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene climate optimum (I missed out a complete listing for brevity). We really don't know what the delta change in temperatures has been. We dint even know what the delta is from 1850 to now although remarkably there are some who claim that we do. Only "climate scientists" make that claim among the scientific community. The general community of scientists agrees with me. No evidence and certainly no proof.

Believe what you wish, and it is just a belief, but there is no evidence that human activity has any effect on this cyclical change in global temperatures and certainly does not have even the potential to become catastrophic based on all that we know about how the climate on earth is regulated by its automatic mechanisms. We do not know how the system works and until we do we cannot know whether or not increased CO2 emissijns can have any effect at all let alone a warming effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Except that those old satellites cannot and so do not measure OLR with sufficient accuracy to support the remainder of the claims in the item you quoted. The USA is now in the process of launching just such a set of new highly accurate and, more importantly, very numerous satellites to measure OLR with more accuracy. It is hoped we will then actually be able to calculate OLR and compare that to TSI. Only then will we even know the Earth is actually warming up.

From records dating back to around 1850, albeit of unknown accuracy, and proxy record calculations we already know that the Earth has warmed up a bit since the end of the Little Ice Age. We also know it cooled down after the MWP, and the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene climate optimum (I missed out a complete listing for brevity). We really don't know what the delta change in temperatures has been. We dint even know what the delta is from 1850 to now although remarkably there are some who claim that we do. Only "climate scientists" make that claim among the scientific community. The general community of scientists agrees with me. No evidence and certainly no proof.

Believe what you wish, and it is just a belief, but there is no evidence that human activity has any effect on this cyclical change in global temperatures and certainly does not have even the potential to become catastrophic based on all that we know about how the climate on earth is regulated by its automatic mechanisms. We do not know how the system works and until we do we cannot know whether or not increased CO2 emissijns can have any effect at all let alone a warming effect.
Hoorah, finally nailing his flag to a post(s) rather than simple denial (previously). Let's see what we have, hmm, nothing new. Firstly assertion that the data is not accurate (standard denier 101 tactic) ignoring that this is merely one line of data amongst many all of which agree with the theory of AGW.

Second the "natural cycles" gambit also known as the "it's happened before" argument. Only the rate of warming detected over the last hundred years has not happened before. Climate scientists are fully aware of all of these phenomena. Looking forward to the results from the new satellites, will those results be discounted to?

Finally, "automatic mechanisms", well there are mechanisms we know about, the rest is conjecture, you want we should rely on unknown mechanisms?

Oh and of course there is "catastrophic" which very much depends on your definition. There has always been an outside chance of "runaway" global warming, which would end in the oceans boiling. I'm reasonably sure that most people don't restrict catastrophic to that scenario. A recent study found that the chances of runaway global warming were possible less than previously thought. Amusingly, and predictably, this was pounced on by the denier community as proof of low sensitivity to global warming - failing to spot that the same paper also ruled out low sensitivity to global warming and that, therefore, the probability was a sensitivity to global warming in the mid range (which is bad thing).

Emphasis on "catastrophic" is a denier tactic because, "if it's not catastrophic it must be great" (see Baron's posts, "not bad for everyone" - well that's OK then!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
So gas in the UK is running out, with Germany's prior reserve to this "Cold Snap" 10-20x bigger, and with Nord Stream from the evil Ruskies, and with the UK reliant on a Qatari boat getting lost on its way to southern Europe, and the Qataris now being ****** off with UK bosom pal Saudi Arabia trying to destroy it...

...which all means UK 'experts' now have a choice:

- run down pressure to homes, meaning potential flame outs, and the risk of explosion in old/poorly maintained boilers, cookers, fires etc - which means a lot in fast-becoming 3rd world 'corgi registered' UK, or

- ration gas to big industrial users, which means gas-fired power stations, as we have f.all large industrial users in UK since the 80s, which means

- general power cuts, as opposed to the local, half-hour jobs till now.

The windmills are gaining ice by the day, and the solar panels are covered in snow.

UK's only hope is that this "snap", which is just the start of this solar cycle minimum, with the worst still years ahead, around 2021-23, and then a grand solar minimum on top, a Dalton or possibly a Maunder, breaks in the next 2 days, as if this continues past the weekend, we are looking at food shortages, mass deaths from hypothermia, not just in the elderly, and quite possibly civil breakdown, as food supplies become affected, with the notorious supermarket just-in-time supply chains from field to shelf.

We've only ourselves to blame, as we are an infantilised society, distracted by bread and circuses - football, Z-listers, crappy royal weddings etc - and the under 30s believe smartphones are the be all and end all of everything.

British people believe AGW more than most other peoples, lacking the gumption to question the 30 years long propaganda. You reap what you sow, and the whirlwind literally is here, with -25 deg C windchill, when we were told just a deacde ago by charlatans like Gore, Blair, Stein, Viner... that 'snow would be a thing of the past', 'the world would have warmed by 2 deg C by 2020', and the 'polar cap melted', and 'the north west passage opened up'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,295 Posts
For those still with eyes that can see, rather than get their 'facts' from the British Brainwashing Cult, what does this remind you of?:



or this:



this?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_1946–47_in_the_United_Kingdom

For those not in the bubble of London/S.East, this 'mild-ish', 'unremarkable' winter, 2017-18, has been ongoing since at least mid-November, with at least 5 snow episodes, or "cold snaps" as the media likes to call them, as opposed to one day of temps over 25 deg C in the middle of the summer, which they call confirmation of run-away Global Warming.

Unlike 1963 and 1979, very bad winters in UK, and certainly 1947, when the UK had thousands of German and Italian(POWs) to literally dig itself out of trouble, we in 2018 have only our smartphones and our famous British sense of humour, and of course 24/7 BBC brainwashing telling you 1,001 fun things to do in the back garden on #Snowday.

We are so screwed. We have a so-called first-world country with a third-world infrastructure and a fifth-rate mentality of utter childishness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
As I have already explained to you, the present cold snap in a small portion of northern Europe is due to an extended period of exceptionally high temperatures in the arctic (20 degrees higher then "normal"). This is playing havoc with the usual airstreams which divide the arctic cold from the warm air further south. And also having a consequential effect on the "Jetstream". Nobody, who has a clue would ever point to a single hot summer (never mind a single day) and call it confirmation of run-away global warming. The evidence in support of global warming is based on long term trends only. There are many possible consequences of global warming and "run-away" warming is only one (fairly unlikely) of the possible disastrous outcomes. I don't know what the rant at the end is about but I suggest staying away from television for you.

I note that you are pointing to a tiny fraction of the planet at a point in time to suggest either evidence against global warming or the coming of an ice-age? May be more telly for you and less social media, especially seeking alpha, Breitbart etc. or wherever it is you get your brainwashing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Probably ought to point out that scientists have recently detected an acceleration in sea level rises. The stats are something like 15 of the hottest years on record have occurred this century. For 2017:

A number of records for the Earth’s climate were set in 2017:
  • It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2016 and 2017.
  • It was the second or third warmest year on record for surface temperature – depending on the dataset used – and the warmest year without the influence of an El Niño event.
  • It saw record lows in sea ice extent and volume in the Arctic both at the beginning and end of the year, though the minimum extent reached in September was only the eighth lowest on record.
  • It also saw record-low Antarctic sea ice for much of the year, though scientists are still working to determine the role of human activity in the region’s sea ice changes
 
221 - 240 of 274 Posts
Top