CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

This has to be the lamest and most idiotic excuse ever.

Excuse for why scientists don’t spend all their time arguing on the daily mails comments section?

Scientists publish research. The research gets reported in the media. Scientists defend their research at conferences. What more can they do?

thecretinhop

thecretinhop wrote: »

PBH on liveline *a radio debate show: "the debate is OVER!" on global warming

It is as far as those whose financial security depends on it, I see time and time again that the damage of excessive consumerism is completely ignored at every level.

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

The problem being, all skeptics know that they have no chance of publication in mainstream journals because only IPCC-agenda-favourable material can possibly pass peer review there. So one avenue around that roadblock is to try to set up an alternate scientific body with its own journals.

In a clash between rival sciences, the only way to tell which is more legitimate is to study which one has better predictions. Since this clash has been fairly recent, we are all going to have to wait to find out the answer to that. But in my own case, I am really advancing a third option that is not that similar to most skeptics. I am basically saying the IPCC may be right in their predictions but wrong about the reasons. This is not what most other skeptics believe, most of them think the climate may stabilize and become steady-state.

I hope they are right as otherwise we are inevitably (rather than possibly) going to face the consequences of increased warming trends. I just think that they are inevitable because too much of the foundation for them is natural variability to make our interventions into AGW much of a factor in the outcome.

My analysis is that the climate was trying to enter a natural cooling phase around the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it failed to take hold, perhaps because the strong El Nino of 1982-83 kicked that trend to the ground and left things steady-state for a few years, but further strong El Ninos in the 1990s led the way to warmer conditions that peaked 1998-2006. Another peak occurred around 2010-12. How much of this was natural variability, and how much was AGW, is what I am working on separating out, but I think at the very least it is still a 50-50 mixture and may continue to be closer to the longer-term 2:1 ratio. I do expect another attempt at natural cooling due to the long-term effects of the current solar downturn. Some years around 2021-24 may turn colder again. However, the state of play of arctic ice cover is such that any future coolings may be more like halts in warming.

I think it would take a Maunder-like solar shutdown lasting decades to prevent the inevitable increase in global temperatures in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 C deg during this coming century.

I notice the thread has pretty much reset to a debate between warmers and skeptics, but I continue to take this rather isolated (to myself) third route and if I'm right obviously it would have different implications for policy than if either of the warring camps are right.

All flat earthers know that they have no chance of getting published. It’s that damned conspiracy against them

Your analysis is not worth the paper it’s printed on unless you’re prepared to submit it to the peer review process where suitably qualified experts can check it for errors and validate your methodology

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

The ‘downtrodden’ proles have much more to lose from environmental destruction than the wealthy have. Environmental protection should be a class issue but the right wing media have spent a fortune convincing the working class that clean air and water is against their interests

The green new deal specifically targets the wealthy and specifically benefits the poor.

The last Green deal we had in Ireland rewarded the wealthy (the only ones capable of purchasing a shiny new car in a sharp recession) with lower motor taxes and other incentives. EV purchasers were rewarded with free fuel (the majority of which was produced by oil and gas power generation stations) for several years along with a €5000 grant and practically 0 motor tax. Meanwhile many motorists who couldn't afford to buy post August 2008 cars were saddled with increased motor tax and substantially increased fuel prices.

But yeah, your right it's a class issue that specifically targets the wealthy - for their benefit of course. Congratulations, you've earned the title of "Champagne Socialist", I'm sure you're honoured no doubt.

Akrasia

thecretinhop wrote: »

PBH on liveline *a radio debate show: "the debate is OVER!" on global warming

It is over.

Evolution won, creationism lost. Doesn’t mean every scientist agrees with every detail of evolution, but everyone (who isn’t a slave to their ideology) agrees that creationism is bullsh1t

posidonia

Danno wrote: »

The last Green deal we had in Ireland rewarded the wealthy (the only ones capable of purchasing a shiny new car in a sharp recession) with lower motor taxes and other incentives. EV purchasers were rewarded with free fuel (the majority of which was produced by oil and gas power generation stations) for several years along with a €5000 grant and practically 0 motor tax. Meanwhile many motorists who couldn't afford to buy post August 2008 cars were saddled with increased motor tax and substantially increased fuel prices.

But yeah, your right it's a class issue that specifically targets the wealthy - for their benefit of course. Congratulations, you've earned the title of "Champagne Socialist", I'm sure you're honoured no doubt.

I'm lucky enough to have been brought up in the countryside - clean air and all that.


Perhaps you can tell me if other people want to breath polluted air? Do you want to breath polluted air? Perhaps it is a trade of between that and jobs? I can see perfectly good reasons it might (people need money, food, a place to live), I'm just asking.


What title have you earned?

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

The last Green deal we had in Ireland rewarded the wealthy (the only ones capable of purchasing a shiny new car in a sharp recession) with lower motor taxes and other incentives. EV purchasers were rewarded with free fuel (the majority of which was produced by oil and gas power generation stations) for several years along with a €5000 grant and practically 0 motor tax. Meanwhile many motorists who couldn't afford to buy post August 2008 cars were saddled with increased motor tax and substantially increased fuel prices.

But yeah, your right it's a class issue that specifically targets the wealthy - for their benefit of course. Congratulations, you've earned the title of "Champagne Socialist", I'm sure you're honoured no doubt.

They also introduced a whole raft of free schemes to insulate and upgrade the homes of poor people saving them a fortune in their energy bills...

Changing the road tax system to be based on CO2 emissions radically changed the national fleet to be more fuel efficient.
Giving incentives to get people to become early adopters to EVs is not Champaign socialism.

Giving massive subsidies to the oil industry is much worse. Ireland alone gives 2.5 billion a year in direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry

oriel36

Akrasia wrote: »

It is over.

Evolution won, creationism lost. Doesn’t mean every scientist agrees with every detail of evolution, but everyone (who isn’t a slave to their ideology) agrees that creationism is bullsh1t

That is a false dichotomy.

The works of Nicolas Steno with superposition in geology and William Smith with faunal succession found through the fossil records in rock strata led Wegener to conclude crustal evolution/motion that is plate tectonics.

The empire building notions of Darwin imposed on biology as a 'law of nature' incited Hitler to invade and exterminate based on the empirical modeling of human evolution using negroes and aborigines as props back to gorillas -

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin


In short, the work of genuine researchers and careful observations like Steno, Smith and Wegener led to the interactions between biology and geology over planetary history as positive topics but empirical modeling ended with the death of millions in WWII. As seen from Darwin's comment above, the academics simply whitewashed aborigines and negroes out and replaced them with neanderthals where modern men are supposed to have clubbed these people to death as per survival-of-the-fittest.

The point of departure for geology,biology and climate are entirely different for genuine researchers as opposed to the greenhouse people and their narrow 'scientific method' pigeon hole operations.

Gaoth Laidir

Just more on the RSS v4 lower tropospheric temperature dataset, the overall trends from 1980-2019 are +0.21 K/decade for RSS and +0.13 K/decade for the UAH v6, a difference of +62% for the RSS (it has the warming 62% faster than the UAH figures). That's a huge discrepancy




On single monthyl figures it's running up to twice as warm as the equivalent UAH v6. For example, the 2016 annual comparison below shows the monthy differences (RSS/UAH) ranging from +40 to +97%, with the annual average +51%. In actial terms the difference is almost half a degree.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Excuse for why scientists don’t spend all their time arguing on the daily mails comments section?

Scientists publish research. The research gets reported in the media. Scientists defend their research at conferences. What more can they do?

...yet do allow equally false reporting to go unchallenged in The Guardian.

posidonia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just more on the RSS v4 lower tropospheric temperature dataset, the overall trends from 1980-2019 are +0.21 K/decade for RSS and +0.13 K/decade for the UAH v6, a difference of +62% for the RSS (it has the warming 62% faster than te UAH figures).




On single monthyl figures it's running up to twice as warm as the equivalent UAH v6. For example, the 2016 annual comparison below shows the monthy differences (RSS/UAH) ranging from +40 to +97%, with the annual average +51%.

Well, if you think UAH is right then 1998 is still the warmest year, if RSS is right then it wasn't.


My view is 1998 wasn't the warmest year. And I think the evidence is it wasn't. But, if you think the data is a fraud and a scam (like Heller does) then you'll think UAH is right.


And how do we establish which is right? It can't be done in places like this - such debates become slanging matches. For me its established by scientists working for NOAA, GISS, Met O and the rest but, again, if you're like Heller you think they're part of a vast fraud and scam and we go back to square one...


How strong is the evidence its a scam and a fraud? Well, mostly it is the words of people like Heller or WUWT. I don't believe them, but if you do, then back to square one again...


These debate have gone on for more than a decade. My view is there are less sceptics bu that the hard core of them are more convinced they are right. others probably don't agree - back to square one.


What will resolve this. Time. Imo we don't have time but other will disagree - back to square one we go...

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

It is over.

Evolution won, creationism lost. Doesn’t mean every scientist agrees with every detail of evolution, but everyone (who isn’t a slave to their ideology) agrees that creationism is bullsh1t

This is a great reply to the question that was not under discussion, diversion tactic anybody!

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

As to the document we were asked to review, the obvious problem leaps off the page in the graph showing relative size of forcings. Natural variability is assigned a + or - 0.1 C deg input. This is far too small. So it shows that the entire premise of the IPCC is wrong, that the demonstrated increases in greenhouse gases are not the entire cause of the warming we have seen, and may not even be the main cause.

what figure would you give for natural variability over the timescale covered in that graph and how did you calculate this figure?

However, the main foundation of my unease with the IPCC approach is a false sense of security that they create with their concept of avoiding thermal catastrophe by going green. It won't work. There isn't enough variation in that factor to make our partial changes (full-scale changes just lead to another form of disaster) capable of making a large impact on what I would see as nearly inevitable warming anyway.

define thermal catastrophe
define going green, and explain what you would expect to happen if the measures advised by the IPCC were not adopted.

If 'thermal catastrophe' cannot be avoided, is it better to reduce the damage or just give up and do nothing?

(for example, you get a tsunami alert. A tsunami cannot be stopped. Do you head for high ground and hope to survive and rebuild, or do you just give up and accept you fate

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a great reply to the question that was not under discussion, diversion tactic anybody!

Everybody agrees that the 'science is settled' and the 'debate is over' regarding evolution v creationism. (except the creationists)

Everyone agrees that the science is settled and the debate is over regarding whether or not the greenhouse effect is causing global climate change (except the 'skeptics'

SeaBreezes

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is a great reply to the question that was not under discussion, diversion tactic anybody!

When you stop arguing the science and start throwing shade and insults, you've no solid rebuttal and you've lost the argument...

Terms like flat earthers, creationists, conspiracy, and cult come from this poster regularly...

But ACTUAL data? ..

posidonia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

When you stop arguing the science and start throwing shade and insults, you've no solid rebuttal and you've lost the argument...

Terms like flat earthers, creationists, conspiracy, and cult come from this poster regularly...

But ACTUAL data? ..

Are words like 'liar', 'fraudster' and 'scammer' not insults? They are, and they permeate this discussion....

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The UAH v6 satellite data for the lower troposphere also showed (and still show) that flat trend refered to in the video, with even a slight negative trend of -0.05 K in the 2000-09 decade. To "cherrypick" a bit, the flat trend extends from 1995-2013 inclusive (i.e. 19 years). I've plotted the annual averages and decadal trends below. Overall, it's a +0.132 degree per decade trend throughout the 1980-2019 time period.



I note you still haven't spoken about the specific point Heller makes about the RSS adjustment in the video, taking the top of the error band as the new mean value. Maybe just coincidence...

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

What’s your point?
The trend is upwards unless you cherry-pick date ranges? I completely agree with you

thecretinhop

Akrasia wrote: »

It is over.

Evolution won, creationism lost. Doesn’t mean every scientist agrees with every detail of evolution, but everyone (who isn’t a slave to their ideology) agrees that creationism is bullsh1t

wow. such guff from one person.
riddle me dis wise won

how many dies right now in winters in uk. old people due to higher fuel costs

africa and south america how many die.

climate nuts are unhinged imo. lol (i must be a DE NUW R eh?)

posidonia

thecretinhop wrote: »

wow. such guff from one person.
riddle me dis wise won

how many dies right now in winters in uk. old people due to higher fuel costs

africa and south america how many die.

climate nuts are unhinged imo. lol (i must be a DE NUW R eh?)

When you stop arguing the science and start throwing shade and insults, you've no solid rebuttal and you've lost the argument...

Akrasia

posidonia wrote: »

Are words like 'liar', 'fraudster' and 'scammer' not insults? They are, and they permeate this discussion....

The ‘skeptic’ side of the argument is full of liars fraudsters and scammers.
Many of the same people who worked with the tobacco industry to deny the link between smoking and cancer have used the same tactics on behalf of the energy industry to deny the link between CO2 and climate change

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2010/aug/08/merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-conway

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

When you stop arguing the science and start throwing shade and insults, you've no solid rebuttal and you've lost the argument...

Terms like flat earthers, creationists, conspiracy, and cult come from this poster regularly...

But ACTUAL data? ..

You said the ratpac radiosonde data didn’t show any warming. I showed you the graph and you ignored it. Do you still think Connolly is credible given that he is blatantly lying about this data?

thecretinhop

like i care. i 1000pc believe its a scam. religious 15 century scare.
de condsending tone of most truth believers is enough guff for me to stomach

Oneiric 3

Funny how the 'debate is over because the science is settled', yet climate scientists are still too busy 'doing science' to call out the misleading hype in the media. What are they busy doing? settling the already settled science even further and hiding away in conference halls?

Funny how their not too busy when it comes to 'debunking' anyone, such as that Heller guy, who might dare to challenge them of some of their 'findings'.

You're not fooling anyone, and most certainly not me, with these nonsense replies Akrasia.

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Funny how the 'debate is over because the science is settled', yet climate scientists are still too busy 'doing science' to call out the misleading hype in the media. What are they busy doing? settling the already settled science even further and hiding away in conference halls?

Funny how their not too busy when it comes to 'debunking' anyone, such as that Heller guy, who might dare to challenge them of some of their 'findings'.

You're not fooling anyone, and most certainly not me, with these nonsense replies Akrasia.

But various videos have been posted where a scientist DOES debunk Heller..


I'm afraid you don't fool me.

posidonia

thecretinhop wrote: »

like i care. i 1000pc believe its a scam. religious 15 century scare.
de condsending tone of most truth believers is enough guff for me to stomach

When you stop arguing the science and start throwing shade and insults, you've no solid rebuttal and you've lost the argument...

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Environmental protection should be a class issue but the right wing media have spent a fortune convincing the working class that clean air and water is against their interests

The green new deal specifically targets the wealthy and specifically benefits the poor.

The same right-wing media that also spouts climate apocalypse every other day? of which you and scientists are complicit in?

Your last sentence is fantasy. Remind me again what sparked the 'Mouvement des gilets jaunes' last year, and why those sensitive little UN folk had to have their 'climate summit' cancelled in Chile just a few weeks back?

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

They also introduced a whole raft of free schemes to insulate and upgrade the homes of poor people saving them a fortune in their energy bills...

Utter bull-ology. Any savings made on using less energy to heat homes were quickly wiped out with carbon tax increases. This is a very ingenious statement to make and reminds me of a saying "piddle down their backs and tell them they're sweating"

I've no problem and think it's a good idea to burn less fossil fuels, but don't say this is to save money.

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

But various videos have been posted where a scientist DOES debunk Heller..


I'm afraid you don't fool me.

Misses my point entirely.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Funny how the 'debate is over because the science is settled', yet climate scientists are still too busy 'doing science' to call out the misleading hype in the media. What are they busy doing? settling the already settled science even further and hiding away in conference halls?

Funny how their not too busy when it comes to 'debunking' anyone, such as that Heller guy, who might dare to challenge them of some of their 'findings'.

You're not fooling anyone, and most certainly not me, with these nonsense replies Akrasia.

The germ theory of disease is accepted science. Does this mean all medical scientists have loads of free time to sit around all day arguing with homeopaths on the internet?

thecretinhop

posidonia wrote: »

When you stop arguing the science and start throwing shade and insults, you've no solid rebuttal and you've lost the argument...

do you have a stutter?