Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

https://www.scribd.com/document/337186053/180-Years-of-Atmospheric-CO2-Gas-Analysis-by-Chemical-Methods

An interesting analysis of how 280ppm as chosen by the UNIPCC as being the historic equilibrium figure for atmospheric CO2 concentrations deliberately ignores a multitude of historic research showing it to be a higher figure.

https://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

There is very little about climate that is fully understood.

From the horse's mouth:

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXw_HipM9Eg

He is a lecture from 2014 by MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Richard Lindzen. There is very little about climate that is fully understood.

There is very little about anything that is 'fully understood'. is So we don't demand complete and 100% accurate understanding about any topic in order to make a judgement about causes and effects.

What we do, is we base our assessment on what we do understand, including the limitations of that understanding, and all of this points towards the consensus view on climate change.

Lindzen and others do the opposite. They reject the consensus based on things that are not understood. In order to do this, he needs to postulate that his own views on things even he admits aren't understood must be accurate for ??? reasons and that these hunches that he has are enough to override the huge amounts of established science that points to a much higher climate sensitivity than he wants to admit to.

Lindzen's views are based on his own pet theories along with inaccurate representations of known science and his own political ideology.

After he wrote a letter to Trump urging his to pull out of the Paris agreement, his own colleagues responded to this by pointing out that he is at odds with the scientific community, while the UCSUSA annotated his letter pointing out the factual errors and misleading politicised statements that he made.

dense wrote: »

From the horse's mouth:

https://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything.

What we do know about climate is enough that we need to act ASAP to prevent more harm.

Just because you don't know exactly (for certain) where a fire would spread in your house if it starts in the bedroom, does that mean it's a good idea to start a fire in your bedroom

Btw, Lindzen thinks that Climate sensitivity is only 1c (So does Ray Bates) but we've gotten already close to 1c with only a 40% increase of CO2 concentration

Lindzen's theory has no predictive value, his predictions have already been falsified unless suddenly the climate feedbacks switch from net positive to net negative which they are not doing and there isn't any plausible scientific mechanism for this which hasn't already been discredited using multiple experiments. (Clouds are a probably a net positive feedback according to many studies, and likely to be strongly net positive)

Lindzen just 'supposes' that feedbacks are a certain amount, and then 'supposes' that all these feedbacks cancel out the warming that he admits is guaranteed to happen as a result of radiative forcing caused by increasing greenhouse gasses.

Akrasia wrote: »

Lindzen's views are based on his own pet theories along with inaccurate representations of known science and his own political ideology.

The UNIPCC "theories" are based on their own pet theories too, eschewing what doesn't suit its agenda, and it is evident that the likes of Evo Morales who our own expert "climate scientist" Professor Sweeney puts on a pedastal is reflective of the socialist politics promoted by the Dance against Climate Change climate justice warriors at Friends of the Earth and Climate Chaos and Paul Murphy, Brid Smyth etc.

https://www.foe.ie/blog/2014/12/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-un-climate-talks-in-lima-peru/

As a matter of interest, you've said you're not practising what you preach in relation to what you say we need to do in relation to saving the planet, because one person makes no difference, so do you mind if I ask if you do practice what you preach politically speaking?

That is, do you support or vote for Irish socialist politicians, who share your climate emergency fears and have promoted the Climate Emergency Measures Bill passed here?

Or are they a bit nuts?

(You can answer without saying whether you vote for socialist parties. That's your own business, unless you'd like to share it.)

But they are all a bit cracked arent they?

Like the others bringing the government to court for failing to avert climate change?

https://greennews.ie/landmark-climate-case-pushed-back-february/

Change the record Dense. Your incoherent, irrelevant non-sequiturs aren't fooling anyone. You are on the wrong side of this scientific issue and all the reds under the beds paranoia won't hide that fact

Akrasia wrote: »

What we do know about climate is enough that we need to act ASAP to prevent more harm.

Why keep saying we? I don't need to do anything.

You need to act if you truly believe all the stuff of catastrophe that you're posting here.

Someone else posted this in response to you already.

Other than posting here linking to other people's research, what are you doing to save the planet?

How do you play your part?

Do you lobby the government, asking them to be brave enough to impose the political measures that will finally force you to act?

Otherwise it's all coming across all Charlie Haughey telling everyone else they were living beyond their means.

Akrasia wrote: »

Change the record Dense. Your incoherent, irrelevant non-sequiturs aren't fooling anyone. You are on the wrong side of this scientific issue and all the reds under the beds paranoia won't hide that fact

But you brought politics into it, again.

More of the sea level nonsense.

Quick, we need to act fast, build an ark.

Sea levels will rise by a metre in a thousand years time.

The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014

Over the same period, the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm yr−2...

As someone once said, how close to zero can a figure actually be???

And you want people to get worked up over this?

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0502.1

dense wrote: »

But you brought politics into it, again.

Real world politics, not loony one world socialist politics. Lindzen is allowing his conservative politics cloud his scientific judgement. And anyone who thinks the world's scientific community are almost all part of a conspiracy to ignore evidence contrary to the consensus is blinded by a different kind of politics.

If the greenhouse effect was debunked tomorrow, I would change my opinion. If lindzens theory was comprehensively debunked tomorrow, he would either change his theory to fit his previous conclusion. Or perhaps he would accept the findings and no longer deny significant climate change, but if he did, his army of supporters would not accept his new findings because they don't care what 'experts' they believe as long as they are saying what they want them to say.
From the perspective of an idealogue, no evidence contrary to their ideology is acceptable

Akrasia wrote: »

Real world politics, not loony one world socialist politics.

Akrasia wrote: »

The political system is caught between an imperative to drive economic growth, often at the expense of public health and the environment, and an imperative to get re-elected by being seen to support popular policies.

You're clearly unhappy with the current system, so could you lay out exactly what's so loony about a one world socialist political system, based on sustainability, and social and climate justice?

Is it not what is urgently required to force you into taking some hard action to save the planet, albeit against your will?

Truth be told, you're not really sold on it at all, and neither are most people, barring Paul Murphy, Ms. Copinger and their followers.

You've just called it loony politics, and you're not wrong.

dense wrote: »

You're clearly unhappy with the current system, so could you lay out exactly what's so loony about a one world socialist political system, based on sustainability, and social and climate justice?

Is it not what is urgently required to force you into taking some hard action to save the planet, albeit against your will?

Truth be told, you're not really sold on it at all, and neither are most people, barring Paul Murphy, Ms. Copinger and their followers.

You've just called it loony politics, and you're not wrong.

Firstly, your quote from me is hardly radical, It's a very basic description of the conflict in a democracy between getting reelected and building a competitive economy.

Secondly, socialism exists, the loony part is your proposition that there is a shadowy conspiracy to impose socialism on the world via environmentalism and through scientists distorting their research to get people to something something thereby causing a one world government.

I suspect it's partially due to a very warped definition of what constitutes socialism.

dense wrote: »

Didn't think you were the type to be quoting Anarcho-communists Dense?

But I agree, and soon our flag will fly all over the world.

Akrasia wrote: »

Firstly, your quote from me is hardly radical, It's a very basic description of the conflict in a democracy between getting reelected and building a competitive economy.

It's not radical, it's the usual looney stuff you hear from studenty types who don't live in the real world, do nothing to contribute to society and constantly whinge about everything being to their dislike.

Now Akrasia, you've yet to explain what it will take to force you against your will to take some meaningful action to save the planet.

Its a bizarre position to be in of explaining here what we should be doing to save the planet, not doing it yourself and then actually complaining that no one is compelling you to do something about it.

Have you actually thought this through at all?

dense wrote: »

It's not radical, it's the usual looney stuff you hear from studenty types who don't live in the real world, do nothing to contribute to society and constantly whinge about everything being to their dislike.

Now Akrasia, you've yet to explain what it will take to force you against your will to take some meaningful action to save the planet.

Its a bizarre position to be in of explaining here what we should be doing to save the planet, not doing it yourself and then actually complaining that no one is compelling you to do something about it.

Have you actually thought this through at all?

Individual action is irrelevant on a global issue like this, the only solution is intergovernmental treaties to cut emissions and replace energy infrastructure.

Private industry can do a lot of the innovating but governments need to put a price on carbon pollution.

Wanderer78

dense wrote:

It's not radical, it's the usual looney stuff you hear from studenty types who don't live in the real world, do nothing to contribute to society and constantly whinge about everything being to their dislike.

'who don't live in the real world', always a baffling statement, do some humans live in an alternative world? Sorry dense, but your comments are baffling and somewhat disturbing

Akrasia wrote: »

Individual action is irrelevant on a global issue like this, the only solution is intergovernmental treaties to cut emissions and replace energy infrastructure.

You'd be hard pressed to disagree with me when I say it appears you're not alone in not really being bothered enough about doing anything about fighting climate change beyond posting here about it, we're much the same as myself in that regard.

Given what you're now saying, would you agree that the less informed members of the community who are being guilt whipped into a frenzy about their carbon footprint by the likes of the Climate Chaos crowd and Professor Sweeney are being taken for suckers considering that "individual action is irrelevant on a global issue like this"?

As members of the public, we need to develop discernment in what we read and hear about climate change, and to take individual action to reduce our carbon – and water – footprints, as well as educating our peers and superiors.

http://www.nuigalway.ie/about-us/news-and-events/latest-news/irelands-leading-expert-on-climate-change-gives-lecture-at-nui-galway-.html

And I could have sworn you previously actively defended the EPA's personal Carbon footprint calculator when I was scoffing at it:

Using the Calculator to help reduce our carbon count number is an easy way to take responsibility for the greenhouse gas emissions we create every time we heat our homes, drive our cars, take a flight, charge our mobile phones or turn on our computers.

No thanks, eh? Same as myself.

http://www.epa.ie/climate/calculators/

I must see if can I find that, or if I'm just imagining it.

It's all gone a bit pear shaped lately, hasn't it?

Wanderer78 wrote: »

'who don't live in the real world', always a baffling statement, do some humans live in an alternative world? Sorry dense, but your comments are baffling and somewhat disturbing

Baffled by that phrase???
Its the same as saying some people seem to be living on a different planet.

BTW, do you check your carbon footprint?

Dont bother. Complete waste of time.

Wanderer78

dense wrote:

Baffled by that phrase??? Its the same as saying some people seem to be living on a different planet.

The term 'living in the real world' is a derogative term, used to deride individuals and groups, in reality, it actually has no real meaning as all humans live in the 'real' world always.

Many of your statements are baffling and dare I say it, embarrassing, you seem to have a poor understanding of many things including world politics, I can recommend some potentially beneficial research but it would actually be up to you to persue it, it's important to realise my own disposition and potential biases in such matters though, as I'm a proud lefty.

dense wrote: »

You'd be hard pressed to disagree with me when I say it appears you're not alone in not really being bothered enough about doing anything about fighting climate change beyond posting here about it, we're much the same as myself in that regard.

Given what you're now saying, would you agree that the less informed members of the community who are being guilt whipped into a frenzy about their carbon footprint by the likes of the Climate Chaos crowd and Professor Sweeney are being taken for suckers considering that "individual action is irrelevant on a global issue like this"?

http://www.nuigalway.ie/about-us/news-and-events/latest-news/irelands-leading-expert-on-climate-change-gives-lecture-at-nui-galway-.html

And I could have sworn you previously actively defended the EPA's personal Carbon footprint calculator when I was scoffing at it:

No thanks, eh? Same as myself.

http://www.epa.ie/climate/calculators/

I must see if can I find that, or if I'm just imagining it.

It's all gone a bit pear shaped lately, hasn't it?

Me: I think humans should do something about the debris cloud threatening our ability to maintain a satellite infrastructure

Dense: How many space debris clean up missions have you launched?? None??? You're such a hypocrite. Don't dare advocate for action until you've already built your own space elevator and started gathering paint fragments from orbit yourself......

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The term 'living in the real world' is a derogative term, used to deride individuals and groups, in reality, it actually has no real meaning as all humans live in the 'real' world always.

Interesting!

I do think that Dense does make some interesting points and offers much to this debate, but this notion he has of the 'socialist' plot for a one world government is very misleading, and an idea which I think is being sold to him by agenda driven social commentators, the type of commentators who will assert, for example that Hilary Clinton was/is 'far left', when in many respects, she is ideologically further right than Trump!

Yes, globalism is a very real concept and is taking place, but it ain't the socialists that are in charge of this, but those whom he seems to hold dearer to his own heart, i.e the neo-liberal capitalists. The world and his dog can see this, but Dense seems to be curiously, and wilfully blind in this regard.

Wanderer78

Oneiric 3 wrote:

I do think that Dense does make some interesting points and offers much to this debate, but this notion he has of the 'socialist' plot for a one world government is very misleading, and an idea which I think is being sold to him by agenda driven social commentators, the type of commentators who will assert, for example that Hilary Clinton was/is 'far left', when in many respects, she is ideologically further right than Trump!

Yup to be fair, dense does indeed bring some interesting points to the debate, but the lack of understanding of global politics is letting them down, there is indeed plenty of information available to educate oneself in such matters. On a personal level, I have actually come across conspiracy type people before, engaged in debates in such matters, but this quickly enters the twilight zone, resulting in me giving up quickly, feeling rather sorry for them, it actually must be an unhealthy state of mind to be in.

dense wrote: »

It's not radical, it's the usual looney stuff you hear from studenty types who don't live in the real world, do nothing to contribute to society and constantly whinge about everything being to their dislike.

Stuff like this Dense?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/UujklDZcsRS7/

We have only to look at what is occurring in the political mainstream in Hungary, Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland & the UK over the last year or so to know that while the 'lefty looney studenty' types may be a moaning lot who are dissatisfied with, and indeed, detached from, their own privilege, the real dark and terrifying forces that are coming will not come courtesy of them.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yup to be fair, dense does indeed bring some interesting points to the debate, but the lack of understanding of global politics is letting them down, there is indeed plenty of information available to educate oneself in such matters. On a personal level, I have actually come across conspiracy type people before, engaged in debates in such matters, but this quickly enters the twilight zone, resulting in me giving up quickly, feeling rather sorry for them, it actually must be an unhealthy state of mind to be in.

There certainly is a cognitive dissonance going on when one so confidently holds a position that is totally un-falsifiable.

Confirmation bias goes into overdrive when you 'read between the lines' so that even clear statements opposing your world view can be interpreted to be a secret message stating the opposite.

The internet is a big place and you can find 'evidence' for any world view as long as you are prepared to believe any source that agrees with you, and distrust every source that doesn't. And you can find bad arguments against any position, so its easy to dig them up and argue against them, while running away from the best arguments.

There is a principle in honest debate called 'steel man' which is in contrast with straw man arguments. If you want to honestly approach an issue, you should try to find the best arguments against your position and argue against those, rather than looking for mistakes or 'gotcha' moments. It's easy to look for a moment when someone stumbles over an argument or mis-speaks, and pretend that this is their 'real' opinion on a subject, but an honest debater will look past mistakes and go with the point someone was trying to make, even if they don't state it as clearly as they would have liked to.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Me: I think humans should do something about the debris cloud threatening our ability to maintain a satellite infrastructure

Dense: How many space debris clean up missions have you launched?? None??? You're such a hypocrite. Don't dare advocate for action until you've already built your own space elevator and started gathering paint fragments from orbit yourself......

You're comparing apples and oranges with that example. You preach about how we must reduce our emissions ASAP to avoid global catastrophe, so that means every one of us can start right now. So, as a strong advocate of this, have you

a) stopped taking flights?
b) switched from fossil fuel to clean energy (car, house, etc.)?
c) used the bike as much as possible?
d) installed solar panels on your roof?
etc.

If the answer to all or any of these is no then you really should stop blaming governments for not bringing in regulations, etc. If you couldn't be bothered to change your ways then stop preaching to the rest of us.

PS This thread has really lost its way and has become an unreadable political soapbox.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The term 'living in the real world' is a derogative term, used to deride individuals and groups, in reality, it actually has no real meaning as all humans live in the 'real' world always.

Of course it's a derogatory phrase; it was hardly a complimentary term I snuck in there amongst the barbs I was tossing at the types who contentedly take all the benefits our society offers them whilst simultaneously relentlessly whinge about all that's wrong with the country and what they'd do about it.

But they never do anything about it except talk the big talk.
It's too much hassle for them, so they take the handy route and whinge to anyone who'll listen.

In spite of repeatedly saying you were baffled by it, you were just annoyed by it.

We can agree to differ but lets at least be adult about acknowledging that the world is full of these people who constantly have an axe to grind.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Many of your statements are baffling and dare I say it, embarrassing, you seem to have a poor understanding of many things including world politics, I can recommend some potentially beneficial research but it would actually be up to you to persue it, it's important to realise my own disposition and potential biases in such matters though, as I'm a proud lefty.

I'll politely pass on that offer, thanks all the same

Its not apples and oranges. Two very serious issues that can only be meaningfully addressed by international treaties.

You could say that I can help the space debris issue by not launching any cubesats myself. Thats true, but me not making it worse won't help make it better either. Political action on climate change is the solution and individual action is just a panacea.

What has made a difference is the way climate change is discussed and reported and public attitudes towards energy policy which put pressure on political systems to implement action and hold governments to account.

For a long time on this forum, every thread on climate change turned into a back slapping 'it's a hoax' fest. It takes effort to stand up for the science and to challenge the misinformation and change the public discourse to put climate change on the political agenda.

There are plenty of martyrs out there trying to 'lead by a good example' and they turn people off. Look at the distain that the likes of dense has for 'eco warriers', the kinds of people who do all the things that reduce their own carbon footprint, but in the process, alienate people who don't want to change their own lifestyle.

The solution to climate change is not to badger people about eating meat or driving their kids to school, or going on holidays or visiting their family abroad. It's changing national energy infrastructure, phasing out coal oil and gas, government subsidies to improve energy efficiency in homes, regulations on industry to force industry to become more energy efficient and less polluting etc.

Public policy changes are more effective than individuals talking about how great they are because they're carbon neutral and lecturing everyone else about their own lifestyle.

I have never talked about individual carbon footprints on this or other threads on this topic. The only people who do are those who want to 'poison the well'