Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

11214161718

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    Trust me, a team of men with bulldozers & chainsaws can do far more damage to the environment than any "climate change" scenario. You are looking at the issue backwards.
    The difference between clearing a forest, and changing the climate, is that if humans leave the cleared forest alone, it will start to grow back within a few decades. And before the forest dies, the animals that used to live there will be gone due to the collapse in their food web. Even pristine rainforests are seeing shocking declines in the numbers of invertibrates in recent decades
    http://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/E10397

    With climate change, we could see the desertification of the amazon rainforest and the complete loss of all tropical coral reefs, the two most biodiverse biomes on earth

    Stop the human terraforming, and climate change will look after itself.
    Of course, before you can stop the expansion of human activity into the few remaining pieces of natural habitat, you would have to stop the population rising and then embark on a population reduction project.


    People don't want to face up to that stark reality, so they use "climate change" as a diversion and only tinker with the chosen indicators, like CO2.
    The solution to climate change involves addressing land use and deforestation too, but CO2 is such an important element that we need to address this immediately in order to have any hope of limiting the damage to the ecosystem caused by rapid changes to temperature and rainfall patterns


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    AP PHOTOS: Yemen’s displaced live on bread crumbs, leaves


    Behind the Reporting: How the War in Yemen Became a Bloody Stalemate

    Miscarriages and malnourishment: The perils of pregnancy in Yemen


    Civilians bear brunt of landmine explosions in Shan State


    Clearing the landmines of eastern Ukraine

    Landmines kill almost hourly – let's end their brutal scourge for good


    Why the U.S. Military Won't Give Up Its Cluster Bombs


    Cluster Bombs Are Back—and America and Russia Can't Get Enough

    Israeli Army Buying Local Cannons to Sidestep International Ban on Cluster Bombs

    Life among Israeli cluster bombs in Lebanon


    Stopping people killing each other seems like a top priority issue to me, but I can see why someone who advocates "family planning" (i.e. population control) in the third world might not care about that since the outcome is the same - less people which is the ultimate goal of the dark green elements of the environmental movement. You somehow fail to notice that people are dying because of man made global warfare while the number of people being killed by weather events an natural disasters has declined over the last century.
    Oh feck off. I didn't say we shouldn't tackle war and famine, I said that it will be in vain in the long term if we don't solve climate change. The human suffering we see today will be amplified massively if we see global average temperatures increase 2 or 3c above pre-industrial temperatures and the temperatures won't stop increasing from there as feedbacks get activated.

    There will never be peace in a world where conflicts of basic resources like fresh water and food are amplified due to climate change

    And Family planning and educating girls is an essential element in poverty reduction and improvements in quality of life for the poorest people in the world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,582 ✭✭✭ Pa ElGrande


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Oh feck off. I didn't say we shouldn't tackle war and famine, I said that it will be in vain in the long term if we don't solve climate change. The human suffering we see today will be amplified massively if we see global average temperatures increase 2 or 3c above pre-industrial temperatures and the temperatures won't stop increasing from there as feedbacks get activated.

    As I pointed out the mass human suffering we see today is not due to environmental disaster however it is within the reach of man to resolve violent conflict. World peace is a desirable goal unlike maintaining a static arbitrary temperature value in perpetuity. It is is arrogant of you to pursue such a goal since you do not understand what causes earth's climate cycles and the remedies you are supporting are already hurting less well off people in this country. You live in a part of the northern hemisphere that is quite cold for much of the year and you expect people to be frightened by an unproven allegation that temperatures will rise by 2C if we don't pay more tax and subsidise more wind and solar industrial complexes.


    The evidence from past cycles where warming has been dominant is that human civilisation thrives in such conditions, it is the cold cycles that coincide with mass starvation, death and destruction of civilisation.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    There will never be peace in a world where conflicts of basic resources like fresh water and food are amplified due to climate change

    That myth has been blown apart.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    And Family planning and educating girls is an essential element in poverty reduction and improvements in quality of life for the poorest people in the world.

    It is not. Cheap abundant energy is, the kind that frees women from the drudgery of working without labour saving devices such as washing machines. Without that education as you desire it has no value to them and they need the children to take care of them in their old age since no social welfare system is possible.



    For those who are interested (4 mins. in), here is a summary by Professor Richard Lindzen outlining how the climate really works, what is known and the shortcomings of the climate alarmists.




    If you are so inclined James Cornett outlines the parts of the recent IPCC propaganda bulletin that you might have missed.




  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    As I pointed out the mass human suffering we see today is not due to environmental disaster however it is within the reach of man to resolve violent conflict. World peace is a desirable goal unlike maintaining a static arbitrary temperature value in perpetuity. It is is arrogant of you to pursue such a goal since you do not understand what causes earth's climate cycles and the remedies you are supporting are already hurting less well off people in this country. You live in a part of the northern hemisphere that is quite cold for much of the year and you expect people to be frightened by an unproven allegation that temperatures will rise by 2C if we don't pay more tax and subsidise more wind and solar industrial complexes.
    Earths climate is very well understood. And we're not trying to maintain an arbitrary static temperature. We're trying to prevent human pollution and changes to land use from flipping the earths climate into a new state that is outside of the framework of the interglacial cycle that humans have evolved under, and into a much warmer state where many parts of the world will become uninhabitable causing massive global upheaval to human civilisation and the rest of the natural world
    F1.medium.gif

    http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

    The evidence from past cycles where warming has been dominant is that human civilisation thrives in such conditions, it is the cold cycles that coincide with mass starvation, death and destruction of civilisation.
    There is no precedent for the temperatures we are facing unless we reduce our CO2 equivalent emissions.

    We face temperatures hotter than we have experienced in the 2 million or so years since humans evolved as a species

    By blown apart, you mean disputed. But as the world warms, the impact of more and more severe heatwaves and droughts will inevitably lead to crop failures and migration and as water supplies dry up, this could lead to conflict between neighbouring countries or communities who may not already be on the best of terms. Your paper dismisses the US military calling climate change a Threat Multiplier. It is obvious that mass migration, famine, resource shortages could exacerbate conflicts between ethnic groups and cultures that don't like each other. American conservatives are sh1tting themselves about the possibility of a few thousand peasants trying to seek asylum in America. Climate change will lead to millions of displaced people from rising seas and people facing water and food shortages due to changes in their local climate.
    It is not. Cheap abundant energy is, the kind that frees women from the drudgery of working without labour saving devices such as washing machines. Without that education as you desire it has no value to them and they need the children to take care of them in their old age since no social welfare system is possible.
    So you're saying these women should aspire to having washing machines to ease the burdon of their domestic chores.

    Or perhaps they could be educated and empowered to take control of their own lives and make their own choices

    For those who are interested (4 mins. in), here is a summary by Professor Richard Lindzen outlining how the climate really works, what is known and the shortcomings of the climate alarmists.

    Richard Lindzen is a busted flush. His theories on climate change have all been disproven and none of his predictions have come true and his own colleagues are appalled that he continues to make factually incorrect statements such as 'co2 is not a pollutant'. He's getting very well paid to speak at climate denial events and to appear on propaganda videos like at 'pragerU'


    If you are so inclined James Cornett outlines the parts of the recent IPCC propaganda bulletin that you might have missed.


    You need better sources. I watched that video and this guy doesn't understand what he's talking about.

    He's actually a total clown. For example, at about 10 minutes in, says they drew in a line with ms paint onto a graph when it clearly shows on the graph that this red line is an analysis based on Marcott et al. This is the kind of rubbish you get when you have morons who think they know everything rushing through papers looking for things that they misunderstand just enough to think they've found a discrepancy in the science.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,582 ✭✭✭ Pa ElGrande


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Earths climate is very well understood. . . .
    No it isn't, otherwise alarmists would not have needed to re-label catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming as climate change or adjust the data or maybe carry out a proper audit of the data used in their datasets.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    There is no precedent for the temperatures we are facing unless we reduce our CO2 equivalent emissions.

    We face temperatures hotter than we have experienced in the 2 million or so years since humans evolved as a species

    No we don't. Even though you claim the the climate is well understood the predictions made to date for temperatures have been consistently wrong and the claims of warmest year 'eva are grasping at straws while ignoring the margin of error.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    By blown apart, you mean disputed. . . .

    I mean blown apart. The real reasons for today's mass migration are towards areas of the planet that offer a higher standard of living compared with subsistence living or political oppression and lack of opportunity in their homeland. Within China there is migration to the south-east, within Russia there is migration from the former colonies of the Soviet Union towards the west of the country in particular Moscow and St. Petersburg. In South and central America there is migration towards the prosperous North and there is migration from Africa and the middle East towards Europe all driven by economic opportunity and even the generous welfare states.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    So you're saying these women should aspire to having washing machines to ease the burdon of their domestic chores.

    Or perhaps they could be educated and empowered to take control of their own lives and make their own choices

    A degree in climate studies is not going to empower you when you are living a subsistence existence. That means no running water, no electricity and hard labor scratching a living off the land being one bad harvest away from wipeout. The only safety net in that environment is have your children take care of you when you can't work anymore.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Richard Lindzen is a busted flush. . . . . continues to make factually incorrect statements such as 'co2 is not a pollutant'. . . .

    He is correct CO2 is not a pollutant, it is essential for life on Earth. As a carbon based life form you depend on it or have you forgotten about the carbon cycle and essential processes like photosynthesis.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    You need better sources. I watched that video and this guy doesn't understand what he's talking about.

    He's actually a total clown. For example, at about 10 minutes in, says they drew in a line with ms paint onto a graph when it clearly shows on the graph that this red line is an analysis based on Marcott et al. This is the kind of rubbish you get when you have morons who think they know everything rushing through papers looking for things that they misunderstand just enough to think they've found a discrepancy in the science.

    What is this about then? This is politics, the science is just the cover story to provide the optics.

    Countries negotiate key messages of IPCC’s controversial ‘Special Report’


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    No it isn't, otherwise alarmists would not have needed to re-label catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming as climate change or adjust the data or maybe carry out a proper audit of the data used in their datasets.
    Dude. Check your sources, seriously. The 'alarmists' never re-labled CAGW into 'Climate change. The term Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was never used by 'alarmists', it is used by almost exclusively by climate change deniers chatting away to each other in their little bubble of blogs and in the comment sections in the media and youtube. It is a term that is never ever used by scientists in the literature.

    On the other hand, 'Climate change' has been around for decades, the IPCC has been around since 1988
    No we don't. Even though you claim the the climate is well understood the predictions made to date for temperatures have been consistently wrong and the claims of warmest year 'eva are grasping at straws while ignoring the margin of error.
    Wrong again. The calculations for climate sensitivity made by Arrhenius in 1896 was about 3c for a doubling of CO2.. This is smack in the middle of the IPCC projections for Climate sensitivity

    The physics are very well understood, almost incontrovertible. What we don't fully understand is the effect of all the various feedbacks. We have a good idea of what values they are likely to have, but we don't know for certain and likely won't know until we measure them in hindsight (by which time it's way too late to do anything about them)
    I mean blown apart. The real reasons for today's mass migration are towards areas of the planet that offer a higher standard of living compared with subsistence living or political oppression and lack of opportunity in their homeland. Within China there is migration to the south-east, within Russia there is migration from the former colonies of the Soviet Union towards the west of the country in particular Moscow and St. Petersburg. In South and central America there is migration towards the prosperous North and there is migration from Africa and the middle East towards Europe all driven by economic opportunity and even the generous welfare states.
    Of course people who are displaced are going to migrate to where there is opportunity for a better life. Duh. What do you think will happen when millions of people are displaced from their land because of rising seas or drought. Are they just going to wander around the deserts forever, or are they going to try to make their way to cities or places where there is opportunity to build a better life. What happens when the people living there don't like the mass migration driving down their own wages or standard of living? Conflict. The rise of anti immigrant populism like we're seeing in Europe and America, and ultimately violent conflict.
    A degree in climate studies is not going to empower you when you are living a subsistence existence. That means no running water, no electricity and hard labor scratching a living off the land being one bad harvest away from wipeout. The only safety net in that environment is have your children take care of you when you can't work anymore.
    Then they should get a degree in something else then. Actually, lets start by teaching them how to read. Allowing girls to dream of a life other than as a baby factory. Teach them that there is more to the world than subsistence. When they are educated they can become involved in politics, fight for representation so that they're not living hand to mouth.
    He is correct CO2 is not a pollutant, it is essential for life on Earth. As a carbon based life form you depend on it or have you forgotten about the carbon cycle and essential processes like photosynthesis.
    Things that are essential for life can also be toxic at the wrong dose. Nitrogen is essential for plants too, but if you put a small amount in a lake, it'll kill all the fish.

    Carbon dioxide might be essential for photosynthesis, but it's toxic to humans. If you don't believe me, put a plastic bag over your head and breath (don't actually do this)
    CO2 has a natural balance of about 280ppm, this is the carbon cycle in balance. Humans dug up billions of tonnes of oil coal and gas that took the natural carbon cycle tens of millions of years to sequester, and are burning it over the course of only a few centuries. We are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere and you don't do that without consequences.

    What is this about then? This is politics, the science is just the cover story to provide the optics.

    Countries negotiate key messages of IPCC’s controversial ‘Special Report’
    IPCC reports are drafted by scientists, but have to be signed off by every country who participate in the IPCC. Finalising the wording of the final reports is a long and laborious process of negotiation over what language is acceptable by consensus. The report is based on the science but the the final reports, especially the summary documents are usually conservative documents because unless you're saying the likes of Saudi Arabia hate the oil industry, they can only make statements that they can back up with extremely robust established science, anything that can not be fully backed up will be objected to by one of the fossil fuel exporting countries.

    Only a lunatic thinks that the worlds governments are all colluding to make climate change seem worse than it is. If anything, there are governments all over the world resisting any attempts to tackle it and doing everything they can to drag their feet and avoid being held to committments to reduce oil, gas and coal consumption.

    Even your own link confirms that the language in the SPM document was watered down significantly from it's earlier drafts


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,582 ✭✭✭ Pa ElGrande


    Akrasia wrote: »
    On the other hand, 'Climate change' has been around for decades, the IPCC has been around since 1988

    Climate change has been happening forever. I remember when it used to be called global cooling.

    Global-Warming-Hoax.jpg

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Wrong again. The calculations for climate sensitivity made by Arrhenius in 1896 was about 3c for a doubling of CO2.. This is smack in the middle of the IPCC projections for Climate sensitivity

    The physics are very well understood, almost incontrovertible. What we don't fully understand is the effect of all the various feedbacks. We have a good idea of what values they are likely to have, but we don't know for certain and likely won't know until we measure them in hindsight (by which time it's way too late to do anything about them)

    Under controlled conditions of a laboratory the results may be predictable and if their hypothesis was right they they would be able to make accurate predictions based on such experiments. For the past 30 years their predictions have been an abject failure. The ice caps are still there at the poles and Greenland and even Kilimanjaro still has snow and those islands that should have been under water a decade ago are still there and the northern passage is still as risky as ever. I guarantee that the ice caps will still be there if I ever get to retire decades from now.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Of course people who are displaced are going to migrate to where there is opportunity for a better life. Duh. What do you think will happen when millions of people are displaced from their land because of rising seas or drought. Are they just going to wander around the deserts forever, or are they going to try to make their way to cities or places where there is opportunity to build a better life. What happens when the people living there don't like the mass migration driving down their own wages or standard of living? Conflict. The rise of anti immigrant populism like we're seeing in Europe and America, and ultimately violent conflict.
    Well the sea has been rising for several hundred years now and we are doing just fine we have the technology to deal with it. If you look at your own country the trend has been rural to urban migration since the 19th century with some exceptional brief periods.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Then they should get a degree in something else then. Actually, lets start by teaching them how to read. Allowing girls to dream of a life other than as a baby factory. Teach them that there is more to the world than subsistence. When they are educated they can become involved in politics, fight for representation so that they're not living hand to mouth.

    You need time to learn to read and write you have the conditions that allow you to do that . . . . the things you and I take for granted are not available to over 1 billion people on the planet. Without savings there is no surplus, without a surplus its a hand to mouth existence.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Carbon dioxide might be essential for photosynthesis, but it's toxic to humans. If you don't believe me, put a plastic bag over your head and breath (don't actually do this)
    CO2 has a natural balance of about 280ppm, this is the carbon cycle in balance. Humans dug up billions of tonnes of oil coal and gas that took the natural carbon cycle tens of millions of years to sequester, and are burning it over the course of only a few centuries. We are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere and you don't do that without consequences.

    Without us recycling that sequestered carbon, the biosphere as you know it would starve. It only really starts to become a serious problem for us about 7000 PPM, but even a crowded room can get to 3000 PPM. Besides most of it gets dissolved in the ocean so it's not a problem.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    Only a lunatic thinks that the worlds governments are all colluding to make climate change seem worse than it is. If anything, there are governments all over the world resisting any attempts to tackle it and doing everything they can to drag their feet and avoid being held to committments to reduce oil, gas and coal consumption.

    Even your own link confirms that the language in the SPM document was watered down significantly from it's earlier drafts

    Most governments just put on a show they know full well if they try the lunatic ides proposed that they are cutting their own throats metaphorically speaking. People only really become concerned about their environment when the per capita GDP hits about €5000.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    Climate change has been happening forever. I remember when it used to be called global cooling.
    How old are you? There were a couple of scientists predicting a cooling phase in the 70s which got picked up by the press and the usual tabloid exaggeration did not reflect the state of the science at all.
    These few tabloid headlines have been repeated over and over and over and over again in the Denial blogosphere so that it gives the false impression that there was ever a clamour about potential global cooling.

    Climate changes naturally over time due to certain known factors, none of which are responsible for the current warming which is incontrovertibly caused by humans. There is absolutely no scientific debate anymore that the warming in recent decades is caused by humans, and that if we continue to emit CO2 the warming will increase.

    Under controlled conditions of a laboratory the results may be predictable and if their hypothesis was right they they would be able to make accurate predictions based on such experiments. For the past 30 years their predictions have been an abject failure. The ice caps are still there at the poles and Greenland and even Kilimanjaro still has snow and those islands that should have been under water a decade ago are still there and the northern passage is still as risky as ever. I guarantee that the ice caps will still be there if I ever get to retire decades from now.

    Watch this animation and tell me that Arctic sea ice isn't in terminal decline.

    Globally glaciers are in decline in most places. Kilamanjaro has lost about 30% of it's mass in recent decades. Record snow is a form of precipitation, or weather, which is not a disproof of climate change.

    Well the sea has been rising for several hundred years now and we are doing just fine we have the technology to deal with it. If you look at your own country the trend has been rural to urban migration since the 19th century with some exceptional brief periods.
    It's a matter of degree. We can handle a few MM of sea level rise, when we're talking about a centimeter of sea level rises per year, thats when it's dangerous. Similarly with migration. There is always migration of individuals looking to find a better life. When it becomes mass migration of populations, that creates much larger instability and political upheaval.
    You need time to learn to read and write you have the conditions that allow you to do that . . . . the things you and I take for granted are not available to over 1 billion people on the planet. Without savings there is no surplus, without a surplus its a hand to mouth existence.
    There is a huge discussion to be had about what drives human development. The literature is extremely clear that reduced family sizes and increased education, especially for girls are a huge factor in quality of life and the human development index.
    It is ridiculous to suggest that the best way to help these people is to encourage them to have big families to the limit of their ability to feed them in the hope that some of them will survive long enough to care for the parents in their (premature) old age.
    Without us recycling that sequestered carbon, the biosphere as you know it would starve.
    Absolute horseh1t. The carbon cycle was doing perfectly fine before the industrial revolution and the mass emission of carbon into the air
    It only really starts to become a serious problem for us about 7000 PPM, but even a crowded room can get to 3000 PPM. Besides most of it gets dissolved in the ocean so it's not a problem.
    CO2 is toxic to humans at much lower levels than that. Studies have shown at above 600ppm it has a marked effect on human cognitive ability. People complain of poor air quality and have poor concentration and decision making.
    At above 1000ppm there are significant declines in human cognition and above 2000ppm there are serious deficiencies in human cognition

    CO2 in the air also affects the PH in our blood. BloodPh-vs-CO2ppm-20141029.png

    Humans have never existed with an atmosphere above 300ppm CO2. Now it's at 405ppm, even if we work hard to reduce our emissions, we're likely to see levels peak at close to 600ppm
    When the levels of CO2 are this high in the atmosphere, it's impossible to escape short of breathing through a ventilator.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health
    Most governments just put on a show they know full well if they try the lunatic ides proposed that they are cutting their own throats metaphorically speaking. People only really become concerned about their environment when the per capita GDP hits about €5000.
    people become concerned about their environment when their crops fail and they have no food to eat. Or when their home is flooded due to unprecedented rainfall, or when the temperatures get so high that people can't sleep at night or work during the day or when they get infected with tropical diseases carried by pathogenic insects who are migrating north as temperatures increase....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    How old are you? There were a couple of scientists predicting a cooling phase in the 70s which got picked up by the press and the usual tabloid exaggeration did not reflect the state of the science at all.
    These few tabloid headlines have been repeated over and over and over and over again in the Denial blogosphere so that it gives the false impression that there was ever a clamour about potential global cooling.


    Still twisting things to suit the global warming agenda?


    Global cooling was a big deal in the 1970s, at least for the World Meteorological Organisation where its report from1979 at it's first climate conference stated:

    The probability, nevertheless, is that the surface temperature of the Earth (at present near 288 deg K
    or 15 deg C) has not greatly changed over a period of 2 x 109 years.



    Such analyses are sketchy and approximate, but they suggest that the present- day Earth's surface (and that of the past two million years) are substantially cooler than has been usual in history.



    We live in an abnormal phase of a planetary climate that in most epochs permitted a largely ice-free surface.


    Nothing in the record suggests that we are about to climb back to the normal condition which may well be
    5 to 10 deg C warmer than present conditions.

    Few, if any, scientists believe the C0 2 problem in itself justifies
    a curb, today, in the usage of fossil fuels or deforestation.

    https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_537_en.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiT0fu76MDeAhUGasAKHVH0DCIQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0cfdak6gVLsoyeKsY2Lr2W

    It was unusually cooler in the 1970s with nothing to suggest that we were heading towards earth's normal condition.


    You're also aware that today (in spite of the alleged catastrophic global warming in the interim) the earth's average temperature is just below what the WMO said it was in 1979, 15°C.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Still twisting things to suit the global warming agenda?


    Global cooling was a big deal in the 1970s, at least for the World Meteorological Organisation where its report from1979 at it's first climate conference stated:







    https://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_537_en.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiT0fu76MDeAhUGasAKHVH0DCIQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0cfdak6gVLsoyeKsY2Lr2W


    It was unusually cooler in the 1970s with nothing to suggest that we were heading towards earth's normal condition.


    You're also aware that today (in spite of the alleged catastrophic global warming in the interim) the earth's average temperature is just below what the WMO said it was in 1979, 15°C.
    That is absolutely nothing to do with the 'global cooling' as discussed before. That relates to the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs being unusually cool when compared to previous geological epochs where temperatures were much warmer.

    There is no 'normal condition'. There are however conditions that are suitable for human life, and conditions that are unsuitable for human life. Humans evolve during the Pleistocena and have only existed during the Holocene when temperatures were stable within this interglacial cycle.
    Human civilisation, in terms of our nations, infrastructure, history, heritage, culture, identity, technology etc has only existed during the holocene.

    The previous Epoch, the Pliocene had an ice free arctic, and guess what was different back then? CO2 levels were above 400ppm

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    That is absolutely nothing to do with the 'global cooling' as discussed before. That relates to the Holocene and Pleistocene epochs being unusually cool when compared to previous geological epochs where temperatures were much warmer.

    There is no 'normal condition'. There are however conditions that are suitable for human life, and conditions that are unsuitable for human life. Humans evolve during the Pleistocena and have only existed during the Holocene when temperatures were stable within this interglacial cycle.
    Human civilisation, in terms of our nations, infrastructure, history, heritage, culture, identity, technology etc has only existed during the holocene.

    The previous Epoch, the Pliocene had an ice free arctic, and guess what was different back then? CO2 levels were above 400ppm

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/


    Why did the WMO presume the earth has a normal temperature then, much warmer than the present?
    On what scientific basis are you presuming the earth should be hospitable to human life in the first instance?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The calculations for climate sensitivity made by Arrhenius in 1896 was about 3c for a doubling of CO2.. This is smack in the middle of the IPCC projections for Climate sensitivity.


    Because the IPCC endorses Arhennius' equations, so no surprise there.

    Arrhenius identified the fact that the emissivity/absorptivity of the atmosphere increased with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and this would affect the temperature of the Earth.



    He understood that infra-red active gases in the atmosphere contribute both to the absorption of radiation from the Earth’s surface and to the emission of radiation to space from the atmosphere. These were competing processes; one trapped heat, warming the Earth; the other released heat, cooling the Earth. He derived a relationship between the surface temperature and the emissivity of the atmosphere and deduced that an increase in emissivity led to an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.

    However, his model is unable to produce sensible results for the heat flow quantities as determined by K & T and others.



    In particular, his model and all similar recent models, grossly exaggerate the quantity of radiative heat flow from the Earth’s surface to space.



    A new energy equilibrium model has been proposed which is consistent with the measured heat flow quantities and maintains thermal equilibrium.



    This model predicts the changes in the heat flow quantities in response to changes in atmospheric emissivity and reveals that Arrhenius’ prediction is reversed.



    Increasing atmospheric emissivity due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations will have a net cooling effect.



    It is therefore proposed by the author that any attempt to curtail emissions of CO2 will have no effect in curbing global warming.


    https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=82087



    I predict you will claim that paper is the worst you have ever read and is riddled with errors, it's what you do when you're presented with research which contradicts the IPCC's policies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭ AngryHippie


    I would say interesting but drastically over-simplified.

    It also fails to address the actual issue of Climate Change and is solely about global warming. We don't know how fast the reactions are in the system. And talking about planetary mean temperatures is so simplistic that it is virtually meaningless when interpolated to climatic patterns.

    Its not full of errors, the basic premise is correct, but it assumes a uniform value for radiation instead of the swirling clouds of water vapour, highly reflective ice caps etc.

    It is indicating that the big picture may be okay, but that doesn't mean our population growth is sustainable, our fossil fuel addiction is acceptable or our complete lack of action on both counts as a species won't result in catastrophe.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 30,997 Mod ✭✭✭✭ dolanbaker


    https://watchers.news/2018/11/11/valentina-zharkova-solar-magnet-field-and-terrestrial-climate-presentation/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

    Valentina-Zharkova-The-Solar-Magnet-Field-and-the-Terrestrial-Climate.jpg
    This prediction revealed the presence of a grand cycle of 350-400 years, with a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity features reported in the past millennia: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf (grand) minimum (1200), Oort (grand) minimum (1010-1050), Homer (grand) minimum (800-900 BC); the medieval (900-1200) warm period, Roman (400-10BC) and other warm periods.

    This approach also predicts the modern grand minimum upcoming in 2020-2055.


    Climate change has F-all to do with CO2, it has everything to do with the terraforming of the planet which has completely destroyed the the local environment is so many areas. A large part of the so called climate change events are entirely caused by human activity, for example replacing a natural valley with houses, concrete and "water management", when the water management fails, it is blamed on climate change rather than the people who built the town. Humans really need to accept responsibility for the damage they are causing and not be duped into believing in false enemies. People are being duped into believing that spending money on reducing CO2 will solve climate change, complete rubbish!
    The solution is to return most of the terraformed lands to their natural state, no one is going to admit that this is the correct solution as it is bad for business.

    The sun is the prime source of energy on this planet (and all the other planets in the solar system) and any variations in its electromagnetic output will affect the Earth, and it is predicted that the next two cycles will continue to decline while the internal EM fields cancel each other out and then to start increasing again after about 2060.

    It is in that unnatural environment that most of the AGW is present, so why do you think that is?
    https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/urban-effect-on-climate
    Far too many people are looking at this issue from the wrong end!
    It's a bit like looking at road safety and concentrating on making cars crash safer while ignoring the fact that the drivers are badly trained and the roads are badly engineered.

    What has this to do with the changes in solar activity, nothing! But just to highlight the facts that the distraction tactics from those who want growth to continue indefinitely are working.

    To successfully tackle climate change would require a reversal of much of the human activity over the past century, reversal of deforestation, reduction of population etc. We know that no one will agree to these steps, so they put up a smokescreen about the "enemy" being CO2!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    To successfully tackle climate change would require a reversal of much of the human activity over the past century, reversal of deforestation, reduction of population etc. We know that no one will agree to these steps, so they put up a smokescreen about the "enemy" being CO2!

    Do you think it would be worth it?

    The societal chaos that would be wreaked upon civilisation which would occur upon a rapid reduction in fossil fuel consumption leading to an intermittent global energy supply scenario limiting human activities and economic growth, in order to "fix" the perceived climate change problem?


    Yes, if one wants to rapidly revert to 19th century ways.


    It is possible, from official figures, publicly available from the CSO to determine that just 5% of Ireland's total energy requirements are supplied by renewable energies.

    We purport to adhere to democracy.
    There is no mandate to dispense with using fossil fuels, nor has Ireland's contribution to global warming ever been quantified.

    Nor has any effect on climate change, should the country simply stop emitting any GHG's ever been quantified or analysed, not by the EPA, not by the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change and not by any of the multitude of climate related "charities", from An Taisce to Stop climate chaos.


    Yet, we have foolishly and quite inexplicably signed up to impossible targets regarding future emissions, based on dubious moral grounds revolving around pretending to give a shït about Tuvalu, which was sinking once but is now not sinking, or Polar bears, which were allegedly going to suffer most from global warming, but whose numbers are now higher than ever.

    Not forgetting the recent stupid and erroneous claims that the oceans have soaked up 60% more heat than was previously thought. Oohhh.

    Let us face facts.

    CAGW is a scam that entered public consciousness after the threat of nuclear annihilation receded, when activists once busy with the CND found a new activity to busy themselves with, with so much time on their hands from not being able to find a job that was suited to their lack of intelligence.


    The test of the CAGW hypothesis lies with the inability to falsify it; for example, global warming is responsible for: too much rain, too much drought, the end of snow, too much snow, freezing winters, warm winters, wet summers, dry summers, summers too cold, summers too hot etc. etc.

    Hands up who'd like to experience a rapid transition off of fossil fuels leaving you with a 95% energy deficit?

    Thought so.
    But while we don't want that, we'll silently and stupidly take a 400% increase in electricity prices in order to facilitate the false notion of "competition" providing choice to the consumer along with the added bonus of saving the planet.

    Climate change, feel-good nonsense, put about by environmentalists who won't show their true hand or their hidden agendas.

    We know our efforts won't make a blind bit of difference yet there's some weird moral thing which has nothing to do with science or facts permeating the whole climate change bandwagon here in Ireland.

    Save yourself from yourselves and save the planet for your neighbour's grandchildren, the usual tripe.

    Is it filling the vacuum left by the church's ignominious downfall here?

    Looks like it's filling that gap from the quasi religious reasons being peddled regarding our "obligations" regarding climate change and the alleged but unquantified "damage" we're responsible for causing.
    Sinning and absolution. Perfect fit.

    When someone can demonstrate what percentage of the alleged point nine/point six/variable degree of global warming/climate change that has been observed in the 20th century has been caused by Ireland's use of fossil fuels, we can then move directly forward to debate how best to rectify it.

    Climate science is, apparently, and quite uniquely, the settled, cut and dried science, where actual factual debate is supposedly welcome, as opposed to a religious cult where dissent is punished by excommunication.

    I'll bookmark this post, it's such a good one :)


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 30,997 Mod ✭✭✭✭ dolanbaker


    I agree, CAGW (and all its variants) is a scam as it ultimately results in extra taxes being imposed on the general population, remember Al Gore was a politician with many big business links and that they wanted to monetise carbon.

    Having said that, I am very conscious of the environmental destruction that is going on, something that is far more dangerous, the elimination of natural habitat, bio-diversity will come back at our children/grandchildren when they find themselves waking up to silent dawns(no birds), no bees (or other beneficial insects) and the only animals in existence are either vermin, farm (for food) or in zoos.

    I still firmly believe in the "limits to growth scenario", that was published in the 1970s and recently updated to show that the predicted trends are still on course for a future catastrophe for mankind.

    As I have already said, it isn't fossil fuel consumption that is the primary issue, it is the destruction of the natural habitat on the planet that will ultimately doom us at some point in the future. EV's and renewable energy are a step in the right direction, but we really need to put an end to consumerism, this is the greatest waste of resources possible - so much crap is produced that is fit for landfill almost immediately it is removed from the (rubbish) packaging.


    I know that people say we need to produce all this crap to keep people in jobs (keep them busy so they don't revolt) but with the high levels of automation we have available these days, we really should only need to work about 20 hours or less a week to earn a living.
    It's time to re-evaluate work and money, as things currently stand, a very small number of people have accumulated about 50% of the total value of everything that the rest of the population have earned.

    For these elite, CAGW is a great tool to distract the general population from this great imbalance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Because the IPCC endorses Arhennius' equations, so no surprise there.





    https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=82087



    I predict you will claim that paper is the worst you have ever read and is riddled with errors, it's what you do when you're presented with research which contradicts the IPCC's policies.
    You mean I actually read your source and check if it's reliable?

    Maybe you should try doing this yourself first before posting junk science from 'journals' with zero credibility.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing#Controversies


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    There is no grand global conspiracy theory of scientists faking data and keeping the truth about the basic physics underpinning the greenhouse effect

    Land use is a factor in climate change, mitigation and adaptation are huge areas of research in climate change and one of the 3 working groups of the IPCC, but the fundamental underlying cause of climate change is the addition of greenhouse gasses which are fundamentally changing the constitution of our atmosphere causing a smaller proportion of solar radiation to be radiated out to space.

    The solar minimum may well be coming, but the actual drop in TSI will be tiny compared to the amount of extra heat trapped by our altered atmosphere.

    If we could see the CO2 (if it was opaque to light in the visible spectrum) then people would believe that changes in concentration of this gas can have a big effect. But we can't so here's a video that shows the difference between 280ppm and 400ppm using ink as a stand in for CO2



  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 30,997 Mod ✭✭✭✭ dolanbaker


    Which is approximately 0.041% of the atmosphere up from 0.028% 260 years ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    Which is approximately 0.041% of the atmosphere up from 0.028% 260 years ago.

    Yes. And as I said already on this thread, the last time the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was this high, about 3 million years ago there were no permanent ice caps and sea levels were 15-25 metres higher and global average temperature was almost 3c warmer than they are today.
    We're on course to have CO2 concentrations reach 600ppm by the end of the century. These are concentrations not seen in tens of millions of years when global conditions were unrecognisable compared to the conditions that have existed during the entire history of Homo Sapiens as a species.
    https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

    And the sun was slightly cooler millions of years ago. As the sun ages, it's getting hotter. (very slowly)

    Why do some people think that small concentrations of gases in the atmosphere must have a small effect?

    This .028% of CO2 was enough to feed all the land based plants on the entire planet. If it wasn't for this 0.028% CO2, plants could not survive.

    The concentration of Ozone is measured at 15 parts per million in the stratosphere where it is most concentrated, and if it wasn't for this very thin layer of very low concentration O3, there would be too much UV to sustain complex DNA structures above ground.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    You mean I actually read your source and check if it's reliable?


    Please point out the errors you have identified in the paper?


    If there are any errors I'm sure the author will welcome learning of them, just like the 60% ocean warming crew over at Nature.com


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Please point out the errors you have identified in the paper?


    If there are any errors I'm sure the author will welcome learning of them, just like the 60% ocean warming crew over at Nature.com

    The error i have identified is the author needing to submit it to a chinese pay to publish journal which has zero impact factor and a reputation for publishing anything as long as they are paid their fee.

    I can't find them listed on the master journal list and I can't find any references to them as a journal other than loads of discussion online about how dodgy they are and how they should be avoided.

    I'm not a mathematician but given that his conclusions are pretty much the opposite of every other physicist and climate scientist, I suspect he might have made a few errors with his equations. I can't refer to any commentary on this in the scientific literature, because there doesn't seem to be any. He appears to have zero citations or mentions in the proper academic literature (real journals)

    I have to ask Dense. Is this the best research you could find on this topic, or just the best you could find that you think suits your pre-existing bias?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The error i have identified is the author needing to submit it to a chinese pay to publish journal which has zero impact factor and a reputation for publishing anything as long as they are paid their fee.


    Ok, twas just a bit of hand waving you engaged in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Ok, twas just a bit of hand waving you engaged in.

    Yep. Loony papers with outlandish conclusions published in predatory pay to publish journals can be hand waved away.

    Why do you think this paper is likely to be true while the vast vast majority of published science on this topic in real journals say the opposite?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Yep. Loony papers with outlandish conclusions published in predatory pay to publish journals can be hand waved away.

    Why do you think this paper is likely to be true while the vast vast majority of published science on this topic in real journals say the opposite?


    The abstract that I quoted seems quite reasonable.


    The author points out the shortcomings in the GHG theory which go some way to explaining why climate models are overestimating sensitivity and for the missing heat that the proponents of the AGW theory are searching for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    The abstract that I quoted seems quite reasonable.


    The author points out the shortcomings in the GHG theory which go some way to explaining why climate models are overestimating sensitivity and for the missing heat that the proponents of the AGW theory are searching for.

    Seems quite reasonable based on your own personal expertise on the matter?

    The conclusions of the paper are that higher concentrations of GHGs actually cool the planet rather than warm it.
    Increasing atmospheric emissivity due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations will have a net cooling effect.

    It is the exact opposite of all the established science on the subject. If this paper had any merit, and it actually disproved global warming theory you'd think it would have had at least a few citations.

    Unless his findings get reproduced in a respectable journal, then this paper can sit alongside all the 'expanding earth' papers that are published in these kinds of fake journals all the time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The conclusions of the paper are that higher concentrations of GHGs actually cool the planet rather than warm it.

    It is the exact opposite of all the established science on the subject.


    Not quite, climate scientists have it covered, saying that GHGs have been observed causing localised cooling as well as warming and that excess C02 atmospheric is now cooling outer space having left the lower atmosphere

    Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools part of Antarctica
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-part-antarctica

    Carbon dioxide occurs naturally throughout Earth’satmosphere. In the thermosphere, CO2 is the primary radiative cooling agent and fundamentally affects the energy balance and temperature of this high-altitude atmospheric layer1,2. Anthropogenic CO2 increases are expected to propagate upward throughout the entire atmosphere, which should result in a cooler, more contracted thermosphere3,4,5.
    https://m.phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html


    During the latest three millennia, one can observe a clear cooling trend in the Earth’s
    climate (Keigwin, 1996; Sorokhtin and Ushakov, 2002; Gerhard, 2004; Khiyuk and
    Chilingar, 2006; Sorokhtin et al., 2007). During this period, deviations of the global
    temperature from this trend reached up to 3ıC with a clear trend of decreasing global
    temperature by about 2ıC. Relatively short-term variations in global temperature are
    mainly caused by the variations in solar activity and are not linked to the changes in
    carbon dioxide content in atmosphere.



    Accumulation of large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to the cool-
    ing, and not to warming of climate, as the proponents of traditional anthropogenic global
    warming theory believe (Aeschbach-Hertig, 2006). This conclusion has a simple physical
    explanation: when the infrared radiation is absorbed by the molecules of greenhouse
    gases, its energy is transformed into thermal expansion of air, which causes convective
    fluxes of air masses restoring the adiabatic distribution of temperature in the troposphere.



    Our estimates show that release of small amounts of carbon dioxide (several hundreds
    ppm), which are typical for the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence the
    global temperature of Earth’s atmosphere.
    https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.306.3621%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi5s8P88ufeAhXKK8AKHYOOCDsQFjAAegQICxAC&usg=AOvVaw0XWfmFJlMx8sK701MKPAaG


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,012 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    dense wrote: »

    Wow, you've discovered something that no physicist or atmospheric scientist has ever thought of before....

    Now, do you mind explaining what this process is in your own words so we can be sure that you understand it?
    Just in case you don't, here's a nice discussion on the Adiabatic lapse rate and how this effect cannot overcome the greenhouse effect.
    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-lapse-rate/

    BTW, CO2 causing slight cooling in the upper stratosphere is mostly irrelevant to us because we live in the troposphere where extra concentrations of CO2 definitely increases the ambient air temperature.

    The fact that CO2 has been mixing more than we had previously thought with the upper atmosphere is actually bad news because it means that the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is probably longer than we had thought before.

    Also, cooling in the stratosphere is predicted by the greenhouse effect. Less heat escapes to higher altitudes which cools the stratosphere. And when CO2 interacts with IR frequency radiation, it absorbs it and emits it in all directions, so when this happens where the atmosphere is very very thin and low density, the process acts to cool the atmosphere, but down where we live, the atmosphere is much much denser and more than 10 miles thick, so the photons get re-absorbed and re-emitted many times before they eventually work their way out of the atmosphere.

    Before we had confirmed that the stratospheric cooling effect was actually happening, genuine skeptics and deniers could still point to the stratosphere not cooling as expected, and use this as evidence that climate change isn't happening as predicted. When the stratosphere was finally confirmed to be cooling, suddenly the deniers start using this as evidence that CO2 actually causes cooling and therefore the greenhouse effect can't be real.

    It's almost as if evidence or physics don't matter.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 30,997 Mod ✭✭✭✭ dolanbaker


    I see another "false flag" was raised the other day with the news that CO2 levels were higher again last year and all the scare stories about global warming climate change being a major issue again!

    While ignoring and diverting attention away from the real dangers the planet faces, loss of natural habitat, destruction of natural forestry (etc) and mass extinction of many diverse species. Plus the ever increasing human population that is "demanding" more and more "stuff", of should that be big business creating the demand to enrich themselves and to hell with the planet!

    Humans terraforming the planet is causing more affects to weather (local climate) and generating extra CO2, than CO2 from industry alone.

    Smoke and mirrors, to avoid any action that would actually prevent a future catastrophe.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 dense


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    I see another "false flag" was raised the other day with the news that CO2 levels were higher again last year and all the scare stories about global warming climate change being a major issue again!

    While ignoring and diverting attention away from the real dangers the planet faces, loss of natural habitat, destruction of natural forestry (etc) and mass extinction of many diverse species. Plus the ever increasing human population that is "demanding" more and more "stuff", of should that be big business creating the demand to enrich themselves and to hell with the planet!

    Humans terraforming the planet is causing more affects to weather (local climate) and generating extra CO2, than CO2 from industry alone.

    Smoke and mirrors, to avoid any action that would actually prevent a future catastrophe.


    See this??

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/skyscrapers-hurricane-harvey-houston-princeton-university-flooding-wind-a8633781.html


Advertisement