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

Nabber wrote: »

Isn't this the issue?

The predictions have failed to materialise, they bring into disrepute the whole science...

The evidence you make a wrong statement is in the links I supplied earlier which you refused to read and instead simply dismissed..

posidonia wrote: »

What questions was that? Or will you ignore that question?

The questions was [sic] for them, not you, and are clearly there a few posts back in the thread.

Thargor wrote: »

What questions?

These ones, from the 16th.

To you.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Could you please explain where you've seen a qualified climate expert being interviewed on mainstream media rubbishing the idea of single attribution? I haven't seen any such interviews recently myself. As far as the general public are concerned the Australian bushfires were made worse by agw.

To Akrasia.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What would be a safe level being added then, seeing that at least a similar amount was being added from the 1920s to '40s?

Thargor wrote: »

Seems pretty self-explanatory, usually if you see an expert being asked by a journalist if an extreme event is a result of climate change they usually give a stock answer that it's impossible to attribute individual events to climate change but as the planet warms you can expect to see the frequency and intensity of these events increasing. Not sure what your issue is with that.

No, I asked you to give one such example of where an expert "rubbished" the idea, as you stated below

most expert I see being interviewed whether on the subject of bushfires or hurricaines thankfully always rubbishes the idea of attributing individual events to climate change

Any link will do.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I asked you to give one such example of where an expert "rubbished" the idea, as you stated below



Any link will do.

You want me to track down individual clips I remember seeing on Sky News or BBC news or whatever? It's a very common response, here's the first link you get when you Google what I typed from memory in my post:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/science/looking-quickly-for-the-fingerprints-of-climate-change.amp.html

For years, most meteorologists and climate scientists would answer that question with a disclaimer, one that was repeated so often it became like a mantra: It is not possible to attribute individual weather events like storms, heat waves or droughts to climate change.

But increasingly over the past decade, researchers have been trying to do just that, aided by better computer models, more weather data and, above all, improved understanding of the science of a changing climate.

You sound very excited about this but as I said it's the common reply when someone asks if event X is caused by climate change, will that link or Posidonias do or will I copy a few more from Google for you?

More fuel for the discussion fire



This a.m. on BBC Radio 4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fgcn


Professor Myles Allen has spent thirty years studying global climate change, trying to working out what we can and can't predict. He was one of the first scientists to quantify the extent to which human actions are responsible for global warming. As a lead author on the 3rd Assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change in 2001, he concluded that ‘most of the observed global warming was due to human influence’. More recently, (having established that calculating a safe concentration of greenhouse gases was very difficult indeed), he worked out instead how many tonnes of carbon would be acceptable, a shift in emphasis that paved the way for the current Net Zero carbon emissions policy. Myles tells Jim Al-Khalili how our ability to predict climate change has evolved from the early days when scientists had to rely on the combined computing power of hundreds of thousands of personal computers. He sheds light on how the IPCC works and explains why, he believes, fossil fuel industries must be forced to take back the carbon dioxide that they emit. If carbon capture and storage technologies makes their products more expensive, so be it. Producer: Anna Buckley

posidonia wrote: »

But, equally, I think AGW played a role in such fires because it's influence means Australia is now more prone to warmer dryer weather.

One of the biggest drivers of Aussie climate is the IOD, and as you can see, warmer waters were pulled away Australia during the second half of last year.



Not that dumb journalists would ever research and report on actual natural climate cycles such as this. Not sensationalist enough + laziness/inability combined with low intelligence - the mark of what it is to be a journalist.

Thargor wrote: »

You want me to track down individual clips I remember seeing on Sky News or BBC news or whatever? It's a very common response, here's the first link you get when you Google what I typed from memory in my post:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/science/looking-quickly-for-the-fingerprints-of-climate-change.amp.html

You sound very excited about this but as I said it's the common reply when someone asks if event X is caused by climate change, will that link or Posidonias do or will I copy a few more from Google for you?

Right, you've just contradicted your own argument just there. You said nobody "rubbished" it (below), yet you then post an article about guys who jump on single events to attribute them before anyone else does.

most expert I see being interviewed whether on the subject of bushfires or hurricaines thankfully always rubbishes the idea of attributing individual events to climate change

Nabber wrote: »

I have read them. What questions do you have?

Why you rubbished them with the single word 'nonsense'?

posidonia wrote: »

The IOD (or the state of the sea around it) play a role in Australian climate - I accept that. I also accept the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in warming the atmosphere.

'Cleaner' air is also warming the atmosphere. I posted a link to a study on this earlier in the thread that went ignored.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'Cleaner' air is also warming the atmosphere. I posted a link to a study on this earlier in the thread that went ignored.

I agree.


If the air gets cleaner (if aerosols get removed - and they are damaging our lungs so they need removing) more radiation will reach the surface rather than being scattered.

posidonia wrote: »

Yes, what's wrong with it and what is wrong with the other link?



Oh, and you write nonsense too - call it a score draw?

Nothing wrong with the links. I click, they open.

As the away team, I’m happy to call it a scored draw.

Thargor wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand what your issue is here, it's the most common response when asked if a specific event can be attributed to climate change, that's all, you see it over and over and over again in all media, to the point that the New York Times calls it an age old mantra in the link you asked for, literally the first result when I googled what I wrote.

I have no idea what you want here or what point you're trying to make but it seems to mean a lot to you that you mark it in your diary and come back a few days later to demand answers so feel free to declare yourself victorious here or whatever.

Literally just watched a piece on Sky News there about the floods in the UK, Dermot Murnahan asking a Dr. Shannon George if this was climate change, her reply was its a dynamic system, hard to pin down individual events, we should be more worried about the frequency of these events as it gets warmer etc etc.

You still don't get it. First you say they're always rubbishing the idea, then you post evidence to the contrary. My point was that I've never seen anyone on TV strenuously denying that this event or that can be attributed to agw. Their watery statements are always qualified by a "but that's what we expect to see more of in future".

We got it with the Australian fires, we get it with the US hurricanes, yet there is not one shred of evidence to support it. I heard it this week about the floods in the UK. All immediate automatic attribution. No judge or jury. Now whether some group subsequently denies that this is the case never sees the light of say. Sky News are not going to issue a correction a month later to state that a false statement was made a month ago. To the public the message has already been absorbed. Another ugly face of anthro GW has been shown as far as they're concerned.