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

Mount Vesuvius wrote: »

Natural is all it is. The few on here spouting propaganda have been brainwashed too, that's ok, it happens. Been used as a war tactic for awhile now.

It's all about the money money money.

The Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Crisis, or what ever these good people of planet earth choose to call it, are wasting their time. Chill, take a holiday, the planet has always looked after itself.
It's survived thousands of years of bellowing volcanic activity and a time to flourish when even more CO2 was in the atmosphere.
People spending time on this is so wasteful as human life is so short, enjoy it. Your time is at a premium. You will be long gone and will not or ever see any results from the so called doomsday scenarios.
This is my only comment on this.
Have a lovely day ��

I bet it wont be your last word, or seabreezes's (and no thanks from you for my PM, seabreezes?)...



How the heck do you know you're right? You sound so casually, complacently, certain - could it be you who's unthinking? Only seeing what you want to? Think about it...



There are plenty of people who's working lives (after long years of academic excellence and study) have been devoted to studying this planet's atmosphere - yet you know better. How come?



Btw, I've lived long enough to see changes to the world about me. I guess you simply can't (wont) see them, or you're a child, or you live in one of the few places largely untouched by them.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. There is a lid on our atmosphere. CO2 can't escape the earths atmosphere, it's too heavy. If it could you wouldn't be able to breath right now as the even lighter molecule, Oxygen would be pissed out into space. Now if it was a lighter gas like Helium that would be true but the fact you are still living and breathing shows how wrong this is.

CO2 can escape from earths atmosphere :eek:
You have some very questionable responses in here Retrogamer.

Nabber wrote: »

Any data on these places and their changes?
Curious on what first hand knowledge you have and how you assess the changes there in.

It's more likely the impact is direct human changes (farming, deforestation, construction)

Is this rope again? Seriously, if you're pi**ing about again get lost if not I'll answer.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's always a statistically small amount that can escape into space but for all intents and purposes it's so small you can equate it to near zero. It's even smaller than the amount of oxygen that escapes into space as it's a heavier molecule.

Again for carbon dioxide, the earth's atmosphere is effectively a closed lid. To say otherwise is just out and out wrong.

Agreed that the quantities are minute.

The issue is where to draw the line on statistics. CO2 constitutes .04% of the atmosphere, human emissions accounts for a rise of ~.018%(?)
Statistically speaking, in many other fields this change wouldn't constitute much of anything.

Retr0gamer, could you please show a few of the glaring mathematical mistakes in Nikolov's paper please? In detail.

posidonia wrote: »

'A few' - how many are there? Are you a mathematician then?



Can you please explain if you think water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas or not? Indeed, do you think there are any significant greenhouse gasses?


Clearly N&Z don't think there are any significant ghgs?

Additionally, I see Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watts and Dr Roy Spencer think N&Z is duff - are they brainwashed too?

Perhaps you could contradict the data in the graph he posted yesterday which showed that weather events are not 'getting worse'?

posidonia wrote: »

'A few' - how many are there? Are you a mathematician then?

Well Retr0gamer says "it's ALL wrong", so he should be able to take his pick of mistakes to illustrate his point. My qualification is none of your business, but if you need to know, it's physics and chemistry, so yes, maths-heavy.

Retr0gamer wrote:

No actually, his maths and science are all wrong and anyone with basic levels of knowledge in it can see it to be true. It's totally flawed and maybe the reason that he has been debunked by so many is because it's all wrong. I can tell you myself as a someone with science knowledge that there is so much wrong in his maths and theory that it's utter nonsense

Can you please explain if you think water vapour is a significant greenhouse gas or not? Indeed, do you think there are any significant greenhouse gasses?


Clearly N&Z don't think there are any significant ghgs?

Additionally, I see Willis Eschenbach, Anthony Watts and Dr Roy Spencer think N&Z is duff - are they brainwashed too?

All molecules with 3 or more atoms are greenhouse molecules, so yes, that includes CO2. The contribution of its atmospheric concentration to the overall warming of the atmosphere is the question that is in no way sure, as freely admitted by the IPCC themselves. Observational evidence (such as it is) would suggest that the sensitivity is on the lower end of the scale, closer to the 1.5-degree figure or even lower.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

All molecules with 3 or more atoms are greenhouse molecules, so yes, that includes CO2. The contribution of its atmospheric concentration to the overall warming of the atmosphere is the question that is in no way sure, as freely admitted by the IPCC themselves. Observational evidence (such as it is) would suggest that the sensitivity is on the lower end of the scale, closer to the 1.5-degree figure or even lower.

But N&Z say there is no greenhouse effect...they certainly don't think there will be 1.5C warming for CO2 doubling - which is what you seem to be saying.


So you both do and don't agree with N&Z?

aidanodr wrote: »

Coronavirus could turn to global pandemic as freak solar minimum means outbreak ‘imminent'

Could be a boon for 'scientists'.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/scientists-call-for-population-control-in-mass-climate-alarm

"The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write."


The revolution can't come soon enough.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's just the usual babbling drivel from the express and bloomberg, two right wing publications with dubious claims to journalism. Last I heard from actual scientists is that over population is no where near a problem if waste can be controlled.

Are you saying that they did not say this? And what has 'right-wing' got to do with it, unless you letting your own political bias muddle your thought process a little?

https://www.populationconnection.org/climate-emergency-bioscience/

I'm surprised they didn't go as far as to call for 'extermination'.

Its similar to a strain of flu ffs big deal, we love catastrophizing everything.

I have mentioned Thomas Malthus often enough in relation to the empire building notion of Darwin/Wallace in terms of population control and from there to the holocaust or indeed the Irish famine where English policy was enacted by Charles Trevelyan as a student of Malthus among others -

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus


This was re-formatted by Darwin/Wallace into an evolutionary narrative based on aggression which was picked up by the national socialists in 1930's Germany.

"Without consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather
our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its
present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of
vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation."
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


In between Malthus and Darwin was the English response to the Irish famine as both an academic policy and political policy. It was more an exploitation issue wrapped up in detached empirical thinking and so , with population control raising its ugly head again on this island, people should become familiar with how academic policy influences political policies to the devastation of society when otherwise people would act with responsibility and accountability.

The word 'denier' is thrown around but it really is unfamiliarity among those reasonable people who can figure things out themselves rather than rely on a weak opposition using the same experimental and data strategies as the proponents. They can be forgiven for believing that academics act with integrity in much the same way people believed proffessionals in charge of financial institutions acted with integrity 10 years ago but that is naive. People probably refuse to believe that humans can act in an evil way within academic circles but history has demonstrated otherwise and it is being repeated today.

In following the 'scientific method' trail there is always worse but that goes nowhere without a positive approach to climate research.

posidonia wrote: »

But N&Z say there is no greenhouse effect...they certainly don't think there will be 1.5C warming for CO2 doubling - which is what you seem to be saying.


So you both do and don't agree with N&Z?

The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Meaning there are some studies out (e.g. Bates 2016) that has it down around 1.0, but of course we don't like to talk about him on this forum...

The way some of you are going on you'd think that it's all "virtually certain" with everything IPCC, but it's really not. It brings us back to that one UAH versus Mears TLT dataset again. Which is right? Low confidence. Settled science is not low confidence.

It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century. More complete observations
allow greater confidence in estimates of tropospheric temperature changes in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere
than elsewhere. There is medium confidence in the rate of warming and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere
extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere. {2.4}

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The whole premise of the agw argument is that a doubling of CO2 will be directly responsible for anwhere from +1.0 to +6.0 °C of warming (IPCC AR5). They admit they don't have a clue what the actual figure is, though.

There is a new coronavirus spreading among people. it will kills a number of people but we don't have a clue what the actual figure will be, the best estimate atm would be, I understand, 'hopefully not many'.



Therefore, you would say, it isn't happening???? Or what would you say?



Wrt AGW I think we've seen warming, .5-1C so far. For me that adds weight to projections that 2-4C warming by 2100 being highly likely. Am I certain about that? No, and you wont find me expressing certainty. Otoh, am I complacent and thus listen to crackpots? Absolutely not.