Climate change

[joachim1965]

14 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I do just feel that if the time left to make that change was really 10 years surely we would already be FUBAR? It just cant be right

 

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

I agree that it sounds scaremongering given the low amount of time quoted, but...

The reason it sounds like scaremongering is because that is exactly what it is.

[MC Prussian]

7 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Science consensus is not split just like most people think the earth is round.

 

You're beginning to sound like a lobbyist for the oil industry. They come up with the same made up arguments as you. 

The scientific opinion on climate change is very split. Falsified results, error-prone measurement techniques, human error, deliberate use of particular time periods in graphs, lack of founded research due to the young nature of climate science, questions surrounding research based on the influx of big business money - as long as there are serious questions surrounding the climate change hysteria, no one should buy into the cult.

 

Climate changes all the time. We can and should do think about changing our habits towards a more wholesome way of living, but by no means based on believing the hype perpetrated by the media, politicians and climate change activists.

 

If you purposefully overlook the controversies surrounding climate change research and blindly believe everything scientists say, without questioning their own bias and dependencies, as well as the monolithic influence of the IPCC, then carry on.

[joachim1965]

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

 

Climate changes all the time. We can and should do think about changing our habits towards a more wholesome way of living, but by no means based on believing the hype perpetrated by the media, politicians and climate change activists.

 

 

Spot on.

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The scientific opinion on climate change is very split. Falsified results, error-prone measurement techniques, human error, deliberate use of particular time periods in graphs, lack of founded research due to the young nature of climate science, questions surrounding research based on the influx of big business money - as long as there are serious questions surrounding the climate change hysteria, no one should buy into the cult.

 

Climate changes all the time. We can and should do think about changing our habits towards a more wholesome way of living, but by no means based on believing the hype perpetrated by the media, politicians and climate change activists.

 

If you purposefully overlook the controversies surrounding climate change research and blindly believe everything scientists say, without questioning their own bias and dependencies, as well as the monolithic influence of the IPCC, then carry on.

Evidence?

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The scientific opinion on climate change is very split. Falsified results, error-prone measurement techniques, human error, deliberate use of particular time periods in graphs, lack of founded research due to the young nature of climate science, questions surrounding research based on the influx of big business money - as long as there are serious questions surrounding the climate change hysteria, no one should buy into the cult.

 

Climate changes all the time. We can and should do think about changing our habits towards a more wholesome way of living, but by no means based on believing the hype perpetrated by the media, politicians and climate change activists.

 

If you purposefully overlook the controversies surrounding climate change research and blindly believe everything scientists say, without questioning their own bias and dependencies, as well as the monolithic influence of the IPCC, then carry on.

 

6 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

Spot on.

What I'm getting from this is the inference that nearly the entire climate science community (even if there wasn't a consensus - which there is - it would still be a majority) is either incompetent or malicious.

 

Until there's a decent and firm arguments presented that they are either and what's in it for them from being either, those assertions are as illogical as they are offensive and contemptible, driven by those who say they want things to change but honestly do not because the status quo suits them better.

Edited 4 June 2019 by leicsmac

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

What I'm getting from this is the inference that nearly the entire climate science community (even if there wasn't a consensus - which there is - it would still be a majority) is either incompetent or malicious.

 

Until there's a decent and firm that they are either and what's in it for them from being either, those assertions are as illogical as they are offensive and contemptible, driven by those who say they want things to change but honestly do not because the status quo suits them better.

I did have a quick search for articles to the contrary of the consensus claim. I didnt find a lot but read a Forbes article that challenged the 97% claim and said it could be more likely 80%

 

The consensus i think isnt as high as we're told by some, but still a very high consensus in favour of human impact on climate change (forget the proper term, anthro something)

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I did have a quick search for articles to the contrary of the consensus claim. I didnt find a lot but read a Forbes article that challenged the 97% claim and said it could be more likely 80%

 

The consensus i think isnt as high as we're told by some, but still a very high consensus in favour of human impact on climate change (forget the proper term, anthro something)

If you could find something that nails it down, that would be appreciated. I think that saying 80% of the knowledgeable people involved are either stupid or malign is a bit much still, though.

 

Honestly, I don't want to go round screaming the sky is frigging falling because it would be a much easier life to say that it isn't, and the same is true of practically everyone involved. People, more than anything like the idea that tomorrow will be just like today and deplore the idea of change - especially rapid, drastic change.

 

That really forms the cornerstone of why I believe them.

 

Edit: Also I get the feeling that everyone on this thread in the last page is really repeating themselves and getting nowhere at this point because I know I've said what I've just said about a half dozen times before.

Edited 4 June 2019 by leicsmac

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you could find something that nails it down, that would be appreciated. I think that saying 80% of the knowledgeable people involved are either stupid or malign is a bit much still, though.

 

Honestly, I don't want to go round screaming the sky is frigging falling because it would be a much easier life to say that it isn't, and the same is true of practically everyone involved. People, more than anything like the idea that tomorrow will be just like today and deplore the idea of change - especially rapid, drastic change.

 

That really forms the cornerstone of why I believe them.

I dont mean to say that. Just commenting on the consensus, which is apparently high even with a more critical appraisal.  And I specifically looked for articles criticising the consensus. Apparently scientists do mostly agree even at a more narrow definition

Supports what you say

 

 

Edited 4 June 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I dont mean to say that. Just commenting on the consensus, which is apparently high even with a more critical appraisal.  And I specifically looked for articles criticising the consensus. Apparently scientists do mostly agree even at a more narrow definition

Supports what you say

 

 

Sorry, I should have been clearer with my language there - definitely didn't mean to imply that you yourself thought that way, merely that others do and that it is..well, see above.

[Detroit Blues]

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The scientific opinion on climate change is very split. Falsified results, error-prone measurement techniques, human error, deliberate use of particular time periods in graphs, lack of founded research due to the young nature of climate science, questions surrounding research based on the influx of big business money - as long as there are serious questions surrounding the climate change hysteria, no one should buy into the cult.

 

Climate changes all the time. We can and should do think about changing our habits towards a more wholesome way of living, but by no means based on believing the hype perpetrated by the media, politicians and climate change activists.

 

If you purposefully overlook the controversies surrounding climate change research and blindly believe everything scientists say, without questioning their own bias and dependencies, as well as the monolithic influence of the IPCC, then carry on.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#*

 

It's not just scientists who are in consensus about climate change, most major corporations are too. Oil companies have known for decades (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/). Why do you think that these companies have been trying to get out of the oil business and into renewable energy? Why do you think auto manufacturers are all sprinting towards building electric cars? It's not for political or moral reasons, it's for commercial reasons. They need to hedge their risk against a changing climate. 

 

Don't get me wrong, businesses are not done making profit on oil while they can get away with it politically. Oil companies still have a powerful lobby, and will buy enough influence to continue the "debate" on climate change. The question is, when the political argument against the climate is changing becomes unfeasible, how screwed will the human race be? 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

22 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#*

 

It's not just scientists who are in consensus about climate change, most major corporations are too. Oil companies have known for decades (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/). Why do you think that these companies have been trying to get out of the oil business and into renewable energy? Why do you think auto manufacturers are all sprinting towards building electric cars? It's not for political or moral reasons, it's for commercial reasons. They need to hedge their risk against a changing climate. 

 

Don't get me wrong, businesses are not done making profit on oil while they can get away with it politically. Oil companies still have a powerful lobby, and will buy enough influence to continue the "debate" on climate change. The question is, when the political argument against the climate is changing becomes unfeasible, how screwed will the human race be? 

The point that you are missing is that nobody in their right state of mind can deny climate change. Climate changes all the time!

 

It's all beyond the point - the question circles around the research on climate change, its validity and the results, and then the conclusions we draw based on that, going forward.

I'm not buying into the panic mode the media, activists and some politicians are in. I'm sick of the virtue signaling, the odd logic behind climate change protests, the faux moralism, the top-down approach in communication.

Edited 4 June 2019 by MC Prussian

[Detroit Blues]

11 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The point that you are missing is that nobody in their right state of mind can deny climate change. Climate changes all the time!

 

It's all beyond the point - the question circles around the research on climate change, its validity and the results, and then the conclusions we draw based on that, going forward.

I'm not buying into the panic mode the media, activists and some politicians are in. I'm sick of the virtue signaling, the odd logic behind climate change protests, the faux moralism, the top-down approach in communication.

Part of the consensus is that climate change is man-made and progressing in an upward trajectory.  There's not going to be a dip back down because that's not how greenhouse gasses work. 

 

[MC Prussian]

29 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

Part of the consensus is that climate change is man-made and progressing in an upward trajectory.  There's not going to be a dip back down because that's not how greenhouse gasses work. 

And that's where the discussion sets in - how much of it IS actually man-made, how dangerous is it, is the temperature increase (+1.5 degrees in the past 100 years, if I'm not mistaken) part of a longer-lasting, continuing trend or are we on the cusp of another mini ice age?

 

The data on temperature change in the past 1'000 years and beyond that suggests what we're experiencing now in a relatively short period of time, as part of a human lifetime, is merely a blip in the grand scheme of things. Subjectively and objectively, it IS getting warmer, no doubt about it. But the increase is relatively modest.

What I question is the measurement of these temperatures, as oceans have been left out of the equation for decades, the amount of measurement stations has decreased in the past twenty years or even longer, what we receive today is mainly city temperatures, which is by no means indicative of the overall temperature settings, as we get a lot of reflected heat by building facades and temperatures also remain on the ground longer than in the past, due to the increased amount and size of buildings. The measurements don't represent the land mass accordingly.

 

Carbon dioxide isn't the cause for an increase in temperature overall as far as I can tell, it's the other way around: Increasing temperatures cause more carbon dioxide to form in the atmosphere, a large part of it bound in the oceans. But even here, we're talking about an invisible, minor component of our air and an increase in the 0.01% - to 0.02% range (400 to 420 parts per million) area.

Carbon dioxide is also not as evil as it is painted in the media - plants thrive on it as part of the stimulation of the photosynthesis.

 

The concern I have is the loss of flora and fauna by deforestation as part of an increase in population, raiding the planet of plants that help transform carbon dioxide back to oxygen.

Edited 4 June 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

And that's where the discussion sets in - how much of it IS actually man-made, how dangerous is it, is the temperature increase (+1.5 degrees in the past 100 years, if I'm not mistaken) part of a longer-lasting, continuing trend or are we on the cusp of another mini ice age?

 

The data on temperature change in the past 1'000 years and beyond that suggests what we're experiencing now in a relatively short period of time, as part of a human lifetime, is merely a blip in the grand scheme of things. Subjectively and objectively, it IS getting warmer.

 

Carbon dioxide isn't the cause for an increase in temperature overall as far as I can tell, it's the other way around: Increasing temperatures cause more carbon dioxide to form in the atmosphere, a large part of it bound in the oceans. But even here, we're talking about an invisible, minor component of our air and an increase in the 0.01% - to 0.02% range (400 to 420 parts per million) area.

Carbon dioxide is also not as evil as it is painted in the media - plants thrive on it as part of the stimulation of the photosynthesis.

 

The concern I have is the loss of flora and fauna by deforestation as part of an increase in population, raiding the planet of plants that help transform carbon dioxide back to oxygen.

Citation, please.

 

(Though I agree that deforestation and loss of species is a massive problem as well as other more direct forms of air, water and land pollution - by the metrics of past events we're in the middle of a sixth great extinction event and humans are the direct cause.)

[MC Prussian]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Citation, please.

Historical temperatures in Greenland in comparison (based on ice core/pollen information):

So, how warm is it today compared to the times past? Looks rather tame, doesn't it?

https://skepticalscience.com/Climate_And_Pollen.html (in the comments section, number 18)

 

Global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere since 1958 (carbon dioxide input by Mauna Loa, Hawaii):

You see that in the past 60 years, we've had two periods where temperatures decreased even though the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

One of the main bases for the climate change hysteria is the period in between 1975 and 2003, where the rise of the two curves coincides.

 

The graph can be found in this presentation here (sadly already five years old) - check page 25:

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_August_2013.pdf

Edited 4 June 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Historical temperatures in Greenland in comparison (based on ice core/pollen information):

So, how warm is it today compared to the times past? Looks rather tame, doesn't it?

https://skepticalscience.com/Climate_And_Pollen.html (in the comments section, number 18)

 

Global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere since 1958 (carbon dioxide input by Mauna Loa, Hawaii):

You see that in the past 60 years, we've had two periods where temperatures decreased even though the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

One of the main bases for the climate change hysteria is the period in between 1975 and 2003, where the two curves rise together.

 

The graph can be found in this presentation here (sadly already five years old) - check page 25:

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_August_2013.pdf

Thank you for that graph. Here is a similar one from the NOAA, attached below - only concerning the world, not just Greenland.

 

These two evidently conflict sharply. Perhaps the raw data should be looked at for both.

 

Still also waiting for a legitimate citated and peer-reviewed paper.

 

 

[MC Prussian]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thank you for that graph. Here is a similar one from the NOAA, attached below - only concerning the world, not just Greenland.

 

These two evidently conflict sharply. Perhaps the raw data should be looked at for both.

 

Still also waiting for a legitimate citated and peer-reviewed paper.

 

 

That's all relative to the pre-industrial period, so you're looking again at a very short period of time, when we ought to look at the temperature changes in the past 1'000 or even 10'000 years (see above).

Plus, the modern temperature measurements by the IPCC/NOAA are faulty or have become more faulty because the amount of monitoring stations has decreased overall, and due to the present-day distribution, the emphasis is now more on city temperatures, which gives you more one-sided or rather flawed results.

More and more people are living in cities, and the population has increased massively in the past 60 years. Coincidence?

And ocean temperatures are also not included, or haven't been included for a long time.

Quote

Without well defined criteria for inclusion and regular independent audits, bias in selecting stations is inevitable, unconcious or otherwise.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/06/weather-stations-disappearing-worldwide/

[Detroit Blues]

Gentlemen, we're beyond my pay grade

 

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

That's all relative to the pre-industrial period, so you're looking again at a very short period of time

 

 

That's precisely the point.

 

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Plus, the modern temperature measurements by the IPCC/NOAA are faulty or have become more faulty because the amount of monitoring stations has decreased overall

 

You fail to factor in the sophistication and availability of remote sensing technology and the extent to which it has superseded them. 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

That's all relative to the pre-industrial period, so you're looking again at a very short period of time, when we ought to look at the temperature changes in the past 1'000 or even 10'000 years (see above).

Plus, the modern temperature measurements by the IPCC/NOAA are faulty or have become more faulty because the amount of monitoring stations has decreased overall, and due to the present-day distribution, the emphasis is now more on city temperatures, which gives you more one-sided or rather flawed results.

More and more people are living in cities, and the population has increased massively in the past 60 years. Coincidence?

And ocean temperatures are also not included, or haven't been included for a long time.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/06/weather-stations-disappearing-worldwide/

I'm looking at exactly the same period of time as you did on the graph you published for the purpose of comparison - I can choose different time periods for temperature anomaly if you wish.

 

Even if what you say about the monitoring stations is true, how does that make the graph supplied by you any more reliable on that score than mine is? If we're going to go down that road, then all raw data is faulty and no-one can be validated.

 

NB. Anthony Watts is a one-area charlatan who focuses on surface stations and doesn't take into account any other possible source of data. https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm

[leicsmac]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/

 

The tobacco industry wrote the playbook decades ago - it's not difficult to follow.

[leicsmac]

 

Well, at least we now know where the current US administration stands on this with zero ambiguity. Especially that last sentence.

[Grebfromgrebland]

It would be ok if it was only Americans didn't have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life. Unfortunately the effects are global.

 

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/10/conservatives-should-change-how-they-think-about-global-warming-i-did

 

Another way of looking at the whole situation - taking action is simply risk management/hedging bets.

 

Comes down to that Pascals Wager again - if I'm wrong and you're right and we do this, then we take a smallish hit. But if I'm right and you're wrong and we don't...we take a much, much bigger one.

 

[leicsmac]

....I wonder if any of the eight people who thought climate change isn't real have changed their tune in the time since, given recent events?