|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 28, 2023 19:05:16 GMT
I have no idea if cloud cover has changed, you asked what else could it be. Many things have changed over the last 30years. Are they seeding clouds and interfering with natural climate. I do not know, some think they are but who knows.The point is that CO2 has a capability but that capability is not borne out by the figures taken from official sources as they show that CO2 trails temperature. It is like saying punches cause black eyes and look here is a graph that shows the incidence of black eyes with the punches following a few steps behind. It makes no sense as a cause and effect situation. Jeez. I got to make a list of these things for next time you say I'm closed minded. Maybe they're seeding clouds. Sigh. Seeding clouds makes them rain and effectively removes them, it doesn't make more of them to cause warming. Co2 trails warming? Over what time period? Are we back to the last ice age again? If so yes as the world warmed at the end of the ice age large amounts of trapped Co2 were released into the atmosphere increasing warming. But ice is long gone and didn't happen in the 20th century It is in the graph in the link in teh OP all you need to do is look at it. If you cannot be arsed at least be honest about it. The time period is there. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2023 19:33:47 GMT
Jeez. I got to make a list of these things for next time you say I'm closed minded. Maybe they're seeding clouds. Sigh. Seeding clouds makes them rain and effectively removes them, it doesn't make more of them to cause warming. Co2 trails warming? Over what time period? Are we back to the last ice age again? If so yes as the world warmed at the end of the ice age large amounts of trapped Co2 were released into the atmosphere increasing warming. But ice is long gone and didn't happen in the 20th century It is in the graph in the link in teh OP all you need to do is look at it. If you cannot be arsed at least be honest about it. The time period is there. This argument is nonsense. The scientific community is 100% sure that the increase in CO2 we see in the atmosphere is from the combustion of fossil fuels (with a contribution from land-use changes). This conclusion is supported by several independent lines of evidence. First, for the past half-century, each year’s increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on average 44 % of what humans released into the atmosphere in that same year. Thus, when humans were emitting smaller amounts of carbon dioxide in the 1960s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was increasing at a slower rate than when humans were dumping large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as we are today. If the source of carbon dioxide emissions were non-human, there is no reason that it would track human emissions so closely. Second, the carbon dioxide can be chemically “fingerprinted” to show that it comes from fossil fuels. The method is based on isotopes of carbon. All carbon atoms have six protons, but carbon’s isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. The chemical properties of an atom are for the most part set by the number of protons and electrons, so isotopes tend to have similar chemical properties. The chemistry, though, is not identical. Because of this, fossil fuels have a particular isotopic signature (enhanced in carbon-12 and depleted of carbon-14). Scientists measuring the composition of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere find that it matches the isotopic composition of fossil fuels. Finally, a challenge for any alternative theory: we know humans are dumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. If this is NOT causing the increase, where is all of that CO2 going? The alternative theories never provide an explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 8:55:26 GMT
It is in the graph in the link in teh OP all you need to do is look at it. If you cannot be arsed at least be honest about it. The time period is there. This argument is nonsense. The scientific community is 100% sure that the increase in CO2 we see in the atmosphere is from the combustion of fossil fuels (with a contribution from land-use changes). This conclusion is supported by several independent lines of evidence. First, for the past half-century, each year’s increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on average 44 % of what humans released into the atmosphere in that same year. Thus, when humans were emitting smaller amounts of carbon dioxide in the 1960s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was increasing at a slower rate than when humans were dumping large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as we are today. If the source of carbon dioxide emissions were non-human, there is no reason that it would track human emissions so closely. Second, the carbon dioxide can be chemically “fingerprinted” to show that it comes from fossil fuels. The method is based on isotopes of carbon. All carbon atoms have six protons, but carbon’s isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. The chemical properties of an atom are for the most part set by the number of protons and electrons, so isotopes tend to have similar chemical properties. The chemistry, though, is not identical. Because of this, fossil fuels have a particular isotopic signature (enhanced in carbon-12 and depleted of carbon-14). Scientists measuring the composition of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere find that it matches the isotopic composition of fossil fuels. Finally, a challenge for any alternative theory: we know humans are dumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. If this is NOT causing the increase, where is all of that CO2 going? The alternative theories never provide an explanation. No one seems to be arguing that. The discussion is as regards cause and effect which is the basic premise of the alarmists case. We are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and as a consequence it is becoming warmer. It seems that is in question. We know many things what we do not know is exactly why the planet is in a warming cycle, we can guess but then at least be honest that it is a guess and possibly based on some sound evidence but that is all it is. I also repeat how much it is warming and the accuracy of the temperature record and the present readings all have significant questions.Even more so when we know that tweaking of results by way of 'correction factors' is an oft indulged in pastime. If we had not had so many 'dire warnings' that have not come to pass then perhaps there may have been more sympathy for the view that there is a problem. However what we have seen is a cult like stance, ridicule of those who question and political demands for instant action. These are not good looks and raise the hackles of many. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 9:11:16 GMT
This argument is nonsense. The scientific community is 100% sure that the increase in CO2 we see in the atmosphere is from the combustion of fossil fuels (with a contribution from land-use changes). This conclusion is supported by several independent lines of evidence. First, for the past half-century, each year’s increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on average 44 % of what humans released into the atmosphere in that same year. Thus, when humans were emitting smaller amounts of carbon dioxide in the 1960s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was increasing at a slower rate than when humans were dumping large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as we are today. If the source of carbon dioxide emissions were non-human, there is no reason that it would track human emissions so closely. Second, the carbon dioxide can be chemically “fingerprinted” to show that it comes from fossil fuels. The method is based on isotopes of carbon. All carbon atoms have six protons, but carbon’s isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. The chemical properties of an atom are for the most part set by the number of protons and electrons, so isotopes tend to have similar chemical properties. The chemistry, though, is not identical. Because of this, fossil fuels have a particular isotopic signature (enhanced in carbon-12 and depleted of carbon-14). Scientists measuring the composition of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere find that it matches the isotopic composition of fossil fuels. Finally, a challenge for any alternative theory: we know humans are dumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. If this is NOT causing the increase, where is all of that CO2 going? The alternative theories never provide an explanation. No one seems to be arguing that. The discussion is as regards cause and effect which is the basic premise of the alarmists case. We are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and as a consequence it is becoming warmer. It seems that is in question. We know many things what we do not know is exactly why the planet is in a warming cycle, we can guess but then at least be honest that it is a guess and possibly based on some sound evidence but that is all it is. I also repeat how much it is warming and the accuracy of the temperature record and the present readings all have significant questions.Even more so when we know that tweaking of results by way of 'correction factors' is an oft indulged in pastime. If we had not had so many 'dire warnings' that have not come to pass then perhaps there may have been more sympathy for the view that there is a problem. However what we have seen is a cult like stance, ridicule of those who question and political demands for instant action. These are not good looks and raise the hackles of many. If you're argument ended at we can't prove beyond doubt that that its man made co2 causing warming then it would be fine, but I know this is just your shoe horn to get to 'They're all lying and we need do nothing' Your words belie you. 1°C is not much, just 5,000,000,000,000,000 joules much Its happened before, yeah after an ice age. The temperature readings are suspect. yeah 3 of them. They made 'corrections' yeah to take out anomalies. Muddy the water, but still no answer to the reason the world is warming. Apart from. Loss of vegetation (Already considered) Milankovitch cycles (Accounted for) Tarmac (Only local) And a new one now. Deliberate cloud seeding. (Only oops if it did anything that would cool the planet.) |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 15:49:56 GMT
No one seems to be arguing that. The discussion is as regards cause and effect which is the basic premise of the alarmists case. We are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and as a consequence it is becoming warmer. It seems that is in question. We know many things what we do not know is exactly why the planet is in a warming cycle, we can guess but then at least be honest that it is a guess and possibly based on some sound evidence but that is all it is. I also repeat how much it is warming and the accuracy of the temperature record and the present readings all have significant questions.Even more so when we know that tweaking of results by way of 'correction factors' is an oft indulged in pastime. If we had not had so many 'dire warnings' that have not come to pass then perhaps there may have been more sympathy for the view that there is a problem. However what we have seen is a cult like stance, ridicule of those who question and political demands for instant action. These are not good looks and raise the hackles of many. If you're argument ended at we can't prove beyond doubt that that its man made co2 causing warming then it would be fine, but I know this is just your shoe horn to get to 'They're all lying and we need do nothing' Your words belie you. 1°C is not much, just 5,000,000,000,000,000 joules much Its happened before, yeah after an ice age. The temperature readings are suspect. yeah 3 of them. They made 'corrections' yeah to take out anomalies. Muddy the water, but still no answer to the reason the world is warming. Apart from. Loss of vegetation (Already considered) Milankovitch cycles (Accounted for) Tarmac (Only local) And a new one now. Deliberate cloud seeding. (Only oops if it did anything that would cool the planet.) Not saying all the scientists are lying however it is taken up pretty strongly by politicians and that makes it a whole new ball game. If it was only 3 readings that were ythe problem there would be no problem. What happened in the US it was over 50% of teh readings that were potentially corrupted by falsely high readings. WE know the much vaunted 40C here was at best suspect and at worst false and it seems clear it was a reading behind which there was political pressure to attain a significant figure. The planet certainly appears to have warmed by how much and on average no one knows. The latest 'hottest year yet' was largely derived from an Antarctic anomaly. I am not a scientist how would I know how the world is warming I expect science to present a cogent reason, not a best guess on which levels are conjectural and say it is settled by ignoring those who disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 17:17:25 GMT
If you're argument ended at we can't prove beyond doubt that that its man made co2 causing warming then it would be fine, but I know this is just your shoe horn to get to 'They're all lying and we need do nothing' Your words belie you. 1°C is not much, just 5,000,000,000,000,000 joules much Its happened before, yeah after an ice age. The temperature readings are suspect. yeah 3 of them. They made 'corrections' yeah to take out anomalies. Muddy the water, but still no answer to the reason the world is warming. Apart from. Loss of vegetation (Already considered) Milankovitch cycles (Accounted for) Tarmac (Only local) And a new one now. Deliberate cloud seeding. (Only oops if it did anything that would cool the planet.) So the scientists haven't corrected the politicians claim then, making them liars by association. So just under 50% of the readings that were potentially corrupted by falsely low readings. They do know. Its 1.1 degrees. And arctic anomaly, which we haven't had before? Yes which is why when 90% of them agree its AGW I listen to them not you. They do, you just wont accept their reason. Who knows why. Do WE? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 18:36:21 GMT
So the scientists haven't corrected the politicians claim then, making them liars by association. So just under 50% of the readings that were potentially corrupted by falsely low readings. They do know. Its 1.1 degrees. And arctic anomaly, which we haven't had before? Yes which is why when 90% of them agree its AGW I listen to them not you. They do, you just wont accept their reason. Who knows why. Do WE? It becomes frustratingly difficult to hold a sensible debate as you tend to adopt a rather dogmatic stance and argue points I have not made. Scientists have corrected the Politicians claims many times and been cancelled for their efforts. The falsely high readings were associated with UHI effects for which correction factors were applied as well as locational changes for which other correction factors were applied and www.climatedepot.com/2023/08/03/top-climate-scientists-rubbish-claims-july-was-the-hottest-month-ever-public-being-misinformed-on-a-massive-scale/Via The Australian: Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Washington, said the public was being ‚""misinformed on a massive scale ""It's terrible. I think it's a disaster. There's a stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves, and it's very counter-productive,"" he told The Australian in an interview‚""I'm not a contrarian. I'm pretty mainstream in a very large [academic] department, and I think most of these claims are unfounded and problematic."" Professor Mass said the climate was ""radically warmer"" around 1000 years ago during what's known as the Medieval Warm Period, when agriculture thrived in parts of now ice-covered Greenland. ‚""If you really go back far enough there were swamps near the North Pole, and the other thing to keep in mind is that we're coming out of a cold period, a Little Ice Age from roughly 1600 to 1850."" # But you tend to ignore these people who are climate scientists and believe in AGW but not the superhype which is a political discourse. People were not informed that they were looking at the output of a climate model, not actually measured temperatures. As regards the 40C we do know some facts, the maximum only lasted for a few minutes, it occurred in the same 15 minute period that three typhoon jets landed, it was recorded close to the runway. I contend that the topping of 40C was upheld by the Met office as like the 4 minute mile it was psychological barrier and there was political pressure to accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 29, 2023 20:32:03 GMT
They do, you just wont accept their reason. Who knows why. Do WE? It becomes frustratingly difficult to hold a sensible debate as you tend to adopt a rather dogmatic stance and argue points I have not made. Scientists have corrected the Politicians claims many times and been cancelled for their efforts. The falsely high readings were associated with UHI effects for which correction factors were applied as well as locational changes for which other correction factors were applied and www.climatedepot.com/2023/08/03/top-climate-scientists-rubbish-claims-july-was-the-hottest-month-ever-public-being-misinformed-on-a-massive-scale/Via The Australian: Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Washington, said the public was being ‚""misinformed on a massive scale ""It's terrible. I think it's a disaster. There's a stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves, and it's very counter-productive,"" he told The Australian in an interview‚""I'm not a contrarian. I'm pretty mainstream in a very large [academic] department, and I think most of these claims are unfounded and problematic."" Professor Mass said the climate was ""radically warmer"" around 1000 years ago during what's known as the Medieval Warm Period, when agriculture thrived in parts of now ice-covered Greenland. ‚""If you really go back far enough there were swamps near the North Pole, and the other thing to keep in mind is that we're coming out of a cold period, a Little Ice Age from roughly 1600 to 1850."" # But you tend to ignore these people who are climate scientists and believe in AGW but not the superhype which is a political discourse. People were not informed that they were looking at the output of a climate model, not actually measured temperatures. As regards the 40C we do know some facts, the maximum only lasted for a few minutes, it occurred in the same 15 minute period that three typhoon jets landed, it was recorded close to the runway. I contend that the topping of 40C was upheld by the Met office as like the 4 minute mile it was psychological barrier and there was political pressure to accept it. I am dogmatic because if I give you an inch you take a mile, you exaggerate everything you can, from the number of scientists who dispute AGW to the number cancelled for heir views and are unable to ever offer anything more than a single one or a blogger claiming the same as you. You rest on the idea that scientists can be bought. I find this incredibly insulting as I know a number of scientists and was a long time friend of a specialist at Antarctica before he moved back to Scotland and we lost touch. Regarding the 40c, it was news worthy, not scientific. But I notice you fail to address any of the misrepresentations I raised with you. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 29, 2023 22:38:19 GMT
It becomes frustratingly difficult to hold a sensible debate as you tend to adopt a rather dogmatic stance and argue points I have not made. Scientists have corrected the Politicians claims many times and been cancelled for their efforts. The falsely high readings were associated with UHI effects for which correction factors were applied as well as locational changes for which other correction factors were applied and www.climatedepot.com/2023/08/03/top-climate-scientists-rubbish-claims-july-was-the-hottest-month-ever-public-being-misinformed-on-a-massive-scale/Via The Australian: Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Washington, said the public was being ‚""misinformed on a massive scale ""It's terrible. I think it's a disaster. There's a stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves, and it's very counter-productive,"" he told The Australian in an interview‚""I'm not a contrarian. I'm pretty mainstream in a very large [academic] department, and I think most of these claims are unfounded and problematic."" Professor Mass said the climate was ""radically warmer"" around 1000 years ago during what's known as the Medieval Warm Period, when agriculture thrived in parts of now ice-covered Greenland. ‚""If you really go back far enough there were swamps near the North Pole, and the other thing to keep in mind is that we're coming out of a cold period, a Little Ice Age from roughly 1600 to 1850."" # But you tend to ignore these people who are climate scientists and believe in AGW but not the superhype which is a political discourse. People were not informed that they were looking at the output of a climate model, not actually measured temperatures. As regards the 40C we do know some facts, the maximum only lasted for a few minutes, it occurred in the same 15 minute period that three typhoon jets landed, it was recorded close to the runway. I contend that the topping of 40C was upheld by the Met office as like the 4 minute mile it was psychological barrier and there was political pressure to accept it. I am dogmatic because if I give you an inch you take a mile, you exaggerate everything you can, from the number of scientists who dispute AGW to the number cancelled for heir views and are unable to ever offer anything more than a single one or a blogger claiming the same as you. You rest on the idea that scientists can be bought. I find this incredibly insulting as I know a number of scientists and was a long time friend of a specialist at Antarctica before he moved back to Scotland and we lost touch. Regarding the 40c, it was news worthy, not scientific. But I notice you fail to address any of the misrepresentations I raised with you. I addressed every point that you claim are misrepresentations. What have I exaggerated? I say there are climate scientists who dispute the narrative, and there are, I linked to some above, I have linked to many hundreds in the past. They are climate scientists yet do not hold with the overegging of the case, as most people do not, some others appear to have epiphanies and moved from alarmism to scepticism like Judith Curry who was a rather loud alarmist and is now a rather loud 'denier'. You have to decide at which point she was being truthful, some say with age comes wisdom and understanding. If a scientist worked for an oil company would you trust his opinion if he said CO2 was not a major problem, I believe many people are on record as saying that they cannot be trusted yet I am the insulter, strange. We are now back to a 'single blogger' although all he is is a conduit of information from many sceptics and those who see science being traduced in teh political arena. Back to 40, why was it newsworthy and has it been used by climate alarmists? The answers are it was newsworthy because it helps to paint a global warming picture, was it used by alarmists yes extensively I quote theBC's rather muted alarmist reporting. "Two months after the summer heatwave, new data underlines the huge impact climate change is having on the UK. More than half of the UK's oldest active weather stations recorded their hottest day ever in 2022, according to Met Office data. New all-time highs were set at 56 of the 109 longest standing stations during the July heatwave. One west Yorkshire village broke its previous record by a whopping 6.3C." All good stuff but remember probes are now used in most locations instead of mercury or spirit, yet probes have an instant response where mercury is slower response. Surely even you can work out what this means for a maximum temp. In Australia a scientist has been seeking information on Brisbane Airport who were using probes beside mercury and I quote My analysis of the three years of Brisbane Airport parallel data — only recently made available following years of wrangling over an FOI request with the Bureau — shows that 41% of the time the probe is recording hotter than the mercury, and 26% of the time cooler. The difference is statistically significant (paired t Test, n = 1094, p < 0.05). The differences are not randomly distributed, and there is a distinct discontinuity after December 2019. ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/mercury-thermometers-versus-probes-in-automatic-weather-stationsWhat science has to do is address the issues that are being discovered despite blocking attempts (why take years to produce weather data). I have not exaggerated anything above it is purely information EDIT It seems the scientific method has been jettisoned  |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 30, 2023 8:39:17 GMT
You always miss the point zany. Always. There does come a point when the Earth may flip into a new stable state - either warmer or cooler. But the point is that it's not CO2 that's going to cause this - it's our relentless destruction of the Earth's stabilisers - like trees and vegetation etc. Obviously the 1.1C is not spread evenly but nobody ever said that it was. It's the CAUSE of the 1.1C rise that we're debating. You keep on forgetting what the debate is about. It's about whether CO2 is the cause of warming. And the IPCC does not tell any scientists what to think. The IPCC is not a scientific organisation in that it does NO research. It has the consistent hypothesis that CO2 DOES cause all the warming - this is hard coded into their model. It then cherry picks science that is compatible with this hypothesis and ignores any that isn't. That's not science but the IPCC is not a scientific organisation. It's purpose is to present a settled view of climate change to governments. As for scare stories it's you who make those up. I'm just pointing out that the CO2 warming theory is highly unlikely yet many countries will benefit from pushing this agenda. I'm afraid this is 2023, zany and you need to be aware that disinformation is a very powerful tool. They call it "non-lethal warfare". If you are not talking about Co2 not causing warming, then don't talk about Co2 not causing warming. In a thread called "Do we really know, human greenhouse gas emissions cause" If you are talking about better ways to mitigate the increased warming caused by Co2 then say so in the first place. Because funny enough most ECO warriors know that deforestation is part of the problem and are tackling it. Your claims that 75%? of the planet land surface are repurposed are fictitious by any method I can see. 57% of the land is considered uninhabitable Desert of mountainous. Of the remaining 43% half is agricultural 21.5% of total 30% of the worlds entire land surface is forested. 20% natural grassland No idea what your parameters for repurposed include. If I run safari tours in the Serengeti is that land 'repurposed' The IPCC can be whatever you want, that does not explain why scientists from pretty much every country in the world agree with their position. The previous suggestions were that it was dependence of funding that kept scientists in line, a ridiculous idea in itself if you know ANY scientists. But made more so by the fact that China gets no funding and yet still agrees with its conclusions. Most of this doesn't make sense. On the subject of the 75% of land being repurposed, it came from the National Geographic and I gave you a link. You just ignore anything you don't like. Here's another link: link
As for "The IPCC can be whatever you want, that does not explain why scientists from pretty much every country in the world agree with their position", that's true. It's also true to say that "scientists from pretty much every country in the world do NOT agree with their position" - as has been mentioned in many previous posts. So what? The point - which you have missed as usual - is that the IPCC exists to present a SETTLED view of the science of climate change to government. As I said their models ASSUME (hypothesise) that CO2 causes most of the warming. It's hard-coded into their models. They have a coefficient that says if CO2 rises in concentration by x% then global average temperature will rise by y degrees C. I can't put it any clearer. If their models actually worked then it would go some way to vindicating their hypothesis - but their models do NOT work. I suggest that the first thing you do zany is try to understand basic scientific method. It's fundamental. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 30, 2023 8:52:56 GMT
I don't see it as an 'us vs them' struggle as it usually depicted here. I would tend to listen closest to those who have the best interest of the planet at heart rather than those who pursue narrow economic or political interests. However I don't know enough about the subject in sufficient detail to nominate actual leaders. My suggestion would be to leave it to those who do. I.e. Leave it to the experts. That's always worked in the past hasn't it.  The thing is that nobody knows enough about this subject to say what's happening and no scientist will claim that they do. The Earth is the most complex system that we've ever tried to model. But I think the danger is that - because the subject has been hijacked by politicians - we have put all our eggs in one basket i.e. CO2 is to blame. Our govt seems to think that eliminating CO2 emissions will solve the problem and are willing to seriously damage our economy to achieve this. But what happens when we find out (in a few decades) that CO2 is, at best, a bit player? After all there's absolutely no evidence that CO2 is the cause. Yet there are plenty of things that we absolutely DO know cause warming - like concreting over the globe to build houses and infrastructure. But our politicians are unanimous in wanting to build MORE houses etc. And they talk about increasing the population to raise GDP etc. Insanity. |
|
