|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 26, 2023 7:40:55 GMT
So to be realistic a peer reviewed paper produced by over 20 climate scientists contained what others believe are erroneous statistical assumptions and as such produce results that are believed to be inaccurate. I think largely that is what we have been trying to say. That science is far from settled, that errors are made all over the place and scientists disagree frequently as a matter of principle as well as a matter of fact. But do you accept the conclusions of the scientific community, or will you just wait a few weeks and just repeat this disproved theory. Look in the mirror zanygame. The CO2 theory has been "disproved" because its predictions have been proved wrong every time - and always in the direction of exaggerating warming. And it doesn't matter what proportion of scientists say they agree with the CO2 theory - the acid test is if the theory works. And it doesn't. Also the 95% claim is a total con because it was made up by journalists and propagated by politicians. You need to find a credible source that 95% of scientists believe that the majority of the 1.1C warming since 1850 has been caused by CO2. And when you can't find it you should stop quoting the figure. The science of climate is embryonic and is nowhere near settled. If you go back a 100 years or so scientists were arguing (sometimes acrimoniously) about the Steady State or Big Bang theories of the origin of the universe. Now we have more data the Steady State theory is largely discounted - but basically neither theory works very well. We still need more data. What's different with the climate change arguments is that political bodies like the IPCC have hijacked the subject and decided to present a one-sided view of the science - because they think that politicians need a settled view of the subject in order to make policy. That may be true, but they shouldn't call it "science" - and the problem is that if their settled view is wrong we will have wasted decades pursuing policies that don't help and probably cause harm. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 26, 2023 16:19:36 GMT
You asked if I accepted a conclusion from a community. We do not know what the conclusions of that community are, we know the IPCC conclusions but they are not the scientific community. It is not the scientific community that is querying the findings, it is another group of scientists in the same community. They may be right, they may be wrong they may be both right and wrong but that outlook holds for all such published papers that are queried. I accept that it has been queried and that there are questions as regards the Connolly paper that should be addressed. This is called acceptance of critical appraisal, you ought to try it, it may work wonders for you. Have any scientific institutes defended Connolly's calculations as correct? Several have not. So? The community is still far more than those. I am not defending Connolly or the research I am pointing out that there is no settled science as questions always exist over methodology and data. It is a strange phenomenon that you accept as true one peer reviewed paper that debunks something that is not in accordance with your view but rarely accept anything that debunks the science you seem to have set your heart on. Science is about having an open and receptive mind it is not about cultism. We should leave that to the religious fanatics whose minds are closed and very much set. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 17:11:12 GMT
Have any scientific institutes defended Connolly's calculations as correct? Several have not. So? The community is still far more than those. I am not defending Connolly or the research I am pointing out that there is no settled science as questions always exist over methodology and data. It is a strange phenomenon that you accept as true one peer reviewed paper that debunks something that is not in accordance with your view but rarely accept anything that debunks the science you seem to have set your heart on. Science is about having an open and receptive mind it is not about cultism. We should leave that to the religious fanatics whose minds are closed and very much set. It amounts to the same thing. You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do nothing. My guess is that it wouldn't matter how accurate the predictions became you would still find enough error to justify sitting on your hands. And Co2 warming has not been disproved, only the accuracy has been questioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 26, 2023 17:41:36 GMT
You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do nothing. You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do anything / everything. To my mind the piece you seem to missing, and even avoiding, is that your remedy has costs |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 18:34:58 GMT
You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do nothing. You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do anything / everything. To my mind the piece you seem to missing, and even avoiding, is that your remedy has costs My opinion is that we know atmospheric Co2 is warming the planet, we know man is producing the Co2 and that to stop it we need to stop burning fossil fuels. We don't know exactly what that warming will cause, but we do know that weather is caused by heat and the higher the heat the more the weather. We know there is a cost to reducing fossil fuels, but its a one off cost. The cost of doing nothing is continuous every year the weather will change from the last and every year we will need to adapt again and again. I'm fairly sure we wont make the planet uninhabitable and maybe Siberia will end up the place to live. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 26, 2023 18:51:45 GMT
You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do anything / everything. To my mind the piece you seem to missing, and even avoiding, is that your remedy has costs My opinion is that we know atmospheric Co2 is warming the planet, we know man is producing the Co2 and that to stop it we need to stop burning fossil fuels. We don't know exactly what that warming will cause, but we do know that weather is caused by heat and the higher the heat the more the weather. We know there is a cost to reducing fossil fuels, but its a one off cost. The cost of doing nothing is continuous every year the weather will change from the last and every year we will need to adapt again and again. I'm fairly sure we wont make the planet uninhabitable and maybe Siberia will end up the place to live. What would be the natural CO2 atmospheric content without human input? The Sahara would be a better place to live because it's climate change will be caused by Earth axis change and not CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 26, 2023 19:00:39 GMT
You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do anything / everything. To my mind the piece you seem to missing, and even avoiding, is that your remedy has costs My opinion is that we know atmospheric Co2 is warming the planet, we know man is producing the Co2 and that to stop it we need to stop burning fossil fuels. We don't know exactly what that warming will cause, but we do know that weather is caused by heat and the higher the heat the more the weather. We know there is a cost to reducing fossil fuels, but its a one off cost. The cost of doing nothing is continuous every year the weather will change from the last and every year we will need to adapt again and again. I'm fairly sure we wont make the planet uninhabitable and maybe Siberia will end up the place to live. The cost of not using fossil fuels is not a one off cost - it is a long term (perhaps permanent) reduction in the ability of mankind to provide a standard of living. It would be a cost that adds up every day You just keep waving it away as if it isn't there. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 19:04:33 GMT
My opinion is that we know atmospheric Co2 is warming the planet, we know man is producing the Co2 and that to stop it we need to stop burning fossil fuels. We don't know exactly what that warming will cause, but we do know that weather is caused by heat and the higher the heat the more the weather. We know there is a cost to reducing fossil fuels, but its a one off cost. The cost of doing nothing is continuous every year the weather will change from the last and every year we will need to adapt again and again. I'm fairly sure we wont make the planet uninhabitable and maybe Siberia will end up the place to live. What would be the natural CO2 atmospheric content without human input? The Sahara would be a better place to live because it's climate change will be caused by Earth axis change and not CO2. The natural amount of Co2 would be within the bounds of the last 800,000 years. (between 200 and 280 ppm) That is the amount under which almost all life currently on earth has evolved. (Current level is around 440ppm. ) Not sure what you mean about the Sahara, are you expecting the Earth to change its soon and suddenly? Only the wobble tilt that causes it is very slow and is due to start in about 10,000 years. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 19:11:16 GMT
My opinion is that we know atmospheric Co2 is warming the planet, we know man is producing the Co2 and that to stop it we need to stop burning fossil fuels. We don't know exactly what that warming will cause, but we do know that weather is caused by heat and the higher the heat the more the weather. We know there is a cost to reducing fossil fuels, but its a one off cost. The cost of doing nothing is continuous every year the weather will change from the last and every year we will need to adapt again and again. I'm fairly sure we wont make the planet uninhabitable and maybe Siberia will end up the place to live. The cost of not using fossil fuels is not a one off cost - it is a long term (perhaps permanent) reduction in the ability of mankind to provide a standard of living. It would be a cost that adds up every day You just keep waving it away as if it isn't there. I disagree. The cost of renewables is nearly all development. A decade ago people said wind power would always be double that of fossil fuels, but as turbines were developed and maintenance costs fell they were very similar to gas even before Putin escapades. People said batteries could never store enough power to fill gaps in production and there isn't sufficient lithium for the task. Now we have batteries capable of running a home for 6 days and running on salt. Every time someone says can't be done I just smile. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 26, 2023 19:11:46 GMT
What would be the natural CO2 atmospheric content without human input? The Sahara would be a better place to live because it's climate change will be caused by Earth axis change and not CO2. The natural amount of Co2 would be within the bounds of the last 800,000 years. (between 200 and 280 ppm) That is the amount under which almost all life currently on earth has evolved. (Current level is around 440ppm. ) Not sure what you mean about the Sahara, are you expecting the Earth to change its soon and suddenly? Only the wobble tilt that causes it is very slow and is due to start in about 10,000 years. I told you a few days ago, 15,000 years to get to optimum, how long for Siberia? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 19:13:05 GMT
The natural amount of Co2 would be within the bounds of the last 800,000 years. (between 200 and 280 ppm) That is the amount under which almost all life currently on earth has evolved. (Current level is around 440ppm. ) Not sure what you mean about the Sahara, are you expecting the Earth to change its soon and suddenly? Only the wobble tilt that causes it is very slow and is due to start in about 10,000 years. I told you a few days ago, 15,000 years to get to optimum, how long for Siberia? You mean if we do nothing? Possibly around 200 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 26, 2023 19:22:08 GMT
I disagree. The cost of renewables is nearly all development. This is you just you handwaving away the cost again. If the cost were really low, there wouldn't be an argument and you wouldn't need to use legislation to inflict huge costs on people. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 19:23:58 GMT
I disagree. The cost of renewables is nearly all development. This is you just you handwaving away the cost again. If the cost were really low, there wouldn't be an argument because you wouldn't need to use legislation to inflict huge costs on people. Who said the development costs were really low? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 26, 2023 20:17:19 GMT
So? The community is still far more than those. I am not defending Connolly or the research I am pointing out that there is no settled science as questions always exist over methodology and data. It is a strange phenomenon that you accept as true one peer reviewed paper that debunks something that is not in accordance with your view but rarely accept anything that debunks the science you seem to have set your heart on. Science is about having an open and receptive mind it is not about cultism. We should leave that to the religious fanatics whose minds are closed and very much set. It amounts to the same thing. You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do nothing. My guess is that it wouldn't matter how accurate the predictions became you would still find enough error to justify sitting on your hands. And Co2 warming has not been disproved, only the accuracy has been questioned. No, I am saying because we cannot, and have not, accurately predicted the effects of CO2 on the climate then we should not class it as an emergency. That does not translate to sitting on our hands, it translates to let us wean ourselves off fossil fuels in a sensible and relatively cost and angst free way. I have not said that CO2 warming has been disproved. I have said the relationship between warming and CO2 levels is at best uncertain. I have also said that the measure of warming, that is comparing current to past temperatures has many questions as regards its accuracy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 26, 2023 20:22:19 GMT
It amounts to the same thing. You are saying that because we cannot accurately predict the effects of Co2 warming we should do nothing. My guess is that it wouldn't matter how accurate the predictions became you would still find enough error to justify sitting on your hands. And Co2 warming has not been disproved, only the accuracy has been questioned. No, I am saying because we cannot, and have not, accurately predicted the effects of CO2 on the climate then we should not class it as an emergency. That does not translate to sitting on our hands, it translates to let us wean ourselves off fossil fuels in a sensible and relatively cost and angst free way. I have not said that CO2 warming has been disproved. I have said the relationship between warming and CO2 levels is at best uncertain. I have also said that the measure of warming, that is comparing current to past temperatures has many questions as regards its accuracy. Why wean ourselves off fossil fuels? |
|
