Stopping Dangerous Global Warming

[jvenge]

14 hours ago, Devonian said:

OK, but why then do you blindly disbelieve them? Or do you approve of us taking a precautionary approach to this planet's welfare and do the things needed to bring emissions under control? I bet you don't....

Nobody in the past 40 years has proposed anything that would make even a dent in the purported impact. So, yes, since nobody is doing anything and nobody wants to do anything, I'm against spending more money doing nothing just on the off chance, as what it is spent on anyway is not having even a slight impact.

[jvenge]

15 hours ago, knocker said:

There is plenty of empirical evidence. The rise in air temperature, sea level rise, Arctic sea ice in the satellite period and one I find most compelling, most of the world's glaciers are melting. So if the human induced increase of GHGs (a science I take as settled) is not the driver of this then some other mechanism has to be the reason which as yet, as far as I'm aware, has not been scientifically presented as a viable alternative. And given the greenhouse gas theory is accepted as settled science then a reason has to found why it doesn't induce warming.

Where the science is not settled is the evolution in an ever warming world of feedback mechanisms and the impact on natural variability cycles upon which strategic policy decisions have to be based. Many people feel these decisions have been delayed long enough and I'm one of them And the reason these decisions have been continuously delayed is nowt to do with the science but the vested interests of powerful lobby groups who have spent millions in attempting to rubbish the science and in many respects they have succeeded

I don't disagree with anything you said, but just to add, both "sides" have lobby groups and I dare say the warming side is slightly better funded.

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

Ah the consensus. The ultimate retort for when someone disagrees "But there is a consensus!"

Okay, keep your consensus. Luckily Trump is in the White House now and all of these unproven green initiatives and wishy washy research is going to be defunded for at least the next 4 years.

It's a consensus of research and science, not a consensus of opinion. All I'm asking is why you think the research is wrong and you're right. No need to get so defensive.
Any comments on the rest of my previous post?

[jvenge]

15 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

When the vast majority of research, from climate scientists themselves to insurance groups and economists anticipate that climate change will be detrimental to society, and increasingly so with additional warming, why do you disagree with the idea?
Do you think there are aspects of climate change that could harm crop yields?

As for extreme climate scenarios (ignoring your blind disbelief of climate models) what about periods in the recent geological past when the climate was much warmer and it's relationship to CO2 levels? What about the current planetary energy imbalance and the warming that must arise because of it? How about the fact that the planet has warmed about 1C despite a rise in CO2 levels of only about 43% and much more time required before reaching equilibrium?

Okay, to break this down.

I'd say the biggest threat to crop yields is draught and flooding, as seasonal growing variations in temperature don't come into play so much, unless worsened by say a draught. 

Sorry, you are going to need to define this current energy imbalance, as I haven't the foggiest what you are referring to.

1C since when? Give me a CO2 to temperature correlation graph and we can chat about it.

[jvenge]

4 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It's a consensus of research and science, not a consensus of opinion. All I'm asking is why you think the research is wrong and you're right. No need to get so defensive.
Any comments on the rest of my previous post?

You build straw man arguments and this is another reason why people don't like to post here. You are the one saying all the research and science is all agreed, so prove it. I have never claimed I know more than all the research, you did.

Show me this mysterious hub where all climate research and science was gathered and everything was neatly arranged into camps of what all the scientists agreed the cause was.

[stewfox]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

Nobody in the past 40 years has proposed anything that would make even a dent in the purported impact. So, yes, since nobody is doing anything and nobody wants to do anything, I'm against spending more money doing nothing just on the off chance, as what it is spent on anyway is not having even a slight impact.

We have put hundreds of those ugly wind turbines, good for killing birds i suppose.

 

[jvenge]

Just now, stewfox said:

We have put hundreds of those ugly wind turbines, good for killing birds i suppose.

 

Killing birds, blighting the countryside, raising prices, causing energy poverty, need of backups of more reliable power, etc.

 

[stewfox]

20 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It's a consensus of research and science, not a consensus of opinion. All I'm asking is why you think the research is wrong and you're right. No need to get so defensive.
Any comments on the rest of my previous post?

2 years ago Antarctica sea ice was increasing rapidly and against the global warming theory. So lots of  theories came out to explain it. Now it is decreasing rapidly (below norm) . Were all those theories wrong and its just a natural cycle ? We need another 30 years to see where we are.

[Gowon]

14 minutes ago, jvenge said:

You build straw man arguments and this is another reason why people don't like to post here. You are the one saying all the research and science is all agreed, so prove it. I have never claimed I know more than all the research, you did.

Show me this mysterious hub where all climate research and science was gathered and everything was neatly arranged into camps of what all the scientists agreed the cause was.

BFTV knows the subject more in-depth then most in here because he's actually studying it..

My own personal opinion is that we are destroying our planet with growing population, infrastructure, raping the earth of natural resources etc.?..

[jvenge]

13 minutes ago, D.V.R said:

BFTV knows the subject more in-depth then most in here because he's actually studying it..

My own personal opinion is that we are destroying our planet with growing population, infrastructure, raping the earth of natural resources etc.?..

It doesn't matter. He built straw man arguments and he does so quite often. I couldn't give a monkeys what he studies.

[BornFromTheVoid]

5 minutes ago, jvenge said:

Okay, to break this down.

I'd say the biggest threat to crop yields is draught and flooding, as seasonal growing variations in temperature don't come into play so much, unless worsened by say a draught. 

Sorry, you are going to need to define this current energy imbalance, as I haven't the foggiest what you are referring to.

1C since when? Give me a CO2 to temperature correlation graph and we can chat about it.

Drought and flooding, which is likely to worsen due to climate change, yeah? There will also be much flooding from sea level rise. Increases in heavy rainfall event which cause surface flow and washing away of nutrients. The geographical distributions of pests and diseases will also change. Do you think there's a chance that these things could out-do the added benefit of extra CO2 induced growth.

The energy balance is the difference between incoming solar radiation and the energy being radiated into space from Earth. Currently there is more coming in than going out, so the planet has to heat up more to regain the balance. Here's a page explaining the concept a bit more and how it's measured http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

Atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280ppm to about 400ppm since the end of the industrial revolution, when we began emitting enough to matter. Temperatures since then have climbed over 1C (about 1.1C using the coldest to warmest decadal average, and 1.5C using the coldest to warmest annual average). Before this we'd been cooling for about 8,000 years too.

 

2 minutes ago, jvenge said:

You build straw man arguments and this is another reason why people don't like to post here. You are the one saying all the research and science is all agreed, so prove it. I have never claimed I know more than all the research, you did.

Show me this mysterious hub where all climate research and science was gathered and everything was neatly arranged into camps of what all the scientists agreed the cause was.

Please explain to me where I've built a strawman. I said there was little to support the idea that warming will be of benefit to mankind. You said this:
I don't see why I should think the current warming has had a negative impact and therefore why future warming, assuming it doesn't have a runaway effect, would also not be beneficial.

So I responded saying that most experts have found the opposite to be true, and asked why you disagree.
You seem to playing playing the victim all too easily here whilst making one assertion after another. How about you provide some evidence for a change? Here's what the latest IPCC report says about agriculture:
Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world
From a poverty perspective, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence)

And that's not even touching on ocean acidification.

[jvenge]

Just now, BornFromTheVoid said:

Drought and flooding, which is likely to worsen due to climate change, yeah? There will also be much flooding from sea level rise. Increases in heavy rainfall event which cause surface flow and washing away of nutrients. The geographical distributions of pests and diseases will also change. Do you think there's a chance that these things could out-do the added benefit of extra CO2 induced growth.

Show me a link between CO2 increasing and floods increasing. Show me a link between CO2 increasing and droughts increasing (amazing how it can do both, by the way). Show me a link between CO2 increasing and crop yields decreasing. Indeed, show me a link between temperature increasing and crop yields decreasing. You have a good 40 or so years of data, so you will have no problem finding something based on empirical evidence, rather than what some models say.

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

53 minutes ago, stewfox said:

We have put hundreds of those ugly wind turbines, good for killing birds i suppose.

 

That's quite a pretty picture, stew.

I wonder which kills more birds, cars or wind turbines? Domestic cats or wind turbines? Coal plants or wind turbines?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857

[jvenge]

Just now, BornFromTheVoid said:

That's quite a pretty picture, stew.

I wonder which kills more birds, cars or wind turbines? Domestic cats or wind turbines? Coal plants or wind turbines?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857

A greeny solution. Let's kill all cats and stop driving cars.

[jvenge]

12 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Drought and flooding, which is likely to worsen due to climate change, yeah? There will also be much flooding from sea level rise. Increases in heavy rainfall event which cause surface flow and washing away of nutrients. The geographical distributions of pests and diseases will also change. Do you think there's a chance that these things could out-do the added benefit of extra CO2 induced growth.

The energy balance is the difference between incoming solar radiation and the energy being radiated into space from Earth. Currently there is more coming in than going out, so the planet has to heat up more to regain the balance. Here's a page explaining the concept a bit more and how it's measured http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

Atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280ppm to about 400ppm since the end of the industrial revolution, when we began emitting enough to matter. Temperatures since then have climbed over 1C (about 1.1C using the coldest to warmest decadal average, and 1.5C using the coldest to warmest annual average). Before this we'd been cooling for about 8,000 years too.

 

Please explain to me where I've built a strawman. I said there was little to support the idea that warming will be of benefit to mankind. You said this:
I don't see why I should think the current warming has had a negative impact and therefore why future warming, assuming it doesn't have a runaway effect, would also not be beneficial.

So I responded saying that most experts have found the opposite to be true, and asked why you disagree.
You seem to playing playing the victim all too easily here whilst making one assertion after another. How about you provide some evidence for a change? Here's what the latest IPCC report says about agriculture:
Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world
From a poverty perspective, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence)

And that's not even touching on ocean acidification.

You can try to justify your straw man claims all you like, but they are there for all to see. You are claiming things on my behalf, attacking them, when they aren't what I have claimed. Classic straw man argument.

You haven't yet told me what it is I'm supposed to be showing you. You just keep saying that everyone disagrees with me, but you don't say much more than that.

Edited December 29, 2016 by jvenge

[jvenge]

Your biggest issue, with me anyway, seems to be that you are trying to argue against something I am not disagreeing with. You can see from my posts above and in response to Knocker that I am not actually disagreeing with the real "settled" aspect and Knocker himself gives a good summary of what isn't settled and that's what I say needs to be proven more. What I sincerely hope happens with a Trump presidency is that a lot of climate science money is actually diverted into actual measurements. Land measurements are still poor World wide, ocean measurements, including geographical sampling and depths is woeful. More satellite stuff, too.

Most people labeled deniers don't actually disagree with that part either. I don't dispute any part of the role of CO2, other than the assumed feedbacks, which have yet to be demonstrated and one would have to say the model assumptions of them are looking a little fishy. If you don't see a problem with any aspect of the assumed stuff, well, good luck to you, in all aspects of your life.

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by jvenge

[Devonian]

7 hours ago, stewfox said:

We have put hundreds of those ugly wind turbines, good for killing birds i suppose.

 

 

Yet no worries from you about the orders of magnitude larger number of birds killed by cats, or animals killed by cars? Somehow I just can't see any of those who can't stand clean, efficient, renewable power being able to see the cost of the power they are wedded to.  I just can't see you writing 'ugly cars and lorries - good for killing birds and mammals I suppose'...

[Devonian]

6 hours ago, jvenge said:

A greeny solution. Let's kill all cats and stop driving cars.

NO!! Just get things in perspective!

A few birds are killed by windmills. If that concerns you why don't you give a fig about the numbers killed by cats and cars???

Why?

[Devonian]

7 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

That's quite a pretty picture, stew.

I wonder which kills more birds, cars or wind turbines? Domestic cats or wind turbines? Coal plants or wind turbines?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857

Ooopps, missed your post...

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, Devonian said:

 

Yet no worries from you about the orders of magnitude larger number of birds killed by cats, or animals killed by cars? Somehow I just can't see any of those who can't stand clean, efficient, renewable power being able to see the cost of the power they are wedded to.  I just can't see you writing 'ugly cars and lorries - good for killing birds and mammals I suppose'...

Aye Dev...But when 'normal (whatever the fook that means) human activities' decimate wildlife it's merely a 'that's life' situation. It's only 'green things' that get the natives restless!

[Devonian]

22 hours ago, jvenge said:

Show me a link between CO2 increasing and floods increasing. Show me a link between CO2 increasing and droughts increasing (amazing how it can do both, by the way). Show me a link between CO2 increasing and crop yields decreasing. Indeed, show me a link between temperature increasing and crop yields decreasing. You have a good 40 or so years of data, so you will have no problem finding something based on empirical evidence, rather than what some models say.

 

There are none so stubborn as those who wont see.

Be honest, there is nothing that can convince you.  Because if, for example, the global surface temperature record, last December in the UK, or the state of sea ice in the Arctic isn't good enough for you nothing will be...

Edited December 30, 2016 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Attribution is all we've been asked to provided for at least the past decade but now we are seeing 'attribution' papers arriving that explain just how our forcings are altering the frequency/intensity of extreme events.

I'm sure a linked the U.S. meteorology Association attribution to global weather extremes in 2015 over on the papers thread and I've just finished with a paper looking at the impacts on the Arctic and the 'frequency' of the extreme heat events we've been seeing up there over the past couple of months.

On other sites the 'sceptics' ( I'll swap to BFTV's description?) just refuse to accept the attribution studies even though all the 'working out' is there for them to work with? It's almost as if they are just throwing around someone else's claims and so when faced with the proof they demand they are unable to 'do the science' and so resort to playing the man in the hope that their mentor will quickly digest the paper and find some fault that they can claim as their own?

The wind farm complaints come from one Californian farm and one species of bird that has had 'issues'. Obviously road kill and per kill take , and have taken for far longer, a massive toll on our wildlife so where was the concern prior to the installation of wind farms? 

Anyway it is my belief that the next few years will make all of these 'sceptics' realise how silly they have been being. The QBO issues and our recent PV issues show that the extremes already occurring around the planet are not just limited to the trop but run right up into the mesosphere ( where the Gravity waves from a disturbed Stratosphere show up ). Our weather model faithful will tell you just how impactful the Strat is on the ordering of the trop below and so the 'day to day weather' If this is now a thing beyond forecasting then what of the events that things like MJO/ENSO /IPO/PDO/NAO/AO are meant to 'control'?

And then what of evidence like the increases in precipitable water hitting our temperate regions?

How do you explain the doubling of the amount of water the air holds since that of the 'super Nino' of 98'? Just to be sure here the current graph up to November this year ( post nino impacts) shows the same 4kg loading as we saw last December when we flooded.

This doubling in water carried, over less than 20 years, is what is keeping the Arctic toasty warm again this winter. not only does it transport heat efficiently but it also keeps it trapped in the lower layers of the Arctic atmosphere and so reduces losses into space whilst limiting ice growth and its internal cold making it far easier to melt out the next year.

Man lit the blue touch paper but Mother Nature will do the firework! By the time we are seeing the thawing north releasing CH4/CO2 at peak rates it will dwarf our attempts to stuff up the atmosphere with GHG's! We are told we are a very good Human Race as our CO2 outputs are falling......sadly the CO2 yearly rises are now well beyond the IPCC B.A.U. scenario with two years ago Northern permafrost being blamed for the excess and this year El Nino being blamed for all the extras.

When you look at the Arctic temps this past year then you have to wonder just how much CO2/CH4 we saw leaking out from up there this year never mind Nino forest die back!!!

[jvenge]

16 hours ago, Devonian said:

There are none so stubborn as those who wont see.

Be honest, there is nothing that can convince you.  Because if, for example, the global surface temperature record, last December in the UK, or the state of sea ice in the Arctic isn't good enough for you nothing will be...

There isn't any evidence linking CO2 to extreme weather events, be it storms, tornadoes or hurricanes. There is no trend for an increase in droughts or flooding. Even the IPCC admit there is no link. Does that mean some evidence won't be found in the future? No. Does that mean that these things won't happen? No. However, based on the observations, that hasn't happened. 

[jvenge]

16 hours ago, Devonian said:

NO!! Just get things in perspective!

A few birds are killed by windmills. If that concerns you why don't you give a fig about the numbers killed by cats and cars???

Why?

Doesn't concern me. However, a fringe and inefficient energy source doesn't really seem to be in the same category as cats and cars, does it? There are no alternatives to cars and well, I personally probably could live without cats, it seems a little sadistic to wipe out one species to mitigate attacks against another :-)

[stewfox]

On 29/12/2016 at 09:52, stewfox said:

2 years ago Antarctica sea ice was increasing rapidly and against the global warming theory. So lots of  theories came out to explain it. Now it is decreasing rapidly (below norm) . Were all those theories wrong and its just a natural cycle ? We need another 30 years to see where we are.

Interesting no one can answer the question ,answer, 'its the weather'. All the 'theories' re why its expanding (2/3 yrs ago) would be put to bed in one season,

In the Antarctic air temperatures were 2-4C (3.6-7.2F) warmer than normal in November, with strong westerly winds helping disperse the sea ice pack. Several large bodies of open water have opened up within the sea ice formations around the Amundsen Sea and Ross Sea coasts.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/06/arctic-antarctic-ice-melt-november-record