Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
weirpig

Report Climate change ipcc

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Devonian said:

I'll try to remember that next time someone quotes a dog biologist views on polar bears (Dr Susan Crockford) or the 'watts up' views of an ex TV weatherman, or the NIPCC (99.9% non-climate scientists) or the 'no trick zone' anti climate science ramblings of that civil engineer Pierre L. Gosselin etc etc etc

works both ways..everybody is quick to quote this and that and state in their profile all the qualifications they have in science and meteorology which is all great and dandy..but when it comes to construction and engineering for this part of the world and indeed the UK and Europe i wager my knowledge, qualifications and experience is way superior to most on here... so throwing out an article by a biologist on an engineering issue doesn't quite cut the mustard...anyway this section isn't an argument about the engineering challenges that maybe presented by climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

works both ways..everybody is quick to quote this and that and state in their profile all the qualifications they have in science and meteorology which is all great and dandy..but when it comes to construction and engineering for this part of the world and indeed the UK and Europe i wager my knowledge, qualifications and experience is way superior to most on here... so throwing out an article by a biologist on an engineering issue doesn't quite cut the mustard...anyway this section isn't an argument about the engineering challenges that maybe presented by climate change.

Well then clearly you havn't read the articles because the first was an interview of the mayor of a northern town which is having to take down buildings because the foundations aren't there to withstand the rapid rate of permafrost melt.

The second article was an interview with a soil biologist who was discussing recent permafrost melting events and how they can rapidly cause sinkholes or landslides. You will know a lot more then me about on engineering in building construction. However it's easy to say 'it's fine' and shrug shoulders but where is the evidence that the infrastructure is in place over the towns in permafrost regions? and can the best in engineering help buildings withstand permafrost melting. Slow permafrost with maintanence yes, but rapid permafrost that leads to more dangerous events... there is only so much we can do in such cases. 

Edited by Quicksilver1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Well then clearly you havn't read the articles because the first was an interview of the mayor of a northern town which is having to take down buildings because the foundations aren't there to withstand the rapid rate of permafrost melt.

The second article was an interview with a soil biologist who was discussing recent permafrost melting events and how they can rapidly cause sinkholes or landslides. You will know a lot more then me about on engineering in building construction. However it's easy to say 'it's fine' and shrug shoulders but where is the evidence that the infrastructure is in place over the towns in permafrost regions? and can the best in engineering help buildings withstand permafrost melting. Slow permafrost with maintanence yes, but rapid permafrost that leads to more dangerous events... there is only so much we can do in such cases. 

QS

People around here build houses and new infrastructure on old 'wet' land, and then wonder why people are getting flooded?

People are getting flooded by seemingly every thunderstorm.

Inadequate drainage provisions are very common.

The councils and politicians  (even in this country) have a lot to answer for.

Surely the mayor is the last person you should be quoting in a scientific debate.

For an example look at the Californian fire reaction of various people now being heavily fined (and sued) for neglect  and failure to place enough money into maintenance.. It too was the result of climate change (according to these people) - if you remember..

MIA 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

QS

People around here build houses and new infrastructure on old 'wet' land, and then wonder why people are getting flooded?

People are getting flooded by seemingly every thunderstorm.

Inadequate drainage provisions are very common.

The councils and politicians  (even in this country) have a lot to answer for.

Surely the mayor is the last person you should be quoting in a scientific debate.

For an example look at the Californian fire reaction of various people now being heavily fined (and sued) for neglect  and failure to place enough money into maintenance.. It too was the result of climate change (according to these people) - if you remember..

MIA 

Not sure what your point is here, this was the mayor raising concerns about buildings falling due to melting permafrost, I don't think even in the 80s people were aware of just how quick the permafrost could melt.

And yes new buildings are being built on wet land prone to flooding, I see that on new housing estates near to where I live, not sure what that has to do with melting permafrost though? you are comparing apples and oranges. If global temperatures hadn't been rising that fast they wouldn't have had to have been facing this permafrost problem?

Finally the spate in Californian wildfires is strongly linked to climate change, yes new houses are unforgivably being built in these areas but again this is different from long standing buildings suddenly being affected by permafrost melt.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/climate-change-500-percent-increase-california-wildfires/594016/

Edited by Quicksilver1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Not sure what your point is here, this was the mayor raising concerns about buildings falling due to melting permafrost, I don't think even in the 80s people were aware of just how quick the permafrost could melt.

And yes new buildings are being built on wet land prone to flooding, I see that on new housing estates near to where I live, not sure what that has to do with melting permafrost though? and you are comparing apples and oranges. If global temperatures hadn't been rising that fast they wouldn't have had to have been facing this problem?

Finally the spate in Californian wildfires is strongly linked to climate change, yes new houses are unforgivably being built in these areas but again this is different from long standing buildings suddenly being affected by permafrost melt.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/climate-change-500-percent-increase-california-wildfires/594016/

QS...

Again you have ignored the point.

Which was - ignore Mayors in this debate.

500% increase you think? The paper says 800 percent - if you believe it..

The California wildfire was claimed to have been proof of climate change (by the mayor), two days after the event, The one I am referring too was not caused by a hammer. It was caused by lightning and arson.

The problem was that the pylons carrying electricity were struck by lightning, and these shorted out. The scrub which had not been reduced by maintenance, immediately caught fire. They also found many trees  had not been pruned and were  touching the  power lines, again causing fires to start. 

It turns out that the mayor had removed and not agreed to pay the power companies any maintenance and service charges - so the work had not been carried out.

The mayor is now being sued by the people who were affected.

His immediate reaction - that it was climate change -  appears to have been an excuse. You cannot trust politicians - even democratic global warmers.

ALSO,  If you read the detail of YOUR paper, you will find the following -

QUOTE

And while autumn wildfires such as the deadly Camp Fire dominate the news—and while there is some evidence that they may be getting larger—there is still not enough data to say that any increase is statistically significant. But the climate models do suggest that autumn fires across California will get more common as climate change continues to wrack the state.

“Revisit this in 20 more years, and we’ll almost definitely be saying, ‘Yeah, fall fires have the global-warming fingerprint on them.’ But right now we’re still emerging from the range of natural variability,” Williams said.

Don Hankins, a professor of geography at California State University at Chico, told me that he wanted to see more data before agreeing with the paper’s results. And he said that some large-scale changes to the landscape—such as the suspension of seasonal burns by indigenous people—may be producing the rise in fire.

end QUOTE.

Why do you only believe people who make the most outlandish remarks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

QS...

Again you have ignored the point.

Which was - ignore Mayors in this debate.

500% increase you think? The paper says 800 percent - if you believe it..

The California wildfire was claimed to have been proof of climate change (by the mayor), two days after the event, The one I am referring too was not caused by a hammer. It was caused by lightning and arson.

The problem was that the pylons carrying electricity were struck by lightning, and these shorted out. The scrub which had not been reduced by maintenance, immediately caught fire. They also found many trees  had not been pruned and were  touching the  power lines, again causing fires to start. 

It turns out that the mayor had removed and not agreed to pay the power companies any maintenance and service charges - so the work had not been carried out.

The mayor is now being sued by the people who were affected.

His immediate reaction - that it was climate change -  appears to have been an excuse. You cannot trust politicians - even democratic global warmers.

ALSO,  If you read the detail of YOUR paper, you will find the following -

QUOTE

And while autumn wildfires such as the deadly Camp Fire dominate the news—and while there is some evidence that they may be getting larger—there is still not enough data to say that any increase is statistically significant. But the climate models do suggest that autumn fires across California will get more common as climate change continues to wrack the state.

“Revisit this in 20 more years, and we’ll almost definitely be saying, ‘Yeah, fall fires have the global-warming fingerprint on them.’ But right now we’re still emerging from the range of natural variability,” Williams said.

Don Hankins, a professor of geography at California State University at Chico, told me that he wanted to see more data before agreeing with the paper’s results. And he said that some large-scale changes to the landscape—such as the suspension of seasonal burns by indigenous people—may be producing the rise in fire.

end QUOTE.

Why do you only believe people who make the most outlandish remarks? 

Firstly the Mendocino Complex wildfire was started by a rancher who sparked the dry grass while hammering a metal stake whilst trying to find a wasp nest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendocino_Complex_Fire

I'm not sure what that has got to do with the issue of climate change anyway.

Secondly you quote a seperate part of the article that isn't referring to summer wildfires, its referring to those which can form later in the year. The peak of the Mendocino complex was during the summer months and this is when many of the wildfires burn. This is because of the heat. You are quoting a part of the article seperate to the discussion about summer wildfires and extrapolating it to cover the whole article. Here is what Park Williams says earlier in the article:

“Each degree of warming causes way more fire than the previous degree of warming did. And that’s a really big deal,” Park Williams, a climate scientist at Columbia University and an author of the paper, told me. Every additional increment in heat in the environment speeds up evaporation, dries out soil, and parches trees and vegetation, turning them into ready fuel for a blaze. For that reason, Williams said, hot summers essentially overpower anything else happening in Northern California. Even during a wet year, an intense heat wave can choke forests so that it is as though the rain never fell.

Heat is the most clear result of human-caused climate change,” Williams said.

In other words, the climate models say that Northern Californian summers should be getting hotter as climate change takes hold. And that’s exactly what the data show—and exactly what’s driving an unprecedented outbreak of forest fires.

But this outbreak of climate-addled fires is limited to summertime fires in forests; it does not extend to other types of environment or other times of the year, the paper cautions.

Williams agreed that climate change is not the only potential driver of increased fire in the state. But he said that even if fires are burning through that excess fuel, the effects of climate change are much clearer in this study, during this time frame. That’s because the fundamental relationship between excess heat and additional fire never changes in the study’s data; the correlation is “just as strong for the last 20 years as for the first 20 years,” he said.

And finally its ironic you accuse me of only believing people who make outlandish remarks when you never use science to back up your claims and constantly try to deny anthropogenic climate change. I don't think there is anything outlandish in suggesting that more intense heat will lead to more forest fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Towns are being relocated and infrastructure is being ruined by thawing permafrost. This is a fact, and is very much separate to the engineering/constructions considerations in areas with strong seasonal freeze/thaw cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

And finally its ironic you accuse me of only believing people who make outlandish remarks when you never use science to back up your claims and constantly try to deny anthropogenic climate change. I don't think there is anything outlandish in suggesting that more intense heat will lead to more forest fires.

You finally got it...

 It was meant to be ironic...

I was pointing out that in answer to Roger's attempting to use actual scientific data to put forward a scientific position, you counter it by quoting what a mayor in Siberia states.

You (and not just you,  but the normal crew) appeared to be in denial of Roger's position even before he published the data. That is not a scientific position to take.         However,  Greta would be pleased with  you.

As for myself and your personal opinions.... do not misrepresent my views.

Most people these days accept that  CO2 can and has caused warming. So do I. The fact is that the amount of warming it causes is still unknown.. I am a doubter of the science of the CAGW people who continually produce 'forecasts' (predictions?) based upon the greatest amount of warming that is theoretically possible, the assumption (presumably) being that we know all there is to know about climate science..  People who use this as an accurate assessment of the  'science', should be the ones that are banned from publishing.

Only scientific papers are supposed to be published on here. 

I just happen to  think that your mayor in Siberia does not qualify.

 

 

By way of interest, according to WUWT. a paper has been published,  which suggests that all climate CAGW sceptics (it claims AGW deniers ) should be prevented from producing papers (silenced) . Do you call that science? or politics?

Apparently a  list of 386 names was published as a basis for the document (by the way some people who were expecting to be on the list did not appear)!. Some of both sets of people  are very angry. They have now flocked to WUWT to complain.

It would seem as though the list was complied by whether or not they were acceptable (or not!) to the climate action blogs!

In a number of cases people have been totally mis-classified.

As a result the list of names has now been withdrawn - but the damage has been done. It is clear that an attempt is being made to 'silence' anyone who dares to challenge the current 'Climate Science'.

Other people have  suggested that it contradicts the 97% of scientist debates...!!!

Do you think that people should be prevented from expressing a  non CAGW point of view?

Do you think that 'doubters' should all be banned?

 

The report you referred to above actually (re the Californian fires) states the true position that I will and do support; that we will not have enough knowledge (data) for another 20 years  before we should be taking these far-reaching decisions on a solid science foundation basis.

MIA 

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Towns are being relocated and infrastructure is being ruined by thawing permafrost. This is a fact, and is very much separate to the engineering/constructions considerations in areas with strong seasonal freeze/thaw cycle.

So people are going back to where they were located during the MW period.

Perhaps Greenland is next?.

MIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

So people are going back to where they were located during the MW period.

Perhaps Greenland is next?.

MIA

Oh no! Not the MWP again! Even Brexit can't take us that far back!:gathering:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

You finally got it...

 It was meant to be ironic...

I was pointing out that in answer to Roger's attempting to use actual scientific data to put forward a scientific position, you counter it by quoting what a mayor in Siberia states.

What are you on about? Think you are getting your threads mixed up?

You (and not just you,  but the normal crew) appeared to be in denial of Roger's position even before he published the data. That is not a scientific position to take.         However,  Greta would be pleased with  you.

Well he made a lot of grandiose claims without references to scientific literature and its only fair that such claims are held to scrutiny given there is no obvious physical processes underlying the claims. I passed further comment till the data was shared, I also think your dig at Greta is rather pathetic TBH.

As for myself and your personal opinions.... do not misrepresent my views.

Most people these days accept that  CO2 can and has caused warming. So do I. The fact is that the amount of warming it causes is still unknown.. I am a doubter of the science of the CAGW people who continually produce 'forecasts' (predictions?) based upon the greatest amount of warming that is theoretically possible, the assumption (presumably) being that we know all there is to know about climate science.. 

Well at least that’s a start but you claim we are focusing on the worst case scenarios. That is because CO2 emissions are increasing at a rate akin to worst case scenarios when they were presented in older IPCC reports. In fact you could argue we are taking a path that is even worse!

People who use this as an accurate assessment of the  'science', should be the ones that are banned from publishing.

The wildfire reports were based on papers and sound solid science, do you suggest we ban publishing all papers? What a ridiculous statement to make

Only scientific papers are supposed to be published on here. 

Guess you had better take note then…

I just happen to  think that your mayor in Siberia does not qualify.

Do you think the Mayor is lying about the melting permafrost then?

 

By way of interest, according to WUWT. a paper has been published,  which suggests that all climate CAGW sceptics (it claims AGW deniers ) should be prevented from producing papers (silenced) . Do you call that science? or politics?

You don’t provide a link so I can’t possibly comment but there is clearly a balance to be had. If an oil lobbyist is deliberately misinforming people to fill up their fat wallets, they should be held to account, especially given how dangerous a stance that is being taken. If people want to publish then they need scientific literature to back up their point, why do deniers (ie. Piers Corbyn etc.) never do this? Do you think anti-vaxxers should be given a platform?

Apparently a  list of 386 names was published as a basis for the document (by the way some people who were expecting to be on the list did not appear!. Some of both sets of people  are very angry. They have now flocked to WUWT to complain.

It would seem as though the list was complied by whether or not they were acceptable (or not!) to the climate action blogs!

In a number of cases people have been totally mis-classified.

As a result the list of names has now been withdrawn - but the damage has been done. It is clear that an attempt is being made to 'silence' anyone who dares to challenge the current 'Climate Science'.

Other people have  suggested that it contradicts the 97% of scientist debates...!!!

Do you think that people should be prevented from expressing a  non CAGW point of view?

Do you think that 'doubters' should all be banned?

Only if its backed by scientific literature published in journals and uses verified data sources. Skepticism is healthy but deliberate misleading on such an important subject isn’t. (e.g. Piers Corbyn just labelling climate scientists frauds).

The report you referred to above actually (re the Californian fires) states the true position that I will and do support; that we will not have enough knowledge (data) for another 20 years  before we should be taking these far-reaching decisions on a solid science foundation basis.

MIA 

 

Edited by Quicksilver1989

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...