Reasonable Faith Forums

General Discussion => Choose Your Own Topic => Topic started by: Wretch on August 07, 2019, 02:02:45 pm

Title: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 07, 2019, 02:02:45 pm
What If A) There Is No Climate Crisis, & B) The Proposed Solutions Are Harmful?

1) How would you know either?

2) What should you do?

If there is no climate crisis, let alone a man-made climate crisis, then proposed solutions may well cause massive undue suffering and hardship for people the world over.  Precluding the use of fossil fuels precludes developing nations the benefits of inexpensive energy and all that it entails, including vastly improved living conditions, health, and prosperity.  Neither wind not solar are sufficient or sustainable on their own, nor suitable in all locations, and they require 100% back-up by reliable on-call energy sources, typically either nuclear or fossil fuel.  Developing such a dual energy generation capacity is prohibitively expensive, especially for developing nations.  All that capital if put to productive use would benefit people rather than go to waste. 

Here's a peer-reviewed paper from the journal "Science and Education" that looks at the state of climate science and its subversion towards presupposed conclusions and anti-scientific "reasoning" aka misinformation:

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’ (Science and Education, 2015) (https://wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 07, 2019, 02:16:32 pm
How misinformation is sold to a trusting/unsuspecting public...

Washingtom Post Lies About Skeptical Climate Scientist To Smear His Reputation (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/05/fake-news-an-open-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-washington-post/)

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 07, 2019, 03:02:54 pm
Is anyone actually interested in this nonsense? I certainly am not. Your OP question could have been an interesting philosophical discussion, but you instantly derailed it into climate denialism lunacy.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 03:12:16 pm
Is anyone actually interested in this nonsense? I certainly am not. Your OP question could have been an interesting philosophical discussion, but you instantly derailed it into climate denialism lunacy.

Is ''climate change denialism'' supposed to be an argument? No one is denying climate change, what people are questioning is the supposed ''crisis'' that is perpetuated by climate change religionists.

Is climate change real? Sure, climate change is a truism.
Is climate change a crisis? It is not, never was and never will be.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Fred on August 07, 2019, 03:17:19 pm
What If A) There Is No Climate Crisis, & B) The Proposed Solutions Are Harmful?

1) How would you know either?

2) What should you do?

If there is no climate crisis, let alone a man-made climate crisis, then proposed solutions may well cause massive undue suffering and hardship for people the world over.
We can't act on knowledge that we lack, and we cannot know that there is no climate crisis (even if that is the case).  We can only act on our beliefs, and part of this action should include validating beliefs - increasing our confidence in them, or increasing our doubt. 

Even if there is a true climate crisis that can be significantly alleviated by diminishing carbon emissions, the economic impact should be considered. There is always more than one way forward, so we should seek to optimize progress toward objectives with least pain. 

 




 

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Tom Paine on August 07, 2019, 03:48:11 pm
What If A) There Is No Climate Crisis, & B) The Proposed Solutions Are Harmful?

1) How would you know either?

2) What should you do?

If there is no climate crisis, let alone a man-made climate crisis, then proposed solutions may well cause massive undue suffering and hardship for people the world over.  Precluding the use of fossil fuels precludes developing nations the benefits of inexpensive energy and all that it entails, including vastly improved living conditions, health, and prosperity.  Neither wind not solar are sufficient or sustainable on their own, nor suitable in all locations, and they require 100% back-up by reliable on-call energy sources, typically either nuclear or fossil fuel.  Developing such a dual energy generation capacity is prohibitively expensive, especially for developing nations.  All that capital if put to productive use would benefit people rather than go to waste. 

Here's a peer-reviewed paper from the journal "Science and Education" that looks at the state of climate science and its subversion towards presupposed conclusions and anti-scientific "reasoning" aka misinformation:

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’ (Science and Education, 2015) (https://wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf)

Why, yes, look at all the benefit burning fossil fuels is having on the Chinese. There are lots of good reasons for moving away from a fossil fuel driven economy.

https://www.ft.com/content/a1062e0e-3255-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498

Oh, yeah, that and anthropomorphic climate change is a thing. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 04:02:29 pm
Tom,

There are lots of good reasons not to move away from a fuel driven economy. That is like saying, blue blood (https://www.livescience.com/50322-antarctic-octopus-blue-blood.html) is better than red blood, so let's move away from red blood.

Well no, we have to do with what we have, not with what we don't have. We can't move away from red blood, or a fuel driven economy. Fuel represents the blood of the economy, and people represent the heart pumping it around. Are there better fuel or energy out there, better ''blood''? Perhaps, but most of them are not feasible at this point in time.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 07, 2019, 04:03:52 pm
What If A) There Is No Climate Crisis, & B) The Proposed Solutions Are Harmful?

1) How would you know either?

2) What should you do?

If there is no climate crisis, let alone a man-made climate crisis, then proposed solutions may well cause massive undue suffering and hardship for people the world over.
We can't act on knowledge that we lack, and we cannot know that there is no climate crisis (even if that is the case).  We can only act on our beliefs, and part of this action should include validating beliefs - increasing our confidence in them, or increasing our doubt. 

Even if there is a true climate crisis that can be significantly alleviated by diminishing carbon emissions, the economic impact should be considered. There is always more than one way forward, so we should seek to optimize progress toward objectives with least pain. 

 

Stop being so sensible!    France has proved the efficacy and safety of modern nuclear power.  Why aren't we embracing that?  Answer: Fearmongering based on problems with half century old or older nuke plants. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 04:08:57 pm
Nuclear is the future. It would be good to see a future where economies are driven by clean, cheap nuclear energy. But fear mongering prevents much of this, unfortunately.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 07, 2019, 04:11:19 pm
Is anyone actually interested in this nonsense? I certainly am not. Your OP question could have been an interesting philosophical discussion, but you instantly derailed it into climate denialism lunacy.
In two of the threads at the top of the page, we've got Wretch denying human-induced climate change -- questioning even the consensus among researchers on the topic, which is objectively true even if you question whether they're right or not -- and Trinity questioning the expanding universe. This forum is becoming a haven for conspiracy theory nuts and science deniers. I don't know which is worse, that Wretch claims to have some sort of science education, which makes me depressed about the state of our educational system, or that Trinity spams the board with comments about scientific fields he clearly knows nothing about and has zero education in.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 07, 2019, 04:12:04 pm
Tom,

Don't confuse the climate crisis issue with actual toxic pollution issues.  American power plants burn clean.  That's a solution that has been available for some time.  China needs to get on board with curtailing toxic pollution.  Hopefully they will.  It is embarrassing for them, so it's likely they will eventually tackle that issue.  Electric cars for commuters make a lot of sense, more and more as the tech progresses.

Some warming and increased CO2 appears to be hugely beneficial for humanity.  But there's no crisis there by which governments may coopt ever more authority and ever more taxation, so few to no govt grants are written to study such a scenario.  Instead all grants are focused on pre-supposed climate crisis.  It's so corrupt.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 04:16:08 pm
Is anyone actually interested in this nonsense? I certainly am not. Your OP question could have been an interesting philosophical discussion, but you instantly derailed it into climate denialism lunacy.
In two of the threads at the top of the page, we've got Wretch denying human-induced climate change -- questioning even the consensus among researchers on the topic, which is objectively true even if you question whether they're right or not -- and Trinity questioning the expanding universe. This forum is becoming a haven for conspiracy theory nuts and science deniers. I don't know which is worse, that Wretch claims to have some sort of science education, which makes me depressed about the state of our educational system, or that Trinity spams the board with comments about scientific fields he clearly knows nothing about and has zero education in.

What is worse is science being used to create despair amongst people. Weren't we supposed to be living under water by now due to the ice caps melting? The ice caps haven't melted and we aren't living under water, so stop your climate change despair and start enjoying your life.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 07, 2019, 04:19:35 pm
Is anyone actually interested in this nonsense? I certainly am not. Your OP question could have been an interesting philosophical discussion, but you instantly derailed it into climate denialism lunacy.
In two of the threads at the top of the page, we've got Wretch denying human-induced climate change -- questioning even the consensus among researchers on the topic, which is objectively true even if you question whether they're right or not -- and Trinity questioning the expanding universe. This forum is becoming a haven for conspiracy theory nuts and science deniers. I don't know which is worse, that Wretch claims to have some sort of science education, which makes me depressed about the state of our educational system, or that Trinity spams the board with comments about scientific fields he clearly knows nothing about and has zero education in.

Soren,

I firmly and unequivocally affirm that some increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic and that it affects climate.

I'm denying human caused climate crisis.

If you'll read the actual peer-reviewed scientific paper on the issue of climate consensus and misinformation, you'll be well educated and come to up understand that the consensus you imagine concerning man-made climate crisis is virtually non-existent.

Read.  Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’ (Science and Education, 2015) (https://wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf)


Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 07, 2019, 04:29:11 pm
Is anyone actually interested in this nonsense? I certainly am not. Your OP question could have been an interesting philosophical discussion, but you instantly derailed it into climate denialism lunacy.
In two of the threads at the top of the page, we've got Wretch denying human-induced climate change -- questioning even the consensus among researchers on the topic, which is objectively true even if you question whether they're right or not -- and Trinity questioning the expanding universe. This forum is becoming a haven for conspiracy theory nuts and science deniers. I don't know which is worse, that Wretch claims to have some sort of science education, which makes me depressed about the state of our educational system, or that Trinity spams the board with comments about scientific fields he clearly knows nothing about and has zero education in.

Soren,

I firmly and unequivocally affirm that some increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic and that it affects climate.

I'm denying human caused climate crisis.

If you'll read the actual peer-reviewed scientific paper on the issue of climate consensus and misinformation, you'll be well educated and come to up understand that the consensus you imagine concerning man-made climate crisis is virtually non-existent.

Read.  Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’ (Science and Education, 2015) (https://wmbriggs.com/public/Legates.etal.2015.pdf)
Congratulations -- you found one old article, apparently funded by the fossil fuel industry, arguing that there is no consensus on the human-induced climate change crisis (although you link only to the abstract, so you are probably making claims without even having read the article itself). We could all find literally hundreds, probably thousands of articles saying the opposite in about 30 seconds. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but given the entire weight of the expert community on one side, with you and a few folks in the fossil fuel industry's pocket on the other, I will line up with the scientific community.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 05:00:33 pm
Soren,

The scientific community can't even explain the shadow of the Moon during solar eclipse, yet you expect them to explain the climate for the next hundred years?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 07, 2019, 07:01:33 pm
In a previous thread (Stewardship of the Earth?) Wretch made a lot about the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Well it's crashed since 2014 but I don't recall Wretch commenting on this.

Quote
'Precipitous' fall in Antarctic sea ice since 2014 revealed
Plunge is far faster than in Arctic and may lead to more global heating, say scientists

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed  (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed)


Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 07:08:55 pm
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth)

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 07:27:55 pm
In a previous thread (Stewardship of the Earth?) Wretch made a lot about the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Well it's crashed since 2014 but I don't recall Wretch commenting on this.

Quote
'Precipitous' fall in Antarctic sea ice since 2014 revealed
Plunge is far faster than in Arctic and may lead to more global heating, say scientists

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed  (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed)

Eugenics and climate change propaganda are two sides of the same coin:

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)

Only western babies are evil, of course. Other babies are apparently good and don't cause climate change:

Why have four children when you could have seven? Family planning in Niger
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Johan Biemans (jbiemans) on August 07, 2019, 07:37:34 pm
Yes, who would possibly want a sustainable clean energy grid that is based on renewable energy sources rather than a limited amount of fossil fuels ?

Who could possibly want cleaner air and less garbage and waste being created.

(https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/4vc6we6yx1cwMgLEYRUos2ZhJqo=/500x334/filters:fill(auto,1)/What-If-Its-A-Hoax-56a74f4c5f9b58b7d0e8f300.jpg)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 07:53:22 pm
Johan,

Then you should be in support of nuclear energy. No carbon emission, cheap, safe, abundant and sustainable. Nuclear energy is a much better option than killing babies as The Guardian seems to prefer.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Johan Biemans (jbiemans) on August 07, 2019, 08:10:11 pm
Johan,

Then you should be in support of nuclear energy. No carbon emission, cheap, safe, abundant and sustainable. Nuclear energy is a much better option than killing babies as The Guardian seems to prefer.

I am in support of the modern new methods of generating power through nuclear.  Canada is actually a leading developer in new reactor technologies and Ontario ( the province I live in ) gets over half its energy from nuclear, almost a quarter from hydro electric plants, and 0 from coal.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 07, 2019, 08:59:48 pm
Johan,

That is good news for babies and for the climate. No need to kill the former to save the latter.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 07, 2019, 09:12:42 pm
Yes, who would possibly want a sustainable clean energy grid that is based on renewable energy sources rather than a limited amount of fossil fuels ?

Who could possibly want cleaner air and less garbage and waste being created.

(https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/4vc6we6yx1cwMgLEYRUos2ZhJqo=/500x334/filters:fill(auto,1)/What-If-Its-A-Hoax-56a74f4c5f9b58b7d0e8f300.jpg)

If a rush to force that costs/harms more than it benefits, then it's undesirable.

Are you assuming there are no costs/harm? 

See here's the thing, the transition to non-fossil fuel energy will happen on its own soon enough.

In the mean time there's no grave rush or cause for alarm.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 08, 2019, 12:50:07 am
Yes, who would possibly want a sustainable clean energy grid that is based on renewable energy sources rather than a limited amount of fossil fuels ?

Who could possibly want cleaner air and less garbage and waste being created.

(https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/4vc6we6yx1cwMgLEYRUos2ZhJqo=/500x334/filters:fill(auto,1)/What-If-Its-A-Hoax-56a74f4c5f9b58b7d0e8f300.jpg)

If a rush to force that costs/harms more than it benefits, then it's undesirable.

Are you assuming there are no costs/harm? 

See here's the thing, the transition to non-fossil fuel energy will happen on its own soon enough.

In the mean time there's no grave rush or cause for alarm.

There wouldn't have been a rush if people listened to climate scientists about 50 years ago.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 08, 2019, 04:09:23 am
Quote from: Trinity
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
Your NASA report is out of date. It was published in 2o15 and referred to a 2013 report which in turn referred to data up to 2008. This is gross deception. on your part.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: TheCross on August 08, 2019, 04:15:23 am
I never understood this debate, everyone is offering the world solutions to real or fake problems yet nobody has adressed the first problem, which is:

India and China cause 80-90% of the worlds polution(the figure varies from paper to paper that I’ve read) so how are we going to bring the worst countries to the table?

How many hundered of millions will enter poverty with the requirements promoted by the solutioners in the west?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 08, 2019, 04:29:07 am
Lapwing,

So a few years difference is all it takes to go from the ice sheets are growing to we are all going to die if we don't do anything? Has it ever occurred to you that ice grows and shrinks and grows again cyclically? Like I said, climate change is a truism and every research on the climate will show climate change. Ice growing is change, ice shrinking is change. What is surprising about that? Scientists can't predict what the climate will do hundred years from now, that much we know by now. But what are you doing to save the climate? According to The Guardian, the solution is to kill babies and become vegan, I like to know what your take is on this.

TheCross,

China and India are marginalised, so they can do whatever they want. As for you and me, we are privileged, so we need to check it at the door and do as climate scientists say or risk being called climate change denialists.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 08, 2019, 04:36:42 am
I never understood this debate, everyone is offering the world solutions to real or fake problems yet nobody has adressed the first problem, which is:

India and China cause 80-90% of the worlds polution(the figure varies from paper to paper that I’ve read) so how are we going to bring the worst countries to the table?

How many hundered of millions will enter poverty with the requirements promoted by the solutioners in the west?

The U.S.A's cumulative CO2 emissions are still double China's, and eight times India's. So before the U.S.A. has a leg to stand on here they will have to embark on a carbon capture program the scale of which the world has never seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart)

Even in the annual emission figures the U.S.A. is still double India (and China only pulled into the lead in 2006)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart)

And on a per-capita basis the U.S.A. is still the world leader in CO2 emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 08, 2019, 04:45:30 am
Kurros,

Reducing CO2 emissions will negatively affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people. But climate change scientists don't care about that, because they believe that the world is overpopulated and their proposed solutions entail eugenics, namely killing babies and removing meat from the human diet.

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)

UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet)

Climate change propaganda is eugenics involving reducing human population. Margaret Sanger also supported eugenics to reduce the human population by getting rid of the ''menace'':

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml (https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml)

Wretch is right, the proposed solutions are harmful.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 08, 2019, 04:49:35 am
Kurros,

Reducing CO2 emissions will negatively affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people. But climate change scientists don't care about that, because they believe that the world is overpopulated and their proposed solutions entail eugenics, namely killing babies and removing meat from the human diet.

Uh no, that is complete and utter rubbish, in both sentences. Climate change is what will negatively affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and they suggest things like using renewable energy, nuclear energy, replanting forests, and extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, not killing babies. As for meat, they suggest reducing it, not removing it. Which is not just good for the planet, but also health. People in the West eat a truly ridiculous amount of meat, and it is killing both them and the environment

When you make posts like that it really reduces your credibility to absolute zero.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 08, 2019, 04:52:50 am
Kurros,

Climate change is a truism, you make is sound as if it is some kind of evil. Climate change is not evil and the solutions proposed are harmful. The UN and Co propose population reduction and veganism. Wake up and smell the roses, climate change is eugenics propaganda.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: TheCross on August 08, 2019, 04:56:06 am
I never understood this debate, everyone is offering the world solutions to real or fake problems yet nobody has adressed the first problem, which is:

India and China cause 80-90% of the worlds polution(the figure varies from paper to paper that I’ve read) so how are we going to bring the worst countries to the table?

How many hundered of millions will enter poverty with the requirements promoted by the solutioners in the west?

The U.S.A's cumulative CO2 emissions are still double China's, and eight times India's. So before the U.S.A. has a leg to stand on here they will have to embark on a carbon capture program the scale of which the world has never seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart)

Even in the annual emission figures the U.S.A. is still double India (and China only pulled into the lead in 2006)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart)

And on a per-capita basis the U.S.A. is still the world leader in CO2 emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart)

Fine, add US and nother country that has the figures.

Questions remain though.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: momo34532 on August 08, 2019, 05:11:41 am
I do believe that there is a climate crisis. And it certainly would help just be eco-friendly even if you don't accept that there is such a crisis.
But i don't agree with all the protests and whatnot. For example the youth in my country are deliberately missing out on school every 2 days a week to go
on a protest march against the politicians. Threatening them with all sorts of nonsense instead of trying to actually reach out to them.
This is what i'm against. Not the initiative to at least try and fix up the mess we've made.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 08, 2019, 05:17:08 am
Momo,

Eco-friendly sounds great, but the solutions proposed are not human-friendly. There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment, but it should not come at the expense of human lives. Mark 8:36 comes to mind.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Tom Paine on August 08, 2019, 12:32:02 pm
Johan,

That is good news for babies and for the climate. No need to kill the former to save the latter.

Family planning, even that which allows for early term abortions is not "killing of babies." Family planning and access to birth control have probably prevented far more abortions than they have promoted. My great aunt was never able to have children because she was rendered sterile by a botched illegal abortion,I think it was some time in the 30's. If a legal early-term abortion  had been available from her, she might have been able to have a family. You might say she deserved it because she chose to illegally kill a "baby" which was actually just a fetus. Fair enough, I guess. It was her choice, sort of. if she had had access to a safe legal abortion, she almost certianly wouldn't have chosen an illegal one. However, I don't know the details whether she might have been forced or coerced into the sex. I don't know. She became a very conservative southern Baptist later in her life. I was really surprised when my mother told be the story of her abortion.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Tom Paine on August 08, 2019, 12:36:29 pm
Momo,

Eco-friendly sounds great, but the solutions proposed are not human-friendly. There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment, but it should not come at the expense of human lives. Mark 8:36 comes to mind.

Not caring about the environment comes at greater long-term expense to human life than caring for it ever could. It's just that environmental costs are absorbed by society rather than by the polluters. It's the polluters who put out all the false info about these things that brain wash gullible people into thinking that the costs of cleaning up are worse than the costs of continuing environmental degradation. Climate deniers are just the fossil fuel industry's useful idiots, IMO.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Tom Paine on August 08, 2019, 12:41:30 pm
Kurros,

Climate change is a truism, you make is sound as if it is some kind of evil. Climate change is not evil and the solutions proposed are harmful. The UN and Co propose population reduction and veganism. Wake up and smell the roses, climate change is eugenics propaganda.

Population control becomes "population reduction" and some how veganism is tied to eugenics? Typical propaganda. Also promoting less meat eating isn't the same as promoting veganism per se. I eat very little meat, but I'm not a vegan, and I realize as do may environmentalists that for some habitats controlled grazing for meat and dairy production is more sustainable than putting the land to the plow.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 08, 2019, 03:11:35 pm
I never understood this debate, everyone is offering the world solutions to real or fake problems yet nobody has adressed the first problem, which is:

India and China cause 80-90% of the worlds polution(the figure varies from paper to paper that I’ve read) so how are we going to bring the worst countries to the table?

How many hundered of millions will enter poverty with the requirements promoted by the solutioners in the west?

The U.S.A's cumulative CO2 emissions are still double China's, and eight times India's. So before the U.S.A. has a leg to stand on here they will have to embark on a carbon capture program the scale of which the world has never seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart)

Even in the annual emission figures the U.S.A. is still double India (and China only pulled into the lead in 2006)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart)

And on a per-capita basis the U.S.A. is still the world leader in CO2 emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart)

Fine, add US and nother country that has the figures.

Questions remain though.

What questions? As for poverty, I'm pretty sure that a lot more people will avoid poverty by not having to abandon their homes due to water shortages, resource wars, extreme weather events, and rising sea level than due to having to pay a few more dollars on electricity bills. The human cost of climate change is *already* high, and will only increase.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 08, 2019, 03:14:39 pm
Momo,

Eco-friendly sounds great, but the solutions proposed are not human-friendly. There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment, but it should not come at the expense of human lives. Mark 8:36 comes to mind.

Not caring about the environment comes at greater long-term expense to human life than caring for it ever could. It's just that environmental costs are absorbed by society rather than by the polluters. It's the polluters who put out all the false info about these things that brain wash gullible people into thinking that the costs of cleaning up are worse than the costs of continuing environmental degradation. Climate deniers are just the fossil fuel industry's useful idiots, IMO.

Pretty much, yeah.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 08, 2019, 05:11:50 pm
Tom,

Abortions are traumatic experiences for women, perhaps that is one reason why your aunt became conservative later in life. Many women feel guilty about having abortions knowing that they could have kept their innocent babies and raised them with love. Sadly, women have been sold abortion as the solution to their problems, only to find out later that the solution is worse than the problem.

You keep using ''denialists'', but to my knowledge not many people have denied climate change on this forum. The denial is not with regard to climate change, but with regard to climate change being a crisis. I accept climate change, but I question the crisis. Don't be a merchant of despair, have hope. The rainbow represents hope, it is a promise that the world will not end with climate change. The rainbow is there to remind people of hope, not of despair. Doom and gloom climate change predictions are a dime a dozen, the sky is not falling and the polar caps are not melting and the waters are not rising. Don't worry about things you have no control over, Matthew 6:27.

Veganism is tied to eugenics when it is used for the purpose of population reduction. Read Margaret Sanger's letter ''The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda'' where she mentions the ''menace'' and how it is necessary to limit their fertility by sterilisation and other means. She was a eugenicist and she was not the only one to promote population reduction. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, the UN &Co push for a meat-free diet and killing babies. Yes, they are babies and the UN wants less of them around because their agenda is eugenics driven. They do not see the Image of God in each and everyone of us, instead they see us as a menace, as pests, as vermins and parasites. They have no regard for human beings, because they have no regard for God. If you don't believe me, then read what these eugenicists say in their writings. They have contempt for human life, they consider humanity to be a mistake of nature that needs to be corrected by removing the ''defects'' from the gene pool.

Sterilization of Native American women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women)

Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States
https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/ (https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/)

Unwanted Sterilization and Eugenics Programs in the United States
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/ (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/)

Because sterilisation has gained a bad reputation, and rightly so, there has been a shift towards other means of reducing the fertility of the population. Some of these include changing human diet, lowering the living wage and debasing the currency. All these things make it harder for young people to marry, start a family and support their children. The modern economy, which is a debt economy, is not designed to serve the people, rather it is designed so that the people serve the economy.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 08, 2019, 05:24:49 pm
Trinity,

So you didn't bother to read my link or your own link properly else you would have seen your attempted refutation failed miserably. But you can't admit that can you. So what you do is deflect and put words in my mouth!

Quote from: Trinity
So a few years difference is all it takes to go from the ice sheets are growing to we are all going to die
Now exactly where did I write "we are all going to die"? Do you have the integrity to answer the question, Trinity?

Quote
Has it ever occurred to you that ice grows and shrinks and grows again cyclically? 
The graph in the Guardian article shows this. You didn't bother to look at the article properly did you.

This is beside the point. Wretch used the previous increase in Antarctic sea ice to argue against the existence of climate change=global warming. Now the amount has crashed did he bring this to our attention and admit he was wrong? That would be the honest brave action so obviously Wretch did not do it!

Providing the link to one Guardian article doesn't mean I support all its positions. I note you couldn't be bothered to provide references to your assertions in your response to me. Am I surprised? No I am not. So I had to go looking for them.
Having fewer children is not the same as "killing babies". You know this but you prefer to be dishonest in your statements.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 08, 2019, 06:01:08 pm
Lapwing,

I didn't say they are the same, but the fact is that abortion results in having fewer babies. Be honest and admit that two billion babies have already been killed worldwide through abortion and the UN agenda requires even more babies to be killed to save the climate. Ice grows and shrinks cyclically, calling it a ''crash'' is scare tactic.

How many babies have to be killed to save the climate? One billion? Two billion? Three billion?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 08, 2019, 06:12:20 pm
It is important to understand the internal contradictions within the official narrative. On the one hand, the UN wants fewer children to save the climate, but on the other hand they want replacement migration to solve the declining population.

Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?
https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp (https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp)

An astute person will notice that these two policies, namely wanting fewer children and wanting replacement migration, are inconsistent with each other. What is it going to be, fewer children or replacement migration? If it is the former, then the latter cannot be had. If it is the latter, then the former cannot be had. The UN wants to have the cake and eat it too.

This proves once again Wretch's point that the proposed solutions are harmful and moreover contradictory and inconsistent.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: TheCross on August 09, 2019, 05:30:46 am
I never understood this debate, everyone is offering the world solutions to real or fake problems yet nobody has adressed the first problem, which is:

India and China cause 80-90% of the worlds polution(the figure varies from paper to paper that I’ve read) so how are we going to bring the worst countries to the table?

How many hundered of millions will enter poverty with the requirements promoted by the solutioners in the west?

The U.S.A's cumulative CO2 emissions are still double China's, and eight times India's. So before the U.S.A. has a leg to stand on here they will have to embark on a carbon capture program the scale of which the world has never seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart)

Even in the annual emission figures the U.S.A. is still double India (and China only pulled into the lead in 2006)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart)

And on a per-capita basis the U.S.A. is still the world leader in CO2 emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart)

Fine, add US and nother country that has the figures.

Questions remain though.

What questions? As for poverty, I'm pretty sure that a lot more people will avoid poverty by not having to abandon their homes due to water shortages, resource wars, extreme weather events, and rising sea level than due to having to pay a few more dollars on electricity bills. The human cost of climate change is *already* high, and will only increase.

”Having to pay a FEW..”

Dude, helloooooo, wake up abit please, people do not live like you or I, yet your solutions require these people to spend money they do not have.

While we can sit in the comfort of our houses, with clean air around us, water coming straight to our our mouths, and plan about something that we decided is so important that others that live day by day ought to dedicate their non-existent resources to this very cause, is exactly what I need you to understand will never happen. Ever.

Try telling anyone living in poverty, to think for the future while their children barely are able to stay alive.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 09, 2019, 05:46:04 am
I never understood this debate, everyone is offering the world solutions to real or fake problems yet nobody has adressed the first problem, which is:

India and China cause 80-90% of the worlds polution(the figure varies from paper to paper that I’ve read) so how are we going to bring the worst countries to the table?

How many hundered of millions will enter poverty with the requirements promoted by the solutioners in the west?

The U.S.A's cumulative CO2 emissions are still double China's, and eight times India's. So before the U.S.A. has a leg to stand on here they will have to embark on a carbon capture program the scale of which the world has never seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart)

Even in the annual emission figures the U.S.A. is still double India (and China only pulled into the lead in 2006)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart)

And on a per-capita basis the U.S.A. is still the world leader in CO2 emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart)

Fine, add US and nother country that has the figures.

Questions remain though.

What questions? As for poverty, I'm pretty sure that a lot more people will avoid poverty by not having to abandon their homes due to water shortages, resource wars, extreme weather events, and rising sea level than due to having to pay a few more dollars on electricity bills. The human cost of climate change is *already* high, and will only increase.

”Having to pay a FEW..”

Dude, helloooooo, wake up abit please, people do not live like you or I, yet your solutions require these people to spend money they do not have.

While we can sit in the comfort of our houses, with clean air around us, water coming straight to our our mouths, and plan about something that we decided is so important that others that live day by day ought to dedicate their non-existent resources to this very cause, is exactly what I need you to understand will never happen. Ever.

Try telling anyone living in poverty, to think for the future while their children barely are able to stay alive.

This argument makes absolutely no sense. If you really believe it then we should never spend societal resources on anything until no-one is living in poverty, which is probably never. It is also an incredibly disingenuous argument. People living in poverty have low CO2 lifestyles, so any increased costs associated with reducing CO2 emissions will be the smallest for this group of people. It is also possible to offset any costs they do see via tax breaks or handouts. People in poverty aren't paying any direct tax anyway, so the handouts can work here. For example, one suggested scheme is to implement a carbon tax scheme, with all proceeds from the tax directly returned to the general population. You can make this scheme as progressive as you like to offset any impact on the poorest in society.

To be honest this line of "oh think of the poor" from people arguing against climate action is really one of the most inane and hypocritical things I have heard in my life. The poor are the ones who will be most impacted by climate change. If you really cared about them you would argue *for* climate action, not against it.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 09, 2019, 03:43:10 pm
Lapwing,

I didn't say they are the same, but the fact is that abortion results in having fewer babies. Be honest and admit that two billion babies have already been killed worldwide through abortion and the UN agenda requires even more babies to be killed to save the climate. Ice grows and shrinks cyclically, calling it a ''crash'' is scare tactic.

How many babies have to be killed to save the climate? One billion? Two billion? Three billion?

Then why say "killing babies" when the linked articles discuss birth control? Birth control isn't killing babies but you implied that's what the articles were saying. And of course next you deflect onto abortion. Your tactic is troll-oops I'm losing the argument-deflect and troll again.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Fred on August 09, 2019, 04:15:03 pm

Try telling anyone living in poverty, to think for the future while their children barely are able to stay alive.
I commend you for being concerned for groups that could be negatively impacted by policy changes that are made to reduce carbon emissions.  Shouldn't this mean that these impacts should be taken into account when considering options?  Ideally, all costs and benefits should be taken into account - both short term and long term, and both at the aggregate level as well as at the level of individual socio-economic groups.  There's no reason, in principle, why these groups can't be protected with the right policies.  Given your concerns, this might be a better expenditure of your energy than trying to convince people that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 09, 2019, 04:19:05 pm
Lapwing,

I didn't say they are the same, but the fact is that abortion results in having fewer babies. Be honest and admit that two billion babies have already been killed worldwide through abortion and the UN agenda requires even more babies to be killed to save the climate. Ice grows and shrinks cyclically, calling it a ''crash'' is scare tactic.

How many babies have to be killed to save the climate? One billion? Two billion? Three billion?

Then why say "killing babies" when the linked articles discuss birth control? Birth control isn't killing babies but you implied that's what the articles were saying. And of course next you deflect onto abortion. Your tactic is troll-oops I'm losing the argument-deflect and troll again.

Birth control is eugenics propaganda and includes abortion. Margaret Sanger's letter:

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml (https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=238946.xml)

Climate change is a cover for eugenics and birth control propaganda.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 09, 2019, 04:22:28 pm
''Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.''

This is not a quote from Adolf Hitler, but from Margaret Sanger.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 09, 2019, 04:53:52 pm
Kurros:

Your assertions are pure fiction.  There is no such climate crisis looming, zero evidence of any such threat as you assert. 

I dare you to point to any hard scientific data that supports your alarmism. 

Stop believing what your being told to believe and look at the data.  You're a fellow science professional, so you ought to be able to evaluate data and see if it supports what you're saying. 

Relative to the historic records (observations and proxy records)...

Global temperature is not unprecedented, not even close.  See the Roman and Minoan warm periods and the preceding interglacial periods.

The rate of increase in global temperature is not unprecedented, not even close.

Dangerous cyclonic storms have not increased, the opposite.

Droughts and heat waves have not increased, the opposite.

Crops are thriving and agricultural productivity has increased thanks to CO2 fertilization and its affect in reducing plants' need for water.

There remains no tropospheric hot spot, a key feature climate scientists expected to manifest if CO2 was driving problematic warming. 

Polar bears are thriving, the global population increasing, contrary to the warnings of alarmists.

The polar ice caps remain well established with the arctic remaining ice-covered year round, and Greenland and Antarctica showing no signs of unusual accelerated melting.  This is contrary to alarmist predictions.




Question:  1) If the current rate of warming of around 0.13°C per decade is catastrophic, then is the ideal global mean surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 ratio?  2) What is the max allowable safe CO2 ratio for the atmosphere to prevent global climate crisis (it's now 0.00041)?

Question:  If as expected China and India don't stop emitting increasing amounts of CO2, then how are we to avoid exceding the max allowable safe CO2 ratio?

Question:  If the industrialised West curtailed all CO2 emissions within twenty years, according to your preferred IPCC GCM (climate model/ensemble) what would be the effect on global mean temperature by 2100?  By 2200? 

Question: What's worse, a further 2°C increase in GMST, or a 2°C decrease? 

You've been misled.  There is no compelling evidence suggesting any impending climate crisis.  The exact opposite is the case. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 09, 2019, 05:04:11 pm
The real crisis is the reproducibility crisis. The climate change crisis predictions have failed, it is not even science.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 09, 2019, 05:05:39 pm
Climate change is a cover for eugenics and birth control propaganda.

Now that is cranking the looney level up to 11.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 09, 2019, 05:06:24 pm
Wonderer,

On a scale of 100, that isn't too bad. It is much better than climate change predictions, which reach a level up to 99.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 09, 2019, 05:07:15 pm
Climate change is a cover for eugenics and birth control propaganda.

Now that is cranking the looney level up to 11.

I keep on looking for the like button! I think wonderer may have meant a scale of 10 but he can speak for himself
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 09, 2019, 05:09:51 pm
Trinity is in rare form.  He's had me laughing a lot lately.  Love your sense of humor my brother!  Keep,it coming!

Wonderer,

Are you really unaware of the global elitists who envision a reduced global population as an imperative optimum needed to realize their utopian vision?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 09, 2019, 05:20:39 pm
Wretch,

Being called looney is a compliment at this point. I rather be called looney than being sold a climate change crisis that does not even exist. Consumer beware, the crisis is a scam!

Perhaps what I said caused Wonderer to have a ''sensory overload''?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 09, 2019, 05:34:03 pm
Climate change is a cover for eugenics and birth control propaganda.

Now that is cranking the looney level up to 11.

I keep on looking for the like button! I think wonderer may have meant a scale of 10 but he can speak for himself

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 09, 2019, 05:57:02 pm
I'd buy that amplifier in a heart beat, it looks to be a much better deal than the climate change crisis. The one I had went up in smoke after I connected it to a 220V power supply, turned out it could only handle 12V.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 10, 2019, 05:25:50 am
Good one wonderer. Having the dial go up to 11 may have a psychological advantage. It might feel that it should be louder than an amplified 10.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 10, 2019, 05:55:01 am
More diversion trolling from Trinity. The Guardian article he linked stated:

"The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions."

So no mention of killing babies or abortion or Margaret Sanger. As I said Trinity's method is : troll-lose argument-deflect=troll (repeat ad nauseam)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 10, 2019, 10:30:26 am
Lapwing,

The Guardian support abortion in order to achieve the goal of having fewer children. This does not have to be mentioned in every article they write, rather it is a given. The Guardian also uses language to reflect their support of abortion:

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 10, 2019, 11:02:17 pm
Why think there is a climate crisis when there isn't?

Intentional gross deception.

Just one example. (https://youtu.be/Ke26J0N74YI)

There are many more examples, including within the "scientific" community.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 11, 2019, 01:37:07 am
The really sad thing is that people like Wretch won't even allow themselves to broaden their horizons and to critically research the topic. It is a preference of a particular conviction and thus to selectively follow social media that would strengthen that conviction. It is not about the truth. It's akin to Trinity's belief in geocentrism, or the flat earth society, YEC, evolution denial, name it. This NY article (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-mistrust-of-science) nicely captures and explores this phenomenon.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 11, 2019, 08:10:12 am
Lapwing,

The Guardian support abortion in order to achieve the goal of having fewer children. This does not have to be mentioned in every article they write, rather it is a given. The Guardian also uses language to reflect their support of abortion:

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide)

Given that you had linked two Guardian articles in a post only two posts before your "as The Guardian seems to prefer" comment, you were referring to those two articles which were about family planning not abortion.

As previously stated,  your method is troll-lose argument-divert- troll again, ad infinitum
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 11, 2019, 08:24:34 am
Extracts from Mammal's excellent article from the New Yorker:

Quote
Vaccine fears, for example, have persisted despite decades of research showing them to be unfounded. Some twenty-five years ago, a statistical analysis suggested a possible association between autism and thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination. The analysis turned out to be flawed, but fears took hold. Scientists then carried out hundreds of studies, and found no link. Still, fears persisted. Countries removed the preservative but experienced no reduction in autism—yet fears grew. A British study claimed a connection between the onset of autism in eight children and the timing of their vaccinations for measles, mumps, and rubella. That paper was retracted due to findings of fraud: the lead author had falsified and misrepresented the data on the children. Repeated efforts to confirm the findings were unsuccessful. Nonetheless, vaccine rates plunged, leading to outbreaks of measles and mumps that, last year, sickened tens of thousands of children across the U.S., Canada, and Europe, and resulted in deaths.

People are prone to resist scientific claims when they clash with intuitive beliefs. They don’t see measles or mumps around anymore. They do see children with autism. And they see a mom who says, “My child was perfectly fine until he got a vaccine and became autistic.”

Now, you can tell them that correlation is not causation. You can say that children get a vaccine every two to three months for the first couple years of their life, so the onset of any illness is bound to follow vaccination for many kids. You can say that the science shows no connection. But once an idea has got embedded and become widespread, it becomes very difficult to dig it out of people’s brains—especially when they do not trust scientific authorities. And we are experiencing a significant decline in trust in scientific authorities.
...
Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.
...
The evidence is that rebutting bad science doesn’t work; in fact, it commonly backfires. Describing facts that contradict an unscientific belief actually spreads familiarity with the belief and strengthens the conviction of believers. That’s just the way the brain operates; misinformation sticks, in part because it gets incorporated into a person’s mental model of how the world works. Stripping out the misinformation therefore fails, because it threatens to leave a painful gap in that mental model—or no model at all.
...
Rebutting bad science may not be effective, but asserting the true facts of good science is. And including the narrative that explains them is even better. You don’t focus on what’s wrong with the vaccine myths, for instance. Instead, you point out: giving children vaccines has proved far safer than not. How do we know? Because of a massive body of evidence, including the fact that we’ve tried the alternate experiment before. Between 1989 and 1991, vaccination among poor urban children in the U.S. dropped. And the result was fifty-five thousand cases of measles and a hundred and twenty-three deaths.

Will Wretch, Trinity et al read it?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 11, 2019, 03:40:31 pm
Questiong the words of fallible men with agendas and hidden assumptions should be encouraged. This is what science is supposed to be, but unfortunately it has ceased to be that especially with the reproducibility crisis facing science right now. Be vigilant, don't take what comes out of science as the gospel truth. But it is good to know that more people are beginning to question science, as Mammal's article mentions, but contrary to the article's sentiment, this is not a bad thing, but a good thing. A quote:

''But as a community endeavor, it is beautifully self-correcting.''

The mythical ''self-correction'' always pops up when science is questioned. The reproducibility crisis amongst others has shown that not to be the case. How are scientists supposed to correct something if they can't reproduce it in the first place? These are not easy questions to answer, hence why it is important not to take their words for granted.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 11, 2019, 03:56:40 pm
Lapwing,

The Guardian support abortion in order to achieve the goal of having fewer children. This does not have to be mentioned in every article they write, rather it is a given. The Guardian also uses language to reflect their support of abortion:

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide)

Given that you had linked two Guardian articles in a post only two posts before your "as The Guardian seems to prefer" comment, you were referring to those two articles which were about family planning not abortion.

As previously stated,  your method is troll-lose argument-divert- troll again, ad infinitum

And what do you suppose the euphemism ''family planning'' entails? Let me make it easy for you by mentioning the available options:

Abstinence.
Contraception.
Abortion.

Do you think that the UN and their mouthpiece The Guardian support abstinence till mariage? Unlikely, they are about sexual revolution and everything that comes along with it. They want to ''save the climate'' by having people (not all people, just people living in the west) to have fewer children. Of course, this policy of having fewer children via contraception and abortion contradicts their other policies on replacement migration. But they don't care about contradictions, because they assume that plebs like me don't notice it. Well, I do notice it and so do other plebs.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: TheCross on August 12, 2019, 06:24:04 am
Vaccine fears is an area I have been heavily involved with and I can tell you that the first section of that article quoted is sheer garbage.

2804 people were severly ill due to the mad cow vaccine fifteen or so years back, untested and pre-matured usage of the vaccine caused severe deformaties and has resulted in monumental problems for the people effected, to argue that those critical of vaccine implementation are so due to any ideological beliefs is also sheer garbage as that is unsupported and has nothing at all to do with reality.

 Vaccines that are promoted as a product are the ones people are sceptical of, it is not illogical, immoral or stupid to be critical of vaccines, the harm they can cause is not insignificant, my relative and another friend can barely function, and the people that did not take the early batches and later refused to do so(myself included) are not viewed as ”crazy”.

It would be crazy to just accept everything at face value and have no shred of indepth study of the things you are told to require insertion into your own body.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 06:54:21 am
Another important point, Trinity.

The original Guardian article you linked summarized a report from Lund University which did not specify "killing babies" or abortion. You invented the idea that that emotive term was involved. That's deception i.e. lying. There was nothing about western babies being "evil" either. More lying by you.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Abortion is not considered a component of family planning,[4] although access to contraception and family planning reduces the need for abortion.[5]

There is good evidence here that you are a liar on this forum, Trinity.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 06:59:00 am
TheCross,

Don't bother providing your source on information will you? And what has this got to do with the MMR vaccine and consequent increase in measles cases? It was crazy to accept the false research on MMR at face value and many people are now paying for it including many unnecessary deaths.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: TheCross on August 12, 2019, 08:19:08 am
TheCross,

Don't bother providing your source on information will you? And what has this got to do with the MMR vaccine and consequent increase in measles cases? It was crazy to accept the false research on MMR at face value and many people are now paying for it including many unnecessary deaths.

From your article ”Vaccine fears, for example, have persisted despite decades of research showing them to be unfounded.”

It’s a broad sweep, I do not see anything specific even if the article mentions specific deseases later on.
I also stated whom the effected were, my relative and another friend, would you like a ph.D article on that or what?
WHO has everything you wish to find out about vaccines and other stuff related to global health issues of all kinds.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 12:12:10 pm
Another important point, Trinity.

The original Guardian article you linked summarized a report from Lund University which did not specify "killing babies" or abortion. You invented the idea that that emotive term was involved. That's deception i.e. lying. There was nothing about western babies being "evil" either. More lying by you.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Abortion is not considered a component of family planning,[4] although access to contraception and family planning reduces the need for abortion.[5]

There is good evidence here that you are a liar on this forum, Trinity.

Wikipedia, another mouthpiece of the UN & CO. I have had just about enough of your accusation of me being a liar. For your information:

Family Planning, A GLOBAL HANDBOOK FOR PROVIDERS (https://www.fphandbook.org/sites/default/files/global-handbook-2018-full-web_1.pdf)

Quote
The 2018 edition of the Handbook includes new WHO recommendations that expand contraceptive choices. For example, WHO now recommends that breastfeeding women can start progestogen-only pills or contraceptive implants any time after childbirth. More contraceptive options are now included: ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception; sub-cutaneous injection of DMPA; and the progesterone-releasing vaginal ring. Also, guidance on starting ongoing contraception following emergency contraception is provided. An important message throughout is WHO’s recommendation that adolescent girls and young women are medically eligible to use any contraceptive method. In addition, the Handbook highlights opportunities for task sharing among providers to make contraceptive methods more available. This edition also includes the latest WHO guidance on hormonal contraception and HIV and advice for counselling clients at risk of HIV infection on their contraceptive choices.

Am I still a liar? This is a handbook on family planning including contraception and abortion as methods thereof.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 12:22:24 pm
Also notice that the previous handbook treats abstinence as a ''back up''. Meaning that they prefer contraception and abortion above abstinence. Further relevant:

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm (http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 12, 2019, 12:52:58 pm
I have had just about enough of your accusation of me being a liar.

Oh good.  Does this mean you are on the verge of turning over a new leaf, and you are going to stop lying?

Keep up the good work Lapwing.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 12:57:24 pm
Wonderer,

Are you going to stop beating your wife?

I have supported my claims with evidence from none other than the World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs, Knowledge for Health Project. Read their handbook which I linked to earlier.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 03:04:59 pm
Why think there is a climate crisis when there isn't?

Intentional gross deception.

Just one example. (https://youtu.be/Ke26J0N74YI)

There are many more examples, including within the "scientific" community.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
Peter James Spielmann, June 30, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 (https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

Check your privilege Wretch, or else disaster is assured.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:05:56 pm
In a previous thread (Stewardship of the Earth?) Wretch made a lot about the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Well it's crashed since 2014 but I don't recall Wretch commenting on this.

Quote
'Precipitous' fall in Antarctic sea ice since 2014 revealed
Plunge is far faster than in Arctic and may lead to more global heating, say scientists

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed  (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed)

I don't recall but methinks you exaggerate.  In responding to data-based assertions, I typically simply show actual data that tends to refute said assertions.  Please do show the data, all of it, not just that which supports one view or the other.  I'm open to all the data.  I'm pretty much wary of rhetorical and personal argumentation, which seems impossible to avoid for some folks. 

Just show the hard data and deal in logical well-reasoned analyses.  Anything else is foolishness.  Yeah?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:09:03 pm
Yes, who would possibly want a sustainable clean energy grid that is based on renewable energy sources rather than a limited amount of fossil fuels ?

Who could possibly want cleaner air and less garbage and waste being created.

(https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/4vc6we6yx1cwMgLEYRUos2ZhJqo=/500x334/filters:fill(auto,1)/What-If-Its-A-Hoax-56a74f4c5f9b58b7d0e8f300.jpg)

If a rush to force that costs/harms more than it benefits, then it's undesirable.

Are you assuming there are no costs/harm? 

See here's the thing, the transition to non-fossil fuel energy will happen on its own soon enough.

In the mean time there's no grave rush or cause for alarm.

There wouldn't have been a rush if people listened to climate scientists about 50 years ago.

There'd be no rush now or likely ever if people listened to actual scientists now, the ones actually dealing in hard scientific data in lieu of an assortment of models with presupposed climate forcing mechanisms.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:12:54 pm
I never understood this debate, everyone is offering the world solutions to real or fake problems yet nobody has adressed the first problem, which is:

India and China cause 80-90% of the worlds polution(the figure varies from paper to paper that I’ve read) so how are we going to bring the worst countries to the table?

How many hundered of millions will enter poverty with the requirements promoted by the solutioners in the west?

The U.S.A's cumulative CO2 emissions are still double China's, and eight times India's. So before the U.S.A. has a leg to stand on here they will have to embark on a carbon capture program the scale of which the world has never seen.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=chart)

Even in the annual emission figures the U.S.A. is still double India (and China only pulled into the lead in 2006)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart)

And on a per-capita basis the U.S.A. is still the world leader in CO2 emissions:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart)

Except more atmospheric CO2 is beneficial.  More agricultural productivity, more aerable land, milder weather, fewer droughts, fewer damaging storms, fewer wild fires. 

America, greening and saving the world through fossil fueled energy might.  You're welcome. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:16:17 pm
Kurros,

Reducing CO2 emissions will negatively affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people. But climate change scientists don't care about that, because they believe that the world is overpopulated and their proposed solutions entail eugenics, namely killing babies and removing meat from the human diet.

Uh no, that is complete and utter rubbish, in both sentences. Climate change is what will negatively affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and they suggest things like using renewable energy, nuclear energy, replanting forests, and extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, not killing babies. As for meat, they suggest reducing it, not removing it. Which is not just good for the planet, but also health. People in the West eat a truly ridiculous amount of meat, and it is killing both them and the environment

When you make posts like that it really reduces your credibility to absolute zero.

Please show any actual scientific evidence in full global climate p-relative scale and context that increased atmospheric CO2 is causing undue harm.  Anything beyond the ludicrously abbreviated or anecdotal.  Please.  I'm beyond eager to see any such evidence. 

We're dealing in facts, yeah? 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 12, 2019, 03:17:17 pm
There'd be no rush now or likely ever if people listened to actual scientists now, the ones actually dealing in hard scientific data in lieu of an assortment of models with presupposed climate forcing mechanisms.

Disparaging climate modelling is simply ludicrous.  Any scientific attempt to predict the climate, decades to centuries out, is necessarily going to rely on modeling.

So where are the modelling results of these "actual scientists" and what forcing functions are they presupposing?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:22:13 pm
I do believe that there is a climate crisis. And it certainly would help just be eco-friendly even if you don't accept that there is such a crisis.
But i don't agree with all the protests and whatnot. For example the youth in my country are deliberately missing out on school every 2 days a week to go
on a protest march against the politicians. Threatening them with all sorts of nonsense instead of trying to actually reach out to them.
This is what i'm against. Not the initiative to at least try and fix up the mess we've made.

The young must be indoctrinated.  Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all of their ilk did so.  Beware those who follow suit.  They've ALL turned out to be similarly authoritatively minded.

"... the mess we've made."? 

What are you talking about?  Please be specific.

The planet is now more prosperous and literate than ever.  America and Europe have clean air and water, completely turning around the mess of the height of the Industrial Age. 

All the actual pollution is coming from developing nations eager to catch up to the state of the Western world.  Japan is amazing in its environmental stewardship, yet remains an industrial juggernaut.  Amazing people there.  I miss my visits.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:26:28 pm
Momo,

Eco-friendly sounds great, but the solutions proposed are not human-friendly. There is nothing wrong with caring about the environment, but it should not come at the expense of human lives. Mark 8:36 comes to mind.

Not caring about the environment comes at greater long-term expense to human life than caring for it ever could. It's just that environmental costs are absorbed by society rather than by the polluters. It's the polluters who put out all the false info about these things that brain wash gullible people into thinking that the costs of cleaning up are worse than the costs of continuing environmental degradation. Climate deniers are just the fossil fuel industry's useful idiots, IMO.

Amazing. 

The magnitude of  leftist enviro and govt funding pushing the climate crisis narrative upon everyone is multiple orders of magnitude greater than any fossil fuel oriented funding, which is little to none.  You're engaging in fact denial, science denial,  and wild conspiracy theory. 

What is a "climate denier" exactly?  Please be specific. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:33:06 pm
What questions? As for poverty, I'm pretty sure that a lot more people will avoid poverty by not having to abandon their homes due to water shortages, resource wars, extreme weather events, and rising sea level than due to having to pay a few more dollars on electricity bills. The human cost of climate change is *already* high, and will only increase.

The question was towards what end if the planets leading emitters of CO2 are permitted to continue major growth in their CO2 emissions.  It was a pretty clear question I thought. 

Please show actual hard evidence supporting your wild assertions, re "extreme weather events, and rising sea level" purportedly caused by anthropogenic effects. 

Please show how increasing the cost of energy by 50% or more while still requiring fossil fuel powered standby generation for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine amounts to just "a few more dollars on electric bills."  You do know that the cost of energy drives the cost of virtually everything else too, no?

Maybe it's time you left academia for some real world reality.  Been there.  Done that.  Woke!
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 03:34:20 pm
So let us recap the policies and recommendations proposed by climate change cultists, I mean, scientists:

- Have fewer children, preferably none (link (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)).

- Replace the already declining and ageing populations in western countries with migrants (link (https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ageing/replacement-migration.asp)).

- Move away from meat, dairy and eggs (link (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children)). Eat GMO corn and soy instead.

- Sterilise people to save the world from overpopulation (link (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2001/sep/09/gm.food)).

If you don't support any of the above, then you are a science denier and deserve to be mocked, I suppose.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:44:07 pm

Try telling anyone living in poverty, to think for the future while their children barely are able to stay alive.
I commend you for being concerned for groups that could be negatively impacted by policy changes that are made to reduce carbon emissions.  Shouldn't this mean that these impacts should be taken into account when considering options?  Ideally, all costs and benefits should be taken into account - both short term and long term, and both at the aggregate level as well as at the level of individual socio-economic groups.  There's no reason, in principle, why these groups can't be protected with the right policies.  Given your concerns, this might be a better expenditure of your energy than trying to convince people that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

Anthropogenic global warming is real.

The idea that it is causing a climate crisis and so requires massive global governance/intervention is the hoax.

You know, at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, the looming crisis was massive problems due to fecal matter collecting on the streets of places like NY and other large cities.  People were dying from the effects.  Henry Ford invented the cost effective motor coach, and others invented the means to dig deep wells and To extract highly efficient liquid energy from the ground.  What ensued was a near immediate resolution to problems of all the horse crap, and the most massive enhancement to the lives of the common man ever, and it's still happening.

The same may eventually be said for safe and cost effective nuclear power.  They're already saying it in France. 

Unfortunately, the same activists that now scream irrationally about a contrived climate crisis, were and to a large part still are the ones staunchly opposed to nuclear power.

Reality matters little to those driven by emotion.

Ask them for hard data to support their hysteria.  See what they offer... personal attack is the usual response.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 03:45:55 pm
The real crisis is the reproducibility crisis. The climate change crisis predictions have failed, it is not even science.

It's related for sure in that Leftists crave both.  They figure poor immigrants are easier to control. 

Maybe deserving of a separate thread. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 03:51:08 pm
Wretch,

You keep mentioning nuclear power and it is unfortunate that it is overlooked. Emotions aside, nuclear energy is the next big thing after a fuel-based economy. Fuel-based economy was and still is necessary, but the difference with the past is that nuclear energy has come a long way to be a clean alternative to it. Assuming climate change crisis is a thing, then nuclear energy cannot be overlooked, doing so would be irrational. France doesn't overlook it, yet so many in the climate change scene have glanced over it at best and condemned it at worst. There is no reason anymore to shun away from nuclear energy, it is the future, and in case of France, it is the present.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 04:05:38 pm
Galen Winsor: The Nuclear Scare Scam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMqHTbXm3rss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMqHTbXm3rss)

I wonder what uranium tastes like.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 04:07:13 pm
There'd be no rush now or likely ever if people listened to actual scientists now, the ones actually dealing in hard scientific data in lieu of an assortment of models with presupposed climate forcing mechanisms.

Disparaging climate modelling is simply ludicrous.  Any scientific attempt to predict the climate, decades to centuries out, is necessarily going to rely on modeling.

So where are the modelling results of these "actual scientists" and what forcing functions are they presupposing?

Models are tools that once proved accurate are valuable for some level of cautious and properly limited predictions.  This hold in any field.

Models that are [edit] unproven or worse, proved failures must never be characterized or used as reliable simulations of reality.

It's that simple.  I'm intimately familiar with complex computer models/simulations.  I've created and seen other models massively less complex as global circulation/climate models (GCMs) that dealt with far better known phenomenon and regimes of applicable physical influence, and those models sometimes required dozens and dozens of revisions, sometimes major mechanistic revisions, before becoming reliable enough to trust as accurate simulators of reality.  We're talking massive investments in time and money in private industry.  How did we know the models were trustworthy?  When their results corresponded closely to experimental observation. 

If you think there is a climate model that is adequately proofed and scientifically/statistically justified for use in predicting future climate, please do point it out.  I'm eager to see it.  I've been looking for such a model.  What you find are spaghetti graphs and rhetoric, no honest model evaluations relative to reality.  No actual science, just scare-mongering and politics.

Actual credible scientists scoff at the use of climate models as if they are reality simulators that may be trusted to drive policy.

Shall we look at some actual hard data?

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Language-Gamer on August 12, 2019, 04:25:55 pm
What makes one an “Actual credible scientists“? Could you name about 25 actual credible climate scientists?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 04:32:25 pm
So where are the modelling results of these "actual scientists" and what forcing functions are they presupposing?

Science is about observation and experiment, not models.  Models are often garbage.  Don't idolize models.  Models can be tools to help understand complex systems and complex phenomenon.  Once proved reliable, they may be used for simulation witching strict bounds.

Example, even a simple structural model of a bridge doesn't stand the test of time.  The structural boundary conditions change, mass accumulates on the road surface.  Materials deteriorate.  Estimates of environmental factors prove inadequate.  It's one reason why structural engineers impose factors of safety as great as 200% on their designs.  That kind of over design costs a LOT of money.  But even in such a well understood and limited field, scientists  admit their ignorance and susceptibility to error, the possibilities of finite human effects.

Is there anything more complex and virtually chaotic in science as global climate?  So many phenomenon, so many interactions, forcings, feedbacks, and complex systems.  But Joe the modeler has it all figured out, cause it only diverges from reality by 30%, and it utterly failed to reproduce anything on a scale relative to major global climate change such as seen in the past 10,000 years. 

Well, there is one model that has results better than the others being used by the IPCC, by better I mean that it actually tends to actually nearly correspond to actual scientific observations. 

Scientists look at hard data.  No models needed. 

If there is no actual hard evidence supporting climate alarmism, meaning no evidence that the 33% and rising increase of CO2's 0.0003 to 0.0004 volumetric portion of the atmosphere poses any crisis to humanity, then the need for an accurate computer simulation would seem not so urgent. 

I'm NOT an ideologue on the issue of climate change or climate crisis.  I look at ALL the major scientific literature.

I'm a longtime post-grad science professional well-versed in complex computer simulation and data analyses where mission success, human safety, and lives depend upon sound conclusions, and I'm trained and conversant in all major fields involving climate science, Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Advanced Fluid Mechanics, Geology, Calculus & Differential Equations, Experimental Methods, and Probabilities and Statistical Analysis. 

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 05:12:50 pm
TheCross,

Don't bother providing your source on information will you? And what has this got to do with the MMR vaccine and consequent increase in measles cases? It was crazy to accept the false research on MMR at face value and many people are now paying for it including many unnecessary deaths.

From your article ”Vaccine fears, for example, have persisted despite decades of research showing them to be unfounded.”

It’s a broad sweep, I do not see anything specific even if the article mentions specific deseases later on.
I also stated whom the effected were, my relative and another friend, would you like a ph.D article on that or what?
WHO has everything you wish to find out about vaccines and other stuff related to global health issues of all kinds.

So did  this all happen in secret with no media coverage? 2804 people affected suggests not. You seem reluctant to provide background information (not specific to your relatives)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 05:18:34 pm
Also notice that the previous handbook treats abstinence as a ''back up''. Meaning that they prefer contraception and abortion above abstinence. Further relevant:

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm (http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm)

I'm still waiting for you to tell us where the Lund report talks about "killing babies" or abortion. The Lund report was the source of this story Did you even bother to read it?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 05:23:37 pm
How about some hard data?  Climate data I mean.  Hahah!  The diverted discussions are interesting too, but maybe move them to a new topic. 

I had a friend and family member almost die, intensive care for a week nearly dead, massive rehab required afterwards, all from a flu vaccine.  That was about ten years ago.

Some vaccines proved good doesn't mean all vaccines are safe.

Yeah, so maybe start a new topic.  That goes too for those most interested in alleging psychological problems for skeptics of man-made climate crisis.  As if Richard Lindzen, Judith Currie, and so many other top scientists and analysts are psychologically impaired.  LOL!
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 05:29:03 pm
I have had just about enough of your accusation of me being a liar.

And how many times have I accused you of being a liar?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 05:29:59 pm
In a previous thread (Stewardship of the Earth?) Wretch made a lot about the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Well it's crashed since 2014 but I don't recall Wretch commenting on this.

Quote
'Precipitous' fall in Antarctic sea ice since 2014 revealed
Plunge is far faster than in Arctic and may lead to more global heating, say scientists

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed  (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed)

I don't recall but methinks you exaggerate.  In responding to data-based assertions, I typically simply show actual data that tends to refute said assertions.  Please do show the data, all of it, not just that which supports one view or the other.  I'm open to all the data.  I'm pretty much wary of rhetorical and personal argumentation, which seems impossible to avoid for some folks. 

Just show the hard data and deal in logical well-reasoned analyses.  Anything else is foolishness.  Yeah?

The Guardian article included a link to this report:  https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414  (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414) Seems like you missed that.

Hmm. the way you big up your "all data" approach. Would that survive proper scrutiny of your posts?

Quoting from a New Yorker article that Mammal found:
Quote
Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.
I wonder how much of this applies to you.

And remember the main point is that you referred to the rise in Antarctic sea ice prior to 2014 as evidence against global warming but made no comment about the recent decreases. Or are you only interested in data that confirms your biases?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 05:32:13 pm
How about some hard data?  Climate data I mean.  Hahah!  The diverted discussions are interesting too, but maybe move them to a new topic. 

I had a friend and family member almost die, intensive care for a week nearly dead, massive rehab required afterwards, all from a flu vaccine.  That was about ten years ago.

Some vaccines proved good doesn't mean all vaccines are safe.

Yeah, so maybe start a new topic.  That goes too for those most interested in alleging psychological problems for skeptics of man-made climate crisis.  As if Richard Lindzen, Judith Currie, and so many other top scientists and analysts are psychologically impaired.  LOL!

So the fact that diseases like polio were virtually eradicated by use of vaccines counts for nothing now?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 05:47:40 pm
I have had just about enough of your accusation of me being a liar.

And how many times have I accused you of being a liar?

One too many.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 05:59:29 pm
Also notice that the previous handbook treats abstinence as a ''back up''. Meaning that they prefer contraception and abortion above abstinence. Further relevant:

The Connection between Contraception and Abortion
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm (http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm)

I'm still waiting for you to tell us where the Lund report talks about "killing babies" or abortion. The Lund report was the source of this story Did you even bother to read it?

I am still waiting for you to tell us how western countries are supposed to have fewer children if not by the use of contraceptives and abortion. Keep in mind that abstinence is considered as a ''back up'', so we can be reasonably certain that abstinence only is not what the euphemism of ''family planning'' amounts to.

I am also waiting for you to tell us how having fewer children can be reconciled with replacement migration. These two policies, having fewer children and replacement migration, are in conflict with each other. One is purported to reduce the population, the other is purported to increase the population. Perhaps climate change crisis is similar to Schrodinger's cat, it is dead and alive as long as we don't look into it? I have looked into it, and it is as dead as dead can be. No significant rise of sea levels or melting of ice caps, yet we are told that it is coming to a city near you.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 06:05:29 pm
How about some hard data?  Climate data I mean.  Hahah!  The diverted discussions are interesting too, but maybe move them to a new topic. 

I had a friend and family member almost die, intensive care for a week nearly dead, massive rehab required afterwards, all from a flu vaccine.  That was about ten years ago.

Some vaccines proved good doesn't mean all vaccines are safe.

Yeah, so maybe start a new topic.  That goes too for those most interested in alleging psychological problems for skeptics of man-made climate crisis.  As if Richard Lindzen, Judith Currie, and so many other top scientists and analysts are psychologically impaired.  LOL!

So the fact that diseases like polio were virtually eradicated by use of vaccines counts for nothing now?

Correlation is not causation. From what I understand polio and many other diseases were already in decline due to indoor plumbing and sanitation and not necessarily due to vaccines.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 12, 2019, 06:19:28 pm
I never thought that I would ever say this, but NASA has some common sense for once:

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth)

Thank God for Carbon Dioxide.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 07:44:29 pm
In a previous thread (Stewardship of the Earth?) Wretch made a lot about the increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Well it's crashed since 2014 but I don't recall Wretch commenting on this.

Quote
'Precipitous' fall in Antarctic sea ice since 2014 revealed
Plunge is far faster than in Arctic and may lead to more global heating, say scientists

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed  (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/precipitous-fall-in-antarctic-sea-ice-revealed)

I don't recall but methinks you exaggerate.  In responding to data-based assertions, I typically simply show actual data that tends to refute said assertions.  Please do show the data, all of it, not just that which supports one view or the other.  I'm open to all the data.  I'm pretty much wary of rhetorical and personal argumentation, which seems impossible to avoid for some folks. 

Just show the hard data and deal in logical well-reasoned analyses.  Anything else is foolishness.  Yeah?

The Guardian article included a link to this report:  https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414  (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414) Seems like you missed that.

Hmm. the way you big up your "all data" approach. Would that survive proper scrutiny of your posts?

Quoting from a New Yorker article that Mammal found:
Quote
Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.
I wonder how much of this applies to you.

And remember the main point is that you referred to the rise in Antarctic sea ice prior to 2014 as evidence against global warming but made no comment about the recent decreases. Or are you only interested in data that confirms your biases?

Thanks for posting the PNAS link to the data.  I've seen it.  It's of what significance?  Forty years of observations with no trend, just a rise and fall of sea ice.  You do know that the use that affects sea level is that on land, yes?  Sea ice has little direct effect on sea level.   So long as ice accumulates on land at a rate offsetting glacial calving into the ocean and Summer glacial meltwater. 

The article has little to nothing to say relative to any climate crisis theory. 

Why do you make such a kerfuffle over it? 

And still you go personal.  Did your father not teach you to be polite?  Please avoid antagonistic personal commentary.  It only reveals the character of its author.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 07:51:49 pm
How about some hard data?  Climate data I mean.  Hahah!  The diverted discussions are interesting too, but maybe move them to a new topic. 

I had a friend and family member almost die, intensive care for a week nearly dead, massive rehab required afterwards, all from a flu vaccine.  That was about ten years ago.

Some vaccines proved good doesn't mean all vaccines are safe.

Yeah, so maybe start a new topic.  That goes too for those most interested in alleging psychological problems for skeptics of man-made climate crisis.  As if Richard Lindzen, Judith Currie, and so many other top scientists and analysts are psychologically impaired.  LOL!

So the fact that diseases like polio were virtually eradicated by use of vaccines counts for nothing now?

Amazing.  Did you miss the gentle hint to get back on topic here?

I'll happily address you wildly exaggerated straw man in a topic for the vaccination issue.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 07:53:46 pm
Where's the evidence of climate crisis?

Anybody?

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 10:48:11 pm
Quote from: Wretch
Amazing.  Did you miss the gentle hint to get back on topic here?
So why did you not make a similar comment in response to Trinity's post 3.1?

Note I'm querying your posting (or lack of posting) in this forum, not your family history. That would be an ad hominem attack. Something you do in this forum far too often.

The "kerfuffle" is because you only quote data that supports your biased view and ignore the rest.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 12, 2019, 10:49:47 pm
Where's the evidence of climate crisis?

Anybody?

This is not a serious post as you would reject any substantive answer made based on your previous posting behaviour.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 10:56:52 pm
Quote from: Wretch
Amazing.  Did you miss the gentle hint to get back on topic here?
So why did you not make a similar comment in response to Trinity's post 3.1?

Note I'm querying your posting (or lack of posting) in this forum, not your family history. That would be an ad hominem attack. Something you do in this forum far too often.

The "kerfuffle" is because you only quote data that supports your biased view and ignore the rest.

<sigh> Lapwing:

The data you shared supports my view.  It certainly offers no support for climate alarmism.  If you think otherwise, please explain. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 11:00:06 pm
Where's the evidence of climate crisis?

Anybody?

This is not a serious post as you would reject any substantive answer made based on your previous posting behaviour.

Show the data.



Show

the

data.


S
h
o
w

t
h
e

d
a
t
a.




No need for petty insult..  Just show the data.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 11:15:03 pm
I'll start.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are supposed to cause too much warming and an accelerating rise in sea level.  But where is that evident in the following century scale tide gauge data?  The hard data shows little to no indication of any such man-made CO2 climate crisis by way of accelerating rate of sea level rise.  Doesn't that falsify the whole climate crisis story?  Yes, it does, which is why the deceivers have adopted the strategy of tampering with satellite data and tacking it on the scientific record in place of tide gauge data.  That is off the charts scientific malpractice.  Pure garbage. 

If sea level were rising at an accelerated rate, that would be obvious from tide gauge data.  Instead all the tide gauge data covering a near century scale interval shows exceptionally long term linear behavior.

The plots below show monthly mean sea level exclusive of regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents. The long-term linear trend is also shown, including its 95% confidenceinterval. The plotted values are relative to the Revised Local Reference (RLR) datum as established by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL). The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century (0.3 meters = 1 foot).  If present, solid vertical lines indicate times of any major earthquakes in the vicinity of the station, and dashed vertical lines bracket any periods of questionable data or datum shift.

All data/plots are available at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.html (https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.html)

(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/970-011_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 3.19 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.13 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1895 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 1.05 feet in 100 years.
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/8418150_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.88 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.14 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1912 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.62 feet in 100 years.
Portland, Maine, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/8443970_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.83 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.15 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1921 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.93 feet in 100 years.
Boston, Massachusetts, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/8518750_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.85 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1856 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.94 feet in 100 years.
New York, New York, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/8665530_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 3.26 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.19 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1901 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 1.07 feet in 100 years.
Charleston, South Carolina, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/8724580_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.42 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.14 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1913 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.79 feet in 100 years.
Key West, Florida, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/8729840_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.4 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.23 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1923 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.79 feet in 100 years.
Pensacola, Florida, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/8771450_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 6.51 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.22 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1904 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 2.14 feet in 100 years.
Galveston, Texas, USA (formerly The Republic of Texas) (Remember the Alamo!)


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/2695540_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.13 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.37 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1932 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.70 feet in 100 years.
Earlier data stored in database as station 2695535
Saint Georges, Bermuda


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9410170_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.19 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.18 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1906 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.72 feet in 100 years.
San Diego, California, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9414290_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.96 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.18 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1897 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.64 feet in 100 years.
Possible datum shift
San Francisco, California, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9439040_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -0.15 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.32 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1925 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of -0.05 feet in 100 years.
Astoria, Oregon, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9447130_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.06 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.15 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1899 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.68 feet in 100 years.
Seattle, Washington, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/822-101_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 0.74 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.19 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1909 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.24 feet in 100 years.
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9450460_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -0.37 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.22 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1919 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of -0.12 feet in 100 years.
Ketchikan, Alaska, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9452210_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -13.26 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.34 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1936 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of -4.35 feet in 100 years.
Juneau, Alaska, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/1612340_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.49 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.21 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1905 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.49 feet in 100 years.
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/1619910_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.38 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.42 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1947 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.45 feet in 100 years.
Midway Atoll


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/840-011_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.45 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.22 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1908 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.48 feet in 100 years.
Balboa, Panama


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/850-012_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -0.87 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.38 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1945 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of -0.29 feet in 100 years.
Major earthquake in the vicinity of the station on July 1995
Antofagasta, Chile


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/999-003_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.38 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.39 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1958 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.45 feet in 100 years.
Argentine Islands, Antarctica


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/170-011_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 0.72 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1862 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 0.24 feet in 100 years.
Data for 1862-1931 are monthly mean tide level & a datum offset correction
of 0.014 m was applied based on the systematic difference in datum between
the stations during the period of overlap. Station relocated in February 1973.
Aberdeen, Scottland, UK


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/170-053_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.89 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.13 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1895 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.62 feet in 100 years.
Station relocated in February 1974.
North Shields, UK


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/170-161_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.81 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.16 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1915 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.59 feet in 100 years.
Newly named, UK


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/040-321_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -3.13 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.28 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1885 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of -1.03 feet in 100 years.
Oslo, Norway


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/050-141_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -3.74 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.3 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1889 to 2017 which is equivalent to a change of -1.23 feet in 100 years.
Stockholm, Sweden


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/130-031_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 0.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.19 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1891 to 2012 which is equivalent to a change of 0.13 feet in 100 years.
Hornbaek, Denmark


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/190-091_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.08 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.08 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1817 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.35 feet in 100 years.
Brest, France


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/230-051_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.3 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.13 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1885 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.43 feet in 100 years.
Marseille, France


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/060-351_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -2.26 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.31 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1879 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of -0.74 feet in 100 years.
Based on 1 reading per day for 1879-1903, 6 readings per day for 1904-1970
Helsinki, Finland


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/300-001_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.46 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.52 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1917 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.81 feet in 100 years.
Tuapse, Russia


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/120-012_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.25 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.11 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1855 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.41 feet in 100 years.
Readings per day: 1, 1855-82; 2, 1883-94; 4, 1894-1945; 1-4, 1946-52; 4, 1953-80
Warnemunde, Germany


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/140-012_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 2.11 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.14 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1843 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.69 feet in 100 years.
Cuxhaven, Germany


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/645-011_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is -0.23 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.27 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1930 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of -0.08 feet in 100 years.
Hosojima, Japan


(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/680-140_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 0.65 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.1 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1886 to 2010 which is equivalent to a change of 0.21 feet in 100 years.
(Data for 1886- May 1914 are based on monthly mean tide levels plus a 1.7 mm correction.)
Sydney, Australia

(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/680-471_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 1.69 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.24 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1897 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.55 feet in 100 years.
Fremantle, Australia
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 12, 2019, 11:41:14 pm
Instead of using the above tide gauge data, the climate crisis cabal have adjusted it to fit their desired narrative:

 (https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-01-07080930_shadow.jpg)

They've lowered some of the data and then added on adjusted/tampered data to make it appear as though rate of sea level,rise has accelerated.  So corrupt. 

More information on the data manipulations at https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/ (https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 13, 2019, 03:36:25 am
I'll start.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are supposed to cause too much warming and an accelerating rise in sea level.  But where is that evident in the following century scale tide gauge data?  The hard data shows little to no indication of any such man-made CO2 climate crisis by way of accelerating rate of sea level rise.  Doesn't that falsify the whole climate crisis story?  Yes, it does, which is why the deceivers have adopted the strategy of tampering with satellite data and tacking it on the scientific record in place of tide gauge data.  That is off the charts scientific malpractice.  Pure garbage. 

If sea level were rising at an accelerated rate, that would be obvious from tide gauge data.  Instead all the tide gauge data covering a near century scale interval shows exceptionally long term linear behavior.

The plots below show monthly mean sea level exclusive of regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents. The long-term linear trend is also shown, including its 95% confidenceinterval. The plotted values are relative to the Revised Local Reference (RLR) datum as established by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL). The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century (0.3 meters = 1 foot).  If present, solid vertical lines indicate times of any major earthquakes in the vicinity of the station, and dashed vertical lines bracket any periods of questionable data or datum shift.
...

For someone who claims to be a science professional you are extremely bad at reading and understanding data. Please read here for expert guidance on how to understand tide gauge data: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/tide-gauge-sea-level-data (https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/tide-gauge-sea-level-data). Here is a snipped describing one of many important effects that you are completely ignoring:

"Considerations when interpreting tide gauge data

3.1   Vertical land motion

Tide gauges measure relative sea level, which is the height of the water relative to the height of the land. This means that tide gauge sea level observations reflect vertical motion of both the sea surface and the coastline. For example, extraction of hydrocarbons in the ground near Galveston, TX is causing the land to subside in the region. The local tide gauge measures the land subsidence as additional long-term relative sea level rise on top of the increase due to climate change. Considering the effect of vertical land motion (VLM) is particularly important when calculating long-term sea level trends from tide gauges.

For some applications, it is necessary to correct for vertical land motion in tide gauge observations. One of the most important sources of VLM is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), which is the ongoing slow rebound of the Earth’s crust after removing the weight of ancient ice that existed during the last glacial maximum [e.g. Peltier, 1998]. This process manifests as long-term linear trends in tide gauge observations, and GIA models can be used to remove the GIA trends from the tide gauge data [e.g. Peltier, et al., 2015].

It may be possible to correct for other sources of VLM (seismic motion, subsidence, etc.) using Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements. This should be done with caution, however, because GPS captures time-dependent processes (unlike GIA, which is approximately constant for time-scales on the order of 100 years). The current rate of VLM measured by a GPS may not be the rate of land motion over the entire tide gauge record. Land motion can also vary over short distances, and using GPS data from a receiver that is not precisely co-located with a tide gauge may lead to erroneous conclusions."

Even your own plots make it pretty clear what they measure: they are labelled "relative sea level". ***Relative***. As in sea level relative to fixed positions attached to various bits of land. That is not the quantity that we need to consider when it comes to climate change, at least not without quite a lot of corrections.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 13, 2019, 10:15:48 am
Climate crisis requires sea level rise to accelerate, period.

Tides gauges do not show such acceleration. They show a steady linear behavior.


It is the rate of change that is at issue.  Linearity in relative mean sea level trends unequivocally defy the climate crisis narrative. Period.

It's not the precise value of global mean sea level rise rate, which varies place to place depending on geological uplift or subsidence, but rather the change in the rate of rising sea level, the linearity, the behavior of the derivative of sea level rise rate that is at issue.

Concerning relative mean sea level: It defies logic to declare on one hand that coastal cities are going to be inundated by an accelerating rise in sea level due to man-made climate crisis,  but then on the other hand dismiss the lack of any such accelerating rise in sea level at those coastal cities.

If climate crisis is accelerating the rise of sea level, then that fact must show up at tide gauges. Period. There is no credible way around that.

No amount of convoluted hand-waving can change basic scientific fact.

The issues you note relate to the understanding of the magnitude/value of average global relative mean sea level after accounting for geological uplift or subsidence., how to find the global average from all those different measurements by trying to account for local uplift or subsidence.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not in the long term (century scale) rate of change in mean sea level is accelerating or remaining constant.

It is remaining constant, not accelerating as required by the climate crisis narrative.

Because of that, corruption and shenanigans are now appearing, fraudulent manipulations of the data have been "justified."  Suddenly long period data gets changed. Suddenly highly manipulated short term satellite data is emphasized. And as with manipulations of the surface temperature records, the effect is always towards supporting the presupposed climate crisis narrative, the narrative that is vital to the gainful employment of its authors, the narrative in line with Leftist agenda.

That's unmitigated pure junk science.



Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 13, 2019, 10:18:01 am
Climate crisis requires sea level rise to accelerate, period.

Tides gauges do not show such acceleration. They show a rock steady continuous rate.

It is the rate of change that is at issue.  Linearity in sea level trends unequivocally defy the climate crisis narrative. Period.

It's not the magnitude of sea level rise rate, which varies place to place depending on geological uplift or subsidence, but the linearity, the behavior of the derivative that is at issue.

Concerning a relative mean sea level: It defies logic to declare on one hand that coastal cities are going to be inundated by an accelerating rise in sea level due to man-made climate crisis,  but then on the other hand dismiss the lack of any such accelerating rise in sea level at those coastal cities.

If climate crisis is accelerating rising sea level, then that fact must show up at tide gauges. Period. There is no credible way around that.

No amount of convoluted hand-waving can change basic science.

The issues you note relate to the understanding of the magnitude of global mean sea level after accounting for geological uplift or subsidence. 

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not in the long term (century scale) the rate of change in mean sea level is accelerating or remaining constant.

It is remaining constant, not accelerating as required by the climate crisis narrative.

Because of that, corruption and shenanigans are appearing, fraudulent manipulations of the data have been justified.  Suddenly period data gets changed. Suddenly highly manipulated short term satellite data is emphasized.

That's pure junk science.

No, what you are describing is junk science. It appears you have not read the link I posted and still do not understand the tide gauge data. You will not be able to say something sensible about this until you learn what those gauges are actually measuring.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 13, 2019, 10:41:47 am
Quote from: Wretch
Amazing.  Did you miss the gentle hint to get back on topic here?
So why did you not make a similar comment in response to Trinity's post 3.1?

Note I'm querying your posting (or lack of posting) in this forum, not your family history. That would be an ad hominem attack. Something you do in this forum far too often.

The "kerfuffle" is because you only quote data that supports your biased view and ignore the rest.

Actually, to Wretch's credit he did make a similar comment (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275721955#msg1275721955):

''Maybe deserving of a separate thread.''
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 13, 2019, 10:42:19 am
All your points are addressed at:

https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/ (https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 13, 2019, 11:02:14 am
Climate crisis requires sea level rise to accelerate, period.

Tides gauges do not show such acceleration. They show a rock steady continuous rate.

It is the rate of change that is at issue.  Linearity in sea level trends unequivocally defy the climate crisis narrative. Period.

It's not the magnitude of sea level rise rate, which varies place to place depending on geological uplift or subsidence, but the linearity, the behavior of the derivative that is at issue.

Concerning a relative mean sea level: It defies logic to declare on one hand that coastal cities are going to be inundated by an accelerating rise in sea level due to man-made climate crisis,  but then on the other hand dismiss the lack of any such accelerating rise in sea level at those coastal cities.

If climate crisis is accelerating rising sea level, then that fact must show up at tide gauges. Period. There is no credible way around that.

No amount of convoluted hand-waving can change basic science.

The issues you note relate to the understanding of the magnitude of global mean sea level after accounting for geological uplift or subsidence. 

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not in the long term (century scale) the rate of change in mean sea level is accelerating or remaining constant.

It is remaining constant, not accelerating as required by the climate crisis narrative.

Because of that, corruption and shenanigans are appearing, fraudulent manipulations of the data have been justified.  Suddenly period data gets changed. Suddenly highly manipulated short term satellite data is emphasized.

That's pure junk science.

No, what you are describing is junk science. It appears you have not read the link I posted and still do not understand the tide gauge data. You will not be able to say something sensible about this until you learn what those gauges are actually measuring.

I read it and addressed it.

An acceleration to the global rate of sea level rise must show up at tide gauges. There is no way around that.

 If you disagree, then please  do explain how sea level rise is accelerating while tide gauges the world over show no such acceleration in rate of sea level rise.

Do you imagine that the sea floor is sinking globally at an accelerating rate?  LOL!

If not measured relative to the land at the coast, what are you suggesting is the proper reference for gauging sea level?

Climate crisis alarmists stand upon their pedestals declaring impending doom for coastal cities due to an accelerating rise in sea level, and that we must ignore the actual hard data records documenting the actual behavior of sea level as measured at those coastal cities.

It's truly amazing to see.

https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/ (https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/)

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 13, 2019, 11:07:51 am
 Turning a straight line exponential requires an exponential turning of reason into foolishness.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 13, 2019, 12:50:44 pm
See here for a proper explanation of the tide gauge data and sea level rise measurements:

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm (https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)

The acceleration you speak of is indeed compatible with the data. It is a small effect over the time of measurements, so not obvious, but the data does indicate that it is there. And sea levels are most definitely rising on average.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 13, 2019, 01:32:02 pm
See here for a proper explanation of the tide gauge data and sea level rise measurements:

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm (https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)

The acceleration you speak of is indeed compatible with the data. It is a small effect over the time of measurements, so not obvious, but the data does indicate that it is there. And sea levels are most definitely rising on average.

Why are you so eager to accept dubious hand waving and manipulated data over the actual unmolested hard data? 

Please read the first comment in response to that blog page that you figure settles the issue. 

Again: It is impossible to have an acceleration in rate of sea level rise that doesn't show up at tide gauges.  Period.

Local adjustments to tide gauge records to account for for millenia-scale uplift or subsidence are irrelevant to the issue of accelerating rate of sea level rise, unless you're claiming said uplift or subsidence is spectacularly nonlinear over the past century.  No one has claimed that far as I know.  Is that what you're claiming?

Tide gauge records are being fraudulently changed by people writing papers in order to push the climate crisis narrative.  Satellite data from 1993 onwards is being fraudulently manipulated and tacked onto the tide gauge record in place of the original hard data from the tide gauges.

In effect, you and I are standing at the coast looking at the tide gauge and its record of sea level data. We agree that the tide gauge measurements, the actual hard data, show no discernible acceleration in long term rate of sea level rise over the past 100+ years.  There are decadal fluctuations up and down, but there is no apparent change in overall trend.  It is linear.  But you are claiming that sea level rise is nonlinear, accelerating only recently and boding impending catastrophy for coastal populations.  Because... ?  <fraudsters changed the data to show acceleration where there was none>

Did you know that while acceleration of the rate of sea level rise has reportedly manifest in contravention of the tide gauge hard data, the amount of coastal dry land on the planet has increased significantly?  Even on the low lying islands previously highlighted by fear-mongering climate alarmists as heading quickly towards inevitable submersion underneath the ever more rapidly rising sea, said islands' dry land area has increased. 

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 13, 2019, 02:02:15 pm
Sorry, you are just talking nonsense and I have neither the time not inclination to bother trying to correct you any further.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 13, 2019, 02:24:09 pm
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics. Including the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 13, 2019, 02:44:17 pm
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics. Including the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 13, 2019, 03:56:52 pm
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics. Including the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.

That's ok.  I wasn't expecting you to have any intelligent thoughts about it.  It was more for the benefit of Kurros and Wretch.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 13, 2019, 04:01:56 pm
Wonderer,

I saved Kurros and Wretch the trouble of reading from Nostradamus' predictions.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: bdsimon on August 14, 2019, 10:05:56 am
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics. Including the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.

That's ok.  I wasn't expecting you to have any intelligent thoughts about it.  It was more for the benefit of Kurros and Wretch.
I'm telling you, you should really read Earth.  (http://www.davidbrin.com/earth.html)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 14, 2019, 10:24:33 am
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics. Including the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.

That's ok.  I wasn't expecting you to have any intelligent thoughts about it.  It was more for the benefit of Kurros and Wretch.
I'm telling you, you should really read Earth.  (http://www.davidbrin.com/earth.html)

At least I can tell you it is now on my Kindle along with Atonement.  I might need to setup a folder, for bds recommendations I haven't gotten around to reading yet.

I did read all the short stories I hadn't read previously though.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 14, 2019, 10:43:46 am
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics, (including that) the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.

My thoughts as well, pure junk science suppositions, but then read the following sentence.  The new report is actually challenging the apparent consensus of a number of "recent studies."  The author of the new study will be out of a job soon, no doubt.

If you want serious critiques of the alarmist claims that climate scientists and the media are serving up based upon historical records and basic analyses of the actual data and how it's been changed over time, check out https://www.realclimatescience.com/ (https://www.realclimatescience.com/); it is a treasure trove of hard data and history that shine a new and very glaring light on all the advocacy and shenanigans of govt climate "science".

Thanks for posting that Wonderer.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: bdsimon on August 14, 2019, 10:53:28 am


I did read all the short stories I hadn't read previously though.
Any favorites? I enjoyed the whole list to be honest.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 14, 2019, 11:18:05 am
Sorry, you are just talking nonsense and I have neither the time not inclination to bother trying to correct you any further.

Nonsense?  Amazing.  So hard data is "nonsense"?  Hahahah.  Dont believe your eyes, only believe what govt "scientists" tell you to believe?  The difference in perspective is amazing. 

If tide gauges consistently show no acceleration in sea level over the past 100+ years, then how can sea level rise be accelerating? 

Why is the linear hard data wrong, and govt climate scientists who change that data to make it non-linear to match their story right?

Hard data from tide gauges, the very instruments used to measure relative sea level at coastal cities and major ports show consistently that sea level rise at our coasts and at Pacific islands is not accelerating, that it's following a solid linear trend for well over the past 100 years, but govt "scientists" manipulate the data to show that it is.  But you think that the hard data and it's clear linear trend is "nonsense"?  Amazing. 

Or by "nonsense" are you referring to the increase in coastal dry land over the past three decades that I mentioned?

Here's the peer-reviewed scientific reports on that along with excerpts (boldface by me):

Paper: “Earth’s Surface Water Change Over the Past 30 Years.” By Gennadii Donchyts and others. Nature, September 2016. Pages 810–813. <www.nature.com>

Page 810: “Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas. Here, we analyse the gains and losses through the Deltares Aqua Monitor—an open tool that detects land and water changes around the globe.”

Page 811: ”We see that globally, between 1985 and 2015, an area of about 173,000 km2—about the size of Washington State—has been converted to land, and an area of 115,000 km2 has been converted into water.”

To summarize: Relative to coastal areas for the three decades from 1985 to 2015...

About 8,000 square miles (20,000 square km) of Earth’s coastal dry land area became covered by water.
About 13,000 square miles (34,000 square km) of Earth’s coastal water area became dry land area.
So in total from 1985 to 2015 the Earth gained about 5,000 square miles (14,000 square Km) of  coastal dry land.



And another with similar findings, but concerning small reef islands specifically::


* The authors of a 2010 paper in the journal Global and Planetary Change used aerial and satellite photographs to conduct “the first quantitative analysis of physical changes” in 27 central Pacific coral reef islands (including those in Tuvalu) over a 19- to 61-year period. They found that:

86% of these islands remained stable or increased in dry land area
43% oremaining stable,, and 43% increasing in area with changes ranging from 3% to 30%,
15% decreased in area with changes ranging from 3% to 14%,
the combined area of all the islands in total increased by 7%, and
the “results of this study contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to recent sea level rise.”

Paper: “The Dynamic Response of Reef Islands to Sea Level Rise: Evidence from Multi-Decadal Analysis of Island Change in the Central Pacific.” By Arthur P. Webb and Paul S. Kench. Global and Planetary Change, May 21, 2010. <www.sciencedirect.com>
Page 1: “Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr−1 in the Pacific….”

Note: A rate of sea level rise of 2.0mm per year, or 0.20 m per century which equates to 7.9 inches or just 0.66 feet per century. 

Page 8:
The total change in area of reef islands (aggregated for all islands in the study) is an increase in land area of 63 ha [hectares, 1 hectare = 2.47 acres] representing 7% of the total land area of all islands studied. … Forty-three percent of islands have remained relatively stable (<±3% change) over the period of analysis. A further 43% of islands (12 in total) have increased in area by more than 3%. The remaining 15% of islands underwent net reduction in island area of more than 3%.

Of the islands that show a net increase in island area six have increased by more than 10% of their original planform area. … The remaining three islands are in Tarawa atoll with Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai increasing by 30%, 16.3% and 12.5% respectively over the 60 yr period of analysis (Table 2). Of note, the large percentage change on Betio represents an increase of more than 36 ha.
Only one island has shown a net reduction in island area greater than 10%. Tengasu is located on the southwest atoll rim of Funafuti and decreased in area by 14% over the 19 yr period of analysis. However, closer examination of the Tengasu data shows that it was the smallest island in the study sample (0.68 ha) and the absolute change in island area was 0.1 ha, which represents a substantial proportion of the total island area.

Page 12:
“Of significance, the results of this study on atoll islands are applicable to islands in other reef settings, as the boundary controls on island formation and change are comparable. Results of this study contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to recent sea level rise.”
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Language-Gamer on August 14, 2019, 11:22:19 am
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics. Including the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.

That's ok.  I wasn't expecting you to have any intelligent thoughts about it.  It was more for the benefit of Kurros and Wretch.
I'm telling you, you should really read Earth.  (http://www.davidbrin.com/earth.html)

At least I can tell you it is now on my Kindle along with Atonement.  I might need to setup a folder, for bds recommendations I haven't gotten around to reading yet.

I did read all the short stories I hadn't read previously though.

Be gentle, but did you read Good Old Neon? Thoughts?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 14, 2019, 11:33:55 am
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics, (including that) the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.

My thoughts as well, pure junk science suppositions, but then read the following sentence.  The new report is actually challenging the apparent consensus of a number of "recent studies."  The author of the new study will be out of a job soon, no doubt.

Do you see how your bias is showing?  You were ready to tune it out like Trinity, until you (unlike Trinity) realized it supports your claim that modelling to date is flawed.

I agree that if current models don't take into account the energy required to melt ice, that is a big problem. (Since it takes over 300 calories to take a gram of ice at -.5C to  a gram of water at +.5C but only 1 calorie to take a gram of water from .5C to 1.5C)

On the other hand, it also provides an explanation for why all the graphs you posted earlier don't show a substantial acceleration in sea level rise as predicted by models.  However, failure of models to date in that specific regard does not equate to a failure in all regards.

Sea levels are still going up at a substantial rate, and I don't see that this provides any basis for doubting the general prediction of higher surface temperatures.  In fact the existing models may be underestimating the rise in surface temperatures in the northern hemisphere, due to overly simplistic modelling of how the oceans absorb heat..

A major goal of climate science should be continually improving models, right?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: bdsimon on August 14, 2019, 11:34:41 am

Be gentle, but did you read Good Old Neon? Thoughts?
Not directed at me, but I enjoyed it.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Language-Gamer on August 14, 2019, 11:48:15 am

Be gentle, but did you read Good Old Neon? Thoughts?
Not directed at me, but I enjoyed it.

:) now you gotta read Infinite Jest.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 14, 2019, 12:28:35 pm
What makes one an “Actual credible scientists“? Could you name about 25 actual credible climate scientists?

Twenty-five?  I can't name 25 of most anything!  LOL!

Question: If I do the research and name 25 credible climate scientists who don't support climate alarmism, will that affect your view of the issue? 

Let's first see if we can agree on what credible scientists and data analysts do and don't do.

1) Credible scientists & analysts admit mistakes and don't lie or try to cover up mistakes.

2) Credible scientists & analysts risk career and personal status if their findings tend to question the current "scientific" orthodoxy.  You know, like Galileo did. 

3) Credible scientists & analysts perform rigorous analysis of scientific data or model results to show how well it corresponds to reality, the actual hard data.

4) Credible scientists & analysts present all their research, data, and methods for confirmation of their conclusions/findings by other scientists and analysts.

5) Credible scientists & analysts don't change the hard data so that it better matches their desired narrative, let alone do so repeatedly.

6) Credible scientists & analysts don't use fake data, only data from actual observations/measurements.

7) Credible scientists & analysts don't use unreliable data from highly compromised sources.

8) Credible scientists report the most honest accurate statistical uncertainties possible relative to their findings.

9) Credible scientists & analysts report the failure of their theory/model when its results diverge from observations, falling outside the 5-95% statistical confidence bands, and question their underlying assumptions that led to their failed theory/model. 

10) Credible scientists & analysts don't cherry-pick or amplify data which supports their desired narrative.

11) Credible climate scientists & analysts consider their own near infinite ignorance, that there is much about climate that they don't know, and that they are unaware of much of which they don't know.

12) Credible scientists & analysts don't cherry-pick time intervals ignoring other historic records that tend to refute their desired narrative.

13) Credible scientists & analysts don't have a desired narrative.

14) Credible scientists & analysts are skeptical.

15) Credible scientists & analysts don't present deceptive graphical depictions of data.

16) Credible scientists & analysts don't appeal to consensus or authority (what you're tending towards here) or ad hominem or personal smear.

17) Credible scientists & analysts don't avoid intellectual debate with those skeptical of their conclusions.

18) Credible scientists & analysts don't try to block publication of research that challenges their conclusions/findings.

Agreed?  Add or revise as you see fit.

Cheers brother.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 14, 2019, 12:59:46 pm
Quote from: Wretch
Amazing.  Did you miss the gentle hint to get back on topic here?
So why did you not make a similar comment in response to Trinity's post 3.1?

Note I'm querying your posting (or lack of posting) in this forum, not your family history. That would be an ad hominem attack. Something you do in this forum far too often.

The "kerfuffle" is because you only quote data that supports your biased view and ignore the rest.

Actually, to Wretch's credit he did make a similar comment (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275721955#msg1275721955):

''Maybe deserving of a separate thread.''

But on a different subject raised by Trinity: not the post by Trinity on vaccination that I indicated.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 14, 2019, 01:33:28 pm
See here for a proper explanation of the tide gauge data and sea level rise measurements:

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm (https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)

The acceleration you speak of is indeed compatible with the data. It is a small effect over the time of measurements, so not obvious, but the data does indicate that it is there. And sea levels are most definitely rising on average.

Hello kurros,

Thank you for your excellent posts on sea level rise in response to Wretch.

I was too busy to respond to Wretch's extra long graph filled post but I was struck that he made no mention of post glacial rebound and other effects that affect local sea levels. It also struck me that such long cut-and-paste posts are antisocial in what is a communal resource.

Am I right to think that Wretch isn't denying sea level rise just the acceleration of it. People living near to sea level should still be concerned about increases in sea level whether accelerating or not.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 14, 2019, 08:06:17 pm


I did read all the short stories I hadn't read previously though.
Any favorites? I enjoyed the whole list to be honest.

Spoiler alert.

The one that jumps to mind without reviewing the list is The Last Rock Fight.  Possibly because I could relate to the idea of the rock fight quite easily.  I would have been an enthusiastic rock fighter when I was a teen.  I like strategy games, and running around in the woods, and had my own paintball gun when I was in my 20s.

The characters and events were very believable to me, and on one hand the characters and events were well detailed enough to make for an engrossing story, but on the other hand ambiguous enough to leave me wondering what to think.  Was the murderer's girlfriend raped, or was she simply attracted to the bad boy that all the other girls were attracted to?  Why is the narrator in the school for emotionally disturbed kids, and how out of touch is his view?

Such questions aside, it definitely makes one think about the unfortunate consequences that can arise from loyalty, with two people dead as a result of the narrator's loyalty and failure to intervene.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 14, 2019, 09:12:47 pm
Be gentle, but did you read Good Old Neon? Thoughts?

Yeah, it was very interesting, but my ability to relate was limited.  The author is obviously extremely intelligent, and in a way that I see as kind of on the opposite end of a spectrum, of ways to be intelligent, from me.  (Not to suggest I'm equally intelligent in any sense, just that much of his experience of life is perhaps particularly alien to me.)

I was impressed by the author writing so articulately in seemingly never ending sentences.

It was sad to see the way his self awareness was so alienating for him.  (Yes I am assuming it was somewhat autobiographical fiction.  I have a hard time believing it could be otherwise.)

I'm tempted to read Infinite Jest, if for no other reason than to get a sense of what things look like from such a different perspective.  I'm not sure I am up for the amount of angst I anticipate from Infinite Jest though.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Language-Gamer on August 14, 2019, 10:06:30 pm
Be gentle, but did you read Good Old Neon? Thoughts?

Yeah, it was very interesting, but my ability to relate was limited.  The author is obviously extremely intelligent, and in a way that I see as kind of on the opposite end of a spectrum of ways to be intelligent from I.  (Not to suggest I'm equally intelligent in any sense, just that much of his experience of life is perhaps particularly alien to me.)

I was impressed by the author writing so articulately in seemingly never ending sentences.

It was sad to see the way his self awareness was so alienating for him.  (Yes I am assuming it was somewhat autobiographical fiction.  I have a hard time believing it could be otherwise.)

I'm tempted to read Infinite Jest, if for no other reason than to get a sense of what things look like from such a different perspective.  I'm not sure I am up for the amount of angst I anticipate from Infinite Jest though.

Fair. There’s a famous quote from IJ where he says to be human is to be fundamentally goo prone and pathetic. So maybe that’s similar to what you’re getting at. But yes, his writing style is something else. IJ is wonderful. If you have specific questions in order to gauge if it’s worth it. I’ll shoot strsight with you.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 15, 2019, 12:48:17 am
See here for a proper explanation of the tide gauge data and sea level rise measurements:

https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm (https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)

The acceleration you speak of is indeed compatible with the data. It is a small effect over the time of measurements, so not obvious, but the data does indicate that it is there. And sea levels are most definitely rising on average.

Hello kurros,

Thank you for your excellent posts on sea level rise in response to Wretch.

I was too busy to respond to Wretch's extra long graph filled post but I was struck that he made no mention of post glacial rebound and other effects that affect local sea levels. It also struck me that such long cut-and-paste posts are antisocial in what is a communal resource.

Am I right to think that Wretch isn't denying sea level rise just the acceleration of it. People living near to sea level should still be concerned about increases in sea level whether accelerating or not.

It's pretty unclear what Wretch is arguing. From his words it seems that he is only denying the acceleration of sea level rise, but he posted tide gauge data showing that relative sea levels are going up some places and down other places. I have no idea what that was about, since one can obviously not tell anything useful from those plots. He might have thought the acceleration should be apparent in all of them for some reason? I don't know.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: bdsimon on August 15, 2019, 08:30:04 am


I did read all the short stories I hadn't read previously though.
Any favorites? I enjoyed the whole list to be honest.

Spoiler alert.

The one that jumps to mind without reviewing the list is The Last Rock Fight.  Possibly because I could relate to the idea of the rock fight quite easily.  I would have been an enthusiastic rock fighter when I was a teen.  I like strategy games, and running around in the woods, and had my own paintball gun when I was in my 20s.

The characters and events were very believable to me, and on one hand the characters and events were well detailed enough to make for an engrossing story, but on the other hand ambiguous enough to leave me wondering what to think.  Was the murderer's girlfriend raped, or was she simply attracted to the bad boy that all the other girls were attracted to?  Why is the narrator in the school for emotionally disturbed kids, and how out of touch is his view?

Such questions aside, it definitely makes one think about the unfortunate consequences that can arise from loyalty, with two people dead as a result of the narrator's loyalty and failure to intervene.
Obviously, since I listed that one, it is one of my favorites as well. It is likely an age thing but the story resonated with me on several levels as well. When I was growing up we used to have these massive tag games we would play in the woods behind our old elementary school when we were in 6th-9th grade or so. It might sound weird, but the woods were spooky and there was an old well and an old slaughterhouse in there. When we got older, tag wasn't exciting enough. So we started playing tag with BB guns instead. Good times. We also had a massive snowball fight (more like iceball fight) that turned bloody. Not quite the same as the story but I think of these guys and that setting when I think about this story.


/sidebar
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 15, 2019, 02:10:52 pm
Am I right to think that Wretch isn't denying sea level rise just the acceleration of it. People living near to sea level should still be concerned about increases in sea level whether accelerating or not.

Exactly. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my prior posts.  The language can be confusing.  Sea level, relative sea level, rise in sea level, rate of sea level rise, acceleration of the rate of sea level rise; that last on in bold is what is at issue.  The tide gauges show decadal variability but no multidecadal acceleration.  Sea level is on average and over the long term (multi-decadal to century scales) still rising at a rate of about 8 inches (20 cm) per century, as it has been for well over 100 years.

I presented the entire collection of sea level tide gauge plots not to be rude, but to help unequivocally demonstrate the point that there is no acceleration in the rise of sea level, anywhere locally, or for the planet as a whole, which is contrary to a major prediction of climate crisis theory. 

If sea level don't accelerate, the CO2 must proliferate.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 15, 2019, 02:45:43 pm
Am I right to think that Wretch isn't denying sea level rise just the acceleration of it. People living near to sea level should still be concerned about increases in sea level whether accelerating or not.

Exactly. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my prior posts.  The language can be confusing.  Sea level, relative sea level, rise in sea level, rate of sea level rise, acceleration of the rate of sea level rise; that last on in bold is what is at issue.  The tide gauges show decadal variability but no multidecadal acceleration.  Sea level is on average and over the long term (multi-decadal to century scales) still rising at a rate of about 8 inches (20 cm) per century, as it has been for well over 100 years.

I presented the entire collection of sea level tide gauge plots not to be rude, but to help unequivocally demonstrate the point that there is no acceleration in the rise of sea level, anywhere locally, or for the planet as a whole, which is contrary to a major prediction of climate crisis theory. 

If sea level don't accelerate, the CO2 must proliferate.

But you were wrong, it *is* accelerating. But even if it wasn't, it wouldn't disprove climate change. The acceleration could have just been too small to measure yet. And there are a zillion other indicators of climate change that you can't just ignore.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 15, 2019, 02:49:50 pm
I'm confident that I'm not wrong on this, but if we are to go along with your contention, would you please explain how does an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise avoid detection by the tide gauges?

Like this one for example...

(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/170-011_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 0.72 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1862 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 0.24 feet in 100 years.
Data for 1862-1931 are monthly mean tide level & a datum offset correction
of 0.014 m was applied based on the systematic difference in datum between
the stations during the period of overlap. Station relocated in February 1973.
Aberdeen, Scottland, UK

I'm not claiming to disprove climate change my dear fellow science professional.  I'm claiming to expose the fallacy of anthropogenic climate crisis.

Climate changes, always has, always will.  Nobody is denying that.

There is zero hard evidence proving an impending climate crisis, none, zero, nada.

The history of sea level is revealing.  Humans are apparently incredibly adaptable.  Go figure.

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 15, 2019, 03:10:41 pm
Quote from: Wretch
Amazing.  Did you miss the gentle hint to get back on topic here?
So why did you not make a similar comment in response to Trinity's post 3.1?

Note I'm querying your posting (or lack of posting) in this forum, not your family history. That would be an ad hominem attack. Something you do in this forum far too often.

The "kerfuffle" is because you only quote data that supports your biased view and ignore the rest.

Actually, to Wretch's credit he did make a similar comment (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275721955#msg1275721955):

''Maybe deserving of a separate thread.''

But on a different subject raised by Trinity: not the post by Trinity on vaccination that I indicated.

It was a similar comment, that is what you asked.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 15, 2019, 03:15:22 pm
Relevant recent science: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190812172328.htm)

"Recent studies have suggested that the impact of Antarctic meltwater discharge on the ocean could lead to further acceleration of ice sheet melting and global sea level rise. The present study paints a more complex picture of the underlying dynamics, (including that) the cooling effect of icebergs largely compensates for the processes that were previously thought to accelerate Antarctic melting."

''suggested'', ''could be'', ''complex picture'', ''previously thought''.

It's like I'm reading Nostradamus.

My thoughts as well, pure junk science suppositions, but then read the following sentence.  The new report is actually challenging the apparent consensus of a number of "recent studies."  The author of the new study will be out of a job soon, no doubt.

If you want serious critiques of the alarmist claims that climate scientists and the media are serving up based upon historical records and basic analyses of the actual data and how it's been changed over time, check out https://www.realclimatescience.com/ (https://www.realclimatescience.com/); it is a treasure trove of hard data and history that shine a new and very glaring light on all the advocacy and shenanigans of govt climate "science".

Thanks for posting that Wonderer.

The author is walking on thin ice, it won't be long before he will be called a climate change denialist. That link is great and Tony Heller presents a good case with evidence.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 15, 2019, 03:30:25 pm
Heller is excellent.  His videos on YouTube are excellent too. 

It's just too bad that's he's a Jew.

KIDDING!!!

Just another great Jew that we can admire.  Let Heller's work go viral and then watch the Left turn on "the Jew" with great resolve. LOL!  He's testified in the U.S. Senate and in Australia and I think some in Europe too. 

I hope to meet up with him some day.




Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 15, 2019, 03:31:16 pm
I'm confident that I'm not wrong on this, but if we are to go along with your contention, would you please explain how does an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise avoid detection by the tide gauges?

Like this one for example...

(https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/170-011_meantrend.png)
The relative sea level trend is 0.72 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence

interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from

1862 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 0.24 feet in 100 years.
Data for 1862-1931 are monthly mean tide level & a datum offset correction
of 0.014 m was applied based on the systematic difference in datum between
the stations during the period of overlap. Station relocated in February 1973.
Aberdeen, Scottland, UK

Because it is a small effect and you need to look at the combined data from all the gauges, properly averaged, to see it. There is too much variance in individual gauge readings. This is pretty basic.

Quote
I'm not claiming to disprove climate change my dear fellow science professional.  I'm claiming to expose the fallacy of anthropogenic climate crisis.

Well your contention about the accelerating sea level rise doesn't do that either, for the same reason I just gave you.

Quote
Climate changes, always has, always will.  Nobody is denying that.

There is zero hard evidence proving an impending climate crisis, none, zero, nada.

There is a lot of evidence, it just seems that you can't understand it.

Quote
The history of sea level is revealing.  Humans are apparently incredibly adaptable.  Go figure.

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)

This figure is irrelevant, I don't know why you are posting it.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 15, 2019, 03:33:42 pm
Heller is excellent.  His videos on YouTube are excellent too. 

It's just too bad that's he's a Jew.

KIDDING!!!

Just another great Jew that we can admire.  Let Heller's work go viral and then watch the Left turn on "the Jew" with great resolve. LOL!  He's testified in the U.S. Senate and in Australia and I think some in Europe too. 

I hope to meet up with him some day.

Made me laugh. Isn't climate change denial anti-Semitic, though?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 15, 2019, 03:41:36 pm
Tony Heller (Steven Goddard) giving a lecture:

Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 15, 2019, 04:10:47 pm
Tony Heller (Steven Goddard) giving a lecture:

Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU)

I think that was his presentation at the ICCC that year. 

His personal YouTube channel... https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1 (https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 05:20:08 am
He is basically a one stop shop, he is that good at getting to the bottom of things. Not surprising considering his background in engineering.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 16, 2019, 05:50:43 am
He is basically a one stop shop, he is that good at getting to the bottom of things. Not surprising considering his background in engineering.

I watched about 30 seconds of one of his videos before it was clear that it was just total BS from an amateur who knows nothing about science. I cannot understand why anyone would see such a video and think it contained any sort of wisdom.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 06:01:55 am
Kurros,

30 seconds is too short. Try 30 minutes.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 16, 2019, 06:08:47 am
Kurros,

Apply the same standard to yourself.  You're in denial my fellow science professional.  It's the data.  Analysing data requires basic math and logic.  Heller's been publishing his work for all to see for some time, and it's yet to be debunked.  If you've found a fatal flaw, then by all means please share it.  You'll be famous.  www.realclimatescience.com (http://www.realclimatescience.com)

Please note that we're not saying that everything that Heller presents is without flaw.  But on the whole, he's mainly just showing data, how it's been changed, and how conditions in the past were similar if not worse.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 16, 2019, 06:40:01 am
Kurros,

Apply the same standard to yourself.  You're in denial my fellow science professional.  It's the data.  Analysing data requires basic math and logic.  Heller's been publishing his work for all to see for some time, and it's yet to be debunked.  If you've found a fatal flaw, then by all means please share it.  You'll be famous.  www.realclimatescience.com (http://www.realclimatescience.com)

Please note that we're not saying that everything that Heller presents is without flaw.  But on the whole, he's mainly just showing data, how it's been changed, and how conditions in the past were similar if not worse.

I don't really have time to go around debunking every internet amateur climate skeptic, sorry. I have yet to hear any good reason why I should care what any of them think. I'll stick with reading the work of professionals on this topic. Having a YouTube channel and a website doesn't automatically make a person credible. In fact YouTube and random websites are full of some of the most insane garbage ever produced by mankind. And I really doubt that I will become famous by debunking the work of some random internet climate skeptic. No-one serious would care about that. So tell me, who is this Heller, what are his qualifications, and why do you think he knows better than professional scientists working in this area?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 07:36:45 am
Kurros,

You are attacking straw man in order to avoid watching more than 30 seconds of his videos. Would you watch 30 seconds of Richard Dawkins saying that your grandgrand...father was a fish and call it ''insane garbage''?

Richard Dawkins - Your 185 Millionth Great Grandfather Was A Fish ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbD6XzC9rqQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbD6XzC9rqQ)

Wretch is right, apply the same standard.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 16, 2019, 07:57:32 am
Kurros,

Apply the same standard to yourself.  You're in denial my fellow science professional.  It's the data.  Analysing data requires basic math and logic.  Heller's been publishing his work for all to see for some time, and it's yet to be debunked.  If you've found a fatal flaw, then by all means please share it.  You'll be famous.  www.realclimatescience.com (http://www.realclimatescience.com)

Please note that we're not saying that everything that Heller presents is without flaw.  But on the whole, he's mainly just showing data, how it's been changed, and how conditions in the past were similar if not worse.
No, as Kurros said he wouldn't be famous because there are already many refutations of Heller/Goddard out there by people who, unlike Heller, actually understand the science. It took me only a few minutes of googling to find this example (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/) of a post that takes Heller apart and shows him to be the dishonest fool that he is. But of course no amount of evidence will convince you or people like you because you've made up your mind already.

I have mostly stopped posting here because this forum is more and more becoming the Daily Stormer by Trinity and his enablers, but I couldn't let your dishonest taunting of Kurros go by.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 08:08:25 am
Soren,

The Daily Stormer is not by me, it is by this guy:

Neo-Nazi behind the Daily Stormer website has Jewish ancestry
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/240264 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/240264)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 16, 2019, 03:42:13 pm
Amazing

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 16, 2019, 03:44:30 pm
Amazing
You mean amazing that your climate change denying charlatan got taken apart and you have no comeback other than your usual ignoring of evidence? Yes, I agree, it's amazing.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 04:33:57 pm
What I find amazing is that we are not under water by now as predicted by the U.N.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
   UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Peter James Spielmann, June 30, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 (https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

Another prediction bites the dust.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 04:36:20 pm
''Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.''

It seems that the U.N. desperately needs climate change crisis so that they can have their exodus of refugees.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 04:46:24 pm
''He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.''

Good news for Maldives, they aren't under water. Bad news for the U.N. , an exodus of Maldivian refugees has been avoided.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 16, 2019, 04:53:38 pm
''The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.''

What has risen by 7 degrees is my lack of faith in modern science. And that is the most conservative estimate.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 17, 2019, 03:51:03 am
No, as Kurros said he wouldn't be famous because there are already many refutations of Heller/Goddard out there by people who, unlike Heller, actually understand the science. It took me only a few minutes of googling to find this example (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/) of a post that takes Heller apart and shows him to be the dishonest fool that he is. But of course no amount of evidence will convince you or people like you because you've made up your mind already.

I have mostly stopped posting here because this forum is more and more becoming the Daily Stormer by Trinity and his enablers, but I couldn't let your dishonest taunting of Kurros go by.
^Yes^
It's running pretty much according to script as I mentioned here (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275721806#msg1275721806), with added propaganda to spice it up. From that article that I referenced:

"To defend those beliefs, few dismiss the authority of science. They dismiss the authority of the scientific community. People don’t argue back by claiming divine authority anymore. They argue back by claiming to have the truer scientific authority. It can make matters incredibly confusing. You have to be able to recognize the difference between claims of science and those of pseudoscience.

Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another."
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 17, 2019, 09:38:51 am
Amazing
You mean amazing that your climate change denying charlatan got taken apart and you have no comeback other than your usual ignoring of evidence? Yes, I agree, it's amazing.

What is amazing is the unbelievable willingness of Leftist ideologues to ignore the actual point being made and the simple basic data in favor of snarky straw-man arguments.  Heller's actual point is never once addressed in the snark you imagine refutes Heller's work. 

Heller is attacking false alarmist reporting about extreme weather and data fraud by NOAA.

US Climate Getting Less Extreme (https://realclimatescience.com/2015/06/us-climate-getting-less-extreme/)

Understanding NOAA US Temperature Fraud (https://realclimatescience.com/understanding-noaa-us-temperature-fraud/)

Deal with facts and data, and the actual point of what Heller is presenting. 

Heller has proved data fraud and gross scientific malpractice in recent NOAA reporting.  He uses temperature data from the USHCN, specifically from stations that have been reporting continuously for over a century, thus avoiding the affect of adding new or subtracting old stations from the record. 

Using that hard data, Heller has proved gross journalistic malpractice in big media's numerous wild alarmist assertions about heat waves and other extreme weather events, which are largely parroted from government activists masquerading as scientists.  He's proved the fraud.  Deal with that.

Erasing America's Hot Past (https://realclimatescience.com/erasing-americas-hot-past/)

If you're going to claim that a point has been refuted, maybe you should at least state what the point being refuted is.  That bit of snark concocts its own straw man to refute.  It does nothing to refute Heller's point(s). 

Stop.

Understand the point(s) being made.

Look at the hard data.

Deal with the hard data and the point(s) being made.


US Climate Getting Less Extreme
(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9836-Jun.-28-08.59.gif)



Data Fraud
(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-07-25175052_shadow.png)
[/b]



Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 17, 2019, 09:45:02 am
Mammal, Kirros, Soren, et al (believers in man-made climate catastrophy):

When rhetoric and logical fallacies are presented in place of hard data, you can know that science is not at issue.

Show the scientific data.  Deal with the actual points being made by skeptics.

Stuff the fallacious arguments from authority and consensus exactly where they belong, into the heap of garbage junk science.  Deal with the hard data and the actual points being made.  Avoid straw-manning snark.  Get some scientific integrity and self-respect. You cannot claim reverence for scientific method while actively ignoring it and subverting it in favor of self-proclaimed authoritarianism and straw-man arguments.

There is ZERO scientific hard evidence proving a looming man-made climate crisis.

Please prove me wrong.  I'm begging you.  Please show the hard scientific data that stands up to scientific scrutiny that shows that man-made climate crisis looms before us.. 

If you can do so, then I will happily help you construct the formal logical argument to prove that man-made climate crisis is real.  But that's only the beginning. Then comes the issue of whether or not we need to destroy the global economy and cause mass-suffering in order to fix said impending man-made climate doom. 

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 17, 2019, 10:22:13 am
Lol..further sticking to the script. It's uncanny.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 17, 2019, 11:27:13 am
Lol..further sticking to the script. It's uncanny.

The script is the scientific method, and you hate it.  Why?



SHOW THE DATA!




Quote
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

– President Dwight D. Eisenhower   January 17, 1961
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 17, 2019, 11:33:35 am
From one of the leaders of the UN IPCC:



(http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Ottmar-Edenhofer.jpg)


Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 17, 2019, 12:50:52 pm
^ Ouch bro..have you done a proper fact check on the actual context of that propoganda quote mining?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 17, 2019, 03:44:10 pm
Speaking propaganda, that is what climate change crisis is. Climate change crisis is propaganda for global regulations instead of national regulations. National regulations such as those in France with regard to nuclear power are good, and in fact better than global regulations.

For example, most of the energy produced in Norway is by hydroelectricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway)

Norway is a country rich in natural resources. Other countries are not, however. What this means is that not every country can rely on their own natural resources for their energy. They have to import their energy, as opposed to Norway which exports its energy.

France is a country that does not have the natural resources of Norway, so France has solved its need for energy by using nuclear power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France)

Regulations on a national level, like those in France and Norway, are preferred. Global regulations are less in tune with the national level and therefore less preferred.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 17, 2019, 04:13:23 pm
In the run-up to the COP23 (as in, the 23rd Conference of the Parties) climate talks taking place in Bonn, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) used a quote from German climate policy expert Professor Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research to suggest a sinister motive for the United Nations Paris climate deal.

EELI, which backs President Trump’s attempts to withdraw from the deal, wrote that Edenhofer had “affirmed” the Paris agreement, saying in a press release:

Quote
Ottmar Edenhofer, a recent co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III, affirmed the scheme: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy…We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.

If you search for the phrase “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” you’ll find it repeated over and over on climate science denial blogs and sympathetic conservative media outlets. The link given by EELI goes to a page that also claims Edenhofer had “spilled the movement's dirty secret.”

So where did the quote come from, did Edenhofer say it, and was he really admitting a sinister plan to redistribute the world’s wealth?The quote originates from this 2010 interview, written in German. Have you spotted the first problem?

How could Edenhofer have “affirmed the scheme” from the Paris accord, when the Paris deal didn’t even exist in 2010 (it was only signed in 2015)? It’s OK. You don’t need to answer. By the way, EELI's Christopher Horner wasn't so keen to answer questions about his coal funding in Paris.

All the outlets using the Edenhofer quote have relied on Google Translate to tell them what Edenhofer might have said, as the original interview was in German.

A spokesperson for Edenhofer told me the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“

The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”[/i]
text from  https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/07/how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot  (https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/07/how-climate-science-deniers-manufacture-quotes-convince-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot)

2010 interview: https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227  (https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227)
How dare these foreigners speak in their own language!

It is sad (wretched?) that an avowed Christian such as Wretch can push such obvious attempts at deception to further his own faulty agenda.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 17, 2019, 04:50:12 pm
From one of the leaders of the UN IPCC:



(http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Ottmar-Edenhofer.jpg)



You are getting a lot of heat for this, I don't think the heat is deserved. Apparently, Lapwing and his sources are anti-Google Translate, so hopefully he can forgive me for using Google Translate:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fklimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227 (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fklimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227)

The quote seems to be accurate, Wretch. Of course with every translation, no matter how meticulous, there is bound to be differences. But the quote you have provided doesn't seem to be inaccurate, at least not grossly so.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 17, 2019, 05:17:46 pm
^ Ouch bro..have you done a proper fact check on the actual context of that propoganda quote mining?

I did a fact check and it checked out. Climate change crisis is global wealth distribution propaganda, as well as being propaganda for having an exodus of refugees. The cat is out of the bag, as they say.

(https://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/funniest-cat-gifs-grocery-bag-cat.gif)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 18, 2019, 07:15:08 am
A proper reading of my post would show that the issue was not so much the use of the less than ideal Google Translate but the gratuitous out of context quote mining.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 18, 2019, 07:29:00 am
Lapwing,

The context is fine. If there is anyone taking quotes out of context, it would be you. You closed your recent thread and took me out of context, when I said that ''Many people at that time had optical devices the same as or better quality than Galileo's.''

''At that time'' refers to the time of Galileo and his contemporaries, but you instead put words in my mouth by insinuating that I was referring to Ptolemy's time.

You also raised a different quote altogether before closing it in your attempt to have the last word. Speaking of taking things out of context, you may have done just that.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 18, 2019, 07:43:40 am
As usual, the trolls Trinity and Wretch are flat out lying. Here's the actual quote (http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2017/08/ottmar-edenhofer-climate-politics-redistribution-wealth.html) from Edenhofer:

Quote
Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 – we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.

De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.

First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

In other words, what Edenhofer actually said was this: To address climate change will require that some now-valuable fuel reserves will have to go unused, and that industrialized countries will have to change some of their habits that used common resources without charge.  These necessary changes will have real wealth effects, and the people who own the fuel and the industry (and the politicians who rely on them for financial and political support), see a threat to their money, which drives intense political opposition. In short, climate change is a real environmental crisis, and to deal with it we have to recognize that opposition to combating it is driven more by economic considerations than actual disagreements on environmental policies.

Trinity and Wretch and their ilk, when they show the doctored quote, with deletions, out of context, and claim it shows that climate change is not real and just a cover for redistribution, ARE LYING. Anyone who is surprised that they are lying hasn't been paying attention.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 18, 2019, 07:54:40 am
Soren,

We don't have to read your ''in other words'' when we can read Edenhofer's words. Climate change politics is about redistribution of world's wealth. Concern about the environment is window dressing.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 18, 2019, 08:37:55 am
Soren,

We don't have to read your ''in other words'' when we can read Edenhofer's words. Climate change politics is about redistribution of world's wealth. Concern about the environment is window dressing.
LOL You're a dishonest troll (along with Wretch) who got caught in yet another lie. Unlike you, I provided the full quote so people could judge for themselves and decide whether they agreed with me or not.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 18, 2019, 08:43:43 am
Soren,

I provided the full quote before you did. Google Translate is not that bad of a translation in this case, and it doesn't change much about what Edenhofer said. Climate change politics is about redistribution of wealth, simple as that. Edenhofer knows it, Wretch knows it, I know it, everyone knows it. The only ones who don't seem to know it yet are Mammal, Lapwing and you.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 18, 2019, 09:54:06 am
^ You have a long and dark history when it comes to quote mining. I think you don't even realize it any more. Your selective interpretation and extraction device may operate subconsciously nowadays. And no, we are not really interested in your further trolling on this.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 18, 2019, 10:09:10 am
Mammal,

False, again. I have provided references to all of the quotes, many of which direct links that do not require to be translated. We aren't interested in your spin when we can clearly read that climate change politics is about redistribution of wealth. No need to hide it anymore. Might also want to take a look into this:

Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors
https://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409 (https://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 18, 2019, 10:49:30 am
We aren't interested in your spin when we can clearly read that climate change politics is about redistribution of wealth.
Lol..well, yes, I remember how you would insist that something says x when it clearly says y.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 18, 2019, 01:08:57 pm
Mammal,

That is too vague of a comment for me to respond to. What we all remember is U.N. predictions which I mentioned earlier:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
   UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Peter James Spielmann, June 30, 1989
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 (https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

What ever happened this prediction? Are we going to forget about it? I predict that climate change predictions are not science.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: lapwing on August 18, 2019, 11:08:19 pm
Lapwing,

The context is fine. If there is anyone taking quotes out of context, it would be you. You closed your recent thread and took me out of context, when I said that ''Many people at that time had optical devices the same as or better quality than Galileo's.''

''At that time'' refers to the time of Galileo and his contemporaries, but you instead put words in my mouth by insinuating that I was referring to Ptolemy's time.

You also raised a different quote altogether before closing it in your attempt to have the last word. Speaking of taking things out of context, you may have done just that.

The full posts are still visible. Here are the relevant quotes:

lapwing in post 2:
"The quality of optical devices available to Galileo was not available to Ptolemy. So, although Ptolemy was an "astronomer" in the ancient sense of the word, he could not make the more accurate observations that Galileo could make."

Trinity in post 3:
"The quality of optical devices available to Galileo was also available to his contemporaries. You make it seem as if Galileo was the only one to have access to quality optical devices, but this is clearly not true. Many people at that time had optical devices the same as or better quality than Galileo's."

But Ptolemy was not a contemporary of Galileo and I made no reference to unspecified other contemporaries of Galileo not having the same quality of optical devices as Galileo. Your "You make it seem as if Galileo was the only one to have access to quality optical devices," is a false implication which bears no relation to what I wrote.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 19, 2019, 12:59:24 am
It's quite amazingly uncharitable to produce an accurate quote and be called a liar for it.

The added context is appreciated and helpful.  It remains a terribly troubling quote from my perspective. 

An ongoing repeated propensity for turning away from the issue of debate toward character smears indicates deep personal shortcomings. 

Do better. 

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 19, 2019, 01:32:34 am
^ It was you who posted the propaganda, the skewed quote.

Do better.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 19, 2019, 01:54:15 pm
Okay.  I've been posting that for years.  Nobody ever had any objection. 

Again, the added context is valuable, but does in no way reduce the point of concern.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 19, 2019, 02:24:53 pm


If we don't change, our species will not survive... Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.


— Maurice Strong,
U.N. Undersecretary General
September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine]

About Maurice Strong (https://www.foxnews.com/story/at-the-united-nations-the-curious-career-of-maurice-strong)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 19, 2019, 11:13:55 pm


“to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

—U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres on the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference



Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 19, 2019, 11:43:36 pm
How about some more scientific data, or in this case analysis?  If you cannot believe your lying eyes when looking at the linear tide gauge data over the past 100+ years, then maybe you'll appreciate the trend in key scientific research into...

Recent Scientific Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2:

(https://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/856036.jpg)

Lewis and Curry, 2015 (1.33°C  transient, 1.64°C  equilibrium)
Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750–2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate system. The resulting estimates are less dependent on global climate models and allow more realistically for forcing uncertainties than similar estimates based on forcings diagnosed from simulations by such models. Base and final periods are selected that have well matched volcanic activity and influence from internal variability. Using 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity, median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2342-y (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2342-y)


 Harde, 2016 (0.7°C equilibrium)
Including solar and cloud effects as well as all relevant feedback processes our simulations give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of CS = 0.7 °C (temperature increase at doubled CO2) and a solar sensitivity of SS = 0.17 °C (at 0.1 % increase of the total solar irradiance). Then CO2 contributes 40 % and the Sun 60 % to global warming over the last century.
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/aip/9251034.pdf (http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/aip/9251034.pdf)


Bates, 2016  (~1°C)
Estimates of 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) derive from running global climate models (GCMs) to equilibrium. Estimates of effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) are the corresponding quantities obtained using transient GCM output or observations. The EfCS approach uses an accompanying energy balance model (EBM), the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) being standard. GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [IPCC range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly-constrained EfCS values, in the neighbourhood of 1°C. … The central conclusion of this study is that to disregard the low values of effective climate sensitivity (≈1°C) given by observations on the grounds that they do not agree with the larger values of equilibrium, or effective, climate sensitivity given by GCMs, while the GCMs themselves do not properly represent the observed value of the tropical radiative response coefficient, is a standpoint that needs to be reconsidered.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/pdf)


Abbot and Marohasy, 2017  (0.6°C equilibrium)
The largest deviation between the ANN [artificial neural network] projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C [for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm plus feedbacks] was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.
The proxy measurements suggest New Zealand’s climate has fluctuated within a band of approximately 2°C since at least 900 AD, as shown in Figure 2. The warming of nearly 1°C since 1940 falls within this band. The discrepancy between the orange and blue lines in recent decades as shown in Figure 3, suggests that the anthropogenic contribution to this warming could be in the order of approximately 0.2°C. [80% of the warming since 1940 may be due natural factors].
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426)


Evans, 2016 (<0.5°C equilibrium)
The conventional basic climate model applies “basic physics” to climate, estimating sensitivity to CO2. However, it has two serious architectural errors. It only allows feedbacks in response to surface warming, so it omits the driver-specific feedbacks. It treats extra-absorbed sunlight, which heats the surface and increases outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR), the same as extra CO2, which reduces OLR from carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere but does not increase the total OLR. The rerouting feedback is proposed. An increasing CO2 concentration warms the upper troposphere, heating the water vapor emissions layer and some cloud tops, which emit more OLR and descend to lower and warmer altitudes. This feedback resolves the nonobservation of the “hotspot.” An alternative model is developed, whose architecture fixes the errors. By summing the (surface) warmings due to climate drivers, rather than their forcings, it allows driver-specific forcings and allows a separate CO2 response (the conventional model applies the same response, the solar response, to all forcings). It also applies a radiation balance, estimating OLR from properties of the emission layers. Fitting the climate data to the alternative model, we find that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely less than 0.5°C, increasing CO2 most likely caused less than 20% of the global warming from the 1970s, and the CO2 response is less than one-third as strong as the solar response. The conventional model overestimates the potency of CO2 because it applies the strong solar response instead of the weak CO2  response to the CO2 forcing.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000203 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000203)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 20, 2019, 01:37:00 am
Here's a presentation at Perdue University by Steve Koonin, PhD, Physics Professor at NYU, and former Obama Undersecretary of Science.

Data Driven Climate Science (https://youtu.be/FY5gEwZHKI8)

It's very informative. 

Mr. Kurros, you might appreciate the nuance.  It's good news.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 20, 2019, 01:50:21 am
Recent Scientific Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2:
^ "Contrary to claims (https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/) on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered."

Source: CarbonBrief (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity)

So the claim is false, again.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Trinity on August 20, 2019, 04:47:58 am
Lapwing,

The context is fine. If there is anyone taking quotes out of context, it would be you. You closed your recent thread and took me out of context, when I said that ''Many people at that time had optical devices the same as or better quality than Galileo's.''

''At that time'' refers to the time of Galileo and his contemporaries, but you instead put words in my mouth by insinuating that I was referring to Ptolemy's time.

You also raised a different quote altogether before closing it in your attempt to have the last word. Speaking of taking things out of context, you may have done just that.

The full posts are still visible. Here are the relevant quotes:

lapwing in post 2:
"The quality of optical devices available to Galileo was not available to Ptolemy. So, although Ptolemy was an "astronomer" in the ancient sense of the word, he could not make the more accurate observations that Galileo could make."

Trinity in post 3:
"The quality of optical devices available to Galileo was also available to his contemporaries. You make it seem as if Galileo was the only one to have access to quality optical devices, but this is clearly not true. Many people at that time had optical devices the same as or better quality than Galileo's."

But Ptolemy was not a contemporary of Galileo and I made no reference to unspecified other contemporaries of Galileo not having the same quality of optical devices as Galileo. Your "You make it seem as if Galileo was the only one to have access to quality optical devices," is a false implication which bears no relation to what I wrote.

I mentioned an article (http://christianobserver.net/the-private-lives-of-copernicus-kepler-galileo/) in your thread which you locked that deals with your objections, and if you cared to read it you can understand that very little of the Copernican system was based on observations and much of it was based on pagan Sun worship mythology. Here is a quote from Karl Popper to help you along the way:

Quote
Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature…Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187).

Similarly, Galileo's observations did not support a Sun-centric system as his contemporaries pointed out who had access to the same if not better optical devices.

Ptolemy had no access to those quality optical devices, but the fact remains that the Ptolemaic system is more accurate and less complex than the Copernican system. Another fact is that quality optical devices helped to improve the geocentric system, it did not disprove the system. Galileo gladly, and without coercion, accepted the geocentric system and rejected the heliocentric system once the latter was shown to be based on faulty premises and conclusions. Again, read the article I linked to which goes into much more detail.

edit:
Apologies for going off rails, Wretch.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 20, 2019, 05:06:23 am
If you cannot believe your lying eyes when looking at the linear tide gauge data over the past 100+ years, then maybe you'll appreciate the trend in key scientific research into...
And following on from the previous correction (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275722877#msg1275722877) ... here is another ... accelerated sea-level rise (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022) measured with satellite altimetry and correlated with tide gauge measurements and corrected for El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effects and decadal variability.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 20, 2019, 12:16:32 pm
Recent Scientific Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2:
^ "Contrary to claims (https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/) on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered."

Source: CarbonBrief (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity)

So the claim is false, again.

Show the data.  Estimates from unproved climate models need not apply.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 20, 2019, 01:50:18 pm
^ Well, the data is just a click or two away from you. You wanna get it? Feel free to ignore the projections & interpolations..that's not why I posted it.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 20, 2019, 04:33:23 pm
Mammal,

Your supposed "Carbon Brief" blog rebuttal to the trend in decreasing ECS includes results from climate models.  It says so itself.  That's garbage.  The plot I showed above and the reference studies include only studies that are actually scientific, based upon actual real world data, not fictional results from unproved computer models.  Using computer models as if they represent scientific data is complete garbage.  In science, we don't make up data, we observe and record it in the real world.  Please understand this. 

You ought to see what Obama's Undersecretary of Sciemce has to say on the issue, because your take seems more in line with what mass media and politicians have concocted rather than what the actual science has pointed to.

Here's a presentation at Perdue University by Steve Koonin, PhD, Physics Professor at NYU, and former Obama Undersecretary of Science.

The Data Driven Climate Science vs The Media Narrative (https://youtu.be/FY5gEwZHKI8)

It's very informative. 

You  might appreciate the nuance.  It's good news.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 20, 2019, 04:38:56 pm
If you cannot believe your lying eyes when looking at the linear tide gauge data over the past 100+ years, then maybe you'll appreciate the trend in key scientific research into...
And following on from the previous correction (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275722877#msg1275722877) ... here is another ... accelerated sea-level rise (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022) measured with satellite altimetry and correlated with tide gauge measurements and corrected for El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effects and decadal variability.

So you're denying the accuracy of or rejecting the superior utility of tide gauge data with its hundred plus years of history in favor of 25 years of radar measurements from space that have been highly manipulated?  Just trying to get a handle on how you decide which source of data is preferable for analysing whether or not rise in sea level is unprecedented and accelerating.

And if the issue is that sea level is rising at an unprecedented (in the past 100-150 years) and accelerating rate, then the 25 years of satellite data says what about that?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 20, 2019, 05:02:03 pm
When a cabal of govt "scientists" are telling us that we must not believe our lying eyes because they say so, it's time to stop paying them.

Quote
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

– President Dwight D. Eisenhower   January 17, 1961
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 20, 2019, 05:20:02 pm
When a cabal of govt "scientists" are telling us that we must not believe our lying eyes because they say so, it's time to stop paying them.

Quote
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

– President Dwight D. Eisenhower   January 17, 1961
Any post that starts, "When a cabal of govt 'scientists' ..." is too much of a joke to take seriously. Usually you only find such bad, overheated writing in books that involve heaving breasts and ripped bodices.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 20, 2019, 09:18:49 pm
Soren:

I'm only echoing what Eisenhower said but in an informal vernacular.  Harden-up buttercup.  Don't let one word like "cabal" exercize you so.

Try dealing with the actual scientific data. 

Still waiting to see any that indicates the claimed impending doomsday climate crisis.

No acceleration in seallevel rise.

No increase in frequency or strength of damaging cyclonic storms.

No increase in tornadic activity or strength.

No unprecedented frequency, magnitude, or duration of droughts, floods, or wildfires.

No ice free Arctic.

No tropospheric hot spot.

No unprecedented heat waves.

Lots of thriving new vegetation.

Milder Winters with less extreme cold.


I can show the actual data if needed, already have in other threads.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 21, 2019, 01:46:07 am
If you cannot believe your lying eyes when looking at the linear tide gauge data over the past 100+ years, then maybe you'll appreciate the trend in key scientific research into...
And following on from the previous correction (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275722877#msg1275722877) ... here is another ... accelerated sea-level rise (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022) measured with satellite altimetry and correlated with tide gauge measurements and corrected for El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effects and decadal variability.
So you're denying the accuracy of or rejecting the superior utility of tide gauge data with its hundred plus years of history in favor of 25 years of radar measurements from space that have been highly manipulated?  Just trying to get a handle on how you decide which source of data is preferable for analysing whether or not rise in sea level is unprecedented and accelerating.
And if the issue is that sea level is rising at an unprecedented (in the past 100-150 years) and accelerating rate, then the 25 years of satellite data says what about that?
Yes, it seems pretty obvious to me that the 25-year satellite data covering the entire global sea level, correlated with tide gauge data, ENSO and decadal variability will produce a far more accurate reflection of sea-level rise over that particular 25-year period than tide gauge data all by itself. Without any doubt. So with said correlations now known, even past data can be better understood. The data confirm that the sea-level has been rising and that said rise has been accelerating.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 21, 2019, 04:30:32 am
Recent Scientific Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2:
^ "Contrary to claims (https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/) on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered."
Source: CarbonBrief (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity)
So the claim is false, again.
Show the data.  Estimates from unproved climate models need not apply.
Your supposed "Carbon Brief" blog rebuttal to the trend in decreasing ECS includes results from climate models.  It says so itself.  That's garbage.  The plot I showed above and the reference studies include only studies that are actually scientific, based upon actual real world data, not fictional results from unproved computer models.  Using computer models as if they represent scientific data is complete garbage.  In science, we don't make up data, we observe and record it in the real world.  Please understand this. 
If you revisit your original claim in the first of the quoted messages above where your included the graph from Scafetta et al. and have a look at what is being published in regard to that graph by following the link "claims" in my post above, and then compare it to what CarbonBrief has published, you will notice that the claim (by climate skeptics) that ECS estimates are coming down is refuted by the evidence that ECS estimates are not really coming down.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 21, 2019, 01:52:46 pm
Recent Scientific Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2:
^ "Contrary to claims (https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/) on a number of climate sceptic websites, there is no evidence of any downward trend in sensitivity in recent years when all studies are considered."
Source: CarbonBrief (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity)
So the claim is false, again.
Show the data.  Estimates from unproved climate models need not apply.
Your supposed "Carbon Brief" blog rebuttal to the trend in decreasing ECS includes results from climate models.  It says so itself.  That's garbage.  The plot I showed above and the reference studies include only studies that are actually scientific, based upon actual real world data, not fictional results from unproved computer models.  Using computer models as if they represent scientific data is complete garbage.  In science, we don't make up data, we observe and record it in the real world.  Please understand this. 
If you revisit your original claim in the first of the quoted messages above where your included the graph from Scafetta et al. and have a look at what is being published in regard to that graph by following the link "claims" in my post above, and then compare it to what CarbonBrief has published, you will notice that the claim (by climate skeptics) that ECS estimates are coming down is refuted by the evidence that ECS estimates are not really coming down.


Way to totally ignore the point. 

Estimates of ECS based on computer models are not scientific; they're absolute garbage for determining ECS. 

That Carbon Brief that you think debunks the Scarfetta et al plot includes such computer model garbage for evaluating the trend in ECS estimates. 

It's important to eliminate the garbage from any such evaluation. 

That's what the Scarfetta et all reporting does.  It only uses actual science based on actual real world data.

When only looking at scientifically based ECS estimates, the trend is a marked decrease over time with many recent estimates at the very lower bound of the IPCC's published range estimation or below it.

That is good news!!!

Leftists hate it for some reason.  They're actually cheering for a crisis.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 21, 2019, 02:25:45 pm
If you cannot believe your lying eyes when looking at the linear tide gauge data over the past 100+ years, then maybe you'll appreciate the trend in key scientific research into...
And following on from the previous correction (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275722877#msg1275722877) ... here is another ... accelerated sea-level rise (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022) measured with satellite altimetry and correlated with tide gauge measurements and corrected for El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) effects and decadal variability.
So you're denying the accuracy of or rejecting the superior utility of tide gauge data with its hundred plus years of history in favor of 25 years of radar measurements from space that have been highly manipulated?  Just trying to get a handle on how you decide which source of data is preferable for analysing whether or not rise in sea level is unprecedented and accelerating.
And if the issue is that sea level is rising at an unprecedented (in the past 100-150 years) and accelerating rate, then the 25 years of satellite data says what about that?
Yes, it seems pretty obvious to me that the 25-year satellite data covering the entire global sea level, correlated with tide gauge data, ENSO and decadal variability will produce a far more accurate reflection of sea-level rise over that particular 25-year period than tide gauge data all by itself. Without any doubt. So with said correlations now known, even past data can be better understood. The data confirm that the sea-level has been rising and that said rise has been accelerating.

More data is better, sure.  That's not the issue.  The issue is how best to detect an acceleration in sea level rise, and how to handle the data and its reporting.   We don't want misleading reporting or fraudulent data manipulations related to sea level calculations.  Agreed?

Much of the floor of the ocean basins is sinking.  That ocean floor subsidence (sinking) has the effect of reducing sea level.  It's a number that is estimated at around 0.3mm/year. 

The manipulated satellite data adds that ocean floor subsidence factor to its observed sea level data.  But that phenomenon has nothing to do with sea level relative to coastal dry land.  It certainly doesn't get added to tide gauge data, so the effect is to increase the satellite observed rate relative to the tide gauge rate.  That's junk science.

You would only include the downward movement of the ocean basins if you're looking at changes in ocean volume.  The sinking ocean floor has has nothing to do with measurements of the the surface level of the oceans relative to the coastal dry land.  And the relative level of the ocean surface to coastal dry land is the issue, not ocean volume.

Adding that ocean floor sinking factor to "mean sea level" reporting is scientific malpractice, but adding it to the satellite data and tacking the satellite data onto the tide gauge data is purposeful fraud on multiple counts.  To then change the tide gauge data so that it shows an acceleration is just beyond the pale corrupt fraudulent garbage. 

Are you saying that you prefer such corrupted and fraudulent reporting over the straight forward unmanipulated tide gauge data that shows no acceleration in rising sea level?

Question:  How can sea level rise accelerate but not show up on tide gauges?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 21, 2019, 04:30:42 pm
"Question:  How can sea level rise accelerate but not show up on tide gauges?"

Better questions:

1.  How might I be fooled into thinking there is no evidence of accelerating sea level rise, by simply taking a superficial glance at some tide gauge data that has a lot of (relatively) high frequency noise?

2.  How would the data look if I averaged the result from each of the tide gauges for each point in time, and graphed the average values?

Having looked back over the data you presented, I would expect to see notable acceleration over the last 20 years showing up in such averaged data. 



Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 21, 2019, 10:47:51 pm
Wonderer:

That's a fair point.  I'll see if I can get it addressed.  My desktop is offline, otherwise I could jist download and spreadsheet the data myself.

I only see a few of the plots that have an apparent slight elevation in the past two decades.  But others have downturns. 

Plus 20 years isn't really out of the noise, or more precisely the fluctuating multidecadal variability.  There are two decade accelerations evident earlier in the record, so.

Seems like someone would look at it absent the data tampering shenanigans and mixing of disparate data source types.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 22, 2019, 05:32:19 am
That Carbon Brief that you think debunks the Scarfetta et al plot includes such computer model garbage for evaluating the trend in ECS estimates. 
It's important to eliminate the garbage from any such evaluation. 
That's what the Scarfetta et all reporting does.  It only uses actual science based on actual real world data.
When only looking at scientifically based ECS estimates, the trend is a marked decrease over time with many recent estimates at the very lower bound of the IPCC's published range estimation or below it.
That is good news!!!
No, you don't accurately convey what the Scarfetta et all paper was all about and what the climate skeptics have claimed on the back of that graph. In any event, by now we know the Scarfetta et all paper was wrong. They claimed that the 2015/16 was just a cyclic temperature peak. It was obviously not just a cyclic peak because temperatures have continued to rise ever since.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 23, 2019, 01:53:03 pm
Fact: The actual scientifically based research about equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) using actual scientific data (observations/measurements) is trending towards lower and lower values of ECS.. And that means the theory of man-made climate crisis is dying, dying, near dead. 

Except for computer models.

Why some seek to minimize or even obfuscate and confuse that fact is very strange.

Science works, but only if you do actual science. 

Computer models are not science. They are theoretical attempts to simulate parts of reality that employ scientific understanding in some physical phenomenon to try to understand vast complex scenarios involving many different physical phenomenon, (multi-physics) including different physical subsystems/realms (geophysics, oceanography, atmospheric physics, solar physics, cosmological physics, particle physics, etc.) interacting pseudo-chaotically with multitudes of boundary conditions and changing inter-relations, all over transient time-dependent conditions.

It is ludicrous to assume that anyone has accurately simulated such a collection of transient chaotically interacting subsystems.  Especially when NONE of them correspond with reality.

They are tools only, tools to help scientists understand how all those different phenomenon and subsystems, how all the multi-physical phenomenon behave under a wide range of perturbations and boundary conditions.  That's it. 

And we only really have good real world data for the past three or four decades, significantly less for some climate phenomenon, like ocean temperatures at depth for example, which entails the vast majority of heat capacity of the biosphere.

So it's absolute unequivocal scientific malpractice to include ECS estimates from climate models in anything resembling a scientific report.  The models just aren't qualified for such predictions.  At best they might be used to understand how ECS may change given various different conditions/scenarios.  This is why, now 40 years on in the science, after hundreds of billions invested, untold counts of supercomputer model runs, adjustments, reruns, etc, etc, this is why after all that, the current IPCC estimated range for ECS remains unchanged since 1979, still at 1.5°C to 4.5°C.  It would have been reduced, but for the IPCC's obsession with their computer models. 

Does that make sense?

I'm an author and user of multi-physics models myself, none as complex and chaotic as climate models.  I've had models that I was sure we're accurate prove otherwise.  Usually it was because I didn't know what I didn't know.  I didn't know the bearing wouldn't be properly preloaded.  I didn't know the backlash in the system would be so significant.  I didn't know the structure would be warped.   I didn't know how badly the surface absorptivity would increase over time.  I didn't know people weighing over 200 pounds would be walking heel-to-toe atop delicate aluminum sheet metal.  I didn't know testing would have to be conducted outside the intended operational envelope to which the system was designed.  I didn't know moisture would inundate the system despite it being 100% climate controlled to prevent just such a problem.  I didn't know...  I thought I knew, but I didn't know.  Any modeler who assumes that his model is accurate prior to its proving is a liability more than an asset.  Models must be proved.

It would be really fun to work on one. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 24, 2019, 12:59:15 am
Fact: The actual scientifically based research about equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) using actual scientific data (observations/measurements) is trending towards lower and lower values of ECS.. And that means the theory of man-made climate crisis is dying, dying, near dead. 
Again no, this is not what your post and/or Scarfetta et al proved. As I already said, it would appear that what Scarfetta et al proved was that their model (yes, their model) was wrong. Climate scientists have to use models to simulate all the variables in order to make these kinds of predictions. Many models do incorporate empirical data, I would assume they do so as far as possible in order to get as close to real-world predictions as possible. Sure, it is complicated, there are many variables. The fact that they have a worst and best scenario is to be expected. The fact that such scenario remains to be between 1.5°C and 4°C and that the average has remained fairly close to 3°C, plus the fact that said average correlates closely with what we are experiencing at this juncture, are all very telling.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 24, 2019, 12:07:39 pm
Mammal:

The building proof is in the trend of actual scientific research that is using actual scientific data.   Pretty simple.

Models are not generators of scientific data.  Anyone who presents model results as scientific data is lying.

The models are tools for helping scientists trying to understand how various perturbations may affect the system.  Different models report different results across system phenomenon.  And here's the thing, they don't even know what the perturbation levels should be. 

Models are just tools. 

Models are not generators of scientific data.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 24, 2019, 12:59:35 pm
I think this is a good place to end our conversation. Models incorporate scientific data, they don't and cannot produce them, Scientists have to use models to predict ECS. All of that should be clear. You are still following script, but you have now reached the last stage (as in the last sentence copied in the linked post) (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275722608#msg1275722608),
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 24, 2019, 04:39:32 pm
Scientists do not need, nor should they even use computer models to predict ECS.  It's like you don't even know what science is, like you cannot read what is being written.  Read the paper by Dr, Curry.  She didn't use models.  Read the other papers of late; they don't use models.  They take stock of the recorded data, and analyze it as comprehensively as possible. 

Actual scientists use actual hard data from real work observations/measurements to estimate ECS.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 25, 2019, 01:52:57 am
^ The Curry paper claims to be "less dependent on global climate models and allow more realistically for forcing uncertainties than similar estimates based on forcings diagnosed from simulations by such models". So as I understand it, they selectively toned down the reliance on certain aspects of global climate models. The paper does not say they did not use any models. In fact, one has to assume that they did model it to be able to get the results.

They arrived at ECS of 1.64 and for TCR of 1.33. ECS 17–83 and 5–95 % uncertainty ranges are 1.25–2.45 and 1.05–4.05; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 and 0.90–2.50.

So even though their ECS is quite a bit lower than some other predictions, the fact of the matter is that their uncertainty ranges are pretty similar to what you have been complaining about and the TCR is well within the range of the bulk of other climate models.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 25, 2019, 07:32:43 pm
Mammal:

Is the finding of the Curry paper a reduction in the estimated ECS range compared to the IPCC's or not?

Yes, it is lower than the previous estimate by the IPCC, which itself most recently had to lower their estimated ECS range compared to their previous (fourth) assessment report.

See the point of my original post that kicked off this discussion about ECS was that the scientific research is trending towards lower values of ECS.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 26, 2019, 12:23:41 am
See the point of my original post that kicked off this discussion about ECS was that the scientific research is trending towards lower values of ECS.
I already showed you that it is not the case.

PS. I guess that what you are trying to convey is that estimates based on instrumental climate records seem to yield lower sensitivity predictions than others. The CarbonBrief article (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity) that I linked deals with that extensively. That has an effect on the lower end of the sensitivity range.

Model and palaeoclimate-based approaches rarely provide sensitivity estimates below 2C, whereas approaches that use instrumental data often have. This contributed to the IPCC broadening its sensitivity range from 2C to 4.5C in its fourth assessment report, published in 2007, to 1.5C to 4.5C in its fifth assessment.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 26, 2019, 05:05:13 pm
Mammal,

Why do I feel like I need to find a way to yodel this?:  As stated repeatedly, yes, actual science (observations/measurements) vs not-science (model output) shows a declining trend in estimated ECS.

<sigh>

The IPCC rebroadened their estimated ESC range in their 5th report because of the unexplained pause/hiatus/statis of 15 years, meaning GMST had not risen for over 15 years. 

Then they just changed the data, again.

So corrupt.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 26, 2019, 05:15:26 pm
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area. Furthermore, it must satisfy certain esthetic criteria—that is, in relation to how much it describes, it must be rather simple.
— John von Neumann
From 'Method in the Physical Sciences', in John von Neumann and L. Leary (ed.), The Unity of Knowledge (1955),
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 26, 2019, 05:53:39 pm
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area. Furthermore, it must satisfy certain esthetic criteria—that is, in relation to how much it describes, it must be rather simple.
— John von Neumann
From 'Method in the Physical Sciences', in John von Neumann and L. Leary (ed.), The Unity of Knowledge (1955),

Excellent!

A simple mathematical model, yes, as in E=MC^2 that "describes observed phenomenon"!  Yes!

Models as in unproved hyper-complex multi-physics global climate computer simulations being used to predict the future of climate?  Noooooo!

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 26, 2019, 07:20:04 pm
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area. Furthermore, it must satisfy certain esthetic criteria—that is, in relation to how much it describes, it must be rather simple.
— John von Neumann
From 'Method in the Physical Sciences', in John von Neumann and L. Leary (ed.), The Unity of Knowledge (1955),

Excellent!

A simple mathematical model, yes, as in E=MC^2 that "describes observed phenomenon"!  Yes!

Models as in unproved hyper-complex multi-physics global climate computer simulations being used to predict the future of climate?  Noooooo!

The point is, modelling is part of science, and denying that fact (as you continually do) is just silly.  The way to respond to problems you think existing models have, is to produce what you think is a better model.  Not to stick your head in the sand, and say we can safely ignore what the experts consider to be the best models.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 27, 2019, 01:15:22 am
Why do I feel like I need to find a way to yodel this?:  As stated repeatedly, yes, actual science (observations/measurements) vs not-science (model output) shows a declining trend in estimated ECS.
<sigh>
The IPCC rebroadened their estimated ESC range in their 5th report because of the unexplained pause/hiatus/statis of 15 years, meaning GMST had not risen for over 15 years. 
Then they just changed the data, again.
So corrupt.
The pro's and cons of each method of forecasting are described in that article. Instrumental climate records have some drawbacks too, particularly in not being representative of climate variables everywhere.

I have already posted the main reason why the IPCC broadened their range, so I am not sure why you would post a speculation like this. If you can substantiate it, ok, if not then it's just fake news.

Anyway, the important thing that we could take away from this little chat is that the hiatus has stopped, that the hiatus has been explained, that temperatures have been rising ever since, falsifying claims by the skeptics and by papers such as Scarfetta et al.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kurros on August 27, 2019, 03:10:50 am
Scientists do not need, nor should they even use computer models to predict ECS.  It's like you don't even know what science is, like you cannot read what is being written.  Read the paper by Dr, Curry.  She didn't use models.  Read the other papers of late; they don't use models.  They take stock of the recorded data, and analyze it as comprehensively as possible. 

Actual scientists use actual hard data from real work observations/measurements to estimate ECS.

This is complete nonsense. Basically all of modern science in every single field is based on models. At this point I don't even believe you when you claim to be a "science professional", because your knowledge of science and the scientific method simply does not reflect any professional training.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 27, 2019, 05:23:02 pm
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area. Furthermore, it must satisfy certain esthetic criteria—that is, in relation to how much it describes, it must be rather simple.
— John von Neumann
From 'Method in the Physical Sciences', in John von Neumann and L. Leary (ed.), The Unity of Knowledge (1955),

Excellent!

A simple mathematical model, yes, as in E=MC^2 that "describes observed phenomenon"!  Yes!

Models as in unproved hyper-complex multi-physics global climate computer simulations being used to predict the future of climate?  Noooooo!

The point is, modelling is part of science, and denying that fact (as you continually do) is just silly.  The way to respond to problems you think existing models have, is to produce what you think is a better model.  Not to stick your head in the sand, and say we can safely ignore what the experts consider to be the best models.

The point is that first,  modelling as described by John von Neuman, who you quoted, is science,

where second, forecasts from ensembles of global circulation models (GCMs) are nothing resembling what von Neiman describes, and so are not science..

The GCMs fail as science on multiple counts: 1) They are not purely mathematical constructs in that they include arbitrary "tuning" factors, essentially glorified curve-fitting factors, 2) they fail to correctly describe observed phenomena, lots of phenomena in fact, and 3) they are not simple, but are exceedingly complex,

The models have failed, having predicted warming far in excess of what has been observed. 

In reality, it's not the actual science that you're arguing for.  You've been misled by activists and "journalists" into believing that what they've been telling you "scientists say" is actually an accurate representation of the science.  But it isn't. 

It's what I do for a living.  People's lives depend on it.  Fancy computer models help with design and they help understand the effects of various changes in a complex system.  But when it comes time to know, we do actual tests, with actual measurements.  And sometimes the models are off, by a lot!  Not mine of course.  The other guys! Heheheh.

I had one model off by just 100%.  One very simple erroneous assumption in one very simple portion of the model. Nobody caught it despite having reviewed and discussed it in detail..  Testing revealed the problem.  Further testing isolated it.  I was able to identify it, and correct the model.  Then we figured out how to fix the system to get it up to spec.  Then we put an entire revised system in a chamber fired it up and ran it hard while continuously subjecting it to frigid Arctic then scorching desert and back again for days.  And then it broke a major vital part.  So then back to the analysis, fixed it, more testing.  Fixed! 

If we'd only used the model and skipped the testing, the system likely would have gotten people killed. 

In my consulting role, I've often advised to skip expensive unreliable modelling and just prove through testing.  It can save a LOT of expense.  It puts me out of some work, but it's the right thing to do. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 27, 2019, 05:31:22 pm
Why do I feel like I need to find a way to yodel this?:  As stated repeatedly, yes, actual science (observations/measurements) vs not-science (model output) shows a declining trend in estimated ECS.
<sigh>
The IPCC rebroadened their estimated ESC range in their 5th report because of the unexplained pause/hiatus/statis of 15 years, meaning GMST had not risen for over 15 years. 
Then they just changed the data, again.
So corrupt.
The pro's and cons of each method of forecasting are described in that article. Instrumental climate records have some drawbacks too, particularly in not being representative of climate variables everywhere.

I have already posted the main reason why the IPCC broadened their range, so I am not sure why you would post a speculation like this. If you can substantiate it, ok, if not then it's just fake news.

Anyway, the important thing that we could take away from this little chat is that the hiatus has stopped, that the hiatus has been explained, that temperatures have been rising ever since, falsifying claims by the skeptics and by papers such as Scarfetta et al.

The cons of using GCMs to forecast future climate being that they are woefully unfit to do so.

No?  Show me one GCM that you deem fit to do so, and it's applicable statistical correlation to onservations.

You know,      show      the     data.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 27, 2019, 05:44:05 pm
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work—that is, correctly to describe phenomena from a reasonably wide area. Furthermore, it must satisfy certain esthetic criteria—that is, in relation to how much it describes, it must be rather simple.
— John von Neumann
From 'Method in the Physical Sciences', in John von Neumann and L. Leary (ed.), The Unity of Knowledge (1955),

Excellent!

A simple mathematical model, yes, as in E=MC^2 that "describes observed phenomenon"!  Yes!

Models as in unproved hyper-complex multi-physics global climate computer simulations being used to predict the future of climate?  Noooooo!

The point is, modelling is part of science, and denying that fact (as you continually do) is just silly.  The way to respond to problems you think existing models have, is to produce what you think is a better model.  Not to stick your head in the sand, and say we can safely ignore what the experts consider to be the best models.

The point is that first,  modelling as described by John von Neuman, who you quoted, is science,

where second, forecasts from ensembles of global circulation models (GCMs) are nothing resembling what von Neiman describes, and so are not science..

I'm afraid you just don't know what you are talking about.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory):

Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction in between rational decision-makers.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic and computer science. Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers.

Modern game theory began with the idea regarding the existence of mixed-strategy equilibria in two-person zero-sum games and its proof by John von Neumann. Von Neumann's original proof used the Brouwer fixed-point theorem on continuous mappings into compact convex sets, which became a standard method in game theory and mathematical economics. His paper was followed by the 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, co-written with Oskar Morgenstern, which considered cooperative games of several players. The second edition of this book provided an axiomatic theory of expected utility, which allowed mathematical statisticians and economists to treat decision-making under uncertainty.

Game theory was developed extensively in the 1950s by many scholars. It was later explicitly applied to biology in the 1970s, although similar developments go back at least as far as the 1930s. Game theory has been widely recognized as an important tool in many fields. As of 2014, with the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences going to game theorist Jean Tirole, eleven game theorists have won the economics Nobel Prize. John Maynard Smith was awarded the Crafoord Prize for his application of game theory to biology.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 27, 2019, 05:46:19 pm
We're talking about global climate/circulation models, not economics.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: wonderer on August 27, 2019, 05:51:29 pm
We're talking about global climate/circulation models, not economics.

But similar levels of complexity.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 27, 2019, 06:12:58 pm
Wonderer:

I suppose so, but in different ways.  Social and economic versus hard physical sciences.   It's beyond even an apples versus oranges situation.  It's a chicken eggs versus apples situations, and the chickens are emotional and irrational at times.  That said, economics and sociology are spilling over with wide swaths of precise real world data, and the game theory is essentially a massive statistical scheme of what-if scenarios that are used as tools to try to see how things might go given X, Y, and Z, etc, and none have successfully predicted the future, have they?  None are even presumed to do so, are they? 

Example: Given a massive drought in Midwest America, what happens to the world economy and the Middle East?  Maybe A, maybe B, maybe C, depending on Q, R, and S, and...

It's pretty amazing for sure.  But it's not for forecasting.  It's a tool for studying possibilities.  And that's what the GCMs are as well.  It's like war gaming.  Not for precise forecasting.  Not yet.

Sim city factorial on steroids. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 27, 2019, 06:17:05 pm
I think one of the misperceptions is that computer math models take the human element out of the equation.  The thinking being that we know all this basic physics, and we know the maths describing different applicable physics, so then we put it all together and it should solve just like a math equation, or a bunch of consecutive math equations.

But it just isn't  true. Were largely ignorant about how some factors affect others, the relative feedback responses and our observed data is very thin.  So the human element permeates the fancy computer models. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 28, 2019, 01:18:53 am
The pro's and cons of each method of forecasting are described in that article. Instrumental climate records have some drawbacks too, particularly in not being representative of climate variables everywhere.
I have already posted the main reason why the IPCC broadened their range, so I am not sure why you would post a speculation like this. If you can substantiate it, ok, if not then it's just fake news.
Anyway, the important thing that we could take away from this little chat is that the hiatus has stopped, that the hiatus has been explained, that temperatures have been rising ever since, falsifying claims by the skeptics and by papers such as Scarfetta et al.
The cons of using GCMs to forecast future climate being that they are woefully unfit to do so.
No?  Show me one GCM that you deem fit to do so, and it's applicable statistical correlation to onservations.
You know,      show      the     data.
All that you've done so far is huffing and puffing and making all sorts of false insinuations, each of which I have pointed out to you. You were the person making the false claims all along. Not sure why you want to burden me with the proof now. Oh and you are reverting back to that script again..very much the same that I showed you the last time.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 28, 2019, 10:48:19 am
Mammal:

I showed a plot illustrating the trend in actual scientific research/findings about ECS, and provided the related quotes and hyperlinks to some of the recent peer-reviewed papers. 

I've showed plots of the recorded history of cyclonic storm frequency and energy that refute the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown plots of the recorded history of tornadic activity that refute the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown plots of the recorded history of drought index that refute the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown plots of tide gauge sea level, many spanning over 100 years that challenge the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown plots of wildfire damage spanning a hundred years that challenge the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown records of ice cap and sea ice extents that challenge the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown plots of ice core and other proxy paleo temperature records that challenge the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown paleo records of sea level spanning thousands of years that challenge the climate crisis narrative.

I've shown the plots of surface temperature data manipulations that call into question the integrity of said data.

I've shown hard data every which way.

In return I get insult followed by hand-waving denial with links to blog posts that cling to GCM forecasts, the very non-science being refuted by the hard data.

When I ask you to show a GCM that meets the stated criteria for a scientific model that Wonderer so kindly shared, your response is:

Quote
All that you've done so far is huffing and puffing and making all sorts of false insinuations, each of which I have pointed out to you. You were the person making the false claims all along. Not sure why you want to burden me with the proof now. Oh and you are reverting back to that script again..very much the same that I showed you the last time.

Yes, I'm a science professional.  Forgive me for demanding actual data from actual measurements/observations.

Yes, I'm intimately familiar with complex computer simulations.  Forgive me for stating the facts, that such simulations are in no way valid science for forecasting the future.  They are tools for helping to discern how various factors may affect a complex system. 

Why are you so confidently wed to climate crisis when faced with the hard data that disproves it?  Because the "scientists" who earn a living creating computer simulations say so?  Because it accords with your favored politics?  Neither is scientific.  If you can't show the data and make a valid formal logical argument for your desired conclusion, that's not science.  That's blind faith. 

Anthropogenic warming is very mild and beneficial;  increased atmospheric CO2 is massively beneficial for humanity.  Humans are capable of incredible adaptation.  Climate changes, always has, always will.  If additional CO2 can help stave of the impending ice age, which would cause mass famine and pestilence worldwide, then how I see that a problem?

Speaking of data, this site is really neat:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/trend (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/trend)

You can look at all kinds of plots and data.  See the "Help" link to get started using it.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 28, 2019, 12:17:01 pm
I showed a plot illustrating the trend in actual scientific research/findings about ECS, and provided the related quotes and hyperlinks to some of the recent peer-reviewed papers. 
Yes and I showed you what was wrong with that and quite a few of your other assertions as well. The idea was to demonstrate a trend in your and your fellow climate change skeptics approach, which I think is clear by now. We can't entertain each and every of those assertions.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 29, 2019, 04:18:45 pm
Sure you did, with zero data. 

I'm looking at the Carbon Brief reporting for instrumentally based ECS estimates.  Even fired up the desktop to spreadsheet it and do some statistical analyses.

Stay tuned.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 29, 2019, 08:37:18 pm
Mammal:

RE: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity)

and

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bw2XU3FCw9a__Z5Y9YGfCWU-ohzuhFJ8_gcGyIsTECE/htmlview (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bw2XU3FCw9a__Z5Y9YGfCWU-ohzuhFJ8_gcGyIsTECE/htmlview)

The information you pointed to thinking that it showed the Scarfetta conclusions in error.

The following illustrates well  why I am so adamant about showing the data.

Below is  data from Carbon Brief that you thought showed that the Scarfetta trend analysis was wrong; it's the ECS min, max, and mean estimates from each published source listed by Carbon Brief that used actual scientific data, meaning observational/instrumental data.:

I've rounded all values to the nearest tenth.  The # corresponds to that from the Carbon Brief table.


ECS Estimates from Instrumental Records

#    Researcher(s)       Year    Min Max Mean
5   Knutti et al.         2002   2.0   9.2   4.8
6   Gregory    et al.      2002   1.6   10.0   2.1
7   Harvey & Kaufmann   2002   1.0   3.0   2.0
8   Kaufmann & Stern   2002   2.0   2.8   2.6
12   Tsushima et al.      2005   3.1   4.7   3.8
13   Frame et al.         2005   1.2   5.2   2.3
18   Forster & Gregory   2006   1.0   4.1   1.6
19   Forest et al.         2006   2.1   8.9   4.1
20   Stern et al.         2006   4.4   4.5   4.4
28   Chylek et al.         2007   1.1   1.8   1.6
29   Schwartz         2007   0.9   2.9   1.9
38   Murphy et al.      2009   0.9   10.0   3.0
40   Lindzen & Choi      2009   0.4   0.5   0.5
42   Lin et al.            2010   2.8   3.7   3.1
49   Lindzen & Choi      2011   0.5   1.1   0.7
56   Aldrin et al.         2012   1.2   3.5   2.0
57   Schwartz         2012   1.5   6.0   3.0
68   Otto et al.         2013   1.2   3.9   2.0
69   Otto et al.         2013   0.9   5.0   1.9
70   Lewis            2013   1.0   3.0   1.6
71   Bengtsson & Schwartz   2013   1.5   2.5   2.0
85   Loehle            2014   1.8   2.3   2.0
86   Skeie et al.         2014   0.9   3.2   1.8
87   Kummer & Dessler   2014   1.6   4.1   2.3
88   Lovejoy            2014   2.5   3.7   3.1
89   Urban et al.         2014   2.1   4.6   3.1
91   Lewis            2014   1.2   4.5   2.2
93   Donohoe et al.      2014   3.1   3.2   3.1
97   Monckton et al.      2015   0.8   1.3   1.0
98   Johansson et al.      2015   2.0   3.2   2.5
99   Johansson et al.      2015   1.6   7.8   3.1
101   Loehle            2015   1.5   1.6   1.5
102   Cawley et al.         2015   1.8   4.4   2.0
103   Lewis & Curry      2015   1.1   4.1   1.6
114   Bates            2016   1.0   1.1   1.0
115   Lewis            2016   0.7   3.2   1.7
123   Loeb et al.         2016   0.8   10.0   2.0
124   Forster            2016   1.1   5.3   3.0
132   Armour            2017   1.7   7.1   2.9
140   Lewis & Curry      2018   1.2   3.1   1.8

And here are the plots and the results of linear trend analyses for each of the minimum, mean, and maximum ECS estimates from the above 40 published works:

(http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/856618.png)

(http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/856619.png)

(http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/856620.png)

The trend for the minimum ECS estimates is declining.

The trend for the mean ECS estimates is declining.

The trend for the maximum ECS estimates is declining.

The trends for all the instrumentally based (actual scientific data) research findings is declining.

I wonder why Carbon Brief didn't just show the data like that?  Gee.

You were saying?  :~)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 30, 2019, 04:34:24 am
^ I was saying that the Scarfetta et al paper claimed that their model was better at tracking real climate change and that the 2015/16 spike was just a temporary one. We now know that was wrong. As part of their paper they concluded that they were not the only ones who think climate sensitivity should be lower and they listed a whole bunch of studies to support that (with the graph).

However, CarbonBrief explains that this is only true for instrument-based predictions, that overall climate sensitivity has not really decreased since 2000. You have now verified what they themselves already said and there are in fact numerous graphs on that same website where they compare instrument-based sensitivity predictions with the others. They go on to allocate an entire section to the topic Low sensitivity from instrumental records. This explains why said instrument-based predictions yield lower sensitivities, but it also describes the shortcomings thereof (limited coverage, little to no feedback, etc).

Why not read Judith Curry's own article (https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/01/whats-the-worst-case-climate-sensitivity/) on it? She confirms the situation w.r.t. methodology and the drawbacks, both on the lower and upper scale of climate sensitivity predictions. For example she writes:
Quote
The range of ECS values derived from global climate models (CMIP5) that were cited by the IPCC AR5 is between 2.1 and 4.7 C. To better constrain the values of ECS based on observational information available at the time of the AR5, Lewis and Grunwald (2018) combined instrumental period evidence with paleoclimate proxy evidence using objective Bayesian and frequentist likelihood-ratio methods. They identified a 5–95% range for ECS of 1.1–4.05 C. Using the same analysis methods, Lewis and Curry (2018) updated the analysis for the instrumental period by extending the period and using revised estimates of forcing to determine a 5-95% range of 1.05 – 2.7 C. The observationally-based values should be regarded as estimates of effective climate sensitivity, as they reflect feedbacks over too short a period for equilibrium to be reached.
She lists her opinion re the best of the bunch of different scenario generation methods associated with different necessity-judgment rationales:
Quote
1.0 ≤ ECS ≤ 1.2 C: no feedback climate sensitivity (strongly verified, based on theoretical analysis and empirical observations).
1.05 ≤ ECS ≤ 2.7 C: empirically-derived values based on energy balance models from the instrumental period with verified statistical and uncertainty analysis methods (Lewis and Curry, 2018) (corroborated possibilities)
1.15 ≤ ECS ≤ 4.05 C: empirically-derived values including paleoclimate estimates (Lewis and Grunwald, 2018) (verified possibilities)
2.1 ≤ ECS ≤ 4.1 C: derived from climate model simulations whose values of TCR do not exceed 2.0 C. (verified possibilities)
In the article she expresses her belief that their own results are closest to being accurate (even though she admitted its shortcoming), but concedes that it is rational to at least provisionally extend the upper range to 4.1 C.

There are new initiatives and new research methodologies that attempt to narrow the range for climate sensitivity predictions. Peter Cox (University of Exeter) is one of a group of climate scientists working towards this. According to him “it is worth noting that observational constraints from both the temperature trend and temperature variability still suggest ECS of around 3°C,”. More about this here:
Climate model uncertainties ripe to be squeezed (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190107112958.htm)
Climate sensitivity study suggests narrower range of potential outcomes (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/18/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-says-study).
Their last-mentioned study concluded with an ECS of 2.2C to 3.4C, with a best estimate of 2.8C.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 30, 2019, 09:23:58 am
Mammal:

It's great to see you appreciating the comments of Dr. Curry.  But aw gee whiz Mammal, why the straw man?  Why not concede the point re the trend in ECS, and welcome the good news?

You said that trend was wrong and offered the Carbon Brief article as proof.

I analyzed the data from that Carbon Brief article and found that it too confirms a declining trend in scientifically/data-based ECS estimates, though they oddly avoided pointing that out.  I shared my analysis above.

Now you're changing the point to be relative to the entire Scarfetta et al paper?

Well, I'm not interested in that.  I didn't read the paper. Never mentioned it or its findings beyond the ECS trend data.   I'm interested in the research data that I posted and what it indicates, that there is a trend in the scientific research findings towards lower values of ECS.  A good thing, yes?

The scientific research data shows that scientifically based estimates for ECS are declining over time no matter how you look at them, which is good news.  Isn't that a good thing? 

It's all about the scientific data.  Show the data.  :~)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 30, 2019, 10:37:49 am
Mammal:

As to the 2016 spike in reported GMST, how do you know that the spike wasn't temporary? 

temporary (adj): lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.

Why so eager to jump to premature conclusions?  That ain't scientific.  That's the opposite of scientific.

Show     the     data.

It looks like it well could be temporary to me: (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/trend)

Further to the above linked plot, which trend-line do you reckon best represents the long term rate of warming? 

Relative to the above linked plot of mean annual GMST per HadCRUT, is it possible that 2016 may be the start of a repeat of what we saw beginning in 1944? 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 30, 2019, 11:31:50 am
Wretch, this is not that complicated. Let' recap:

Your original claim was that climate sensitivity predictions are declining and you used the graph from the Scarfetta et al to demonstrate;

I showed you that it is mostly only instrument-based predictions that yielded lower predictions and furthermore that said predictions have well documented limitations that even Curry admits.

Scarfetta et al was wrong in the sense that they claimed their model was right in showing 2015/16 (only those afaik) to represent a temporary spike.

It is never a good thing if such predictions don't correlate with reality, which is why Scarfetta et al, the known shortcomings of instrument-based predictions and Peter Cox' comments are all relevant.

Finally, I can't answer your question re 1944 as I haven't studied the graph. It sounds pretty unscientific to just point back to a previous spike.  Enough said.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 30, 2019, 11:46:56 am
Amazing.

The questions remain unanswered while the story is being rewritten.  Why do you refuse to answer simple questions? 

It's unscientific for you to look at data circa 1944, but it's scientific to declare the 2016 spike not temporary?  Please explain how you know the 2016 spike is not temporary.

Some shared similar propensity when in 1976 they warned of an impending ice age.  They had a similarly unscientific view of the data, assuming a trend into the future.

In an earlier post despite all the data I've shared here, you accused me of mere "huffing and puffing."

Who is really the one full of hot air, unwilling to engage tough questions or present hard data?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 30, 2019, 12:43:35 pm
It's unscientific for you to look at data circa 1944, but it's scientific to declare the 2016 spike not temporary?  Please explain how you know the 2016 spike is not temporary.
Refer to what I have already posted. Temperatures have since continued to increase, which afaik would be contrary to their claimed model.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 30, 2019, 05:11:57 pm
You think the temperature has increased compared to the spike in 2016?

Dude.  Last reported GMST from HadCRUT is 0.4°C below the 2016 spike. and only 0.12° above the spike of 1998, over two decades ago.

You're pretending to know the future.  For all you and I know, the temperature could begin trending down any time now.

You're making the same mistake the climate alarmists made in 1976 when they warned of an impending ice age, cause that was the trend they'd identified began in the 1940's. 

1940's to 1970's, that's roughly four decades.

1980's to 2020's, hmmm, that's four decades. 

We'll see. 

The sun is quiet and the AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation) is fixin' to turn cold.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/plot/esrl-amo/mean:60 (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/plot/esrl-amo/mean:60)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 30, 2019, 06:14:14 pm
Sigh. You're right, Wretch -- there is a grand conspiracy so broad that it encompasses virtually every expert in the climate change field and so effective that all of them persist in (what you claim is) the lie of human-induced climate change; none of them breaks ranks despite the likely fame and fortune, not to mention a Nobel Prize, that would result. Yet you, who have zero experience in the field, can see through all of this.

About as believable as Trinity's geocentrism.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 30, 2019, 07:21:48 pm
Sigh. You're right, Wretch -- there is a grand conspiracy so broad that it encompasses virtually every expert in the climate change field and so effective that all of them persist in (what you claim is) the lie of human-induced climate change; none of them breaks ranks despite the likely fame and fortune, not to mention a Nobel Prize, that would result. Yet you, who have zero experience in the field, can see through all of this.

About as believable as Trinity's geocentrism.

The influence of hundreds of billions of dollars distributed via grants with presupposed climate causation doesn't indict the scientists, but the bureaucrats and the govt authorities responsible for said grant authorisations.  Essentially if you wanted a grant, you wrote in "anthropogenic climate change" as part of it.  It's been documented.  Finally I think we're starting to see a turn towards more serious investigations of natural phenomena as well.

Lots of good science being done out there.  See the ECS research results shown graphically above.

As to the issue: What you fail to grasp is that there is a small proportion of actual climate science professionals who support the idea of an impending climate crisis requiring urgent drastic intervention.  You see reporting about consensus, or other similar statements and leap to conclusions that are not supported by the majority of scientists themselves.  Unless I missed it.  But a survey that shows a majority of climate scientists agree that climate has been warming in part due to a significant anthropogenic effect.  That my friend is light years away from the conclusion you seem to be drawing.  A number of IPCC contributors are among those questioning the crisis narrative.

One of the major skeptics of climate crisis is a Nobel prize winner, another is a PhD geo-physicist who was among the last to walk on the moon.  Plenty of very highly esteemed climate science professionals are solid skeptics of impending climate crisis.  Others have conceded that it's by far more rational to simply adapt rather than ruin the world economy in a feckless attempt to alter global climate,  Others point out the obvious and scientifically verified benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2, massive greening of the planet, crop fertilization from the air, milder Winters, increased rain for marginally aerable terrain,

I'm no climate science professional, but I am a science professional familiar with the physical sciences involved, and intimately familiar with complex computer modelling and data analysis. 


       Show         the        data.


The alarmists made predictions three decades ago.    They made a lot of predictions.


Why not now look at how those three decades old predictions correspond with reality?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 30, 2019, 10:57:57 pm
Soren:

May I commend to you the following articles by esteemed climate science professionals concerning the problem of bias in govt funded research, funding the magnitude of which exceeds competing interests (oil companies and such) by multiple orders of magnitude:

1) Is Federal Government Buying Science or Support? (https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding) by Patrick J. Michaels, PhD Climatology,  Director of the Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science.

2) Federal Funding Biasing Climate Research (https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/)  by Dr. Judith Curry, IPCC contributor/reviewer, former Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

3) Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Climate Change (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curry-senate-testimony-2015.pdf) Dr. Curry's testimony to Congress, December 2015

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 31, 2019, 01:52:34 am
You think the temperature has increased compared to the spike in 2016?
Dude.  Last reported GMST from HadCRUT is 0.4°C below the 2016 spike. and only 0.12° above the spike of 1998, over two decades ago.
You're pretending to know the future.  For all you and I know, the temperature could begin trending down any time now.
It's still not trending down. The 2019 SH summer was up again getting very close to 2016, while Europe is experiencing it's warmest summer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave), July was hottest month on record globally, breaking the June 2019 records, so 2019 on the whole is on track to be one of the hottest years ever recorded (https://phys.org/news/2019-08-july-hottest-month-globally-eu.html).
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 31, 2019, 02:36:05 am
1940's to 1970's, that's roughly four decades.
1980's to 2020's, hmmm, that's four decades. 
We'll see.
Say what?
(http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/LongtermTrend2017.png)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 31, 2019, 07:09:34 am
Hahahah!  That's great!  You should publish your research; that looks very compelling.

Which is the problem.  It does look compelling to the layman, and it's exactly what climate alarmists did in the 1970's when they foretold of the impending ice age.  Hey, Al Gore made a fortune and won a Nobel Prize for similar chicanery. Go for it!

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Tom Paine on August 31, 2019, 09:16:53 am
Here's what I don't get. 1. Theoretically the argument for greenhouse gasses causing warming of the climate is solid. 2. We know human activity is causing increased greenhouse gas concentrations. 3. We observe that warming is occurring. 4. it seems to follow that most likely the warming is coming from the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by human activity.

What exact reason is there to think that 4 is false?

Man, if people think the migrant/refugee crisis is bad now, just wait and see what happens if we don't address this issue effectively. We ain't seen nothing yet.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Soren on August 31, 2019, 09:35:55 am
Just to throw something else into the mix. I would think even the most committed climate change deniers would admit that they could be wrong. So let's put a number to that possibility. What if the number is 25 percent -- what should we do if there is a 25 percent that our current course will significantly damage the entire planet? How much should we be willing to pay as insurance in the form of reduced emissions, especially if those expenditures will bring other benefits such as jobs in emerging industries and less pollution? How much would we be willing to pay to, say, harden our nuclear missile command and control apparatus if we thought there was a 25 percent chance that our enemies could hack the system and launch a missile?

Of course, I and the entire climate change research community think the chance that Wretch is wrong is about 100 percent, but even if the chance is much lower you can make a good case that purchasing insurance would be prudent.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 31, 2019, 09:44:46 am
^ Or nuke the incoming hurricanes..

Back to my earlier posts of today, this is a very useful and up-to-date interactive graph re temperature anomalies: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series).
As I already mentioned, 2019 is heating up considerably.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 31, 2019, 12:34:50 pm
Aren't the advancements in science amazing?  Who'd have thought we'd figure out a way to erase a significant prior cooling trend?

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-07-17174527_shadow.png)


(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-10025555_shadow.png)


(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-28161151_shadow-1024x733.png)




Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on August 31, 2019, 01:05:25 pm
Oh please, that kind of stuff is my cue for getting out of any further meaningful discussions. The argument is akin to...scientists, doctors told our parents it was ok to smoke..now they say it's not ok..well, I am gonna stick with my parents' medical advice..
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 31, 2019, 07:03:45 pm
Here's what I don't get. 1. Theoretically the argument for greenhouse gasses causing warming of the climate is solid. 2. We know human activity is causing increased greenhouse gas concentrations. 3. We observe that warming is occurring. 4. it seems to follow that most likely the warming is coming from the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by human activity.

What exact reason is there to think that 4 is false?

Man, if people think the migrant/refugee crisis is bad now, just wait and see what happens if we don't address this issue effectively. We ain't seen nothing yet.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) check.  Acting alone absent theorized related climate feedbacks, the IPCC says that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 by volume contributes roughly 1°C of warming to the so-called Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST). 

What you may not know about CO2 in our atmosphere:  CO2's current atmospheric mixing ratio is 0.00041.  A hundred years ago it was around 0.0003.  Millions of years ago it was over 0.0020, more than five times its current level, and life thrived magnificently. 

Between water vapor, the atmosphere's most prolific GHG by far, and CO2, the atmosphere is nearly saturated relative to additional absorption of heat/infrared radiation from the earth's surface.  This is why doubling CO2's mixing ratio in the atmosphere from 0.0003 to 0.0006 has the same GHG effect as doubling it from 0.0006 to 0.0012.  The so-called greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to surface temperature is a logarithmic relationship.  Thus as also proved by paleo records showing MUCH higher CO2 levels, it's not possible for there to exist a CO2 tipping point so-to-speak that can cause runaway climate catastrophy. 


(http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg)





Check out the CO2 levels during the Jurassic and Cretaceous:

(http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/old_root/%231%20CO2EarthHistory.gif)




2. Humans are releasing about 10 GT (gigatons or billions of tons) per year of carbon via CO2 into the atmosphere, which contains 800 GT of carbon.  Check.

What you may not know about the biosphere and CO2, or more basically the  "carbon" cycle:  The atmosphere includes roughly 800 GT of carbon, and every year the biosphere naturally releases roughly 210 GT of carbon into the atmosphere, and currently the biosphere absorbs roughly 215 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere, on average (it varies year to year) 5 GT more than it releases.  That extra 5GT (on average) of absorption per year is the biosphere absorbing much of what we humans are emitting.   Currently about half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions appear to be accumulating in the atmosphere.  I say "appear to be", because we really don't know for sure, because we don't really have good data on the natural carbon cycle of the biosphere.  It's all educated guesstimates.  Here's a diagram that's a few years old, so the human carbon emissions level is a little lower than the current 10GT, but it's a good basic illustration of the carbon cycle:



(http://adapaonline.org/images/biobook_images/Carbon_cycle.jpg)


3. Warming, since when?  On average since the Little Ice Age?  Absolutely.  Since 1880, yes. Since about 1980, affirmative.  Yes, for all of recorded temperature history, on average, the GMST has been rising.  From around 1940 to 1980, it had been cooling (the great ice age scare);  prior to that, from 1900 to 1940 it had been warming at about the same rate as it has over the last 40 years.  But gee, we weren't releasing much CO2 then, and levels in the atmosphere were a lot lower, so what caused that warming?   Hmmm... 

Well part of the trouble in knowing that answer is that prior to the end of WW-II, outside of N. America and a few other isolated places, we just don't have a very good geographical spread of records for accurately ascertaining GMST.  That's why when it is shown on GMST plots as it should be, the error or uncertainty envelope gets bigger and bigger the further back into the past you go.  So we do the best we can.  Or we change the data to better match our model results.  Wha???  It's true.  They've been adjusting the data to cool the past and warm the present.  I digress. 

The following is the proxy temperature record as found and measured from Greenland ice cap ice cores.  The proportion of certain well-mixed atmospheric isotopes indicates northern hemisphere if not global temperature conditions.  The samples tested cover from 6 to 20 or more years per data point, so it what would be called a "smoothed" dataset, not like our instrumental records that we can display at monthly or even daily resolutions.  That means when comparing to recent instrumental temperatures, we'd need to also smooth that data similarly.  So relative to the figure below, our current GMST is no more than 1° greater, so roughly equal to the Medieval Warm Period. 

(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg)



4. Some of the recent the warming is coming from the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by human activity.  Check!  That's not debatable.  It's science fact.  The big bold hairy red issue of debate is how much of the warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural, AND what the consequences will be, AND what if anything we should do about it.



You're missing #5...

5. Continued anthropogenic emissions unmitigated will cause catastrophic warming, or at the least will cause on balance significantly more harm than benefit, and so we must urgently curtail all CO2 emissions. 

No.  Negatory. It's a ludicrous proposition.  The mild warming that may be caused by our CO2 emissions is very beneficial, as is the CO2 in the air itself.  We've already seen a 30% greening of the planet over the past three decades.  More to come.  And none of the scary predictions made three decades ago have come to pass.

6. Regardless of the conclusion to #5 above, since we know for certain that the doomsday narrative is complete nonsense, and most of the world is unable or unwilling to cease using fossil fuels, then the only rational choice is, if needed, to do what humanity has always done, adapt.  We are amazing at adaptation. 

The effects of the mitigation plans that are being proposed by the U.N. and others in their camp would be nothing short of Armageddon, global genocide, and the Black Plague all rolled into one.  It's like prescribing double chemo plus radiation plus brain surgery to address a runny nose.

That's not my opinion.  I got it from one of the world's leading economists and organizer of a highly respected council of his peers aiming to address just such issues, Mr. Bjørn Lomborg.  See his material at https://www.lomborg.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-attacking-climate-change (https://www.lomborg.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-attacking-climate-change)

That the climate crisis cabal as I like to call them just completely ignores the above while growing ever more shrill and militant in advocating for their desired govt takeover of energy is pretty solid proof of their motives.  It ain't about the climate.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 31, 2019, 07:36:12 pm

Man, if people think the migrant/refugee crisis is bad now, just wait and see what happens if we don't address this issue effectively. We ain't seen nothing yet.

What makes you think that?  Most of the warming occurs nearest the poles. Equatorial regions won't hardly notice a difference.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 31, 2019, 07:49:19 pm
Just to throw something else into the mix. I would think even the most committed climate change deniers would admit that they could be wrong. So let's put a number to that possibility. What if the number is 25 percent -- what should we do if there is a 25 percent that our current course will significantly damage the entire planet? How much should we be willing to pay as insurance in the form of reduced emissions, especially if those expenditures will bring other benefits such as jobs in emerging industries and less pollution? How much would we be willing to pay to, say, harden our nuclear missile command and control apparatus if we thought there was a 25 percent chance that our enemies could hack the system and launch a missile?

Of course, I and the entire climate change research community think the chance that Wretch is wrong is about 100 percent, but even if the chance is much lower you can make a good case that purchasing insurance would be prudent.

Hahahah!  I think you mean "climate crisis deniers", yeah?  Who denies that climate changes?

I currently put the possibility of global climate crisis at 0.001%

I rate the proposed mitigation plans an absolute zero.

There is no climate crisis, no tipping point, and the proposed mitigation plan would be disasterous times a thousand for humanity.

See my post above to Tom. 


Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 31, 2019, 07:56:02 pm
1940's to 1970's, that's roughly four decades.
1980's to 2020's, hmmm, that's four decades. 
We'll see.
Say what?
(http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/LongtermTrend2017.png)

Stick with HadCRUT for GMST data.  They've not tampered with their data so much, but they do use what they get from our NCCD/NOAA, who have altered data repeatedly, always in ways that better fit the models. 

There was significant cooling from 1940 to 1980, and a high GMST around 1940.  It was a problem for the activists.  Following from the Climategate emails:

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-10-at-7.27.04-AM.gif)

Confirmation in sworn testimony. (https://youtu.be/u1rj00BoItw)

Before that, if you believe the current presentations of the data, there was significant warming from 1900 to 1940 at a rate comparable to the last 40 years.

Before that, long before wide spread use of fossil fuels...

(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg)

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on August 31, 2019, 08:06:44 pm
Oh please, that kind of stuff is my cue for getting out of any further meaningful discussions. The argument is akin to...scientists, doctors told our parents it was ok to smoke..now they say it's not ok..well, I am gonna stick with my parents' medical advice..

Huh???

Just showing past data.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 02, 2019, 12:19:34 am
Stick with HadCRUT for GMST data.  They've not tampered with their data so much, but they do use what they get from our NCCD/NOAA, who have altered data repeatedly, always in ways that better fit the models. 
There was significant cooling from 1940 to 1980, and a high GMST around 1940.  It was a problem for the activists.  Following from the Climategate emails:
Before that, if you believe the current presentations of the data, there was significant warming from 1900 to 1940 at a rate comparable to the last 40 years.
Before that, long before wide spread use of fossil fuels...
Seriously Wretch..? You back on the conspiracy theory again? Is this how you avoid the reality that the rest of the world is trying to cope with? No wonder. I posted a link (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275723993#msg1275723993) to a trustworthy website giving all the data in an interactive & up to date manner. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 02, 2019, 12:27:05 am
It's no conspiracy theory.  It is simple verifiable fact.  It's been well documented and widely discussed among science professionals. 

Do you think the older historic records and newspaper articles are lies? 

Talk about conspiracy theories. 

I like the NOAA plotting page.  But NOAA is one of the most untrustworthy sources of temperature data there is.  They were busted creating fraudulent warming just prior to the big Paris meeting. (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/)  So corrupt. One guy there.  Other reports.  Oddly none to be found in legacy media.

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/ (https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/)

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 02, 2019, 12:57:18 am
Was this a conspiracy theory?  Or just a scientist eager to save the world?...

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01064204_shadow.png)

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-01064212_shadow.png)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 02, 2019, 01:36:11 am
What you may not know about CO2 in our atmosphere:  CO2's current atmospheric mixing ratio is 0.00041.  A hundred years ago it was around 0.0003.  Millions of years ago it was over 0.0020, more than five times its current level, and life thrived magnificently. 

Between water vapor, the atmosphere's most prolific GHG by far, and CO2, the atmosphere is nearly saturated relative to additional absorption of heat/infrared radiation from the earth's surface.  This is why doubling CO2's mixing ratio in the atmosphere from 0.0003 to 0.0006 has the same GHG effect as doubling it from 0.0006 to 0.0012.  The so-called greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to surface temperature is a logarithmic relationship.  Thus as also proved by paleo records showing MUCH higher CO2 levels, it's not possible for there to exist a CO2 tipping point so-to-speak that can cause runaway climate catastrophy.

2. Humans are releasing about 10 GT (gigatons or billions of tons) per year of carbon via CO2 into the atmosphere, which contains 800 GT of carbon.  Check.

What you may not know about the biosphere and CO2, or more basically the  "carbon" cycle:  The atmosphere includes roughly 800 GT of carbon, and every year the biosphere naturally releases roughly 210 GT of carbon into the atmosphere, and currently the biosphere absorbs roughly 215 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere, on average (it varies year to year) 5 GT more than it releases.  That extra 5GT (on average) of absorption per year is the biosphere absorbing much of what we humans are emitting.   Currently about half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions appear to be accumulating in the atmosphere.  I say "appear to be", because we really don't know for sure, because we don't really have good data on the natural carbon cycle of the biosphere.  It's all educated guesstimates.  Here's a diagram that's a few years old, so the human carbon emissions level is a little lower than the current 10GT, but it's a good basic illustration of the carbon cycle:

4. Some of the recent the warming is coming from the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by human activity.  Check!  That's not debatable.  It's science fact.  The big bold hairy red issue of debate is how much of the warming is anthropogenic and how much is natural, AND what the consequences will be, AND what if anything we should do about it.

You're missing #5...

5. Continued anthropogenic emissions unmitigated will cause catastrophic warming, or at the least will cause on balance significantly more harm than benefit, and so we must urgently curtail all CO2 emissions. 

No.  Negatory. It's a ludicrous proposition.  The mild warming that may be caused by our CO2 emissions is very beneficial, as is the CO2 in the air itself.  We've already seen a 30% greening of the planet over the past three decades.  More to come.  And none of the scary predictions made three decades ago have come to pass.

6. Regardless of the conclusion to #5 above, since we know for certain that the doomsday narrative is complete nonsense, and most of the world is unable or unwilling to cease using fossil fuels, then the only rational choice is, if needed, to do what humanity has always done, adapt.  We are amazing at adaptation. 
Who of you have watched Chernobyl (HBO series) recently? Well, the above ^^ reminds me of those few incompetent fools who set off the entire sequence of events (the known feedback's and tipping points) as explained and illustrated by the scientists in the court hearing in the last episode. 

The consensus of those in the know (https://climatenexus.org/international/ipcc/ipcc-1-5c-report-planet-nearing-tipping-point/) is far removed from the above:

..the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the much anticipated Special Report on 1.5°Ct: "Planet Nearing Tipping Point".
About the report: World governments party to the Paris Agreement requested a comprehensive report on the impacts of 1.5°C of global warming, and how best to limit warming.
The report assessed more than 6,000 scientific papers, with input from 91 authors and editors from 40 countries.

Key Findings of IPCC 1.5°C Report:
Climate Impacts:
Impacts are already occurring and will be much worse at 2°C than previously projected. That means 2°C is no longer a safe goal to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We can avoid much, but not all, of the loss and risk of climate change by limiting warming to 1.5°C.
For example:
Coral reefs are projected to decline 70–90% at 1.5°C and more than 99% at 2°C.
With 1.5°C of global warming, the Arctic will have one sea-ice-free summer per century. At 2°C of warming, the Arctic is more likely to have one sea-ice-free summer per decade.
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C is projected to prevent the thawing of an area of permafrost the size of Mexico.
Risks from heavy precipitation events are projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C global warming in several regions, including eastern North America. Heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones is also projected to be higher at 2°C compared to 1.5°C.
Impacts associated with forest fires are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming.
There is a significant risk of crossing critical thresholds and even triggering tipping points as warming goes from 1.5˚C to 2°C.


It goes on to illustrate how cumulative emissions of CO2 and future non-CO2 radiative forcing determine the probability of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C.

Now regarding the latter and towards some bleak scenario's..there are at least two very disconcerting recent studies by reputable climate scientists that show that we may be on the brink of serious consequences:
Breaching a 'carbon threshold' could lead to mass extinction (https://phys.org/news/2019-07-breaching-carbon-threshold-mass-extinction.html)
Beyond climate tipping points (http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/beyond-climate-tipping-points.html[/url) (summary published in blog format).
The author of the last study is rather controversial among climate change skeptics in Australia because of his candid opinions about man-made global warming, opinions like The Criminal Dimension of Climate Change (https://monthlyreview.org/2019/03/01/the-criminal-dimension-of-climate-change/).
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 02, 2019, 01:44:02 am
It's no conspiracy theory.  It is simple verifiable fact.  It's been well documented and widely discussed among science professionals. 
Do you think the older historic records and newspaper articles are lies? 
Talk about conspiracy theories. 
This is you reverting back to that typical pseudoscience pattern that I illustrated earlier in the thread...the very same that is used by the flat earthers, the yec's, the geocentric proponents..
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 02, 2019, 01:46:09 am
Just a bunch of vague prognostications. 

Summertime ice free Arctic was supposed to have happened years ago. And so what if it does?

And still your arguing "consensus." 





Mammal.




Show




the




data.



Here is an excellent source of data by a respected climate science professional, including some tracking and analysis of how it's been changed over time. (http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent global air temperature change, an overview) You'll likely be shocked.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 02, 2019, 01:49:24 am
It's no conspiracy theory.  It is simple verifiable fact.  It's been well documented and widely discussed among science professionals. 
Do you think the older historic records and newspaper articles are lies? 
Talk about conspiracy theories. 
This is you reverting back to that typical pseudoscience pattern that I illustrated earlier in the thread...the very same that is used by the flat earthers, the yec's, the geocentric proponents..

The archived data and reporting shown is proof of the significant cooling trend from 1940-1980.

This is you not showing any data, choosing instead to attack the person.

It's how you know when an opponent has conceded the debate of ideas in favor of personal attack.

I've shared the data along with documentation that shows the records of a significant 40 year long cooling trend from 1940-1980.  But you only see the corrupted data, the data that has been repeatedly manipulated to better match climate crisis predictions. 

Are you familiar with how much the GMST data has been altered over the years?   
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 02, 2019, 02:00:43 am
I did show you the data and evidence that support the main arguments and trends about anthropic global warming, in particular the role that CO2 plays in an old thread. I am not going to repeat myself. In fact, you did and still admit it as much, you just keep on denying that it is serious, as if we could just continue with current trends without the consequences. And when we show you that it is already happening, you are questioning the accuracy of the data and point to conspiracies.

PS. You go as far as to say that if the worst happens, humans can just adapt again and that we are pretty good at that. Which is what everybody else is trying to tell people like you, let's adapt but rather do it before it is too late. Why do we want to leave it to our children to have to adapt to something that may be far worst?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 02, 2019, 03:38:53 am
It's no conspiracy theory.  It is simple verifiable fact.  It's been well documented and widely discussed among science professionals. 
Do you think the older historic records and newspaper articles are lies? 
Talk about conspiracy theories. 
This is you reverting back to that typical pseudoscience pattern that I illustrated earlier in the thread...the very same that is used by the flat earthers, the yec's, the geocentric proponents..
The archived data and reporting shown is proof of the significant cooling trend from 1940-1980.
This is you not showing any data, choosing instead to attack the person.
It's how you know when an opponent has conceded the debate of ideas in favor of personal attack.
I've shared the data along with documentation that shows the records of a significant 40 year long cooling trend from 1940-1980.  But you only see the corrupted data, the data that has been repeatedly manipulated to better match climate crisis predictions. 
Are you familiar with how much the GMST data has been altered over the years?
These kinds of myths and insinuations about conspiracies don't help your cause. I have already exposed some of this misinformation that you spread. I am aware of the so-called 1970's ice age prediction saga and you know as well as I do that it has been blown out of context, even to the point of blatant lies and manipulated Time magazine covers. Just stop spreading such lies and deceptions, we don't want to sink that low.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Tom Paine on September 02, 2019, 08:02:38 am

Man, if people think the migrant/refugee crisis is bad now, just wait and see what happens if we don't address this issue effectively. We ain't seen nothing yet.

What makes you think that?  Most of the warming occurs nearest the poles. Equatorial regions won't hardly notice a difference.


Well, I certainly appreciate the time and effort you must have put into that other post. However, I think this one is kind of ridiculous. It's not the temperature rise per se that is going to do the damage on the coastal regions in the tropics and equatorial regions, so the relative change in temps between there and the poles is irrelevant. What is relevant is the melting of the ice packs which are mainly at the poles. As such, the temperature increase being greater at the poles actually makes the problem worse. There's also the issue of having worse tropical storms with catastrophic storm surges as the energy in the atmosphere increases.  I've not spent any time looking at the Danish guy's economic analysis, but I wonder if they are considering ALL the costs of not taking action including the social costs of having hundreds of millions of people dislocated from heavily populated coastal regions of the world.

In Bangaladesh alone there could be 30 million or more climate refugees.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

Also, I find your idea ludicrous that there is some sort of leftist "climate cabal" that is behind "climate hysteria" with the goal of gaining control of the fossil fuel industry. It seems to me that the power elites these days are staunch capitalists, bankers and industrialists. Why on earth would they be pushing a socialist agenda? Meanwhile on particularly influential group of capitalists, i.e., the captains of the fossil fuel industry have a very obvious incentive for funding anthropomorphic climate change denial
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 03, 2019, 12:05:51 am
Tom:

That's all alarmist bunk.  None of the data supports any of it.  Unless you think that increased rain is some kind of catastrophy, conflating it with more flooding.  For many it's a huge blessing. 

Govt climate research dwarfs anything from the private sector.  And regardless, science is science.  I'm not debunking science.  I'm debunking what liars and frauds are claiming is science.  That Is the whole issue.

Show the data.



Mammal thinks it's silly to charge a corruption of science by techn-elitists. 

He's being naive. 

I'm a science professional well-trained in climate related sciences.  I've looked at the data and analyzed it rigorously.  It doesn't support the crisis narrative, the exact opposite.  Why would I lie to you?  I have ZERO motive for doing so re the climate science.  Stop believing what pundits are telling you to believe.  Look at the actual science. 

Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us.  Why won't he listen?

Quote
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should,  we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

—President Eisenhower, Jan. 17, 1961 in his farewell address

Source: http://theanimatingcontest.com/american-president-warns-of-technological-elite/

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 03, 2019, 12:22:20 am
I did show you the data and evidence that support the main arguments and trends about anthropic global warming, in particular the role that CO2 plays in an old thread. I am not going to repeat myself. In fact, you did and still admit it as much, you just keep on denying that it is serious, as if we could just continue with current trends without the consequences. And when we show you that it is already happening, you are questioning the accuracy of the data and point to conspiracies.

PS. You go as far as to say that if the worst happens, humans can just adapt again and that we are pretty good at that. Which is what everybody else is trying to tell people like you, let's adapt but rather do it before it is too late. Why do we want to leave it to our children to have to adapt to something that may be far worst?

I saw no data showing anything remotely proving an impending climate crisis.  You pointed to CO2 being a greenhouse gas.  That's not in question.  You pointed to the CO2 instrumental data.  That's not in question.  You pointed to a calculated GMST dataset with a dashed line drawn into it extending the trend of the past 30 years into the future.  You ignore the prior trends and assume that somehow the current trend will be the one to continue unceasingly.  You've  never once presented any data leading to a conclusion that man-made CO2 is going to wreck the planet.  And you've never once said how to stop it. 

What you've done is to become deceived by pundits and advocates distorting and defrauding science and outright lying about the whole issue.  No the ice age scare wasn't as developed an issue, because thankfully the trend reversed beginning around 1980.  But gee golly by 1988 the new crisis alarm was being sounded.  We'd just let out a gian sigh of relief that we weren't fixin' to be covered in ice, half the planet starving to death, when we're being told that the planet has a fever and it's all our fault.

Hansen's predictions in 1988 were off by over 100%.

He actually developed his theory, showed his data, and made predictions.  Kudos to him!  THAT is science. His predictions are more than double what has been observed in the ensuing three decades, and that relative to a highly suspect NCCD/NOAA/NASA GMST dataset that has been so ludicrously adjusted over time to have lost serious credibility.  That saddens me deeply, but it's true.  NASA needs to pop the pimple that is GISS and get back to their actual mission, space exploration. I digress.

You don't accept what Eisenhower warned us about.  Why?  Why do you think he was wrong?

I'm a science professional well-trained in climate related sciences.  I've looked at the data and analyzed it rigorously.  It doesn't support the crisis narrative, the exact opposite.  Why would I lie to you?  I have ZERO motive for doing so re the climate science.  It would be an absolute boon to my profession if the climate crisis was real.  Stop believing what pundits are telling you to believe.  Look at the actual science.  Model predictions are not science!

Quote
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should,  we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

—President Eisenhower, Jan. 17, 1961 in his farewell address

Source: http://theanimatingcontest.com/american-president-warns-of-technological-elite/
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 03, 2019, 02:20:50 am
(http://www.climate4you.com/images/EquatorSurface300hPa200hPaDecadalTempChange%20BARCHART.gif)
Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20°N and 20o°S since January 1979. Data source:  HadAT and HadCRUT4.  Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

from http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Temperature change above Equator (http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Temperature change above Equator)

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 03, 2019, 02:54:49 am
^ The above is hardly relevant

"To defend those beliefs, few dismiss the authority of science. They dismiss the authority of the scientific community. People don’t argue back by claiming divine authority anymore. They argue back by claiming to have the truer scientific authority. It can make matters incredibly confusing. You have to be able to recognize the difference between claims of science and those of pseudoscience.

Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another."


This is (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6056240.msg1275723993#msg1275723993) what is relevant.

PS. Also this visualization (https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/graphic-global-warming-from-1880-to-2018/) of temperature anomalies across the globe since 1880. As you would see, the anomalies are more severe towards the extreme NH, for reasons that are well documented.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 03, 2019, 03:16:04 am
I saw no data showing anything remotely proving an impending climate crisis.  You pointed to CO2 being a greenhouse gas.  That's not in question.  You pointed to the CO2 instrumental data.  That's not in question.  You pointed to a calculated GMST dataset with a dashed line drawn into it extending the trend of the past 30 years into the future.  You ignore the prior trends and assume that somehow the current trend will be the one to continue unceasingly.  You've  never once presented any data leading to a conclusion that man-made CO2 is going to wreck the planet.  And you've never once said how to stop it. 
Lol, refer to the last sentence in my previous post.

I actually showed you empirical data re a correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and increasing temperatures. I showed you evidence of the radiation factor, that man-made CO2 is the single biggest cause for current global warming. I showed why minuscule CO2 atmospheric content is irrelevant to the debate, that even at that low atmospheric content it remains equally potent. And last but not least I showed you that the bigger picture of climate change lies in evaluating global (ocean, land and atmospheric) CO2/temperature variation. And I asked you to tell me how that is going to stop. That was even without going into too much detail about further feedback's and possible tipping points that are anticipated beyond the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 01:34:34 am
The plot of model results versus reality is hardly relevant? 

It shows that the models are way off the mark. 

So you think Eisenhower was being silly when he warned of the effect of govt money and influence on a techno elite? 

You sure do imagine you've shown a lot, but none of it shows anything close to the claimed impending climate crisis.  See, that is what you need to demonstrate, that all the predictions, or heck, just some of the predictions that went along with that claim are matching up to reality.  But NONE of them are.  You've been mislead.  There's no conspiracy, there's just a few scoundrels and lots of pundits lying about the science, and a bunch of scientists who don't want to lose their high paying jobs.

There certainly is no consensus about impending climate doom.  Anyone who claims so has been deceived or is lying.

Show the data.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 01:43:14 am
And please tell us all your preferred solution to avoid impending climate crisis.

Nuclear power plants and electric cars for everyone?  What?

You do know that wind and solar are incapable of taking the place of any full time power generation scheme, yeah? 

Wind is tough to sell rationally.  Solar has value for its ability to augment the grid during peak hot/sunny weather when the air conditioning is running all out.  It's a huge help to the power companies here in Texas.  They pay well for people to generate excess power with their home solar system.  Pretty neat.  I have too many trees, or I'd have it. 

Edited for typo.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 04, 2019, 02:38:21 am
The plot of model results versus reality is hardly relevant? 
It shows that the models are way off the mark. 
...
You sure do imagine you've shown a lot, but none of it shows anything close to the claimed impending climate crisis.  See, that is what you need to demonstrate, that all the predictions, or heck, just some of the predictions that went along with that claim are matching up to reality. 
...
There certainly is no consensus about impending climate doom.  Anyone who claims so has been deceived or is lying.
...
Show the data.
The plot shows cherry-picked data. I am not sure how reliable it even is, but it's easy to manipulate or select graphs in order to depict certain things as you did there. Temperature variations over the equator are less severe than other places, it was also much more affected by the temperature hiatus where the oceans absorbed much of the heat. If for example, if you were to extend that data set to 2015/2016'ish you should see a vastly different picture. I know because I have seen studies about that in particular. In fact, that same url link that you provided have all sorts of data sets that portray various different scenario's from where one could pick something according to preference. You claim to be a science professional so you should know better.

I did show you that climate sensitivity to CO2 matches the models very accurately and that global warming is trending again very much according to predictions since the hiatus has passed. In fact, by looking at the bigger picture (ocean's included) the global climate anomaly has been following the predicted trends very closely in recent years.

And I already showed you in a very recent post that the world is pretty much united on the issue. You're in denial.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 04, 2019, 03:33:26 am
And please tell us all your preferred solution to avoid impending climate crisis.
Nuclear power plants and electric cars for everyone?  What?
You do know that wind and solar are incapable of taking the place of any full time power generation scheme, yeah? 
Wind is tough to sell rationally.  Solar has value for its ability to augment the grid
I think the IPCC paper that I linked deals with all sorts of solutions and there are various international climate organizations that have been working on many viable economic models. But just have a look at what can be done by a developed country:
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/fig1_installed_net_power_generation_capacity_in_germany_2002_2018.png?itok=-3jZK5AB)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 10:30:55 am
The plot of model results versus reality is hardly relevant? 
It shows that the models are way off the mark. 
...
You sure do imagine you've shown a lot, but none of it shows anything close to the claimed impending climate crisis.  See, that is what you need to demonstrate, that all the predictions, or heck, just some of the predictions that went along with that claim are matching up to reality. 
...
There certainly is no consensus about impending climate doom.  Anyone who claims so has been deceived or is lying.
...
Show the data.
The plot shows cherry-picked data. I am not sure how reliable it even is, but it's easy to manipulate or select graphs in order to depict certain things as you did there. Temperature variations over the equator are less severe than other places, it was also much more affected by the temperature hiatus where the oceans absorbed much of the heat. If for example, if you were to extend that data set to 2015/2016'ish you should see a vastly different picture. I know because I have seen studies about that in particular. In fact, that same url link that you provided have all sorts of data sets that portray various different scenario's from where one could pick something according to preference. You claim to be a science professional so you should know better.

I did show you that climate sensitivity to CO2 matches the models very accurately and that global warming is trending again very much according to predictions since the hiatus has passed. In fact, by looking at the bigger picture (ocean's included) the global climate anomaly has been following the predicted trends very closely in recent years.

And I already showed you in a very recent post that the world is pretty much united on the issue. You're in denial.

Show the data.

So 35 years of data relative to the predicted tropospheric hot spot, a prominent feature common to all models used to promote climate crisis, 35 years of data is cherry picking?  Okay, let's remember that, because I don't necessarily disagree.  Too many major climate cycles (AMO, PDO, deep ocean cycles, etc) have greater periods, some exceeding 50 years or even 100 years.  There's been no huge warming in the troposphere at the equator in the ensuing five or six years.  Nothing that would come close to matching the model predictions.Please show the data.

Please show the model that you claim is matching reality plotted versus the various observations.  Show the data you claim exists.

Stop with all the rhetoric and just show the data that you are claiming exists.  Show the data, and prove your case.  It's that simple.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 10:35:05 am
And please tell us all your preferred solution to avoid impending climate crisis.
Nuclear power plants and electric cars for everyone?  What?
You do know that wind and solar are incapable of taking the place of any full time power generation scheme, yeah? 
Wind is tough to sell rationally.  Solar has value for its ability to augment the grid
I think the IPCC paper that I linked deals with all sorts of solutions and there are various international climate organizations that have been working on many viable economic models. But just have a look at what can be done by a developed country:
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/fig1_installed_net_power_generation_capacity_in_germany_2002_2018.png?itok=-3jZK5AB)

Please specify one solution.

Wind and solar only work when the wind blows and the sun shines.   

So I ask again, please tell us all your preferred solution to avoid impending climate crisis.

You do know that wind and solar are incapable of taking the place of any full time power generation scheme, yeah?  When the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine you need power from other sources. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 10:50:28 am
>>> And I already showed you in a very recent post that the world is pretty much united on the issue. You're in denial.

This "I already showed you" theme is something you employ way too often.  It is true that you've shared information. It's false that you've showed anything close to making a case for climate doom, or a tipping point. You just show a temperature plot with a dashed line drawn in pretending that a recent trend will continue unabated into the future.  It's garbage. 

"... the world is pretty much united on the issue."

That's not science.   And on what issue?  That we should globally curtail use of fossil fuels or else climate doom cometh, an fictional tipping point will inexplicably be breached that dooms the planet?  What?  With all the fear-mongering lies and fraudulent reporting,  (https://realclimatescience.com/extreme-fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment/)it's not surprising people would be concerned.

That

isn't

science.




Show the data.



SHOW            THE.   .       DATA.  (that proves impending climate crisis).




Then tell us what one possible solution is, just one, and why it's cost is preferred over simple adaptation to changing climate.



Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 11:31:10 am
Question for all who may be interested:

All else being equal, does the amount of sunlight (solar energy) that reaches the Earth's surface proportionally affect the global mean surface temperature (GMST)?  That means does more sunlight making it to the Earth's surface tend to warm the temperatures there, while less sunlight tends to cool it?



Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 04, 2019, 12:06:58 pm
Wretch, like I said, I showed you the emperical evidence, the data. I pointed you to a study in that old thread where they were able to correlate man-made CO2 with rise in temperature. As you know it is traceable. I also ended that thread with data pertaining to the rise in global temperature taking into account ocean, atmosphere and land that trended upwards unaffected by any stalls or any hiatus. I know you refused to accept the evidence then and will probably continue to do so, but you are welcome to look it up again.

And I showed you what Germany has done already.

Yet you continue to demand even better explanations and evidence..?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 12:38:41 pm
Wretch, like I said, I showed you the emperical evidence, the data. I pointed you to a study in that old thread where they were able to correlate man-made CO2 with rise in temperature. As you know it is traceable. I also ended that thread with data pertaining to the rise in global temperature taking into account ocean, atmosphere and land that trended upwards unaffected by any stalls or any hiatus. I know you refused to accept the evidence then and will probably continue to do so, but you are welcome to look it up again.

And I showed you what Germany has done already.

Yet you continue to demand even better explanations and evidence..?

Mammal,

So Germany is the model for the solution?   

Okay. What is Germany's current annual CO2 emissions rate, and how does it compare to that from decades ago before their new solar or wind genration capacity was installed and operating? 

How is that a solution???


That CO2 can cause warming is not at issue. 

At issue is that anthropogenic CO2 is causing an impending climate doomsday.

Please show the data that proves that.


Again...

>>> "And I already showed you in a very recent post that the world is pretty much united on the issue. You're in denial."

I'm denying that opinion polls are science.  Do you?  This "I already showed you" theme is something you employ way too often.  It is true that you've shared information. It's false that you've showed anything close to making a case for climate doom, or a tipping point. You just show a temperature plot with a dashed line drawn in pretending that a recent trend will continue unabated into the future.  . 

"... the world is pretty much united on the issue."

That's not science.   And on what issue?  That we should globally curtail use of fossil fuels or else climate doom cometh, a fictional tipping point will inexplicably be breached that dooms the planet?  What?

  With all the fear-mongering lies and fraudulent reporting,  (https://realclimatescience.com/extreme-fraud-in-the-national-climate-assessment/)it's not surprising people would be concerned, but...



That

isn't

science.




Please show the data.



SHOW            THE.   .       DATA.  (that proves impending climate crisis).





Then tell us what one actual possible solution is, just one, and what it will cost including the human impact, and why that cost and human impact are preferred over simple ongoing adaptation to a changing climate, which has always changed, and always will change.

Can you please answer that?

Please answer the tough questions and show the data.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 04, 2019, 02:00:19 pm
I don't quite follow your tantrum. Look at what you are asking me re Germany. What are you implying? Are you saying that their CO2 emissions have increased despite them moving to clean energy? Surely they have a more effective emission rate now per KW generated? And lets not forget about the renewable aspect. Fossil fuel has a cap and that tap will run dry one day.

It's not only about CO2 that can (perhaps) cause warming, it is about man-made CO2 causing warming as we type. And the warming is showing its effects already, plus - all things being equal - it is not going to stop by itself any time soon.

Which is why most people and most scientists across the globe are so concerned, which is why they look at worst case scenario's. They simply have to - all things being equal.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 04, 2019, 03:56:39 pm
It's not a tantrum Mammal.   Hahahah! 

It me trying to get you to actually answer the challenges and questions that you've been dodging.

Please answer the tough questions and show the data.

Germany is still emitting copious amounts of CO2.  So how is Germany an example of a solution?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 05, 2019, 01:22:24 am
^ I think that you are under the false impression that proponents of man-made solutions for man-made climate change implies that we need to cut down on fossil fuels and stop emitting CO2 altogether. That is not the case. That will not be possible.

Whereas the original idea was to limit the climate anomaly to below 2 degree Celsius over the medium term and to prevent it from reaching 3 degree Celsius (which would happen if the existing trend continue), the current medium term goal is to try curbing CO2 emissions to such an extent as to rather stay below a 1.5 degree Celsius anomaly. And that means we can't continue to increase CO2 emissions at the current rate, we need to emit less.

Let me quote from an article (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/we-must-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-to-net-zero-or-face-more-floods) in The Guardian that summarizes the gist of IPCC recent report findings:
Quote
The report recognises that the collective pledges by governments that were submitted before the Paris agreement was reached in 2015 are consistent with warming of 3C by the end of the century. By contrast, a path that would prevent a rise of much more than 1.5C would require annual emissions to fall by about 50% between now and 2030, and reach net zero by 2050.

This is what Germany has already achieved in a similar time period by means of having addressed the problem and started to implement a gradual move away from fossil fuels to renewable clean energy way in advance. And they were able to do so without affecting their economy, which has kept on growing.

The risks of worst-case scenario's of a doomsday outcome w.r.t. feedback and tipping points start to become relevant beyond 1.5 degree Celsius anomaly and apparently the risks increase considerably at beyond 2 degree Celsius anomaly.

What you need to understand is that we don't have to debate how accurate these doomsday predictions are. There is no fixed data on doomsday occurrences based on the current climatic situation, so it cannot be produced. The best that we have are indications of what happened in the past, what is happening now, what physics determine will happen and use models as best we can in order to plan ahead. We need to acknowledge that in order to stay safe, we need to start curbing CO2 emissions before it is too late to do so in any meaningful manner. Because CO2 stays in atmosphere for such a long time and because feedback and forcing occur after the fact, it has to be mitigated in advance.

Keep in mind that said correlation between man-made carbon emissions and an increasing climate anomaly is now established fact. Keep in mind that the oceans are saturated, keep in mind that the ice sheets are shrinking (and all the other existing impacts of climate change). That all this will not stop and that it will only worsen if action is not taken. Finally, that if we wait too long, that there is a real chance of not being able to prevent the kind of catastrophic implications that are being talked about.   
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 05, 2019, 02:35:44 am
Amazing.

So we need to prevent warming beyond 1.5°C from pre-industrial.  What happens then? We're already at 1.0°C above pre-industrial, yeah?

Why 1.5°C?  Have you not seen the model runs that show that even with full achievement of the Paris plan, the global temperature will remain essentially unaffected through the end of the century.  Germany still emits lots of CO2, and China, the world's current leading emitter of CO2 is allowed to continue emitting more and more through 2035, the same for India, yeah?

Show the plan with the expected emissions reductions, and the expected affect on global temperature. according to the model of your choice.  The one you won't point out as proof of impending climate crisis. <sigh>

 If that doesn't exist, don't you think that's a problem?

No?

Well, if you don't have anything to show that proves an impending climate doom is upon us absent drastic intervention, and you won't say what the drastic intervention/solution is other than to cut back on emissions, like Germany, then how about if you just show the data that falsifies the contrary contentions.  Show the data that falsifies the contentions that no drastic action to curtail CO2 emissions is needed, that expected warming will be beneficial on balance, that increased CO2 will be very beneficial, that any changes in climate will be very easily adapted to over time, that the mild warming expected may even help fend of the next ice age, due to hit any year now.

Can you show the data that falsifies those contentions..
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 05, 2019, 04:21:29 am
So we need to prevent warming beyond 1.5°C from pre-industrial.  What happens then? We're already at 1.0°C above pre-industrial, yeah? Why 1.5°C?  Have you not seen the model runs that show that even with full achievement of the Paris plan, the global temperature will remain essentially unaffected through the end of the century.
Yes, we're already at 1.0°C above pre-industrial and the impacts are there for all to see, plus it will continue to rise if CO2 emissions are not curbed. The anticipated impacts beyond 1.5°C are given in the IPCC report and said impacts will worsen approaching 2°C.

Germany still emits lots of CO2, and China, the world's current leading emitter of CO2 is allowed to continue emitting more and more through 2035, the same for India, yeah?
Germany has not increased it's CO2, it has in fact lowered it and it will continue to trend down as energy projects relying on fossil fuel come to the end of their operation cycle. This is what it's all about, to plan it properly. The objections against China and India are rather shallow coming from the USA and I don't want to get involved in that silly debate. Point is that all countries need to agree on equitable and viable plans to reduce their carbon emissions. Pointing fingers at each other is not getting us anywhere.

Show the plan with the expected emissions reductions, and the expected affect on global temperature. according to the model of your choice.  The one you won't point out as proof of impending climate crisis. <sigh>
If that doesn't exist, don't you think that's a problem?
As I said, this is something that the IPCC and others have been working on and getting the international community to agree on. There is a developing plan of action on the table; I referenced it for you. I am not sure why you want me to present it to you?? As long as you understand that the measures will have to be implemented otherwise climate anomalies will continue upwards and the impacts will become more severe. As simple as that.

Well, if you don't have anything to show that proves an impending climate doom is upon us absent drastic intervention, and you won't say what the drastic intervention/solution is other than to cut back on emissions, like Germany, then how about if you just show the data that falsifies the contrary contentions.  Show the data that falsifies the contentions that no drastic action to curtail CO2 emissions is needed, that expected warming will be beneficial on balance, that increased CO2 will be very beneficial, that any changes in climate will be very easily adapted to over time, that the mild warming expected may even help fend of the next ice age, due to hit any year now.
Can you show the data that falsifies those contentions..
Don't try and fool us with the alleged positives of climate warming, they are dwarfed by the reality of negative impacts. There is no credible evidence that expected and continued warming will remain beneficial on balance. There is no reason to think that man-made climate change will stop in any other manner. There is no reason to think that the negative impacts of said man-made climate change will improve; in fact it is only logical that it will worsen, which is further backed up by scientific and socio-economic models. Said impacts on human populations are discussed in the IPCC document. There is little to no evidence for-, or guarantee of any ice age ending man-made climate change before said impacts have already taken its toll.

"They (pseudoscientists) argue back by claiming to have the truer scientific authority... They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another."
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 05, 2019, 03:16:31 pm
^ Amazing.

No data,

No plan, 

No refutation of the least troublesome highly likely scenario.

Asking about the effect of the still growing emissions of China and India is "shallow", not cold hard scientific fact that must be dealt with rather than ignored?  Instead America must be blamed?  Cause blame will solve the crisis?

Come on bruddah. 

The songs and dances of the climate crisis cabal.  None of it founded in actual science.

>>> Yes, we're already at 1.0°C above pre-industrial and the impacts are there for all to see

Prove it.  Show the data!  I've not seen it!

And, the climate has been significantly warmer before, long before SUVs, Exxon, BP, or Shell Oil came on the scene.

SHOW        THE       DATA,

Seriously, the rhetoric is pointless.  We're talking science.  Science means data.  Show the data.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 05, 2019, 10:39:18 pm
Interesting NOAA plot for contiguous US high temperature. (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&parameter=anom-tmax&time_scale=ann&begyear=1895&endyear=2019&month=12)

You can sure see why they were concerned about cooling climate in the early to mid 1970's.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 06, 2019, 02:17:56 am
No data,
No plan, 
No refutation of the least troublesome highly likely scenario.
The misunderstanding must be on your part. The data and empirical evidence that man-made climate change is correlated with- and caused by man-made CO2 emissions (and other greenhouse gasses) are available and as I have said many times now, have been shown to you in an older thread. And as I told you, these are beyond question by now, even you agree that this is happening.

As I said, there is a plan so if you are interested please feel free to study it. But I am not participating in this thread to sell you the particulars of the plan. Suffice to say that it sets out certain targets for lowering CO2 emissions in an attempt to mitigate further warming above 1.5°C and it describes what impacts are already observed, how these would most likely develop and what other impacts may be expected beyond 1.5°C. There does not really seem to be much of a choice.

And this is where you seem entirely oblivious of the reality of the situation. You still think that the current status quo is an option (instead of taking drastic measures to lower man-made greenhouse gasses, especially CO2) and you want me to refute that. Well I did. I already told you just how simple it is, Tom and others did the same. If we don't do something about this (very urgently), emissions will continue to rise and climate anomalies will continue to rise towards 2°C, 3°C, 4°C. You admitted that temperatures will not likely come down any time soon. And you are right, in other words we still have the opportunity to stop it before it gets to levels where it may be too high (for our eco system) to endure for a prolonged period of time.

Lets pause here. What has already happened even before we've reached 1.5°C? The ocean's are acidifying, oceanic oxygen levels decrease because oxygen is less soluble in warmer water, coral reefs are dying off, the rate of ice loss from glaciers and ice sheets, as well as the retreat of non-polar glaciers are disturbing and spell a high risk for unplugging potentially vast glacier outlets and for ice-free Arctic summers, which will increase the ice–albedo feedback, while some places are experiencing extreme weather (e.g. this European summer, some of the strongest hurricanes that have been recorded in recent times, passenger jets that are experiencing dangerous levels of turbulence, it has affected the monsoon season in East Asia), plus impacts on animal and marine life that are well documented, to name a few prominent impacts. 

And things will get worse as we approach 1.5°C and beyond. Why will it not get worse??

Keep in mind that this is like a greenhouse, where all the known and manageable checks and balances need to work precisely as they should, otherwise it goes haywire. The science of this balancing act is pretty much known by now. So if we leave this situation to develop further by allowing man-made emissions to continue to rise, the global climate anomalies will reach a point where it will become unbearable and unmanageable. We will move past the point of no return. Seeing that we don't have certainty about any ice age coming soon enough, why will this not happen??

Asking about the effect of the still growing emissions of China and India is "shallow", not cold hard scientific fact that must be dealt with rather than ignored?  Instead America must be blamed?
Come on man, I was not necessarily blaming the USA. The fact is that the USA has been one of biggest emitters per capita throughout the industrial age, while China and India are still developing countries having started comparatively recently. Most governments have already agreed that these mitigation processes have to be equitable from a historic socio-economic perspective, so let's leave it at that. These countries have pledged their commitments afaik to implement carbon restricting measures in accordance with mutually accepted criteria.

>>> Yes, we're already at 1.0°C above pre-industrial and the impacts are there for all to see
Prove it.  Show the data!  I've not seen it!
And, the climate has been significantly warmer before, long before SUVs, Exxon, BP, or Shell Oil came on the scene.
By now you have seen it.
Yes, it has been warmer during Earth's history and for similar reasons, just without the human factor. Those warming cycles mostly took tens of thousands of years to develop and/or required extreme volcanic activities. Some caused mass extinctions. This time around it took only 15o years for humans to get us to the brink of a similar global threat.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 06, 2019, 02:49:00 pm
Mammal,

<sigh>

More alarmist assertions.

No data.

No plan.

Just alarmism and appeals to cede authority to govt.

You make all kinds of claims.

Show          the           data.

None of what you claim is true overall.  Some glaciers are melting, as they have been since the end of the last ice age, and the little ice age.  Others are growing.  Coral reefs are in fact not dying off. And in fact have been found to thrive through history when waters were much less alkaline.   The ocean is not acidifying, as it alkaline, the opposite of acidic.  It's been less alkaline before and coral did fine.

Cherry picked poorly researched data started the coral is dying scare.  The very reef used in the research has since rebounded.  Amazing, huh?

Passenger jets are experiencing turbulence?  <incredulous stare>

There's NOTHING unprecedented in hurricane frequency or intensity.  Hurricane and typhoon seasons follow fluctuating cycles over decades.  The science shows nothing unprecedented.  In fact, the science predicts that due to warming  happening more towards the poles and less towards the equator, the milder differential leads to reduced hurricane intensity.  Storms are made more intense by larger differential temperatures between upper cold from the north and the lower warm moist air from the equator.  Yeah?  I think that's what I read.

Bottom line....

Show          the           data.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 07, 2019, 12:33:09 am



On the part of the topic about the "solutions", please consider Dr. Lomborg's five minute presentation. (https://youtu.be/tUR0LrSadkg)

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 07, 2019, 12:36:29 am


On exposing false alarmism and fraudulent data, re sea level. (https://youtu.be/CffMifh73ZE)




Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 07, 2019, 01:33:45 am
^ OK wait, so you are going to continue to deny these facts and continue to rather push your own brand of pseudo information. Just like the flat earth society, the YEC, the geocentric lot.. According to script then.. If that is the case then I am not sure there is much sense to continue having a conversation. It's kind of meaningless

I am able to address your misconceptions above one-by-one, as they are outrageously false/skewed, but we cannot continue on this path where I have to refute your never ending stream of pseudoscience BS. So I am willing to provide substantiation for any of my claims that I have made in my recent posts - if I have not done so before - if you could point out to me which of those you dispute. Stick to what is relevant to the issue, don't ask the same questions that have been answered before and don't keep on moving the goal posts.

More importantly you are avoiding the reality of what I conveyed to you. You are unable to prove me wrong on the real issue, or to answer the questions that I posed to you.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 07, 2019, 01:43:48 am
Mammal,

Bro.  Amigo, Compadré, please!

Show the data. 

Stop denying actual science.

There is no climate crisis.  The models have failed, and the predicted effects have not materialized.

There is no proposed solution that would have any significant effect other than to wreck economies and enslave working people.

More CO2 is beneficial, as is mildly warming climate, and humans are perfectly capable of adapting to climate change, because climate always changes, always has, and always will.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 07, 2019, 01:47:37 am
^ Sorry, I showed the evidence for all that already and I won't repeat myself. Ignorance is a bliss. Wow, see how these debates end.. Just like the rest of the bunch that I have often compared you with..
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 07, 2019, 01:54:57 am
Come on Mammal:

You're embarrassing the reptiles even. 

You've only showed data supporting that climate has warmed and that CO2 contributes to warmer climate.  That's it.  I'm not disagreeing with either.

See, temperature has warmed before, warmer than now, and actual scientifically based estimates on the magnitude of warming caused by CO2 are diminishing as time passes.  I plotted the data with trendline from your own reference article to prove that to you, remember?  I showed the data.

The same for drought, floods, cyclonic storm frequency and energy, heat waves, tornadoes, and wildfires... none have increased or been unprecedented compared to historic records. 

Arctic Summer sea ice declines, but not Winter ice.  And Antarctic ice is gaining mass. 

The polar bears are thriving.

People and agriculture are thriving.

Watch the short video by Dr. Lombörg? 

You've shown zero data supporting any kind of climate crisis, or the predicted effects thereof.

But you're good at making fallacious arguments from authority, and offering personal derision/insult.

Thank you for conceding the debate.  ;~)

More data:  Corals Resilient, Study Shows. Reefs Repopulating Quickly (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coral-reefs-show-remarkable-ability-to-recover-from-near-death/)
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 07, 2019, 02:36:08 am
So just to illustrate the level of delusion that you are experiencing about all this and that you have articulated in each paragraph of your last posts, I am going to show you how that article that you cited ^ ends:
Quote
One factor that could complicate this resilience analysis is seawater acidity, or pH. The oceans also absorb the atmospheric carbon dioxide that accumulates from rampant fossil-fuel burning, which renders the water more acidic. The corals that form Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are now growing half as fast as in the 1970s, largely because much of that new growth is dissolving away at night, according to a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research. And although corals can adapt to warming waters and resist more acidic ones, climate change adds to the stress caused by water pollution, overfishing and other threats to reefs, which shelter coastlines from the impacts of extreme weather and sea level rise as well as provide food for hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
 
If coral reefs are to thrive in the Anthropocene—the current epoch in which human activity has become a driving force on the planet—CO2 levels in the atmosphere will have to drop. As for 2015: "my next big concerns are the reefs on these South Pacific islands, the Indian Ocean and perhaps Southeast Asia later this year," Eakin says. "If it continues, then we will have to worry about the western North Pacific, again, and Caribbean for next fall."
So there is a bit of the real world that I was describing to you in my post of yesterday. Wake up and smell the acidity.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 07, 2019, 07:40:43 am
Let me also add this awfully flawed logic of yours to the above:

You've only showed data supporting that climate has warmed and that CO2 contributes to warmer climate.  That's it.  I'm not disagreeing with either.
See, temperature has warmed before, warmer than now, and actual scientifically based estimates on the magnitude of warming caused by CO2 are diminishing as time passes.  I plotted the data with trendline from your own reference article to prove that to you, remember?  I showed the data.
First of all, the actual scientifically based estimates on the magnitude of warming caused by CO2 are not really diminishing as time passes. I already showed you why such a statement was and still is false. Recent *instrumental* based estimates have been lower, but not only do they have known shortcomings, they were also based on instrumental readings during the so-called hiatus. The hiatus has come and gone. The most up-to-date instrumental data (and projections) should reflect an upward trend. In fact the recovery was so significant that it has basically wiped out the impact of the hiatus. So I hope that you were not suggesting that warming is actually slowing down (and may subside) because these *instrumental* based estimates are showing lower estimated sensitivity figures.

Keep in mind that you have admitted that CO2 contributes to warmer climate. So this article makes the case for: "Human-caused global warming is not a theoretical, future prediction—it has already occurred. Warming of the atmosphere and oceans is extensively documented, and the role of increased greenhouse gases in this warming has been determined from multiple lines of evidence." (https://sciencefeedback.co/claimreview/rush-limbaugh-falsely-claims-there-is-no-evidence-of-human-caused-global-warming/). It basically summarizes the evidence and some of my core arguments that I have made in that older thread of ours and that I have repeated here. All of it is relevant, but for now let me zoom into the last part of the article as it has reference to the rate of warming:
Quote
Shaun Lovejoy, Professor, McGill University:

Let’s say you are given only three pieces of information:
a) The annual average value of the global temperature from 1880 to 1909
b) The atmospheric CO2 concentration for each year
c) The effective climate sensitivity

With only this, the temperature over the 104 years between 1909 and 2013 could be incredibly well forecast (black line in the figure below), indeed to about an accuracy of ±0.22 °C (purple lines, 90% confidence limits). This tight limit includes the so-called “pause” of the early 2000s.

Knowing only the CO2 therefore allows us to predict the temperature more than 100 years into the future. Given that the total change over this time was 1.1 °C, the prediction is correct to within 20%. We know that the CO2 was anthropogenic, therefore its increase was not caused by a change of temperature. We can conclude that CO2 is responsible for much of the change in temperature over the last century.
(https://sciencefeedback.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/lovejoy_fig3.png)

So I am repeating my questions to you:
Why will warming slow down to such an extent that it will flatten out, or stabilize while we continue with current emission rates that have caused the warming to increase?   
Why will the impacts of global warming that I have highlighted (and they are real, even if you keep on denying it) not worsen?

PS. Graph adapted from Lovejoy (2015), Using scaling for macroweather forecasting including the pause, Geophysical Research Letters (link available in the cited article).
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 07, 2019, 07:25:31 pm
Actual Scientific observations:

Coral reefs can repopulate quickly. 
Corals in deeper water are more protected.
Sea level is rising, resulting in deeper water at coral reefs

What Mammal calls "science":
"One factor that could complicate this resilience analysis is seawater acidity, or pH."

That is what is known as supposition. 


This kind of mistake is why you keep denying the actual science. You prefer supposition.

On the declining magnitude of scientific ECS estimates, you include climate model results, which are not science.  I showed the data for actual scientifically based ECS estimates and their clear trend decreasing with time, but you deny the science.

Stop denying the science bro!





Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 08, 2019, 01:24:53 am
^ But you are still reading selectively. You are still neglecting to look at the rest of that paragraph.. Which is the same with what you are doing with the sensitivity figures. Which means that you are still cherry-picking and still not getting the bigger picture of what is happening. And you can't answer my questions. You prefer not to, Who is the one in denial here?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 08, 2019, 01:48:36 am
I'll answer your question with the same question all skeptics,pose in response to "what will stop the warming?".

What stopped it before, when CO2 was quadruple what it is today, and life was thriving? 

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 08, 2019, 02:07:01 am
Be specific...when was that? And if you are thinking ice age, well, we covered that already. We don't know of any ice age coming soon enough. So do you have another plan?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 08, 2019, 03:26:48 am
The Jurasic, but when doesn't matter.  According to your theory, the planet should have been doomed, but life thrived beyond belief if you could see it's like today. you'd say by comparison our current planet is near dead.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 08, 2019, 10:47:36 am
^ What on earth would have been similar than today's situation other than high CO2 levels that have taken tens of thousands of years to accumulate allowing the eco systems to adapt to? The biophysical environment back then, both biotic and abiotic (marine, atmospheric and terrestrial), was entirely different. So just saying oh look, our planet was lush and green and was able to support huge reptiles during a time when CO2 levels were even higher does not really address the realities of today's fast warming planet.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 08, 2019, 11:11:28 am
It shows that warmer climate and higher CO2 allowed life to thrive, didn't trigger a runaway tipping point scenario, and so disproves the climate crisis assertions to the contrary.

Question: What is the limit you think CO2 must be held below, and if exceeded, what specifically will be the effects and when will they manifest?

Let's take a worst case, the climate warms enough to eventually totally melt all the glacial ice, and so oceans would rise 300 feet.  How long would that take?  Any idea? 

Then consider that we've essentially built the entire modern civilized world within the time span of less than a century.  China moved 60% of their population from rural agrarian to modern urban industry within the span of a decade or two.

If you own a home with a yard/lawn, did you know that it can eventually bury your house?  The local soil level rises over time relative to the underlying geology.  All that carbon absorbed by plants, some of it gets sequestered into the soil as the plants die and decay.  Dust carried by the atmosphere constantly adds to the topsoil.  Dead insects and small animals too.  The doggie poo.  Bird poo. It all adds up over time. 

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 08, 2019, 11:48:58 am
Your argument has now changed from:

There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful

To

Continuation of existing CO2 emissions causing man made climate change must somehow be worth risking everything.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 08, 2019, 12:12:33 pm
My argument remains unchanged concerning the science.

You won't engage the science, so I'm changing tack and trying to force you to address your own worst case scenario. 

There is no possible scenario of "risking everything" climate scenario.  That is just pure fiction.  That is what you need to address, and so I'm asking you the questions above in hopes that you'll see the truth.  You're not answering them.  <sigh>  Come on man; tackle the tough questions.  It's what Björn Lomborg and his group have done.  The Earth and humankind are INCREDIBLY resilient.  Fossil fuels may well  likely be antique, virtually extinct from our power grids and conveyances within a hundred years. 

I'm WAY more concerned about a possible planet-killing asteroid, the Yellowstone caldera, or an EMP attack.

Ever read "One Second After" by John Matherson?  If you dread a millenia long 300 feet rise in sea level, you'll be completely freaked about the scenario of HEMP attack. 
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 08, 2019, 01:07:05 pm
^ Last time I checked I engaged wrt the science and you were unable to respond, which is when you changed your tune.

You are now arguing exactly as I have reworded your argument for you.

And you are denying the impacts that we are already experiencing..simple example..you are basically saying that it's ok for the coral reefs to perish..see, they might just recover again..meanwhile in the real world. And that's kind of symptomatic of the stance that you are taking. The shrinking ice, the oceans, the marine and wildlife, the people.

If you point to the Jurassic saying see, it won't be risking everything and it's nothing compared to an asteroid wiping us out..then I am a bit confused.

As if it's worth it.

Your answer to my questions therefore:
We should not stop man-made global warming, we should see it through come hell or high water.

Right?
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Wretch on September 08, 2019, 03:10:59 pm
Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You've presented no science beyond a warming climate interval and that CO2 tends to warm the climate on the surface. 

You've presented no evidence of anything unprecedented.  Corals die and recolonise per the current science.   Since they've appeared on Earth, they always have.  Always will.  Cause it's been a LOT warmer before, and with a LOT more CO2 before.  And life on the planet flourished like never before.

How about answering the tough questions:

What is the limit you think CO2 must be held below?

How specifically will that be achieved? What is the plan?  How much will it cost?  What will be the effect on poor people?

And if exceeded, what specifically will be the effects that are so extreme, and when will they manifest, over what time interval?

Let's take a worst case, the climate warms enough, say 8°C to eventually totally melt all the glacial ice, and so oceans would rise, what,  300 feet?  How long would that take?  Any idea?  Guess.

Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 09, 2019, 06:01:33 am
You've presented no science beyond a warming climate interval and that CO2 tends to warm the climate on the surface. 
The evidence that I presented proves that existing climate change is caused by man-made CO2 emissions, that climate change has been ongoing and accelerating and that there is no scientific reason for it to stop or slow down while emissions continue at this rate. The warming will climb beyond 1.5°C to 2°C, 3°C, 4°C, 5°C and so forth. This is undeniably true. All indications are that if climate feedback mechanisms change, it would only worsen the situation.

You acknowledged this by virtue of not being able to provide an alternative explanation for why man-made warming would stop, or slow down, other than admitting that we may be heading towards a Jurassic-like environment, i.e. for man-made warming to continue.

You've presented no evidence of anything unprecedented.  Corals die and recolonise per the current science.   Since they've appeared on Earth, they always have.  Always will.  Cause it's been a LOT warmer before, and with a LOT more CO2 before.  And life on the planet flourished like never before.
I provided a list of some of the existing impacts on climate change. Even if we ignore the reports of "dangerous" levels of air turbulence, the rest as well as others that I have not even mentioned, are well documented. My argument is that these impacts - such as coral reef destruction - are caused by man-made climate change, not by natural events, over an unnaturally short period of time. That is what is unprecedented. And the existing impacts - such as coral reef destruction - will only worsen, not improve, for as long as we continue warming our environment. You are unable to give me an explanation of how these existing impacts will change for the better.

Do you know how many marine life species depend on coral reefs? Let me answer it from Coral Reef Biodiversity (https://coral.org/coral-reefs-101/coral-reef-ecology/coral-reef-biodiversity/): Coral reefs are believed by many to have the highest biodiversity of any ecosystem on the planet—even more than a tropical rainforest. Occupying less than one percent of the ocean floor, coral reefs are home to more than twenty-five percent of marine life. In other words it's a haven for marine life and you don't seem bothered to be playing your part in their demise.

As for the ice:
The threshold for collapse of the Greenland ice sheet is estimated in the range of 400-560 ppm CO₂ at approximately 2.0 - 2.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, and is retarded by hysteresis (where a physical property lags behind changes in the effect causing it). The threshold for the breakdown of the West Antarctic ice sheet is similar. The greenhouse gas level and temperature conditions under which the East Antarctic ice sheet formed about 34 million years ago are estimated as ~800–2000 ppm at 4 to 6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial values. Based mainly on satellite gravity data there is evidence the East Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt in places (Jones, 2019), with ice loss rates of approximately 40 Gt/y (Gigaton of ice per year) in 1979–1990 and up to to 252 Gt/y in 2009–2017 (Rignot et al., 2019).

The cumulative contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctic ice melt was 14.0 ± 2.0 mm since 1979. This includes 6.9 ± 0.6 mm from West Antarctica, 4.4 ± 0.9 mm from East Antarctica, and 2.5 ± 0.4 mm from the Antarctic Peninsula (Rignot et al., 2019).
(Source (http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/beyond-climate-tipping-points.html))

And once the ice and permafrost disappears, more methane, CO2 and deadly diseases like anthrax, zika (https://www.livescience.com/55632-deadly-diseases-emerge-from-global-warming.html) and others may follow.

What is the limit you think CO2 must be held below?
How specifically will that be achieved? What is the plan? How much will it cost?  What will be the effect on poor people?
And if exceeded, what specifically will be the effects that are so extreme, and when will they manifest, over what time interval?
It is said that our chances of having already caused a 1.5°C anomaly (in the making) are 50/50, but even if we haven't, we will undoubtedly reach that point of no return within 20 years if we continue with the current trend of emitting 42bn tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. According to the IPCC report (https://climatenexus.org/international/ipcc/ipcc-1-5c-report-planet-nearing-tipping-point/) global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if temperatures continue to increase at the current rate.

The Paris climate agreement agreed to keep global average temperatures from rising “well below 2°C” and to try to keep limit rises to less than 1.5°C. The agreement also provided for a report on the risks associated with- and actions needed to prevent breaching the 1.5°C anomaly. According to the report there are important considerations for why we should keep it below 1.5°C: “By 2100, global sea-level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all would be lost with 2°C.”

Furthermore. adapting to warming of 1.5°C would be easier and less expensive. A study published in May showed that the savings for the world, if it were to hit the more ambitious climate goal would be as much as $30 trillion. “By the end of the century, we find the world will be about 3% wealthier if we actually achieve the 1.5°C target relative to 2°C target,”(Source (https://qz.com/1416250/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-1-5c-climate-change-report/))

According to the report (https://climatenexus.org/international/ipcc/ipcc-1-5c-report-planet-nearing-tipping-point/):

Human Impacts:
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C could reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050 compared with 2°C.
Global economic growth faces a greater threat at 2°C of warming vs. 1.5°C.
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C could reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to a climate-change-induced increase in water stress by up to 50% compared to 2°C.
Global annual catch for marine fisheries could decline by about 1.5 million metric tons for 1.5°C of global warming compared to a loss of more than 3 million metric tons for 2°C of global warming
Livestock are projected to be adversely affected with rising temperatures.


(https://climatenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Graph2-768x707.jpg)

In order to achieve this goal, emissions will have to fall by about 50% between now and 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. This is how:

The amount of coal in the global electricity mix would need to be reduced to close to 0% by 2050.
Renewables are projected to supply 48-60% of electricity by 2030 and 63–81% by 2050 if warming is limited to 1.5°C.
The share of primary energy provided by nuclear energy increases 58-98% over 2010 levels by 2030.
Total energy-related investments are about 12% higher in 1.5°C pathways than 2°C pathways, and annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies and energy efficiency is roughly five times higher by 2050 than 2015.
To limit warming 1.5°C, CO2 emissions from industry are projected to be 75–90% lower in 2050 from 2010 levels.


Let's take a worst case, the climate warms enough, say 8°C to eventually totally melt all the glacial ice, and so oceans would rise, what,  300 feet?  How long would that take?  Any idea?  Guess.
I already cited these two articles:
Breaching a 'carbon threshold' could lead to mass extinction (https://phys.org/news/2019-07-breaching-carbon-threshold-mass-extinction.html)
Beyond climate tipping points (http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/06/beyond-climate-tipping-points.html)

They basically predict that things could get out of hand very soon, that by the end of the century a sequence of events would have started that can't be stopped and that would most probably spell the end of this civilization as we know it.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kravarnik on September 10, 2019, 10:47:28 am
Wretch asked me over the email to let everyone know that he's been banned from the forums and he's not ignoring anyone, but simply cannot access the forums, due said ban.


I am afraid that if I express my opinion on this I'll also get banned, for I just recently was warned for breaking rule 14: not showing the due respect to the mod team.


I consider leaving the forums myself, because it's getting rather unbearable and as if one is walking on egg-shells constantly. The free dialogue has been frustrated to the point of feeling like an echo-chamber where one moral view takes prevalence over the others and you can't even criticize it.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: Mammal on September 10, 2019, 12:55:24 pm
^ Thank you for conveying the message. I am not going to comment on the banning. I don't think it has much to do with his participation in this thread of his and I haven't really followed much of the rest.
Title: Re: There Is No Climate Crisis, & Proposed Solutions Are Harmful
Post by: kravarnik on September 11, 2019, 01:11:02 am
^ Thank you for conveying the message. I am not going to comment on the banning. I don't think it has much to do with his participation in this thread of his and I haven't really followed much of the rest.

I decided to post it on this thread, because I was unsure of creating a new one, but that would have been ideal. However, it could be considered as "questioning" the moderation team, and I think they locked the previous one about Trinity's ban anyway, so it seemed rather inappropriate. I was left with choosing in which thread to post that message.