The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

https://www.fpcs.es/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/climate-change-political-pollution.pdf

Worth reading if you still have an open mind.

My problem with this it is a document that contains opinion and no actual data, what can I take from this? I can look at NASA or CSIRO or many other organisations. We would not doubt these organizations when it comes to any other theory or data but when it comes to this one thing suddenly there must be a conspiracy. The NASA data contradicts both sea level, temperature and ice loss assertions in this document. Without data everything else is opinion. The question I ask people is that given the NASA data does support the theory if they are wrong is it merely incompetence or conspiracy. If it is incompetence you would expect data from other sources to contradict NASA. If it is conspiracy then I would be wondering to what end?

 

The physics is well understood we know that CO2 and other gasses allow visible light to pass through but reflect back the infrared.

 

What we don't know is what feedback loops (both positive and negative) may occur. We know what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like (Venus).

The problem is that the arguments used by those who doubt the theory are similar to anti-vaxxers etc. experts don't all agree, therefore.... they have a vested interest, therefore.

 

I do not use to term climate sceptic because scepticism involves analysing evidence. For many years I was a member of the Australian Skeptics, they have always had pretty tough on standards of evidence, here is there take on it.

 

Aust Skeptics Inc statement on climate change

 

I consider myself open-minded but every time someone sends a link to some evidence or a study it turns out to be a misrepresentation. It is important on all sides not to cherry pick data, if you (or I) have to search hard for something to support our argument then perhaps that should be a red flag.

 

Anyway, who is Fernando del Pino Calvo-Sotelo?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Octave,

 

I read your Sceptics link.

 

I am disturbed by all the replies to their statement on climate change. Contrary to the Sceptics stance, All are anti anthropogenic climate change .

 

This is not what I expected.

 

 

[octave]

Octave,I read your Sceptics link.

 

I am disturbed by all the replies to their statement on climate change. Contrary to the Sceptics stance, All are anti anthropogenic climate change .

 

This is not what I expected.

Yes, but anyone can comment and there are folks who roam the internet looking to comment on anything they disagree with. This doesn't change the data. Just been reading a FB ev group and there are the usual people who say EV batteries only last for 3 years. Again data is everything.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Fair comment.

 

I was just noting that the Sceptics official stance on climate change SCIENCE, had only elicited responses from individuals who are sceptical of the science (facts) surrounding the study of our changing climate. But I guess that is the nature of scepticism.

 

 

[facthunter]

yes .. I've become very sceptical about the sceptics being genuinely sceptical. Not all views are equal. An informed one has more value one would think.. Isn't that why we have education? Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

You ask for sea level, temperature and ice loss data rather than opinion. I have posted links before to explanations of how the data has been manipulated and misrepresented. I have found that people cannot be bothered to read the detail, they prefer to accept what some “expert” tells them the data says. Or if they don’t like what the data says, they attack the source.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Here is a link.

 

https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/blog/f/statement-to-the-pa-environmental-resources-energy-committee

 

It contains much of the data in graphical form. The author gave evidence to a state committee, he is well qualified to do so. He has been attacked and vilified for his analysis. As have many well-qualified geologists around the world.

 

 

[octave]

Here is a link.https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/blog/f/statement-to-the-pa-environmental-resources-energy-committee

 

It contains much of the data in graphical form. The author gave evidence to a state committee, he is well qualified to do so. He has been attacked and vilified for his analysis. As have many well-qualified geologists around the world.

I do read every link people post if I am going to comment, I am just on my way out to work but I will definitely read and comment on this. Do you read or view what I post?

 

Why do you trust this geologist rather than NASA?

 

The question no one ever answers is this, is NASA and the other organizations guilty of bad science or conspiracy of if the latter to what end?

 

 

[Marty_d]

I find it amusing when someone still insists there's a debate around whether climate change is real.

 

It's like saying there's a debate over whether the Earth is round or flat.

 

Well, I say "amusing", but what's not amusing is that while these peddlers of misinformation muddy the waters, it slows down political will, investment and action on actually combating the problem.

 

Kind of like someone who gets a diagnosis of cancer ignoring the oncologist's advice and telling themselves there's not really a problem, because they don't want to face it. Understandable but it doesn't cure the patient.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Kind of like someone who gets a diagnosis of cancer ignoring the oncologist's advice and telling themselves there's not really a problem, because they don't want to face it. Understandable but it doesn't cure the patient.

To extend the analogy, the odd cancer patient enjoys a reprieve or even a cure.

 

The same may happen with climate change. One large volcanic eruption might pump enough particulate matter into the stratosphere to reverse warming for a few years. The Gulf Stream is slowing; it could fail and plunge Northern Europe into an ice age.

 

There are probably many scenarios we cannot imagine, but by far the most likely one is that the current trend will continue or accelerate, triggering human migrations like the earth has never seen. As the environmental refugees arrive on our shores in their millions, we will be asked what we did to avert the disaster.

 

 

[Bruce]

There are actually flat earth people out there who say that the round earth "theory" is a giant conspiracy.

 

As for climate change, to say that the glaciers are not receding is in the same category. You can see they are receding dramatically with your own eyes, by comparing their lengths with what they were years ago. Sure, you can find the odd one which has grown, change of wind patterns will increase snowfall in the odd case.

 

Planetary average temperature for a dry planet is quite easy to calculate, and it certainly increases as the albedo gives more absorption and less reflection.

 

 

[nomadpete]

But, as far as I'm concerned, the debate is only a contest between proven facts and emotional rhetoric. In my experience, Logic seldom wins against emotions. Otherwise I'd never have remarried!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The various charts in the presentation are all backed up by references at the end. When I am asked for facts, and provide them, the result is-

 

Attack the source

 

Ridicule the whole message

 

Make generalisations that the science is proven.

 

I repeat- many geologists all around the world, who have a deep understanding of the history of climate, do not accept that CO2 drives climate in any significant way.

 

How much information is needed before the general public will consider that we are victims of a political movement?

 

 

[facthunter]

Those who have perpetuated mistruths for their own profit might need to be less obvious for their own welfare, as the inevitable deterioration predicted takes place. The world IS overpopulated and food producing regions threatened by these changes. We may like to say "WE will decide who comes here etc" but the rest of the world sees this place as vast and practically empty where we all have big Houses and many cars. WE know it has little water or good topsoil. (which we don't prize or look after). It's the size of the USA roughly in area and the USA has 15 times our population, similar to Indonesia.. What sort of Chaos would happen if it doubled in a few years.? Most of the heat is stored in the oceans. The atmospheric temp is mostly affected by what's below it. Warmer equatorial regions mean more water in the atmosphere and that's where the energy of Storms and Cyclones comes from. The CO2 PPM is what it is (well over 400ppm) and rising. The greenhouse effect is NOT disputed. The oceans are becoming too acidic for some essential marine life, due to absorbing Carbon dioxide. Highest temps EVER recorded are happening more and more and cyclones further from the Equator more severe and more frequently. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I agree that overpopulation is the real problem and I truly expect some global catastrophe will solve it within the next 200 years or so. Our cities just cannot keep on growing. And we need to curtail travel. I am in Christchurch airport waiting for a plane. Two weeks on the SouthIsland was marred by hordes of Asian tourists at every beautiful and interesting destination.

 

 

[facthunter]

They are only getting a good look at what they are going to take over one day.. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There are actually flat earth people out there who say that the round earth "theory" is a giant conspiracy.As for climate change, to say that the glaciers are not receding is in the same category. You can see they are receding dramatically with your own eyes, by comparing their lengths with what they were years ago. Sure, you can find the odd one which has grown, change of wind patterns will increase snowfall in the odd case.

 

Planetary average temperature for a dry planet is quite easy to calculate, and it certainly increases as the albedo gives more absorption and less reflection.

[ATTACH]50039._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[facthunter]

There's more to that argument . The continental ice is much older and massive Thicker and reducing. and will never be replaced. Sea ice is a different matter entirely. It can form quickly. and doesn't affect sea levels as it's floating. Nev

 

 

[octave]

 

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

I am curious about your bar graph. It is always good to go back to the source. The Danish Meteorological Institute had this to say with regard to Arctic Sea Ice minimums

 

"Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable."

 

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

 

Also regarding your graph, I am open-minded about it but it does raise a few questions. The graph does not discuss how this data was collected and from where. This graph must have been accompanied by an explanation of methods. Not doubting it but I am sure you would agree that by itself it does not mean much.

 

I repeat- many geologists all around the world, who have a deep understanding of the history of climate, do not accept that CO2 drives climate in any significant way.

Whilst some individual geologist may not accept the evidence I did find it difficult to find any geological organisations who do not accept it.

 

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

 

With all due respect to geologists, if I get cancer I want to see an oncologist

 

How much information is needed before the general public will consider that we are victims of a political movement?

What do you consider the "political" purpose behind NASAs representation of the evidence? or perhaps CSIRO or the British Academy of science? Do you think I accept the evidence for political reasons? Was Fourier a political player in 1824? How about when Arrhenius published his calculations for the effect on the climate of co2 emissions in 1896?

 

Whilst it might be true that some loser hippy types may see a bigger agenda this does not mean that the evidence is not solid. I for one do not want to live under a tree with no electricity. I want to live in a technological society that is smart enough to provide the things we enjoy but smart enough to measure the cost and to plan for the future not cling to the past.

 

The bottom line is for me that any source that traditionally has a fair track record for science and has built-in peer reviews and gives access to the raw data is more convincing than individuals especially when they are consultants for industry. If all these organisations are conspiring to present a false case then perhaps the way to overcome them is to provide evidence of collusion. For example, does NASA tell the Japanese space agency what to say its satellite surface temperature measurements should be so as not contradict theirs?

 

How does this conspiracy work?

 

Funnily enough, I am pretty happy with life, I am an optimist, I think the problem can be solved but like rust in a car, always cheaper to begin tackling it early rather than late. I do not think the answer is to go back to the pre fossil fuel era.

 

I saw an interview with Bill Gates who thinks the situation is becoming critical and although he is supportive of renewables thinks that they can not alone solve the problem. He has put loads of money into developing smaller safer and more economically viable nuclear power plants. There have also been recent breakthroughs in fusion reactors although I would suggest still a little while away.

 

Anyway bottom line is we can hurl graphs at each other but neither of us can change the situation. I will go out on a limb and say that there are very few scientific organisations who don't accept the evidence. I believe that most politicians also to varying degrees accept the evidence but they are interested in the next 4 years not the next 40 years.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

All well said Octave, and food for thougt.

 

 

[spacesailor]

BUT

 

We all know and accept, we were in an ice-age, not that geology long ago

 

And the weather Will be warming as we move further away from planet snowball.

 

SO was there a catastrophe, before we froze, due to being hit by a great lump of space rock.

 

And it will happen again,!.

 

Then the cold worshiper's will be happy with the weather, they like so much.

 

And we warm worshipers will ?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not really a matter of whether you prefer a hot or a cold climate. The earth will substantially change to an extent nobody knows the severity or rate of, but it clear that some tipping point is possible/very likely triggering a large release of methane from permafrost and peat bogs that will end hope of being able to do much about it.. I'm personally very skeptical of humans being able to respond to/ for the collective good and only care about doing what they want to regardless of the consequences.." I'll be dead by then" is alive and well..Don't most of us have kids and grand kids? Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Over the years we have had many hotter and colder periods. At some stage we had a period that allowed vast forests to grow then something changed and those forests eventually became our fossil fuel. We are busy returning it to its original state and will probably wipe ourselves out. But do not worry, the world will still go on, it will only be one simple failed experiment that fizzled out.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"The earth will substantially change to an extent nobody knows the severity or rate of,"

 

That's my point, nobody knows how hot our planet WAS before the ice-age,

 

It must have been Hotter that we have at the moment, to have had that growth cycle, to make all the coal we are burning.

 

To have the cooler summer's of the 17th century, we Will have the Freezing winter's, that froze the river Thames. along with most of Europe.

 

When I was a child the local river (Dove/Derwent/Trent/Ouse/Humber.that flows into the northsea) FROZE solid almost every winter. ("The river is legally navigable for some 117 miles (188 km) below Burton upon Trent")

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

We could debate the issue for another 100 years.

 

Or we could use the precautionary principal that if there is a clear and present danger, and if we have the means to do something about it, as an intelligent species we'd be mad not to.

 

[ATTACH]50044._xfImport[/ATTACH]