Page 6 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Options
#1470089 - 04/09/2018 09:11 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 321
Originally Posted By: Kino
Not all scientists agree.

And the world can’t become drier as the mass of water remains constant. It shifts between reservoirs, yes, but the mass doesn’t change.


But most do. So until those that don’t put forward a better explanation that fits in with OBSERVATIONS made in the environment, it is more sensical to go with the side with the greater amount of evidence for their theories.

Guys like you always like to dismiss stuff with the natural variability explanation, but what observable natural variation would be contributing to the Earth’s warming at a similar level of impact? The solar thing again? Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field? None of these have anywhere near the level of rigour as theories when compared to AGW.

Did you even bother to look at the Snowy Hyrdo data I linked for you or is Snowy Hydro in on the conspiracy too?

Your point about the world not being able to become drier shows again just how one dimensional thinking on your side of the debate generally is. Yes, maybe the total volume of water doesn’t change but the distribution and the rate at which it can be deluged due to the higher water carrying capacity of warm air certainly does. How do you find solace in some zero sum fact like the total amount of water on Earth staying the same as a way to dismiss potential and it would appear observable knock on effects of changing the Earth’s hydrology cycle? It’s totally ridiculous. This is again why it is a heated argument. The world is a finite system, if you add new variables you can expect new outcomes.

Top
#1470117 - 04/09/2018 11:57 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2637
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
I like how we get lectured about physics and the rules and laws et al, yet happy to generalise with "all". In any context, most does not equal all.

George White said this and it's very apt, after reading posts in here:
Quote:
This prejudice is not limited to those with a limited understanding of the science, but is widespread among those who think they understand and even quite prevalent among notable scientists in the field. Anyone who has ever engaged in communications with an individual who has accepted the consensus conclusions has likely observed this bias, often accompanied with demeaning language presented with extreme self righteous indignation that you would dare question the ‘settled science’ of the consensus.

Correcting broken science that’s been settled by a consensus is made more difficult by its support from recursive logic where the errors justify themselves by defining what the consensus believes. The best way forward is to establish a new consensus. This means not just falsifying beliefs that support the status quo, but more importantly, replacing those beliefs with something more definitively settled.

Since politics has taken sides, climate science has become driven by the rules of politics rather than the rules of science. Taking a page from how a political consensus arises, the two sides must first understand and acknowledge what they have in common before they can address where they differ.

Alarmists and deniers alike believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that GHG gases contribute to making the surface warmer than it would be otherwise, that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and that the climate changes. The denier label used by alarmists applies to anyone who doesn’t accept everything the consensus believes with the implication being that truths supported by real science are also being denied. Surely, if one believes that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, that man isn’t putting CO2 into the atmosphere, that GHG’s don’t contribute to surface warmth, that the climate isn’t changing or that the laws of physics don’t apply, they would be in denial, but few skeptics are that uninformed.

Most skeptics would agree that if there was significant anthropogenic warming, we should take steps to prepare for any consequences. This means applying rational risk management, where all influences of increased CO2 and a warming climate must be considered. Increased atmospheric CO2 means more raw materials for photosynthesis, which at the base of the food chain is the sustaining foundation for nearly all life on Earth. Greenhouse operators routinely increase CO2 concentrations to be much higher than ambient because it’s good for the plants and does no harm to people. Warmer temperatures also have benefits. If you ask anyone who’s not a winter sports enthusiast what their favorite season is, it will probably not be winter. If you have sufficient food and water, you can survive indefinitely in the warmest outdoor temperatures found on the planet. This isn’t true in the coldest places where at a minimum you also need clothes, fire, fuel and shelter.

While the differences between sides seems irreconcilable, there’s only one factor they disagree about and this is the basis for all other differences. While this disagreement is still insurmountable, narrowing the scope makes it easier to address. The controversy is about the size of the incremental effect atmospheric CO2 has on the surface temperature which is a function of the size of the incremental effect solar energy has. This parameter is referred to as the climate sensitivity factor. What makes it so controversial is that the consensus accepts a sensitivity presumed by the IPCC, while the possible range theorized, calculated and measured by skeptics has little to no overlap with the range accepted by the consensus. The differences are so large that only one side can be right and the other must be irreconcilably wrong, which makes compromise impossible, perpetuating the controversy.


I was merely pointing out Mikes incorrect facts, as you and he and others always do.

Its not one dimensional to point out that the earth cannot become drier - the statement is incorrect. The water may be stored differently, but it cannot be lost. Some continents may become drier, some wetter. The water cycle is a closed cycle. Unless you are re-writing the hydrological cycle, and then show us your paper. The tropics have become wetter, while other areas have become drier. But overall the mass doesn't change. It cannot. Otherwise, where is the water going????

Answer is it's going nowhere and this is hyperbolic screeching that often follows challenging.


Edited by Kino (04/09/2018 11:58)

Top
#1470119 - 04/09/2018 12:38 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3307
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Kino


I was merely pointing out Mikes incorrect facts, as you and he and others always do.

Its not one dimensional to point out that the earth cannot become drier - the statement is incorrect. The water may be stored differently, but it cannot be lost. Some continents may become drier, some wetter. The water cycle is a closed cycle. Unless you are re-writing the hydrological cycle, and then show us your paper. The tropics have become wetter, while other areas have become drier. But overall the mass doesn't change. It cannot. Otherwise, where is the water going????

Answer is it's going nowhere and this is hyperbolic screeching that often follows challenging.


I've already corrected my mistake. I meant atmosphere not world, and relatively speaking not absolute.

I see you have not responded to what I consider the primary facts of AGW:

1) Warming due to Co2 radiation is 1 degrees
2) Water vapor is a substantial +ve feedback, unless the relative humidity of the atmosphere becomes lower
3) Ice albedo is a subsnantial +ve feedback.
4) Clouds/circulation changes etc are an unknown feedback
5) Model predictions of warming from the early 80s predict quite well the amount of warming observed since then.

Whats your best response to these facts? That somewhere in Australia had the best snow season for a dozen or so years? That Some scientists disagree with something that you have yet to specify? That I made a mistake in saying world instead of atmosphere and you are going to make a big deal of this even after I've corrected it?

Is this the best argument we are going to get on the against side??

Top
#1470120 - 04/09/2018 12:41 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 321
That White post is just such utter garbage if one has half a brain. The CO2 in a greenhouse analogy is completely irrelevant and what is all that rot about cold and hot environments! Yeah of course humans do better in warmer climates but if parts of the world that are already warm get warmer, there will come a point where they are TOO WARM! How is it possible for an inference as obvious as this to go unnoticed!? He basically undoes himself in that last point with the solar energy vs CO2. If we are in a period of lower solar energy then why are we still observing a planet on a warming trend? The theories repeatedly put forward by the nay side DO NOT MATCH THE OBSERVATIONS, hence they are not taken up by the scientific consensus.

Your apparent inability to comprehend my point of a more sporadic and volatile water cycle despite the unchanging amount of total water is testament to the futility of this debate. Do you want to live in a world of frequent drought but is then broken by violent floods? This is what has been predicted to happen as the world warms and appears to be the case. Before you say it, yes drought and floods have always happened but the severity and frequency of this may change in a warming planet to the detriment of most if not ALL ecosystems currently on the planet.


Edited by Eigerwand (04/09/2018 12:42)

Top
#1470129 - 04/09/2018 13:56 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2637
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
And there is the key point “on record”. Given our infantessimely small record base against the actual age of the planet, the prophetic claims are nothing more than hyperbolic scaremongering.

Top
#1470155 - 04/09/2018 18:45 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 73
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: Kino
...Given our infantessimely small record base against the actual age of the planet...


But at some point intelligent, curious people have to say to themselves: hmmm, that's a bit odd.


Top
#1470158 - 04/09/2018 19:13 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
marakai Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 05/01/2006
Posts: 1904
Loc: Maryfarms NQ
Originally Posted By: Delta-T
Originally Posted By: marakai
[quote=Delta-T]1. By how much ?

While the lab produced results of additional CO2 are quite well reproducible and widely recognized, there is a large amount of uncertainty as to what happens in the real world when it comes to supposed feedback's in a chaotic system.

I'm not in any way disputing that such feedback's exist at at all,



You seem to be agreeing there are some feed backs. Are you also agreeing with the underlying theoretical physics? Ie that CO2 amongst other is a "radiatively active gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

I want to be clear and not talking at crosspurposes.

If you do agree then the answer to your first follow up: how much of that expected 3C could or would be attributed to Anthropologically produced CO2 is...

Theoretically all of it.

The extra CO2 injected into system should bump it in that direction by about that much. Is it the only thing that can 'bump' the climate? No of course not and there are hundreds of unanswered questions. But the science says that to the best of our undertanding and depite the uncertainties of whatever else may bump things, that is our best guess.

Inject xxx GT of CO2 = about +3 degrees.


I absolutely agree with the radiative forcing of CO2, however I disagree with the attribution of all "suspected" warming being caused by the Anthropologically produced CO2.

CO2 as we know has a logarithmic effect, it also shares it's absorbtion capacity in the IR range with a number of other gases as well, Water vapour being the main competitor and most abundant but also Ozone, Methane and assorted other trace gases as well.

Now given all that, CO2 is not the only variable effect on the climate of the Earth, it is also itself subject to changes in the climate as well. Oceans warm, permafrost melts, glaciers retreat, CO2 increases naturally and vise versa as well.

Deforestation, Volcanism, Plankton, Ice ages etc all have an effect on CO2 levels outside any effect of that the combustion of Fossil fuels might have and one would imagine that the Earth coming out of a mini ice age after the Maunder Minimum would also see a natural increase in CO2 as well.

CO2 is a hot topic button for radical environmentalist's and also those who would like to see a "One World Government". An easy target to point at an say "look what we are doing to the planet, we need to make a bunch of rules for EVERYBODY.
Add to that the lucrative subsidized rent seeking income available to Multi National Corporations with renewables, the funding available to universities for research via grants and the academic and journalistic political correctness gone mad (Witness Peter Ridd JCU) and you have a perfect storm of much ado about nothing.

There is so much we don't know as a species about climate and weather, Models don't do clouds, plankton swarms, CO2 lag, The recent Greening of the planet, to name just a few items of interest.

Yet people seem quite happy to accept a so called consensus view that CO2 is some magic button that must be immediately and radically addressed "Before it is too late".

Sorry, but but before we wreck our economy and have pensioners too afraid to turn on an aircon or heater due to ridiculous electricity prices, family's struggling to pay bills and all the associated extra cost's that come with ever increasing energy prices etc.

How about we have just a single peer reviewed scientific paper that directly links Anthropogenic CO@ with any apparent effect on the Earths Climate ? It's been well over thirty years now with countless billions in funding and yet not one single piece of Empirical evidence exist's of a direct link at all.

We had a near thirty year pause in any sort of warming, surely that right there is proof positive that there are major issues with the theory and the models.

Meanwhile what you wont see pasted 24/7 over the mainstream media, unlike record warming.

Quote:
Over 1000 snow and cold records have been set over the last 30 days in ... However, it won't last, as the 6-10 day outlook shows temperatures below ... have been broken this week alone -- over 1,800 in the last 30 days, along ...
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/united-states-weather

Top
#1470166 - 04/09/2018 21:15 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 73
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: marakai


I absolutely agree with the radiative forcing of CO2, however I disagree with the attribution of all "suspected" warming being caused by the Anthropologically produced CO2.




If we agree on the phyics - there is no "suspected" warming, it is estimated warming and observed warming. The phyics etimates about 3 degrees from a doubling in atmospheric concentration. Are there other drivers? Yes of course. Could they alter the outcome away from 3C? Of course. Uncertainties? Yep...but for now it the best estimate.



2. What Peer reviewed Empirical Evidence currently exist's, that any Anthropologically produced CO2 has had any effect on the Earths Climate ?

You use the word "Anthropologically". Obviously there is no difference with naturally occurring CO2 molecules. Are you suggesting we are unable to determine the amount (of CO2) humans are responsible for?

Top
#1470170 - 04/09/2018 21:51 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Morham Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 23/01/2017
Posts: 109
Loc: Penrith, NSW
Originally Posted By: Kino
And there is the key point “on record”. Given our infantessimely small record base against the actual age of the planet, the prophetic claims are nothing more than hyperbolic scaremongering.

Slightly off topic, but imagine if we were trying to ban cfcs due to evidence they were depleting the ozone layer today.

In 2018 no government could pass that. There would be too many people ready to blame the lack of evidence. Blaming the scientists for their agendas and trying to get university grants?

I can see the arguments already.

Anyway, once again this is one of the most civil global warming discussions I have ever seen. As an observation though, one side of the argument is presenting more compelling findings than the other.

Top
#1470174 - 04/09/2018 22:43 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mick10 Offline
Weatherzone Moderator

Registered: 02/11/2001
Posts: 25304
Loc: Kirwan, Townsville - NQld.
This thread has turned into a climate change debate.
As per the WZ admin rule from June 2013, there are to be no climate change related topics or discussion.
Therefore this thread is closed.
_________________________
Kirwan, Townsville Nth Qld -
June 2018 total - 3.0mm (21mm)
July 2018 total - 14.0mm (15mm)
2018 Yearly total to date - 814.8mm (1107mm)

Top
Page 6 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6


Who's Online
13 registered (ozone doug, Belgarad, ashestoashes, FoggyNights, Bundy, DDstorm, Colin Maitland, Kino, DaveD, Homer, Summ3r, Nature's Fury, martyface), 390 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
alby, controler, NCSC - Antonio, puca
Forum Stats
29681 Members
32 Forums
23981 Topics
1501046 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image