Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Demontim275]

Case in point
Bradesmaen

 

[Snake_Baker]

Anyway, more proof that politicians need to just STFU and increase funding for scientific research:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b02436

 

[Snake_Baker]

I acknowledge that the current crucifixion of Morrison is little more than infantile political opportunism, but I did get a chuckle out of this:

 

[Father Jack]

So why are China & India building coal fired power stations ?
Vested interests? Dont buy it?

Well that would be politics (but I note the lack of supporting evidence for your claims) which as I've pointed out is separate from the scientific consensus, as described by NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities ".

 

[Snake_Baker]

Spoiler

 

[Demontim275]

Spoiler

Ol man misses the point again.

nowhere did he ask for their explanation. He asked them to use their celebrity to share the information.

Can’t we just have a bay 13 thread for “snake vs Connolly. Battle of mediocrity”

 

[Fadge]

Well that would be politics (but I note the lack of supporting evidence for your claims) which as I've pointed out is separate from the scientific consensus, as described by NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities ".

It takes a very simple type of person to get seduced by and keep harping on about that 97% statistic. Even if it is right, and even if it is 100% (noone in this thread has disputed that humans are contributing to global warming), there is a far more important question.

The key piece of data that should be of interest is the EXTENT to which humans are contributing. My understanding is that there is not yet consensus on this, but it likely lies somewhere between 0.0005% and less than 1%.

Any takers?

 

[Snake_Baker]

It takes a very simple type of person to get seduced by and keep harping on about that 97% statistic. Even if it is right, and even if it is 100% (noone in this thread has disputed that humans are contributing to global warming), there is a far more important question.

The key piece of data that should be of interest is the EXTENT to which humans are contributing. My understanding is that there is not yet consensus on this, but it likely lies somewhere between 0.0005% and less than 1%.

Any takers?

The planet has been involved with a constant feedback loop of carbon processing, in all it's forms, for billions of years. The chemistry dynamics is beyond the understanding of the layperson. It's the same ignorance that you see from people that carp on about "running out of water".

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Ol man misses the point again.

nowhere did he ask for their explanation. He asked them to use their celebrity to share the information.

Can’t we just have a bay 13 thread for “snake vs Connolly. Battle of mediocrity”

Absolutely amazing isn’t it, and Snake is the guy who is apparently “against the hysterics”.

 

[Snake_Baker]

How the **** do you maintain a "moderator" gig around here?

Are you slinging admin, or do you have pictures?

 

[Demontim275]

Absolutely amazing isn’t it, and Snake is the guy who is apparently “against the hysterics”.

I feel a guy who lies about being a scientist can’t be against the hysterics.

 

[Andrew Birch]

 

[Father Jack]

It takes a very simple type of person to get seduced by and keep harping on about that 97% statistic. Even if it is right, and even if it is 100% (noone in this thread has disputed that humans are contributing to global warming), there is a far more important question.

The key piece of data that should be of interest is the EXTENT to which humans are contributing. My understanding is that there is not yet consensus on this, but it likely lies somewhere between 0.0005% and less than 1%.

Any takers?

Your understanding appears to lack any supporting evidence.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Thank God... we're saved!!

 

[Fadge]

Your understanding appears to lack any supporting evidence.

Feel free to enlighten me, what then is the actual figure?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Feel free to enlighten me, what then is the actual figure?

Insert: 12,000 "scientists", 97% consensus................................................🛏

 

[This Is Anfield]

Imagine the queues at Burger King after the show...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Climate change and the layperson:

 

[Roylion]

The key piece of data that should be of interest is the EXTENT to which humans are contributing. My understanding is that there is not yet consensus on this, but it likely lies somewhere between 0.0005% and less than 1%.

Where do you get this figure from?

Any takers?

The IPCC 5th Assessment report published in 2014 (the sixth report is due in 2022) concluded:

• Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
• There is a clear human influence on the climate.
• It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950. It is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. (Source: page 5 of the IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers)
• It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983–2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1,400 years.
• It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.
• It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.
• There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.
• Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.
• Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in CO2's atmospheric concentration as well as other greehouse gases which trap outgoing heat, aerosols – both from human activities and volcanic eruptions – that reflect incoming sunlight and influence cloud formation, changes in solar output, changes in the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface associated with land use, and many other factors.

 

[Fadge]

• It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950. It is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. (Source: page 5 of the IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers)

This is a massive statement, what is the foundation for this?

 

[Deliverance]

Once again, there are few outright disbelievers. It’s a question of scale. How much is it changing? How much is due to man is the vexed one. The only real consensus is among those who say ‘all’, and that figure is nowhere near 97%.

The activist lobby in particular is big on attempting to blame drought, floods and other natural disasters on climate change, when even the IPCC’s latest report had no confidence in a link. That’s where science takes a holiday.

Yes for me, thats the next step in the debate. Those crying "climate change is fake" don't deserve to be in this conversation with the adults. But, How much is man made? I'm more in the yes, it's man made camp, but not 100% there yet. And then, what can we realistically do about it? And this is the dilemma facing humans. It's hard to know with so much "noise" from lobby groups. But admittedly, I'm always more sceptical of those with the most money to lose or gain from a change in the status quo.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Where do you get this figure from?



The IPCC 5th Assessment report published in 2014 (the sixth report is due in 2022) concluded:

A breakdown

• Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.

So what?

• There is a clear human influence on the climate.

Without doubt. There is also a clear influence of countless other things upon the climate.

• It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950. It is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. (Source: page 5 of the IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers)

No argument from me there. I'd go as far back as the beginning of the Industrial age.

• It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983–2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1,400 years.

So what?

• It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.

So what?

• It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.

Yes, the Northern hemisphere has been undergoing warming, whilst reports of an increase of antarctic ice have also been tabled.

• There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.

So what?

• Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.

This is far from indisputable.

• Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in CO2's atmospheric concentration.

Yes, commencing around 18,000 years ago, following the causation event of a slight shift in the earths tilt around 21,000 years ago. Beryllium 10 isotope analysis confirms this. CO2 exacerbates radiative factors, although it has been claimed that the resulting associated increased cloud accumulation (increased plant transpiration), induces an overall negative effect upon planetary heating via albedo factors.


.
These are all widely agreed upon points, but what relevance is this to the levels of hysteria that we are seeing in the media and political systems?

The IPCC is a bureacratic/politically driven organization, that utilizes shoddy science models & oversights and should be ignored RL.

Have they even gotten around to releasing their climate prediction model software to the public yet?

 

[Roylion]

This is a massive statement, what is the foundation for this?

Do you know what the IPCC is and how it assembles their periodic assessment reports (the last - the 5th assessment report - published in 2014, the next published in 2022). Find out about both and you'll have your answer.

 

[Father Jack]

Feel free to enlighten me, what then is the actual figure?

I already have, but you dismissed it out of hand. It's as if you weren't genuinely looking for information at all.

 

[Snake_Baker]

BTW, I would like to add that if there's anyone who posts here that doesn't believe that humans have increased atmospheric CO2, and that this hasn't factored upon warming to some undefined extent, then they should go and get their heads read by a shrink.

However, I haven't seen anyone claiming this. The rebuttals are typically related to the absurd definitives generating from people who wouldn't have a clue as to what they are talking about in the first place.

It's the political prostitution of the subject that has brought forth opposing opinions.