Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: OT: Climate Change Paper
135 views
Skip to first unread message
Java Jive
Sep 29, 2019, 6:08:54 AM9/29/19
to
On 29/09/2019 10:09, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> If you're interested in climate change as opposed to political
> movements then https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf may interest you.
>
> I don't think there is much new in this but there is more detail than
> I've seen before. Looks pretty credible to me and does match the
> observed changes very closely unlike CO2.
>
> JJ will be along in a mo to put me right and insult me. :-)
I'd hate to disappoint you or them, so I'll just point out to the rest
that this is another OT post from our local Archdruid of irrationalism.
>
> If you're interested in climate change as opposed to political
> movements then https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf may interest you.
>
> I don't think there is much new in this but there is more detail than
> I've seen before. Looks pretty credible to me and does match the
> observed changes very closely unlike CO2.
>
> JJ will be along in a mo to put me right and insult me. :-)
I'd hate to disappoint you or them, so I'll just point out to the rest
that this is another OT post from our local Archdruid of irrationalism.
Jeff Layman
Sep 29, 2019, 9:56:22 AM9/29/19
to
On 29/09/19 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
> .. Archdruid of irrationalism.
Is that copyrighted or can anybody use it?
--
Jeff
> .. Archdruid of irrationalism.
Is that copyrighted or can anybody use it?
--
Jeff
Java Jive
Sep 29, 2019, 10:04:18 AM9/29/19
to
Bill Wright
Sep 29, 2019, 12:03:56 PM9/29/19
to
On 29/09/2019 14:56, Jeff Layman wrote:
capitalised, and it should really be Irrationality.
Bill
Java Jive
Sep 29, 2019, 12:22:09 PM9/29/19
to
describe someone as irrational as Bob !-)
Bill Wright
Sep 29, 2019, 8:01:53 PM9/29/19
to
On 29/09/2019 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
> Ah but, smartarse, that would too rational a style of English to
> describe someone as irrational as Bob !-)
My arse isn't smarting at the moment. I haven't been able to save up to
> Ah but, smartarse, that would too rational a style of English to
> describe someone as irrational as Bob !-)
see Miss Whiplash for a fortnight now.
Bill
Java Jive
Sep 29, 2019, 8:39:44 PM9/29/19
to
Vir Campestris
Sep 30, 2019, 4:56:15 PM9/30/19
to
On 29/09/2019 10:09, Bob Latham wrote:
> If you're interested in climate change as opposed to political
> movements then https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf may interest you.
>
> I don't think there is much new in this but there is more detail than
> I've seen before. Looks pretty credible to me and does match the
> observed changes very closely unlike CO2.
>
> JJ will be along in a mo to put me right and insult me. :-)
>
>
> Bob.
> If you're interested in climate change as opposed to political
> movements then https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf may interest you.
>
> I don't think there is much new in this but there is more detail than
> I've seen before. Looks pretty credible to me and does match the
> observed changes very closely unlike CO2.
>
> JJ will be along in a mo to put me right and insult me. :-)
>
>
>
<https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/>
I have no idea who KAUPPINEN and MALMI are, and I've failed to find out.
For all I know they are students. They don't claim any qualifications.
Andy
Java Jive
Oct 1, 2019, 7:36:23 AM10/1/19
to
On 01/10/2019 10:29, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <qmtq5d$ks9$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/>
>
> To paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies - Well they
> would say that wouldn't they.
>
> I can't prove anything, few of us can and so I cannot claim my view
> is fact it is only my view after extensive looking..
But, as has been said before, it doesn't matter how much looking you do,
if you only look in sewers, you'll find only shit.
> My personal view is that I have dismissed a politically motivated
> death cult who's "hammer blow" was ice core data showing a
> correlation between CO2 and temperature and was proof CO2 caused
> climate change.
Nonsense, you have zero understanding of Planetary Science in general
and Climate Science in particular.
> Gore said "it's complicated", damn right it's complicated. All ice
> core data taken to date shows that CO2 lags (follows) temperature the
> exact opposite of what Gore and associates tried to pass as absolute
> proof. There has never been an ice core sample taken which shows CO2
> leading temperature.
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times before, ice-ages
are caused by Milankovitch cycles.
> Then we have the famous hockey stick graph where history had been
> re-written in that the medieval warm period (around 1000 years ago)
> had been removed from the graph. Removed because it showed that
> during that period temperatures were far warmer than today. This led
> to an easier life and wealth, it was the cathedral building years and
> when wine grapes were commonly grown in scotland. There are wine
> related street names still remaining from that period.
Another lie:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
Also ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph
... particularly the section ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Controversy_after_IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report
... which shows that none of the attempted criticisms have found
anything seriously wrong with the graph.
> It was removed by using a selected set of tree rings for the data but
> tree rings don't show temperature they show precipitation. But that
> kept going down into the 20th century so they cut it off at 1900 and
> then used modern instrumental records on the same graph.
That's a non-sequitor, the tree-ring data is only one of several
datasets used in the hockey stick graph, so any problem with it alone
could not entirely remove the Medieval Warm Period, which anyway has not
been proven to be a global rather than a local regional event.
However, it is true that there is a problem with some tree-ring data
when used as a proxy for temperature. IANA climatologist, and it's been
some time since I last read up about this, but AIUI the problem can be
stated thus: For when and where you have instrumental records of
temperature, you should use them, but such instrumental records are only
available both where there is significant human presence and over the
last few centuries, therefore for other areas of the planet and earlier
times one has to use indirect methods, known as proxies, one of which is
tree-ring data. Tree-ring data from both hemispheres, north and south,
agrees well with actual temperature measurements, when and where they
have been available, up until around the 1960s, but thereafter, northern
hemisphere tree-ring data begins to diverge from actual temperature
measurement, while southern hemisphere temperatures remain consistent
with temperature measurement. Therefore tree-ring data for the northern
hemisphere since around 1960 is not considered reliable enough for use
in climate studies.
> A similar graph was produced in the UK, other scientists asked for
> the original data, this was refused. On being pressed harder, the
> data suddenly became 'lost'.
Where is your provenance for this allegation?
> Some other things not often heard...
>
> Current level of CO2 is 400ppm.
> It is almost the *lowest* it has ever been. Over the last 300 million
> years the CO2 level has averaged 1000-1200 ppm. 3 times what we have
> now. 1200ppm is around the optimum for plant growth, the planet is
> greening even with our current modest rise.
99.9% of the species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct.
From the point of view of human survival, what is important is CO2
levels during the existence of human beings, and they are higher now
than they have ever been during all of human existence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-levels-high-history-warming-global-temperatures-a8911331.htm
[so bullshit can be snipped]
> Which argument has the political push, which has money pumping into
> it?
Climate denialism. Here again we see the classic denialist ploy of
calling white 'black' and black 'white'. I've posted *realms* of
evidence here before about political interference against climate change
scientists, political attempts to water down the findings of scientific
reports, and the oil money that has gone into climate denialism.
> If an argument gets no platformed by universities and the BBC there
> is a reason. It could be that it's rubbish but them, why not argue it
> out and show it to be rubbish? How about if the reason for no
> platform is because they don't think they can win the argument?
Because it's been done to death already, climate science has been fully
exonerated, and there's no reason to bore the arse of everyone else here
because a few sad and stubborn old farts like yourself are determined to
resisting the truth.
> Make your choice, believe the propaganda or don't.
Don't believe climate science if you're determined not to, but stop
trying to convert everyone else to your crackpot religion.
>
> In article <qmtq5d$ks9$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/>
>
> To paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies - Well they
> would say that wouldn't they.
>
>> I have no idea who KAUPPINEN and MALMI are, and I've failed to find
>> out. For all I know they are students. They don't claim any
>> qualifications.
>
> If you think it has no credibility dismiss it, I'm fine with that.
>> I have no idea who KAUPPINEN and MALMI are, and I've failed to find
>> out. For all I know they are students. They don't claim any
>> qualifications.
>
>
> I can't prove anything, few of us can and so I cannot claim my view
> is fact it is only my view after extensive looking..
But, as has been said before, it doesn't matter how much looking you do,
if you only look in sewers, you'll find only shit.
> My personal view is that I have dismissed a politically motivated
> death cult who's "hammer blow" was ice core data showing a
> correlation between CO2 and temperature and was proof CO2 caused
> climate change.
Nonsense, you have zero understanding of Planetary Science in general
and Climate Science in particular.
> Gore said "it's complicated", damn right it's complicated. All ice
> core data taken to date shows that CO2 lags (follows) temperature the
> exact opposite of what Gore and associates tried to pass as absolute
> proof. There has never been an ice core sample taken which shows CO2
> leading temperature.
Because, as has been explained to you multiple times before, ice-ages
are caused by Milankovitch cycles.
> Then we have the famous hockey stick graph where history had been
> re-written in that the medieval warm period (around 1000 years ago)
> had been removed from the graph. Removed because it showed that
> during that period temperatures were far warmer than today. This led
> to an easier life and wealth, it was the cathedral building years and
> when wine grapes were commonly grown in scotland. There are wine
> related street names still remaining from that period.
Another lie:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
Also ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph
... particularly the section ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Controversy_after_IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report
... which shows that none of the attempted criticisms have found
anything seriously wrong with the graph.
> It was removed by using a selected set of tree rings for the data but
> tree rings don't show temperature they show precipitation. But that
> kept going down into the 20th century so they cut it off at 1900 and
> then used modern instrumental records on the same graph.
That's a non-sequitor, the tree-ring data is only one of several
datasets used in the hockey stick graph, so any problem with it alone
could not entirely remove the Medieval Warm Period, which anyway has not
been proven to be a global rather than a local regional event.
However, it is true that there is a problem with some tree-ring data
when used as a proxy for temperature. IANA climatologist, and it's been
some time since I last read up about this, but AIUI the problem can be
stated thus: For when and where you have instrumental records of
temperature, you should use them, but such instrumental records are only
available both where there is significant human presence and over the
last few centuries, therefore for other areas of the planet and earlier
times one has to use indirect methods, known as proxies, one of which is
tree-ring data. Tree-ring data from both hemispheres, north and south,
agrees well with actual temperature measurements, when and where they
have been available, up until around the 1960s, but thereafter, northern
hemisphere tree-ring data begins to diverge from actual temperature
measurement, while southern hemisphere temperatures remain consistent
with temperature measurement. Therefore tree-ring data for the northern
hemisphere since around 1960 is not considered reliable enough for use
in climate studies.
> A similar graph was produced in the UK, other scientists asked for
> the original data, this was refused. On being pressed harder, the
> data suddenly became 'lost'.
Where is your provenance for this allegation?
> Some other things not often heard...
>
> Current level of CO2 is 400ppm.
> It is almost the *lowest* it has ever been. Over the last 300 million
> years the CO2 level has averaged 1000-1200 ppm. 3 times what we have
> now. 1200ppm is around the optimum for plant growth, the planet is
> greening even with our current modest rise.
99.9% of the species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct.
From the point of view of human survival, what is important is CO2
levels during the existence of human beings, and they are higher now
than they have ever been during all of human existence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-levels-high-history-warming-global-temperatures-a8911331.htm
[so bullshit can be snipped]
> Which argument has the political push, which has money pumping into
> it?
Climate denialism. Here again we see the classic denialist ploy of
calling white 'black' and black 'white'. I've posted *realms* of
evidence here before about political interference against climate change
scientists, political attempts to water down the findings of scientific
reports, and the oil money that has gone into climate denialism.
> If an argument gets no platformed by universities and the BBC there
> is a reason. It could be that it's rubbish but them, why not argue it
> out and show it to be rubbish? How about if the reason for no
> platform is because they don't think they can win the argument?
Because it's been done to death already, climate science has been fully
exonerated, and there's no reason to bore the arse of everyone else here
because a few sad and stubborn old farts like yourself are determined to
resisting the truth.
> Make your choice, believe the propaganda or don't.
Don't believe climate science if you're determined not to, but stop
trying to convert everyone else to your crackpot religion.
Andrew
Oct 1, 2019, 10:50:13 AM10/1/19
to
On 01/10/2019 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
> But, as has been said before, it doesn't matter how much looking you do,
> if you only look in sewers, you'll find only shit.
>
Err, no. You will find mostly water together with wet-wipes, fatbergs,
> But, as has been said before, it doesn't matter how much looking you do,
> if you only look in sewers, you'll find only shit.
>
old engine oil, 'lost' smart phones, assorted bits of jewellry, rats.
Quite a lot actually.
Perhaps climate science is too fixated on what they 'want' to
find, mostly for geopolitical and/or financial gain (does the fact
that the BBC pension fund is heavily invested in 'green' technology
have any effect on the way they present weather and climate
information ?).
>> My personal view is that I have dismissed a politically motivated
>> death cult who's "hammer blow" was ice core data showing a
>> correlation between CO2 and temperature and was proof CO2 caused
>> climate change.
>
> Nonsense, you have zero understanding of Planetary Science in general
> and Climate Science in particular.
argument you are on.
Java Jive
Oct 1, 2019, 12:00:00 PM10/1/19
to
On 01/10/2019 15:50, Andrew wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2019 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> But, as has been said before, it doesn't matter how much looking you
>> do, if you only look in sewers, you'll find only shit.
>>
> Err, no. You will find mostly water together with wet-wipes, fatbergs,
> old engine oil, 'lost' smart phones, assorted bits of jewellry, rats.
>
> Quite a lot actually.
You understand the point that was being made well enough.
>
> On 01/10/2019 12:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> But, as has been said before, it doesn't matter how much looking you
>> do, if you only look in sewers, you'll find only shit.
>>
> Err, no. You will find mostly water together with wet-wipes, fatbergs,
> old engine oil, 'lost' smart phones, assorted bits of jewellry, rats.
>
> Quite a lot actually.
> Perhaps climate science is too fixated on what they 'want' to
> find, mostly for geopolitical and/or financial gain (does the fact
> that the BBC pension fund is heavily invested in 'green' technology
> have any effect on the way they present weather and climate
> information ?).
>>> My personal view is that I have dismissed a politically motivated
>>> death cult who's "hammer blow" was ice core data showing a
>>> correlation between CO2 and temperature and was proof CO2 caused
>>> climate change.
>>
>> Nonsense, you have zero understanding of Planetary Science in general
>> and Climate Science in particular.
>
> Does anyone ?. Empty vessels make most noise, which ever side of the
> argument you are on.
Jim Lesurf
Oct 1, 2019, 12:15:52 PM10/1/19
to
In article <57fc10...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In 1683 the ice was 3ft thick on the Thames. Regular fairs were held on
> the ice. How did we warm up from that? It wasn't cars, buses, trains,
> planes, central heating or generating electricity.
cf below, and beware of confusing *local* climate in short timescales with
*global* over longer ones.
> The planet's temperature has always varied and always will and currently
> we are well within the perfectly normal range and CO2 is very, very low.
You really should read the references I suggested as they cover all
timescales and shows how to unpick/assess various factors. 'The Human
Planet' is useful in this respect.
Yes, many factors affect climate. One of them is human behaviour.
> If an argument gets no platformed by universities and the BBC there is a
> reason. It could be that it's rubbish but them, why not argue it out and
> show it to be rubbish? How about if the reason for no platform is
> because they don't think they can win the argument?
Perhaps because academics *have* repeatedly 'argued it out' but have been
ignored when it suits those who refuse to accept what they explain.
It may be a shame that they give up, but I can understand why they do.
> Make your choice, believe the propaganda or don't.
Agreed. Get to understand the data instead. :-)
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In 1683 the ice was 3ft thick on the Thames. Regular fairs were held on
> the ice. How did we warm up from that? It wasn't cars, buses, trains,
> planes, central heating or generating electricity.
cf below, and beware of confusing *local* climate in short timescales with
*global* over longer ones.
> The planet's temperature has always varied and always will and currently
> we are well within the perfectly normal range and CO2 is very, very low.
You really should read the references I suggested as they cover all
timescales and shows how to unpick/assess various factors. 'The Human
Planet' is useful in this respect.
Yes, many factors affect climate. One of them is human behaviour.
> If an argument gets no platformed by universities and the BBC there is a
> reason. It could be that it's rubbish but them, why not argue it out and
> show it to be rubbish? How about if the reason for no platform is
> because they don't think they can win the argument?
ignored when it suits those who refuse to accept what they explain.
It may be a shame that they give up, but I can understand why they do.
> Make your choice, believe the propaganda or don't.
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Vir Campestris
Oct 1, 2019, 4:58:43 PM10/1/19
to
On 01/10/2019 10:29, Bob Latham wrote:
> If an argument gets no platformed by universities and the BBC there
> is a reason. It could be that it's rubbish but them, why not argue it
> out and show it to be rubbish? How about if the reason for no
> platform is because they don't think they can win the argument?
>
> is a reason. It could be that it's rubbish but them, why not argue it
> out and show it to be rubbish? How about if the reason for no
> platform is because they don't think they can win the argument?
>
> Make your choice, believe the propaganda or don't.
I went and read the paper because I'm interested, and there don't seem
to be any good models.
I'm not sure I believe the propaganda from _either_ side. That paper
isn't a good refutation.
Andy
Java Jive
Oct 1, 2019, 6:43:27 PM10/1/19
to
On 01/10/2019 20:30, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <57fc1bb...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RbgGB1Q3s
Made some valid points about today's schoolkids being high users of
electrical energy, then degenerated into the usual sort of right-wing
foaming at the mouth drivelling tirade, at which point I closed the window.
> Nails it in one.
On the contrary, it was the scatter-gun approach to propaganda instead
of the single well-aimed sniper shot.
>>> In 1683 the ice was 3ft thick on the Thames. Regular fairs were
>>> held on the ice. How did we warm up from that? It wasn't cars,
>>> buses, trains, planes, central heating or generating electricity.
>>
>> cf below, and beware of confusing *local* climate in short
>> timescales with *global* over longer ones.
>
> So the temperatures suffered by europe in the 17th century was just
> local and not part of the planet's climate change? Really? That's
> convenient, was the medieval warm period the same?
How very revealing that you hadn't bothered to think about that. As
I've said many times before, you know SFA about Climate Science.
>>> The planet's temperature has always varied and always will and
>>> currently we are well within the perfectly normal range and CO2
>>> is very, very low.
>
>> You really should read the references I suggested as they cover all
>> timescales and shows how to unpick/assess various factors. 'The
>> Human Planet' is useful in this respect.
>
> So I assume you're unhappy with this graph then...
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/6temp.jpg
This is a private site hosted on MSN servers, so it has no scientific
credibility whatsoever, so no comment is really needed, especially when
looks at a listing of its root directory ...
Name Last modified Size Description
6temp.jpg 2019-10-01 19:06 53K
Red-Arrows-bad.jpg 2019-09-22 12:11 290K
Red-Arrows.jpg 2019-09-22 12:13 399K
analyser1.jpg 2019-08-24 12:33 630K
cgi-bin/ 2010-12-13 16:07 -
diag.jpg 2019-08-22 20:35 144K
googlec690e98b0468f5..> 2013-02-23 15:29 53
jclean.zip 2019-09-22 11:16 100K
... which, as can be seen, contains no html whatsoever. Moreover the
file in question appears out of any other related context and was last
modified *today*. Therefore, we have to wonder whether this is an
actual modification, or just the date of saving? Being generous and
assuming it's the latter, then we have to wonder why it was so important
to remove it from its context, rather than simply linking to it in situ?
Using Google Image Search answers that immediately:
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&hl=en-GB&tbs=simg:CAESlAIJuKctv8jH58IaiAILELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKN8IrhOtE8sdigj0AuIJuBO2E_1cC8D_1vP6M-5zeoPu4_1pz6kPqUrnz4aMPcAeaqeCorrSa-hmoxZjNw00vY0rMX3X-QQ0apmi5Bulx1gONRHz6bdzOPuO531TiAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEAGo89gwLEJ3twQkagAEKGgoHZGlhZ3JhbdqliPYDCwoJL20vMDJ2MG0yChUKA21hcNqliPYDCgoIL20vMDRfdGIKGAoEcGxvdNqliPYDDAoKL20vMDRxMzQ3eQoXCgRwbGFu2qWI9gMLCgkvbS8wMThqcnIKGAoGbnVtYmVy2qWI9gMKCggvbS8wNWZ3Ygw&q=climate+of+the+cambrian+period&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwu9muiPzkAhUEQhUIHdBGCDMQsw56BAgAEAE&biw=1278&bih=584
Identical or very similar images are to be found on climate denial sites
such as ...
w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m
c l i m a t i s m . b l o g
... as well as denialist contributions by the general public to forums
and comment sections on other sites. So the reason its context was
obscured was that Bob LieToThem didn't want us to know that he had
lifted it from one of these denialist sources. We kind of knew already
that he is dishonest about this and similar issues, but this *proves* it
beyond reasonable doubt!
But this still leaves a problem, where did the denialist source get it
from? Was it a complete fabrication, or from an actual scientific site?
Why, if the latter, was it removed from its original scientific
context? It is, or rather was, genuine. Further searching using Google
Image Search and similar techniques eventually led to this ...
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
... and there it is, in its proper scientific context, dated 21/03/2009.
But this in turn still leaves a problem, why were CO2 levels apparently
so high while temperatures apparently so low? They weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=97
"Low solar levels during Ordovician Period
What The Science Says:
During the Ordovician, solar output was 4% lower than current levels,
and there was a large continent over the South Pole. Consequently, CO2
levels at around 1,000 to 2,300 ppm were actually low enough to promote
glaciation in the southern continent of Gondwana. Ample geological and
geochemical evidence points to strong weathering in parallel with the
cooling of the Ordovician climate. Since rock weathering reduces
atmospheric CO2, this again reinforces the scientific fact that CO2 is a
strong driver of climate.
Climate Myth: CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician
Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations
then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to
greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead,
global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors
besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global
warming." (Monte Hieb)
Older scientific papers inferred very high CO2 levels in the Ordovician,
generating a paradox of a cold climate during a time of high greenhouse
gas levels. But recent work has shown that atmospheric CO2 was much
lower than the myth claims, and it kept falling through the Ordovician.
It was less than 8 times preindustrial values towards the end (see the
graph below), which may sound very high, but with a 4% fainter sun back
then and with a large continent over the South Pole, it was low enough
to trigger a major continental ice sheet."
Not so nice one Bob, would you care to pay me and everyone else here for
our time that you've wasted today?!
> I'd expect what you've read to be superior to what I've read, some
> aspect of your argument always carries that position.
That's because he *is* superior to you, having a long and tolerably
successful scientific career, whereas you ... ???
>> Yes, many factors affect climate.
>
> Yes, indeed.
Living organisms have been affecting the atmosphere and climate and
thence the geological record since the first stromatolites caused the
banded iron formations in Australian rocks. Humans are simply the
latest organism to do so.
> Yep, just like I refuse to accept many other university based
> ideologies and religions; AGW, EU, Multi-Culturalism, Political
> correctness etc. etc. All of them axiomatic - you must believe this
> or you're a very bad person, all unproven, all abandoning reason
> itself.
There is absolutely nothing approaching reasoning in anything that you
write, so it's not surprising that you can't recognise it in others.
> Yes of course, it must be terrible having to explain again and again
> to the great unwashed.
It's certainly a crashing bore having to explain over and over again to
the not-so-great unthinking - it wouldn't be so bad if you would just
keep quiet and let everyone think you're a fool, instead of always
having to preach at others and thereby remove all shadow of doubt.
> Perhaps showing us some polar bears would
> help. You know, the ones that didn't die during the medieval warm
> period
Again, you're confusing local and global - just because the UK had a
medieval warm period doesn't mean that the Arctic did.
> or some power station cooling towers so loved by the BBC
> propaganda department - someone tell them it's steam.
And CO2 and pollution from the burning of coal to make the steam; did
you think the steam made itself?
>>> Make your choice, believe the propaganda or don't.
>
>> Agreed. Get to understand the data instead. :-)
>
> Which bit, things like CO2 is far lower now than it has been for
> millions of years sort of data?
See above, loser!
>
> In article <57fc1bb...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <57fc10...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>> <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Love this, wish our Sky news was like this..
>>
>> In article <57fc10...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>> <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RbgGB1Q3s
Made some valid points about today's schoolkids being high users of
electrical energy, then degenerated into the usual sort of right-wing
foaming at the mouth drivelling tirade, at which point I closed the window.
> Nails it in one.
On the contrary, it was the scatter-gun approach to propaganda instead
of the single well-aimed sniper shot.
>>> In 1683 the ice was 3ft thick on the Thames. Regular fairs were
>>> held on the ice. How did we warm up from that? It wasn't cars,
>>> buses, trains, planes, central heating or generating electricity.
>>
>> cf below, and beware of confusing *local* climate in short
>> timescales with *global* over longer ones.
>
> local and not part of the planet's climate change? Really? That's
> convenient, was the medieval warm period the same?
How very revealing that you hadn't bothered to think about that. As
I've said many times before, you know SFA about Climate Science.
>>> The planet's temperature has always varied and always will and
>>> currently we are well within the perfectly normal range and CO2
>>> is very, very low.
>
>> You really should read the references I suggested as they cover all
>> timescales and shows how to unpick/assess various factors. 'The
>> Human Planet' is useful in this respect.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/6temp.jpg
This is a private site hosted on MSN servers, so it has no scientific
credibility whatsoever, so no comment is really needed, especially when
looks at a listing of its root directory ...
Name Last modified Size Description
6temp.jpg 2019-10-01 19:06 53K
Red-Arrows-bad.jpg 2019-09-22 12:11 290K
Red-Arrows.jpg 2019-09-22 12:13 399K
analyser1.jpg 2019-08-24 12:33 630K
cgi-bin/ 2010-12-13 16:07 -
diag.jpg 2019-08-22 20:35 144K
googlec690e98b0468f5..> 2013-02-23 15:29 53
jclean.zip 2019-09-22 11:16 100K
... which, as can be seen, contains no html whatsoever. Moreover the
file in question appears out of any other related context and was last
modified *today*. Therefore, we have to wonder whether this is an
actual modification, or just the date of saving? Being generous and
assuming it's the latter, then we have to wonder why it was so important
to remove it from its context, rather than simply linking to it in situ?
Using Google Image Search answers that immediately:
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&hl=en-GB&tbs=simg:CAESlAIJuKctv8jH58IaiAILELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKN8IrhOtE8sdigj0AuIJuBO2E_1cC8D_1vP6M-5zeoPu4_1pz6kPqUrnz4aMPcAeaqeCorrSa-hmoxZjNw00vY0rMX3X-QQ0apmi5Bulx1gONRHz6bdzOPuO531TiAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEAGo89gwLEJ3twQkagAEKGgoHZGlhZ3JhbdqliPYDCwoJL20vMDJ2MG0yChUKA21hcNqliPYDCgoIL20vMDRfdGIKGAoEcGxvdNqliPYDDAoKL20vMDRxMzQ3eQoXCgRwbGFu2qWI9gMLCgkvbS8wMThqcnIKGAoGbnVtYmVy2qWI9gMKCggvbS8wNWZ3Ygw&q=climate+of+the+cambrian+period&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwu9muiPzkAhUEQhUIHdBGCDMQsw56BAgAEAE&biw=1278&bih=584
Identical or very similar images are to be found on climate denial sites
such as ...
w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m
c l i m a t i s m . b l o g
... as well as denialist contributions by the general public to forums
and comment sections on other sites. So the reason its context was
obscured was that Bob LieToThem didn't want us to know that he had
lifted it from one of these denialist sources. We kind of knew already
that he is dishonest about this and similar issues, but this *proves* it
beyond reasonable doubt!
But this still leaves a problem, where did the denialist source get it
from? Was it a complete fabrication, or from an actual scientific site?
Why, if the latter, was it removed from its original scientific
context? It is, or rather was, genuine. Further searching using Google
Image Search and similar techniques eventually led to this ...
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
... and there it is, in its proper scientific context, dated 21/03/2009.
But this in turn still leaves a problem, why were CO2 levels apparently
so high while temperatures apparently so low? They weren't:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=97
"Low solar levels during Ordovician Period
What The Science Says:
During the Ordovician, solar output was 4% lower than current levels,
and there was a large continent over the South Pole. Consequently, CO2
levels at around 1,000 to 2,300 ppm were actually low enough to promote
glaciation in the southern continent of Gondwana. Ample geological and
geochemical evidence points to strong weathering in parallel with the
cooling of the Ordovician climate. Since rock weathering reduces
atmospheric CO2, this again reinforces the scientific fact that CO2 is a
strong driver of climate.
Climate Myth: CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician
Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations
then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to
greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead,
global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors
besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global
warming." (Monte Hieb)
Older scientific papers inferred very high CO2 levels in the Ordovician,
generating a paradox of a cold climate during a time of high greenhouse
gas levels. But recent work has shown that atmospheric CO2 was much
lower than the myth claims, and it kept falling through the Ordovician.
It was less than 8 times preindustrial values towards the end (see the
graph below), which may sound very high, but with a 4% fainter sun back
then and with a large continent over the South Pole, it was low enough
to trigger a major continental ice sheet."
Not so nice one Bob, would you care to pay me and everyone else here for
our time that you've wasted today?!
> I'd expect what you've read to be superior to what I've read, some
> aspect of your argument always carries that position.
That's because he *is* superior to you, having a long and tolerably
successful scientific career, whereas you ... ???
>> Yes, many factors affect climate.
>
>
>> One of them is human behaviour.
>
> Not a chance of anything significant - its political.
>> One of them is human behaviour.
>
Living organisms have been affecting the atmosphere and climate and
thence the geological record since the first stromatolites caused the
banded iron formations in Australian rocks. Humans are simply the
latest organism to do so.
> Yep, just like I refuse to accept many other university based
> ideologies and religions; AGW, EU, Multi-Culturalism, Political
> correctness etc. etc. All of them axiomatic - you must believe this
> or you're a very bad person, all unproven, all abandoning reason
> itself.
There is absolutely nothing approaching reasoning in anything that you
write, so it's not surprising that you can't recognise it in others.
> Yes of course, it must be terrible having to explain again and again
> to the great unwashed.
It's certainly a crashing bore having to explain over and over again to
the not-so-great unthinking - it wouldn't be so bad if you would just
keep quiet and let everyone think you're a fool, instead of always
having to preach at others and thereby remove all shadow of doubt.
> Perhaps showing us some polar bears would
> help. You know, the ones that didn't die during the medieval warm
> period
Again, you're confusing local and global - just because the UK had a
medieval warm period doesn't mean that the Arctic did.
> or some power station cooling towers so loved by the BBC
> propaganda department - someone tell them it's steam.
And CO2 and pollution from the burning of coal to make the steam; did
you think the steam made itself?
>>> Make your choice, believe the propaganda or don't.
>
>> Agreed. Get to understand the data instead. :-)
>
> millions of years sort of data?
See above, loser!
Jim Lesurf
Oct 2, 2019, 12:51:29 PM10/2/19
to
In article <57fc47...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
[big snip to save repeated waste of effort]
> > Agreed. Get to understand the data instead. :-)
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
[big snip to save repeated waste of effort]
> > Agreed. Get to understand the data instead. :-)
> Which bit, things like CO2 is far lower now than it has been for
> millions of years sort of data?
To find out, read the book I suggested.
> millions of years sort of data?
Java Jive
Oct 3, 2019, 7:02:05 AM10/3/19
to
On 03/10/2019 11:12, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Seen this morning...
>
> "UAH 6.0
>
> No net Warming last 21 years.
>
> Net cooling last 3 years.
>
> UAH september remains in the .2 to .6C box, climate stable with minor
> fluctuations."
>
> There is a graph but no net reference. (Must be rubbish.)
Another assertion made with no provenance to support it.
>
> Seen this morning...
>
> "UAH 6.0
>
> No net Warming last 21 years.
>
> Net cooling last 3 years.
>
> UAH september remains in the .2 to .6C box, climate stable with minor
> fluctuations."
>
> There is a graph but no net reference. (Must be rubbish.)
Another assertion made with no provenance to support it.
Java Jive
Oct 9, 2019, 10:21:24 AM10/9/19
to
On 09/10/2019 13:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> 500 Scientists write to the UN - There is no climate emergency.
>
> https://www.technocracy.news/climate-scientists-write-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
>
> pays yer money.
I wonder who's paying you to waste this ng's time by flooding it with
all this OT shit propaganda?
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
"SUMMARY
This letter presenting a short list of claims about climate change
boasts a list of “500 scientists and professionals” who have co-signed it.
The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by
geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions
downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for
example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on
plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the
response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.
And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate
science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant
portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in
non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.
Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers
of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science.
See all the scientists’ annotations in context.
REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK
These comments are the overall assessment of scientists on the article,
they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the
content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.
Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of
Research, Climatic Research Unit:
This statement is unscientific. It ignores well-established
understanding of climate and of what causes the climate to change. It
makes cherry-picked statements, such as noting that some vegetation
grows more with increased CO2 while ignoring the risks of serious damage
arising from the climate change that is being caused by the same
increase in CO2. The authors of the statement appear to be very
unfamiliar with climate science: for example, they do not know that the
amount of global warming we have observed is very close to the amount
predicted by climate models.
Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:
The letter contains direct lies and cherry picks information about
carbon dioxide and climate change impacts that are designed to mislead.
I am also concerned that many of those who have signed the letter are
well known climate deniers and are not actively involved in direct
research on climate change and its impacts.
Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed,
every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for
the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity.
Given how old the “arguments” are, the authors are clearly not aiming to
convince scientists and thus making science more political, while
disingenuously claiming to be against that.
Amber Kerr, Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute,
University of California, Davis:
Each of the six claims has some element of truth to it (e.g. there is
not much evidence that global warming is already making hurricanes more
frequent). However, all six claims are presented in a biased and
misleading way, giving the incorrect impression that anthropogenic
climate change is a benign or beneficial force overall, whereas
scientists and economists have repeatedly concluded that climate change
is a massive and urgent problem.
Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor, Università di Milano:
The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails
to bring proof for its claims. The ending of the Little Ice Age in 1850
has no logical link with the fact that the Earth is warming now. Most
past climate variations have been slower or less intense as the present
one, and if they were as fast or severe they brought about mass
extinctions in the biosphere. No explanation or proof is brought on the
implausibility or inaccuracy of climate models (whose accuracy or
uncertainty is precisely quantified and makes their use better than just
random guesses). The last two statements are based on literature and
common knowledge, but qualify as cherry-picking because they omit most
negative effects of CO2 increase and warming (e.g. other clear trends in
extreme events, damage to forests and crops by drought and heat waves)."
So let's take a look at the record of some of these 500 signatory
so-called 'experts' who signed the letter ...
Professor Guus Berkhout The Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout
"Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who
has worked for the oil and gas industry"
Professor Richard Lindzen USA
More credible than the above, but nevertheless rather prone to
scientific error [JJ Caps] ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
"Climate sensitivity
Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea
surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced
cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's
atmosphere.[9] Additionally, rising temperatures would cause more
extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence. This
hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects
of CO
2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. SATELLITE DATA FROM CERES
HAS LED RESEARCHERS INVESTIGATING LINDZEN'S THEORY TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
IRIS EFFECT WOULD INSTEAD WARM THE ATMOSPHERE.[46][47] Lindzen disputed
this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was
still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.[48]
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models
used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted
warming may be overestimated because of their handling of the climate
system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a
major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur
with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and all
existing computer models assume positive feedback — that is, that as the
climate warms, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere will
increase, leading to further warming. By contrast, Lindzen believes that
temperature increases will actually cause more extensive drying due to
increased areas of atmospheric subsidence as a result of the Iris
effect, nullifying future warming.[3] This claim was criticized by
climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of
the effects of the Iris effect and CITES EMPIRICAL CASES WHERE LARGE AND
RELATIVELY RAPID CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE SUCH AS EL NIÑO EVENTS, THE
ULTRA PLINIAN ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO IN 1991, AND RECENT TRENDS IN
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AND WATER VAPOR LEVELS TO SHOW THAT, AS PREDICTED IN
THE GENERALLY-ACCEPTED VIEW, WATER VAPOR INCREASES AS THE TEMPERATURE
INCREASES, AND DECREASES AS TEMPERATURES DECREASE.[49]
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are
inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of
clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50]
Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than
pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6
°C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC
(2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling
of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of
the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51]
These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52]
and LINDZEN ACCEPTED THAT HIS PAPER INCLUDED "SOME STUPID MISTAKES".
When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that
"The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of
grotesque." LINDZEN AND CHOI REVISED THEIR PAPER AND SUBMITTED IT TO
PNAS.[53] THE FOUR REVIEWERS OF THE PAPER, TWO OF WHOM HAD BEEN SELECTED
BY LINDZEN, STRONGLY CRITICIZED THE PAPER AND PNAS REJECTED IT FOR
PUBLICATION.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little
known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] ANDREW
DESSLER PUBLISHED A PAPER WHICH FOUND ERRORS IN LINDZEN AND CHOI 2011,
AND CONCLUDED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS IT HAD PRESENTED "ARE NOT IN
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH MAINSTREAM CLIMATE MODELS, NOR DO THEY
PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT CLOUDS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE. SUGGESTIONS
THAT SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS TO MAINSTREAM CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE REQUIRED
ARE THEREFORE NOT SUPPORTED."[56]"
Professor Reynald Du Berger French Canada
At least an Earth scientist, but a geologist, not a climatologist, and
the only papers I could find listed for him were about earthquakes. And
apparently not important enough to merit a Wikipedia or similarly
publicly available 'about' page.
Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden
His own description of himself shows that he is not a climate expert ...
https://liu.se/en/employee/ingno63
"Fields of research
Philosophy of science and technology (especially the relation between
pure science and technology, and the rationality of technology).
Political philosophy (especially the philosophy of rights). Philosophy
of medicine (especially decision theory and medical technology)."
Terry Dunleavy New Zealand
Again, not a climate scientist, but someone who even denialists describe
as a former journalist and commercial printer, and has been involved in
the NZ wine industry for many years, receiving the MBE in 1990 for
services to the wine industry and the community.
Jim O’Brien Rep.
of Ireland
Three pages of Google hits didn't identify who this might be, let alone
anything useful about him, unless he's either a footballer or a
presenter of an LBC radio show, both of which I doubt. However, even
this lack of information tells us that he can't be a leading climate
scientist, because if he was there would be some worthwhile information
about him.
Viv Forbes
Australia
https://www.desmogblog.com/viv-forbes
"Credentials
Degree in Applied Science Geology, and Fellow of the Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. [1]
[...]
Forbes has also had a long association with the coal industry. According
to his archived biography at Stanmore Coal where he acts as director,
Forbes has over 40 years of coal industry experience and has worked with
Burton Coal, Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, South Blackwater Coal Mine,
Tahmoor Coal Mine, Newlands/Collinsville Coal Mines, MIM, Utah
Goonyella/Saraji, Gold Fields, Austral Coal, and others. Forbes was also
appointed general manager of Rocklands Richfield coal company in 2006.
[1]], [24]"
Also three pages of Google hits didn't identify any meaningful work in
climate science other than as a denialist propagandist.
Professor Alberto Prestininzi Italy
https://scholar.google.it/citations?user=2uONUU0AAAAJ&hl=it
Again, at least an earth scientist, but a geologist who doesn't appear
to have published any papers on climate science.
Professor Jeffrey Foss English Canada
Three pages of Google hits mainly found his book, and that he is a
philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of
Victoria, Canada. Again, nothing to do with climate science, and he
doesn't appear to have published any actual scientific research.
Professor Benoît Rittaud France
https://www.math.univ-paris13.fr/~rittaud/indexEng.html
At least a mathematician, but not a climate scientist.
Morten Jødal Norway
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=https://miljomytene.no/velkommen/om-meg/&prev=search
At least a biologist, but not a climate scientist.
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt
At least a chemist, but not a climate scientist.
Rob Lemeire Belgium
Seemingly originally a civil engineer, perhaps now he could also be
described as a journalist and political activist, but it's difficult to
be sure, because many sites don't render well when translated.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley UK
An undeservedly well-known British aristidiot whose main achievement in
life seems to have been to learn to recite Tom Lehrer's 'The Elements',
at which those who have heard the original tend to curl their toes,
wince, and wish for an early death, preferably for Monkton, but failing
that themselves.
> 500 Scientists write to the UN - There is no climate emergency.
>
> https://www.technocracy.news/climate-scientists-write-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
>
> pays yer money.
I wonder who's paying you to waste this ng's time by flooding it with
all this OT shit propaganda?
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
"SUMMARY
This letter presenting a short list of claims about climate change
boasts a list of “500 scientists and professionals” who have co-signed it.
The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by
geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions
downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for
example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on
plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the
response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.
And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate
science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant
portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in
non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.
Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers
of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science.
See all the scientists’ annotations in context.
REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK
These comments are the overall assessment of scientists on the article,
they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the
content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.
Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of
Research, Climatic Research Unit:
This statement is unscientific. It ignores well-established
understanding of climate and of what causes the climate to change. It
makes cherry-picked statements, such as noting that some vegetation
grows more with increased CO2 while ignoring the risks of serious damage
arising from the climate change that is being caused by the same
increase in CO2. The authors of the statement appear to be very
unfamiliar with climate science: for example, they do not know that the
amount of global warming we have observed is very close to the amount
predicted by climate models.
Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:
The letter contains direct lies and cherry picks information about
carbon dioxide and climate change impacts that are designed to mislead.
I am also concerned that many of those who have signed the letter are
well known climate deniers and are not actively involved in direct
research on climate change and its impacts.
Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed,
every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for
the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity.
Given how old the “arguments” are, the authors are clearly not aiming to
convince scientists and thus making science more political, while
disingenuously claiming to be against that.
Amber Kerr, Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute,
University of California, Davis:
Each of the six claims has some element of truth to it (e.g. there is
not much evidence that global warming is already making hurricanes more
frequent). However, all six claims are presented in a biased and
misleading way, giving the incorrect impression that anthropogenic
climate change is a benign or beneficial force overall, whereas
scientists and economists have repeatedly concluded that climate change
is a massive and urgent problem.
Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor, Università di Milano:
The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails
to bring proof for its claims. The ending of the Little Ice Age in 1850
has no logical link with the fact that the Earth is warming now. Most
past climate variations have been slower or less intense as the present
one, and if they were as fast or severe they brought about mass
extinctions in the biosphere. No explanation or proof is brought on the
implausibility or inaccuracy of climate models (whose accuracy or
uncertainty is precisely quantified and makes their use better than just
random guesses). The last two statements are based on literature and
common knowledge, but qualify as cherry-picking because they omit most
negative effects of CO2 increase and warming (e.g. other clear trends in
extreme events, damage to forests and crops by drought and heat waves)."
So let's take a look at the record of some of these 500 signatory
so-called 'experts' who signed the letter ...
Professor Guus Berkhout The Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout
"Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who
has worked for the oil and gas industry"
Professor Richard Lindzen USA
More credible than the above, but nevertheless rather prone to
scientific error [JJ Caps] ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
"Climate sensitivity
Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea
surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced
cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's
atmosphere.[9] Additionally, rising temperatures would cause more
extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence. This
hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects
of CO
2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. SATELLITE DATA FROM CERES
HAS LED RESEARCHERS INVESTIGATING LINDZEN'S THEORY TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
IRIS EFFECT WOULD INSTEAD WARM THE ATMOSPHERE.[46][47] Lindzen disputed
this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was
still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.[48]
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models
used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted
warming may be overestimated because of their handling of the climate
system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a
major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur
with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and all
existing computer models assume positive feedback — that is, that as the
climate warms, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere will
increase, leading to further warming. By contrast, Lindzen believes that
temperature increases will actually cause more extensive drying due to
increased areas of atmospheric subsidence as a result of the Iris
effect, nullifying future warming.[3] This claim was criticized by
climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of
the effects of the Iris effect and CITES EMPIRICAL CASES WHERE LARGE AND
RELATIVELY RAPID CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE SUCH AS EL NIÑO EVENTS, THE
ULTRA PLINIAN ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO IN 1991, AND RECENT TRENDS IN
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AND WATER VAPOR LEVELS TO SHOW THAT, AS PREDICTED IN
THE GENERALLY-ACCEPTED VIEW, WATER VAPOR INCREASES AS THE TEMPERATURE
INCREASES, AND DECREASES AS TEMPERATURES DECREASE.[49]
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are
inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of
clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50]
Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than
pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6
°C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC
(2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling
of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of
the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51]
These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52]
and LINDZEN ACCEPTED THAT HIS PAPER INCLUDED "SOME STUPID MISTAKES".
When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that
"The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of
grotesque." LINDZEN AND CHOI REVISED THEIR PAPER AND SUBMITTED IT TO
PNAS.[53] THE FOUR REVIEWERS OF THE PAPER, TWO OF WHOM HAD BEEN SELECTED
BY LINDZEN, STRONGLY CRITICIZED THE PAPER AND PNAS REJECTED IT FOR
PUBLICATION.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little
known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] ANDREW
DESSLER PUBLISHED A PAPER WHICH FOUND ERRORS IN LINDZEN AND CHOI 2011,
AND CONCLUDED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS IT HAD PRESENTED "ARE NOT IN
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH MAINSTREAM CLIMATE MODELS, NOR DO THEY
PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT CLOUDS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE. SUGGESTIONS
THAT SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS TO MAINSTREAM CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE REQUIRED
ARE THEREFORE NOT SUPPORTED."[56]"
Professor Reynald Du Berger French Canada
At least an Earth scientist, but a geologist, not a climatologist, and
the only papers I could find listed for him were about earthquakes. And
apparently not important enough to merit a Wikipedia or similarly
publicly available 'about' page.
Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden
His own description of himself shows that he is not a climate expert ...
https://liu.se/en/employee/ingno63
"Fields of research
Philosophy of science and technology (especially the relation between
pure science and technology, and the rationality of technology).
Political philosophy (especially the philosophy of rights). Philosophy
of medicine (especially decision theory and medical technology)."
Terry Dunleavy New Zealand
Again, not a climate scientist, but someone who even denialists describe
as a former journalist and commercial printer, and has been involved in
the NZ wine industry for many years, receiving the MBE in 1990 for
services to the wine industry and the community.
Jim O’Brien Rep.
of Ireland
Three pages of Google hits didn't identify who this might be, let alone
anything useful about him, unless he's either a footballer or a
presenter of an LBC radio show, both of which I doubt. However, even
this lack of information tells us that he can't be a leading climate
scientist, because if he was there would be some worthwhile information
about him.
Viv Forbes
Australia
https://www.desmogblog.com/viv-forbes
"Credentials
Degree in Applied Science Geology, and Fellow of the Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. [1]
[...]
Forbes has also had a long association with the coal industry. According
to his archived biography at Stanmore Coal where he acts as director,
Forbes has over 40 years of coal industry experience and has worked with
Burton Coal, Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, South Blackwater Coal Mine,
Tahmoor Coal Mine, Newlands/Collinsville Coal Mines, MIM, Utah
Goonyella/Saraji, Gold Fields, Austral Coal, and others. Forbes was also
appointed general manager of Rocklands Richfield coal company in 2006.
[1]], [24]"
Also three pages of Google hits didn't identify any meaningful work in
climate science other than as a denialist propagandist.
Professor Alberto Prestininzi Italy
https://scholar.google.it/citations?user=2uONUU0AAAAJ&hl=it
Again, at least an earth scientist, but a geologist who doesn't appear
to have published any papers on climate science.
Professor Jeffrey Foss English Canada
Three pages of Google hits mainly found his book, and that he is a
philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of
Victoria, Canada. Again, nothing to do with climate science, and he
doesn't appear to have published any actual scientific research.
Professor Benoît Rittaud France
https://www.math.univ-paris13.fr/~rittaud/indexEng.html
At least a mathematician, but not a climate scientist.
Morten Jødal Norway
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=https://miljomytene.no/velkommen/om-meg/&prev=search
At least a biologist, but not a climate scientist.
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt
At least a chemist, but not a climate scientist.
Rob Lemeire Belgium
Seemingly originally a civil engineer, perhaps now he could also be
described as a journalist and political activist, but it's difficult to
be sure, because many sites don't render well when translated.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley UK
An undeservedly well-known British aristidiot whose main achievement in
life seems to have been to learn to recite Tom Lehrer's 'The Elements',
at which those who have heard the original tend to curl their toes,
wince, and wish for an early death, preferably for Monkton, but failing
that themselves.
Alex .
Oct 9, 2019, 10:35:14 AM10/9/19
to
"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:58003e...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> 500 Scientists write to the UN - There is no climate emergency.
>
> https://www.technocracy.news/climate-scientists-write-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
>
> pays yer money.
>
The late John Coleman (US meteorologist) was also a skeptic. He managed to air his views, albeit briefly:
>
> https://www.technocracy.news/climate-scientists-write-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
>
> pays yer money.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH8p8d-fqkc
Java Jive
Oct 26, 2019, 6:54:42 PM10/26/19
to
On 26/10/2019 13:44, Bob Latham wrote:
Here we go again. Bob LieToThem, having already been found out trying
to deceive this ng, put's his head on the block again. Alright, I'll
cut it off again ...
> And another scientist.
Although he has a degree in geology, it's only a BSc, so I am as well
qualified as he, and as far as I have been able to establish he's never
conducted any legitimate academic research, let alone published a
peer-reviewed academic paper. If fact he's primarily a working
electrical engineer, not a working scientist!
https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
"Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)
Credentials
Masters in Electrical Engineering - Rice University. [1], [2]
BS Geology - ASU. [1], [2]
Background
Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic, regular contributor to
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), and operator of ”The Deplorable Climate Science
Blog.” The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller,
which he confirmed himself in June 2014. [3], [4], [2], [30], [32]
[...]
Steven Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he
posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from
the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was
incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [5], [6]"
So, yet another non-climate scientist getting climate science wrong.
Here's how ...
> This video is a real cracker, very educational indeed blows the lid
> of the climate alarmist argument.
No, it's mostly just recycling old claims long since debunked.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zaQWAaPAg&feature=youtu.be
He starts off by giving a bit of historical background by quoting
extreme claims from Swedish scientist Svend Arrhenius appearing in a
North Carolina newspaper in 1908. Note that apparently he is too lazy
to research what this scientist actually wrote in the form of academic
papers, he merely quotes a contemporaneous news report of uncertain
academic accuracy, also pointing out that coincidentally Greta Thunberg
is a distant relative of his, as if that somehow tarnishes either or
both of them. Next he invokes the late Prof Stephen Hawking, who was a
cosmologist, not a climate scientist. And in fact throughout the entire
video he makes barely a mention of any real modern climate science at
all - as far as a completely ignorant viewer would know, the work of
these two people form the entire basis for man-made climate change! I
think we can guess at a reason for this: he doesn't want mention
anything so specific as to be suable for libel and thereby be put out of
business when, as inevitably he would, he loses the case.
Next, well bugger me, there's that discredited graph again! You all
remember the one that Bob dishonestly copied from a denialist site to a
private webspace in an attempt to hide its denialist provenance. On
this graph he points out where there was the 'Cambrian explosion' of
diversity of sea life-forms at a time of high CO2, but:
:-( As, I've already shown in previous links, this graph is based on
old and now discredited data that overestimated the amount of CO2 by
orders of magnitude, that at this time the sun was 4% fainter, and that
all the now-separate continents were then merged together into one big
land mass, called Gwondanaland, overlying the south pole, and that this
was largely covered by ice:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=97
"So, far from presenting a paradox, late Ordovician CO2 levels are
entirely consistent with a cool climate and glaciation. Moreover the
geological, geochemical and fossil evidence all consistently show that a
big drawdown of CO2 drove that cooling, proving again that CO2 is the
principle control knob on climates both ancient and modern."
:-( There are still many academic uncertainties about this era, too
many to try to summarise here, but there have been suggestions that the
explosion of life forms was preceded by and may even have been caused by
mass extinctions, which if true completely nullifies the inherent
suggestion made in the video that CO2 is not just not harmful to life
but may be beneficial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
:-( It's not the Cambrian life-forms we're worried about, it's our own,
and we evolved under much lower levels of CO2, and we don't know how
well or badly we can adapt to the higher levels that we ourselves are
creating.
There's then a few minutes slagging off climate scientists 'like
Arrhenius and Hawking' and claiming that it's geologists 'like myself'
(but as above I can find no evidence that he's ever actually been
employed as a geologist) who really understand the earth, and that's why
fossil fuel companies employ them to find resources. There seems to be
a strange disconnect in his thinking whereby he doesn't seem to
understand that to know where to find fossil fuels in a solid maze of
geological deposits from the past might be a different skill to
understanding how dynamic fluid systems work in the present! Further,
there is the question of "He who pays the piper calls the tune!" -
it's noticeable that the class of scientists that appears to contain
more sceptics than others is precisely the one where a significant
fraction of them are paid by the fossil fuel industry!
Then he returns to the discredited graph, and of course the conclusions
he tries to draw from it are false, because they're based on false data.
Next he recycles the ice-core claim - you know the one, we've been
shown it a million times already, it's the one that in the recent past
ice-ages have been caused by Milankovitch cycles in the amount of solar
radiation reaching the earth, which first causes a change in
temperature, which then causes release of CO2, which then causes a
further increase in temperature, more CO2, and so on round the spiral
until a new point of equilibrium is reached. Although he admits that
raising the temperature increases the level of atmospheric CO2, it
doesn't seem to occur to him that if, instead of starting by increasing
temperature, you start by increasing CO2 levels, by exactly the same
mechanism you would just as surely still go around the upward spiral of
CO2 and temperature until a new point of equilibrium is reached. If
this wasn't true, then neither Tony Heller, 'Steven Goddard', Bob
LieToThem, or indeed any of us would be here, because the planet would
still be locked in a near-planetary-death 'snowball earth'.
Next he tries to disprove a claim in Nature that 50 million years ago
the greenhouse effect was the cause of near-tropical forests in Wilkes
Land at 70 degrees south - note that, 70 degrees - despite periods
of polar darkness during winter at the south pole. He tries to claim
that, because there is no sunlight at the south pole for six months a
year, near tropical conditions couldn't possibly pertain at latitude 70,
but at that latitude there are only a couple or so days in the middle of
the winter when there is no sunlight. The only calculator I could find
was for the north pole, but the south will be exactly the same six
months later in the year. It shows that even on the Arctic Circle at
66.6N there would still be just over two hours of daylight on December
22nd, so the idiot's claim about there being no radiation for six months
at the south pole is a completely false argument to apply at latitude 70.
Next he takes the graph which is reproduced here in Wikipedia (it's the
first graph, the second image, on the right hand side of the page, with
red and blue shaded areas) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
... and tries to claim that because CO2 absorbs radiation in the same
regions of the spectrum as does water vapour, and there is much more
water vapour than CO2, the absorption of CO2 must be negligible. But
this too is an old debunked claim. The most important factor he fails
to consider is that of lifetimes, water vapour is lost within a few days
while CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for many years. Consequently,
water vapour on its own it can't sustain an effect long enough to become
self-perpetuating, and instead acts as an important feedback amplifier
of temperature changes caused by other effects such as changes in the
concentration of CO2 or changes in solar radiation, and it is these
rather than water vapour that are the originators and drivers of climate
change. Hence, if you look further down the page at the table of
greenhouse gas effects, water vapour varies between being about 50-100
times more concentrated in the atmosphere than is CO2, but only has
about 4 times the absorption effect. Thus the simplistic argument
presented in the video is completely false, but you needn't take my word
for it:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
Most of the rest of the video builds on this broken analysis and its
false conclusion. He cites a lab experiment which shows that adding
more CO2 to a vessel already filled with water vapour has negligible
increase in radiation absorption, and then makes the surprising claim
that he was once employed in software development of weather and climate
models at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (but, supposing
that it's true, a software developer is not a climate scientist) and
goes on to describe Radiative Transfer Models and some work he did with
them, which again showed that CO2 had less effect than water vapour,
but, like his broken reasoning above, neither of these references
appears to take account of the differing lifetimes of water vapour and
CO2 in the real world, and therefore tells us little about real
radiation absorption in said real world.
He then compared satellite temperature data from 2016 to that from 2019
claiming that the data had been 'rigged' between those two dates,
because the 2019 data showed substantially increased warming from that
of 2016. But, whereas I can see no evidence that satellite data has
been rigged, there is clear and unmistakeable evidence that the graph he
shows has been tampered with. The logo at the bottom right hand side of
the plot is woodfortrees.org, a site that maintains all the current
temperature data series and a plotting mechanism that allows any visitor
to the site to make up their own plots. Incidentally, it is run by
someone who believes in climate science, and he warns specifically
against cherry-picking of source data! However, the point to note is
that, if you <ALT-PRINT-SCREEN> the video while it is displaying the
graph and paste the resulting image into a picture editor, you will see
that his graph is made up of two separate W4T graphs overlayed on top of
each other. As this obviously constitutes tampering, we can't
necessarily trust the integrity of the result, but in fact he is quite
open about doing this:
h t t p s : / / r e a l c l i m a t e s c i e n c e . c o m
/2019/04/adjusting-good-data-to-make-it-match-bad-data/
The background is that there is a long history here of both UAH and RSS
data, but particularly the latter, being used by denialists because of
all the available global temperature data sets they showed lowest
increases in average global temperature over time compared with others.
Obviously and more importantly too, this was also a genuine scientific
puzzle, why should this be so? Satellites take readings as they orbit
the earth in a progressive polar orbit. If they arrive at a particular
spot over the earth in the early morning on one pass, at midday on the
next, and in the evening on the third, obviously they will measure
different temperatures because of the different times of day, and
therefore the readings they take have to be corrected for the diurnal
cycle of night and day. It had long been suspected that satellite
readings had not being properly so corrected, because not only did they
disagree with land-surface readings, they also disagreed amongst
themselves. A new analysis released in 2017 by the RSS team has
introduced what they believe to be a more accurate correction, v4, and
now their temperature data actually exceeds that of gistemp. Details of
the new correction are available here ...
http://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/
... but if you want or more humorous take on it ...
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-deniers-favorite-temperature-dataset-just-confirmed-global-warming-838eb198e246/
So there has been no data rigging, only an improvement in methodology.
> CO2 causes climate change my arse.
Most of the CO2 and other foetid air in this ng is certainly coming from
your arse.
> Expect JavaJive will tell you it's sudo science in a minute but he
> swallows all the university based ideologies.
The word is pseudo-science, note the spelling and that the prefix is
usually, but not always, used with a hyphen: pseudo-science,
pseudo-religion, etc. That, at least, should be easy enough for you to
get right, even if, as you consistently prove, understanding climate
science is way too far beyond you.
I ask again, who is paying you to flood this ng with all this OT shit
propaganda, and how do you propose to recompense the rest of us for
wasting our time with it?
Here we go again. Bob LieToThem, having already been found out trying
to deceive this ng, put's his head on the block again. Alright, I'll
cut it off again ...
> And another scientist.
Although he has a degree in geology, it's only a BSc, so I am as well
qualified as he, and as far as I have been able to establish he's never
conducted any legitimate academic research, let alone published a
peer-reviewed academic paper. If fact he's primarily a working
electrical engineer, not a working scientist!
https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
"Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)
Credentials
Masters in Electrical Engineering - Rice University. [1], [2]
BS Geology - ASU. [1], [2]
Background
Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic, regular contributor to
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), and operator of ”The Deplorable Climate Science
Blog.” The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller,
which he confirmed himself in June 2014. [3], [4], [2], [30], [32]
[...]
Steven Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he
posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from
the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was
incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [5], [6]"
So, yet another non-climate scientist getting climate science wrong.
Here's how ...
> This video is a real cracker, very educational indeed blows the lid
> of the climate alarmist argument.
No, it's mostly just recycling old claims long since debunked.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zaQWAaPAg&feature=youtu.be
He starts off by giving a bit of historical background by quoting
extreme claims from Swedish scientist Svend Arrhenius appearing in a
North Carolina newspaper in 1908. Note that apparently he is too lazy
to research what this scientist actually wrote in the form of academic
papers, he merely quotes a contemporaneous news report of uncertain
academic accuracy, also pointing out that coincidentally Greta Thunberg
is a distant relative of his, as if that somehow tarnishes either or
both of them. Next he invokes the late Prof Stephen Hawking, who was a
cosmologist, not a climate scientist. And in fact throughout the entire
video he makes barely a mention of any real modern climate science at
all - as far as a completely ignorant viewer would know, the work of
these two people form the entire basis for man-made climate change! I
think we can guess at a reason for this: he doesn't want mention
anything so specific as to be suable for libel and thereby be put out of
business when, as inevitably he would, he loses the case.
Next, well bugger me, there's that discredited graph again! You all
remember the one that Bob dishonestly copied from a denialist site to a
private webspace in an attempt to hide its denialist provenance. On
this graph he points out where there was the 'Cambrian explosion' of
diversity of sea life-forms at a time of high CO2, but:
:-( As, I've already shown in previous links, this graph is based on
old and now discredited data that overestimated the amount of CO2 by
orders of magnitude, that at this time the sun was 4% fainter, and that
all the now-separate continents were then merged together into one big
land mass, called Gwondanaland, overlying the south pole, and that this
was largely covered by ice:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=97
"So, far from presenting a paradox, late Ordovician CO2 levels are
entirely consistent with a cool climate and glaciation. Moreover the
geological, geochemical and fossil evidence all consistently show that a
big drawdown of CO2 drove that cooling, proving again that CO2 is the
principle control knob on climates both ancient and modern."
:-( There are still many academic uncertainties about this era, too
many to try to summarise here, but there have been suggestions that the
explosion of life forms was preceded by and may even have been caused by
mass extinctions, which if true completely nullifies the inherent
suggestion made in the video that CO2 is not just not harmful to life
but may be beneficial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
:-( It's not the Cambrian life-forms we're worried about, it's our own,
and we evolved under much lower levels of CO2, and we don't know how
well or badly we can adapt to the higher levels that we ourselves are
creating.
There's then a few minutes slagging off climate scientists 'like
Arrhenius and Hawking' and claiming that it's geologists 'like myself'
(but as above I can find no evidence that he's ever actually been
employed as a geologist) who really understand the earth, and that's why
fossil fuel companies employ them to find resources. There seems to be
a strange disconnect in his thinking whereby he doesn't seem to
understand that to know where to find fossil fuels in a solid maze of
geological deposits from the past might be a different skill to
understanding how dynamic fluid systems work in the present! Further,
there is the question of "He who pays the piper calls the tune!" -
it's noticeable that the class of scientists that appears to contain
more sceptics than others is precisely the one where a significant
fraction of them are paid by the fossil fuel industry!
Then he returns to the discredited graph, and of course the conclusions
he tries to draw from it are false, because they're based on false data.
Next he recycles the ice-core claim - you know the one, we've been
shown it a million times already, it's the one that in the recent past
ice-ages have been caused by Milankovitch cycles in the amount of solar
radiation reaching the earth, which first causes a change in
temperature, which then causes release of CO2, which then causes a
further increase in temperature, more CO2, and so on round the spiral
until a new point of equilibrium is reached. Although he admits that
raising the temperature increases the level of atmospheric CO2, it
doesn't seem to occur to him that if, instead of starting by increasing
temperature, you start by increasing CO2 levels, by exactly the same
mechanism you would just as surely still go around the upward spiral of
CO2 and temperature until a new point of equilibrium is reached. If
this wasn't true, then neither Tony Heller, 'Steven Goddard', Bob
LieToThem, or indeed any of us would be here, because the planet would
still be locked in a near-planetary-death 'snowball earth'.
Next he tries to disprove a claim in Nature that 50 million years ago
the greenhouse effect was the cause of near-tropical forests in Wilkes
Land at 70 degrees south - note that, 70 degrees - despite periods
of polar darkness during winter at the south pole. He tries to claim
that, because there is no sunlight at the south pole for six months a
year, near tropical conditions couldn't possibly pertain at latitude 70,
but at that latitude there are only a couple or so days in the middle of
the winter when there is no sunlight. The only calculator I could find
was for the north pole, but the south will be exactly the same six
months later in the year. It shows that even on the Arctic Circle at
66.6N there would still be just over two hours of daylight on December
22nd, so the idiot's claim about there being no radiation for six months
at the south pole is a completely false argument to apply at latitude 70.
Next he takes the graph which is reproduced here in Wikipedia (it's the
first graph, the second image, on the right hand side of the page, with
red and blue shaded areas) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
... and tries to claim that because CO2 absorbs radiation in the same
regions of the spectrum as does water vapour, and there is much more
water vapour than CO2, the absorption of CO2 must be negligible. But
this too is an old debunked claim. The most important factor he fails
to consider is that of lifetimes, water vapour is lost within a few days
while CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for many years. Consequently,
water vapour on its own it can't sustain an effect long enough to become
self-perpetuating, and instead acts as an important feedback amplifier
of temperature changes caused by other effects such as changes in the
concentration of CO2 or changes in solar radiation, and it is these
rather than water vapour that are the originators and drivers of climate
change. Hence, if you look further down the page at the table of
greenhouse gas effects, water vapour varies between being about 50-100
times more concentrated in the atmosphere than is CO2, but only has
about 4 times the absorption effect. Thus the simplistic argument
presented in the video is completely false, but you needn't take my word
for it:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
Most of the rest of the video builds on this broken analysis and its
false conclusion. He cites a lab experiment which shows that adding
more CO2 to a vessel already filled with water vapour has negligible
increase in radiation absorption, and then makes the surprising claim
that he was once employed in software development of weather and climate
models at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (but, supposing
that it's true, a software developer is not a climate scientist) and
goes on to describe Radiative Transfer Models and some work he did with
them, which again showed that CO2 had less effect than water vapour,
but, like his broken reasoning above, neither of these references
appears to take account of the differing lifetimes of water vapour and
CO2 in the real world, and therefore tells us little about real
radiation absorption in said real world.
He then compared satellite temperature data from 2016 to that from 2019
claiming that the data had been 'rigged' between those two dates,
because the 2019 data showed substantially increased warming from that
of 2016. But, whereas I can see no evidence that satellite data has
been rigged, there is clear and unmistakeable evidence that the graph he
shows has been tampered with. The logo at the bottom right hand side of
the plot is woodfortrees.org, a site that maintains all the current
temperature data series and a plotting mechanism that allows any visitor
to the site to make up their own plots. Incidentally, it is run by
someone who believes in climate science, and he warns specifically
against cherry-picking of source data! However, the point to note is
that, if you <ALT-PRINT-SCREEN> the video while it is displaying the
graph and paste the resulting image into a picture editor, you will see
that his graph is made up of two separate W4T graphs overlayed on top of
each other. As this obviously constitutes tampering, we can't
necessarily trust the integrity of the result, but in fact he is quite
open about doing this:
h t t p s : / / r e a l c l i m a t e s c i e n c e . c o m
/2019/04/adjusting-good-data-to-make-it-match-bad-data/
The background is that there is a long history here of both UAH and RSS
data, but particularly the latter, being used by denialists because of
all the available global temperature data sets they showed lowest
increases in average global temperature over time compared with others.
Obviously and more importantly too, this was also a genuine scientific
puzzle, why should this be so? Satellites take readings as they orbit
the earth in a progressive polar orbit. If they arrive at a particular
spot over the earth in the early morning on one pass, at midday on the
next, and in the evening on the third, obviously they will measure
different temperatures because of the different times of day, and
therefore the readings they take have to be corrected for the diurnal
cycle of night and day. It had long been suspected that satellite
readings had not being properly so corrected, because not only did they
disagree with land-surface readings, they also disagreed amongst
themselves. A new analysis released in 2017 by the RSS team has
introduced what they believe to be a more accurate correction, v4, and
now their temperature data actually exceeds that of gistemp. Details of
the new correction are available here ...
http://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update/
... but if you want or more humorous take on it ...
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-deniers-favorite-temperature-dataset-just-confirmed-global-warming-838eb198e246/
So there has been no data rigging, only an improvement in methodology.
> CO2 causes climate change my arse.
Most of the CO2 and other foetid air in this ng is certainly coming from
your arse.
> Expect JavaJive will tell you it's sudo science in a minute but he
> swallows all the university based ideologies.
The word is pseudo-science, note the spelling and that the prefix is
usually, but not always, used with a hyphen: pseudo-science,
pseudo-religion, etc. That, at least, should be easy enough for you to
get right, even if, as you consistently prove, understanding climate
science is way too far beyond you.
I ask again, who is paying you to flood this ng with all this OT shit
propaganda, and how do you propose to recompense the rest of us for
wasting our time with it?
Jeff Layman
Oct 27, 2019, 4:26:39 AM10/27/19
to
under Linux on Glastonbury Tor?
--
Jeff
Andy Burns
Oct 27, 2019, 7:40:42 AM10/27/19
to
Java Jive wrote:
> Although he has a degree in geology, it's only a BSc, so I am as well
> qualified as he, and as far as I have been able to establish he's never
> conducted any legitimate academic research, let alone published a
> peer-reviewed academic paper. If fact he's primarily a working
> electrical engineer, not a working scientist!
I've had several of his videos pop-up as recommendations from youtube,
> Although he has a degree in geology, it's only a BSc, so I am as well
> qualified as he, and as far as I have been able to establish he's never
> conducted any legitimate academic research, let alone published a
> peer-reviewed academic paper. If fact he's primarily a working
> electrical engineer, not a working scientist!
and watched a couple, yes he has an agenda, but things he does point out
well are ...
The particularly chosen start points in climate reports, which would not
give convincing results if dates a few years earlier or later had been
chosen, i.e. if you want to show a rising trend, begin your research
period at a local minimum.
Showing how historic newspaper reports (mainly USA, but some from around
the world) document worries of cooling by scientists, or document the
much larger number of extremely hot days in past decades compared to
now, when climate scientists say they are rising not falling.
Jim Lesurf
Oct 27, 2019, 8:20:00 AM10/27/19
to
In article <h1le1n...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
politicians, and economists are clueless about maths in general and how to
apply/interpret statistical methods in particular. This often shows up via
the incorrect treatment and analysis of data. But also from statements
about what maths 'proves' which are false due to their lack of
understanding.
For economists I found Steve Keen's work good at exposing some of this, and
was genuinely shocked at the time to discover some of the examples of their
errors - which they *still* seem to go on committing!
A common error wrt 'climate' is to fail to cover a large enough time and
space scales and set of processes to distinguish it from shorter term /
local fluctuations for many factors/variable. That's why I have recommended
already a book that covers all time and size scales as it allowes people to
distinguish.
<use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Showing how historic newspaper reports (mainly USA, but some from around
> the world) document worries of cooling by scientists, or document the
> much larger number of extremely hot days in past decades compared to
> now, when climate scientists say they are rising not falling.
One of the things I've noticed in general is the way so many journalists,
> Showing how historic newspaper reports (mainly USA, but some from around
> the world) document worries of cooling by scientists, or document the
> much larger number of extremely hot days in past decades compared to
> now, when climate scientists say they are rising not falling.
politicians, and economists are clueless about maths in general and how to
apply/interpret statistical methods in particular. This often shows up via
the incorrect treatment and analysis of data. But also from statements
about what maths 'proves' which are false due to their lack of
understanding.
For economists I found Steve Keen's work good at exposing some of this, and
was genuinely shocked at the time to discover some of the examples of their
errors - which they *still* seem to go on committing!
A common error wrt 'climate' is to fail to cover a large enough time and
space scales and set of processes to distinguish it from shorter term /
local fluctuations for many factors/variable. That's why I have recommended
already a book that covers all time and size scales as it allowes people to
distinguish.
Java Jive
Oct 27, 2019, 9:23:53 AM10/27/19
to
On 27/10/2019 11:40, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Although he has a degree in geology, it's only a BSc, so I am as well
>> qualified as he, and as far as I have been able to establish he's
>> never conducted any legitimate academic research, let alone published
>> a peer-reviewed academic paper. If fact he's primarily a working
>> electrical engineer, not a working scientist!
>
> I've had several of his videos pop-up as recommendations from youtube,
> and watched a couple, yes he has an agenda, but things he does point out
> well are ...
>
> The particularly chosen start points in climate reports, which would not
> give convincing results if dates a few years earlier or later had been
> chosen, i.e. if you want to show a rising trend, begin your research
> period at a local minimum.
That's another example of denialists calling what is white 'black' and
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Although he has a degree in geology, it's only a BSc, so I am as well
>> qualified as he, and as far as I have been able to establish he's
>> never conducted any legitimate academic research, let alone published
>> a peer-reviewed academic paper. If fact he's primarily a working
>> electrical engineer, not a working scientist!
>
> I've had several of his videos pop-up as recommendations from youtube,
> and watched a couple, yes he has an agenda, but things he does point out
> well are ...
>
> The particularly chosen start points in climate reports, which would not
> give convincing results if dates a few years earlier or later had been
> chosen, i.e. if you want to show a rising trend, begin your research
> period at a local minimum.
what is black 'white': The principal evidential graphs put out by
climate scientists, such as the famous hockey stick, show temperature
averages from before the industrial revolution to the present day, so
can hardly be accused of selection bias by choice of starting point,
whereas taking evidence out of context and looking at it in isolation,
which is a more general term that includes what you describe above, is a
favourite ploy of denialists.
> Showing how historic newspaper reports (mainly USA, but some from around
> the world) document worries of cooling by scientists, or document the
> much larger number of extremely hot days in past decades compared to
> now, when climate scientists say they are rising not falling.
a world where most scientists of the day consider the earth to be
warming, when another academic paper is published predicting warming,
that's not news, so is unlikely to be reported in the media, but if an
oddball one is published predicting cooling, then that is news, and so
is much more likely to be reported in the media. Thus trawling through
old news media is only worth while IF THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT, but, for
the era in question, we still have the actual academic papers, so, if
you're really interested in reaching an unbiased opinion rather than
merely finding reports that support your own agenda, that's where you
will look. I've linked before to research, or reports of it, that
showed that the vast majority of scientific papers at the time were
predicting warming, rather than no-change or cooling.
Java Jive
Oct 27, 2019, 9:47:37 AM10/27/19
to
Andy Burns
Oct 27, 2019, 2:27:40 PM10/27/19
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> A common error wrt 'climate' is to fail to cover a large enough time and
> space scales and set of processes to distinguish it from shorter term /
> local fluctuations for many factors/variable.
In the video I am thinking of, it is the Union of Concerned Scientists
> A common error wrt 'climate' is to fail to cover a large enough time and
> space scales and set of processes to distinguish it from shorter term /
> local fluctuations for many factors/variable.
who appear to be basing their predictions of more hot days on data from
1970s-present
<https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/07/killer-heat-analysis-full-report.pdf>
whereas Tony Heller looked at NOAA data from 1890s-present and showed
the trend [in most areas of the USA] has been for fewer hot days.
<https://youtu.be/2nerGGJGGms>
> That's why I have recommended already a book that covers all time
> and size scales as it allowes people to distinguish.
can't see where you actually specify which book?
Java Jive
Oct 27, 2019, 8:47:26 PM10/27/19
to
On 27/10/2019 18:27, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> In the video I am thinking of, it is the Union of Concerned Scientists
> who appear to be basing their predictions of more hot days on data from
> 1970s-present
>
> <https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/07/killer-heat-analysis-full-report.pdf>
No, you are mistaken, they are basing their predictions on climate
>
> In the video I am thinking of, it is the Union of Concerned Scientists
> who appear to be basing their predictions of more hot days on data from
> 1970s-present
>
> <https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/07/killer-heat-analysis-full-report.pdf>
models, then *comparing the results* on averages from 1970s to the
present day, which gives people a yardstick to judge by.
> whereas Tony Heller looked at NOAA data from 1890s-present and showed
> the trend [in most areas of the USA] has been for fewer hot days.
>
> <https://youtu.be/2nerGGJGGms>
the report says. And is too lazy even to read out the names of the
authors properly, calling two of them ...
John Somebody
Nicholas Somebody
... FTR they are ...
John Abatzoglou
Nicholas Mailloux
Then, surprise, surprise, he does what you claim above he doesn't do,
creates a selection bias. We all know that temperatures in the US as
elsewhere are subject to seasonal and yearly variations, many of which
are caused by decadal oscillations such as El Nino, and consequently
some years are hotter than others, and it's average trends *over long
periods of time* that matter. So what does he do? He isolates in time
and in space the opening six months of this year for the US as being the
coldest on record! That's exactly what Jim was talking about!
If you really want to see what is happening to US climate, it's here,
and it's a different picture to that claimed by Tony HelluvaLiar:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
He then examines some data purportedly from US government's official
statistics, which I have been unable to find on the EPA's site, however
I did find these, which only partially support what he is claiming, but
note in particular the last bullet point:
"If the climate were completely stable, one might expect to see highs
and lows each accounting for about 50 percent of the records set. Since
the 1970s, however, record-setting daily high temperatures have become
more common than record lows across the United States (see Figure 6).
The most recent decade had twice as many record highs as record lows."
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
There's also similar NOAA data here:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/national/110/1/201909
However, the real problem with this section of the video is that again
he's cherry picking his benchmark, to the 1930s, the dust-bowl era.
This was a combination of drought and bad land management which resulted
catastrophic loss of moisture from the soils across the great plains of
central USA, leading to skies laden with dust, and the consequential
miserable social upheaval so poignantly recorded in John Steinbeck's
"The Grapes Of Wrath", the film of that name, and Woody Guthrie's song
"Tom Joad", composed after watching the film. At any rate the era
stands out in many US and some other climate graphs as very atypical,
which is why Helluvaliar's cherry-picking of it can only be understood
as a deliberate attempt at deception. If you look at the totality of
the data linked above, a different story emerges. For example, the
graph 'Extremes in Maximum Temperature' (you can select other graphs of
interest from the drop-down lists):
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/01-12/1
He then goes on to mention the extreme heatwave of 1896 ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Eastern_North_America_heat_wave
"The 1896 eastern North America heat wave was a 10-day heat wave in New
York City, Boston, Newark and Chicago that killed about 1,500 people in
August 1896.[1][2][3]
History
There were 11 days of temperatures above 90 °F (32 °C) with 90 percent
humidity and little breeze.[4] The temperatures did not drop at
night.[1] It killed more than the New York City draft riots and the
Great Chicago Fire combined.[2] A majority of the deaths were of
working-class men in their twenties who performed manual labor."
... but note that was only 90F, the real problem was that combined with
the 90% humidity, whereas currently 600 people die every year from heat
stress in the US ...
https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/index.html
... so again he's cherry-picking a single incident to give a false
impression, and ignoring the wider picture.
He then does the same for Australia, where again there was a period of
high attrition in the 1910s to 1930s, which then declined, but the level
has recently started to pick up again:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/heatwaves-australias-deadliest-hazard-why-you-need-plan/9338918
And then he returns to the US again, to labour the point.
The trouble with all these references is that it is not only the climate
that has changed. Most countries in the world now have ...
+ Better forecasts of extremes, so people can prepare for them;
+ Better communications, so people at risk can be advised;
+ More air-conditioning where heat extremes are prevalent;
+ Better health care, so fewer people who succumb will die;
... to mention just a few that spring immediately to mind, so simply to
compare the number of deaths then and now doesn't actually tell us very
much that's useful in predicting the future, and is not a valid
criticism of the UCS document.
And all the above is also true about the Oxford University statistics
discussed next.
Then in the final section he again produces totally misleading figures,
because he discusses the total emissions per country, and points the
finger at China, but the population of the US is currently about 330m
whereas that of China is 1.4b, three times as much, yet he castigates
them for producing only twice as much total emissions as the US! In
fact per capita China emits 7.5t annually, while the US emits 16.5t!
Frankly, what a nasty, deceitful, little shit is Tony HelluvaLiar!
Jim Lesurf
Oct 28, 2019, 5:28:19 AM10/28/19
to
In article <h1m5sp...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
By Lewis and Maskin
There's a Penguin Paperback. Stuffed full of a large variety of data from
many totally different types of observation/measurement over timescales
ranging from short term to billions of years. Spatial scales up to global
and, indeed, solar system. Lots of references.
Recommended.
<use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> I see you make mention of a book elsewhere within this tread, but I
> can't see where you actually specify which book?
The Human Planet. How we created the anthropocene.
> I see you make mention of a book elsewhere within this tread, but I
> can't see where you actually specify which book?
By Lewis and Maskin
There's a Penguin Paperback. Stuffed full of a large variety of data from
many totally different types of observation/measurement over timescales
ranging from short term to billions of years. Spatial scales up to global
and, indeed, solar system. Lots of references.
Recommended.
Vir Campestris
Oct 28, 2019, 5:04:53 PM10/28/19
to
On 28/10/2019 00:47, Java Jive wrote:
>
> No, you are mistaken, they are basing their predictions on climate
> models, then *comparing the results* on averages from 1970s to the
> present day, which gives people a yardstick to judge by.
>
I keep bumping into things like the medieval warm period, and the way
>
> No, you are mistaken, they are basing their predictions on climate
> models, then *comparing the results* on averages from 1970s to the
> present day, which gives people a yardstick to judge by.
>
Vikings were farming in Greenland, and the way neolithic farmers were
growing corn on Dartmoor - and I wonder - is 1970s enough?
Though it's a damn dangerous experiment we are running. With no control...
Andy
Java Jive
Oct 28, 2019, 6:02:29 PM10/28/19
to
On 28/10/2019 21:04, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
> On 28/10/2019 00:47, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> No, you are mistaken, they are basing their predictions on climate
>> models, then *comparing the results* on averages from 1970s to the
>> present day, which gives people a yardstick to judge by.
>
> I keep bumping into things like the medieval warm period, and the way
> Vikings were farming in Greenland, and the way neolithic farmers were
> growing corn on Dartmoor - and I wonder - is 1970s enough?
Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but the above suggests to me that
>
> On 28/10/2019 00:47, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> No, you are mistaken, they are basing their predictions on climate
>> models, then *comparing the results* on averages from 1970s to the
>> present day, which gives people a yardstick to judge by.
>
> I keep bumping into things like the medieval warm period, and the way
> Vikings were farming in Greenland, and the way neolithic farmers were
> growing corn on Dartmoor - and I wonder - is 1970s enough?
you're suffering from two misunderstandings ...
The first is that the medieval warm period, Vikings farming in
Greenland, and neolithic farmers growing corn on Dartmoor are local not
global events, and within any possible global scenario it's perfectly
possible to have local variations that are very different from the
global average, just as we do in the current situation.
The second is that I think you're misunderstanding how the Union of
Concerned Scientists obtained their results. To get them, they ran a
number of the best regarded climate models and averaged the results.
AFAIAA, these climate model runs always use the *entirety* of the data
available, otherwise chaos theory would make the results less useful.
Then, having got the results, I presume they felt that the general
public would need an everyday measure to help them understand them, just
as people are fond of saying things like such and such is the size of
four football pitches, so to give the public this 'feel' for what the
results implied, they compared them to what the public themselves would
have experienced since the 1970s, presumably on the grounds that that
period roughly encompasses living memory.
> Though it's a damn dangerous experiment we are running. With no control...
Jim Lesurf
Oct 29, 2019, 5:28:32 AM10/29/19
to
In article <qp7ohh$u9s$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive
Q: Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?
A: They didn't develop practical space travel before the 'Big One' arrived.
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Though it's a damn dangerous experiment we are running. With no
> > control...
> Yes, indeed.
I recently read in a book about another topic...
> > Though it's a damn dangerous experiment we are running. With no
> > control...
> Yes, indeed.
Q: Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?
A: They didn't develop practical space travel before the 'Big One' arrived.
Alex .
Oct 29, 2019, 12:05:02 PM10/29/19
to
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message news:qp7ohh$u9s$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>
> The second is that I think you're misunderstanding how the Union of
> Concerned Scientists obtained their results.
I should mention that for a donation of $25.00, you can also become a "concerned scientist".
> The second is that I think you're misunderstanding how the Union of
> Concerned Scientists obtained their results.
Java Jive
Oct 29, 2019, 12:22:14 PM10/29/19
to
various denialist web sites and youtube videos, you are almost certainly
earning them money as well.
Vir Campestris
Nov 1, 2019, 5:28:06 PM11/1/19
to
On 29/10/2019 09:24, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Q: Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?
>
> A: They didn't develop practical space travel before the 'Big One' arrived.
No.
> Q: Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?
>
> A: They didn't develop practical space travel before the 'Big One' arrived.
Correct answer is they evolved into birds, they didn't go extinct.
Andy
Vir Campestris
Nov 1, 2019, 5:34:08 PM11/1/19
to
On 28/10/2019 22:02, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but the above suggests to me that
> you're suffering from two misunderstandings ...
>
> The first is that the medieval warm period, Vikings farming in
> Greenland, and neolithic farmers growing corn on Dartmoor are local not
> global events, and within any possible global scenario it's perfectly
> possible to have local variations that are very different from the
> global average, just as we do in the current situation.
Absolutely.
>
> Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but the above suggests to me that
> you're suffering from two misunderstandings ...
>
> The first is that the medieval warm period, Vikings farming in
> Greenland, and neolithic farmers growing corn on Dartmoor are local not
> global events, and within any possible global scenario it's perfectly
> possible to have local variations that are very different from the
> global average, just as we do in the current situation.
And I'd like to see the data (say, Greenland ice cores vs Antarctic)
that show that.
> The second is that I think you're misunderstanding how the Union of
> Concerned Scientists obtained their results. To get them, they ran a
> number of the best regarded climate models and averaged the results.
> AFAIAA, these climate model runs always use the *entirety* of the data
> available, otherwise chaos theory would make the results less useful.
> Then, having got the results, I presume they felt that the general
> public would need an everyday measure to help them understand them, just
> as people are fond of saying things like such and such is the size of
> four football pitches, so to give the public this 'feel' for what the
> results implied, they compared them to what the public themselves would
> have experienced since the 1970s, presumably on the grounds that that
> period roughly encompasses living memory.
The best regarded models could easily be the ones that agree with what
they want.
To prove the model is good they need to make predictions. The models of
a few years ago weren't all that accurate, and if today's models are
right we are already deep in the ... err... up the creek.
Andy
Java Jive
Nov 1, 2019, 7:44:53 PM11/1/19
to
On 01/11/2019 21:34, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 28/10/2019 22:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but the above suggests to me
>> that you're suffering from two misunderstandings ...
>>
>> The first is that the medieval warm period, Vikings farming in
>> Greenland, and neolithic farmers growing corn on Dartmoor are local
>> not global events, and within any possible global scenario it's
>> perfectly possible to have local variations that are very different
>> from the global average, just as we do in the current situation.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> And I'd like to see the data (say, Greenland ice cores vs Antarctic)
> that show that.
The ice cores are quite sensitive, for example rises in atmospheric lead
> On 28/10/2019 22:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but the above suggests to me
>> that you're suffering from two misunderstandings ...
>>
>> The first is that the medieval warm period, Vikings farming in
>> Greenland, and neolithic farmers growing corn on Dartmoor are local
>> not global events, and within any possible global scenario it's
>> perfectly possible to have local variations that are very different
>> from the global average, just as we do in the current situation.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> And I'd like to see the data (say, Greenland ice cores vs Antarctic)
> that show that.
can be detected in Roman times - because they smelted a lot of it, for
example they used it for plumbing, which is where that English word
comes from, the Latin for lead is 'plumbum' - and then again as lead
started to be put in petrol as an anti-knock agent. However, I'm not
aware of any of the above events being marked in ice cores, but then I
haven't looked for such reports either, until now ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
"The warm period became known as the Medieval Warm Period, and the cold
period was called the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, that view was
questioned by other researchers; the IPCC First Assessment Report of
1990 discussed the "Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not
have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle
to late nineteenth century."[11] The IPCC Third Assessment Report from
2001 then summarized research: "evidence does not support globally
synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame,
and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm
Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in
hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."[12]
Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake
deposits, have shown that the Earth may have been slightly cooler
globally (by 0.03 °C) than in the early and mid-20th century.[13][14]"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/04/vikings-greenland-warm-weather-history
"Vikings were not spurred to Greenland by warm weather, research shows
New analysis casts doubt on theory that change in climate influenced
Vikings to move to Greenland in 985, and posits it would have been
relatively cold
Oliver Milman
@olliemilman
Fri 4 Dec 2015 19.00 GMT
Last modified on Fri 4 Dec 2015 19.13 GMT
The Vikings’ arrival and departure from Greenland was not heavily
influenced by the so-called medieval warm period, according to new
research that casts doubt that the climatic change was a global phenomenon.
Viking seafarers, led by Erik the Red, are understood to have expanded
from Iceland to south-western Greenland around 985. The Norse population
grew to about 3,000 to 5,000 settlers, harvesting walrus ivory and
raising livestock. But the colonies disappeared by 1460, with the local
Inuit population remaining as the only inhabitants before Europeans
again arrived in the 1700s.
Previous theories have suggested that a warming climate allowed Norse
people to push further north to the frigid expanses of Greenland, before
leaving as temperatures dropped again. In what has become known as the
medieval warm period, temperatures rose from around 950, with the
generally balmier conditions lasting until 1250, before the arrival of
what is known as the little ice age.
Advertisement
But new analysis of glaciers in Greenland shows that there was no
significant change in their extent during the medieval warm period,
suggesting that it remained relatively cold throughout the Viking
colonisation of Greenland."
As far as Dartmoor is concerned, the following is what I remember of
research that I once did for an essay at college (unfortunately, I don't
still have even the notes I made at the time, let alone a copy of the
actual essay) ...
When Britain was first colonised by hunter-gathers, they tended to stick
to high ground, because low ground was boggy and marshy, infested by
insects, and consequently less healthy - it comes as a surprise to us
now to discover that malaria has been endemic here, even as recently as
historical times, for example in Romney Marsh. Also the trees on higher
ground tended to be smaller trunked and therefore easier to clear for
dwelling houses, etc, and the woodland cover tended to be thinner and
easier to make progress through.
This carried on when farming came in. The tops of the hills were easier
to clear. So for example, although there's nothing much to see, there
are hut circles near here where I live in Sutherland, and they're on the
tops of the lower hills behind my house (though obviously not on the
highest mountains in the distance which already have their first snow as
I write); AFAIAA, there are no such archeological remains in the glen in
front of it.
Also, although we now think of the lowland clays as being the prime
farming land, and uplands as being hostile and in places even boggy,
it's possible that some of the problems of the latter have actually been
created unintentionally by bad land management practice such as
deforestation.
So at any rate, I don't think that you can read too much into there
being farming on Dartmoor in former times. I suspect that it would be
possible to grow crops on Dartmoor now, it's just that other areas of
the country grow them better, and therefore the reasons crops are no
longer grown on Dartmoor are mostly simply economic.
>> The second is that I think you're misunderstanding how the Union of
>> Concerned Scientists obtained their results. To get them, they ran a
>> number of the best regarded climate models and averaged the results.
>> AFAIAA, these climate model runs always use the *entirety* of the data
>> available, otherwise chaos theory would make the results less useful.
>> Then, having got the results, I presume they felt that the general
>> public would need an everyday measure to help them understand them,
>> just as people are fond of saying things like such and such is the
>> size of four football pitches, so to give the public this 'feel' for
>> what the results implied, they compared them to what the public
>> themselves would have experienced since the 1970s, presumably on the
>> grounds that that period roughly encompasses living memory.
>
> Sadly that's not entirely convincing.
>
> The best regarded models could easily be the ones that agree with what
> they want.
actually don't occur, so must be something that I read into it:
"In this analysis we calculate the number of days per year with
heat index values above 90°, 100°, and 105°F—as well as the
number of off-the-charts days, when conditions fall outside
the range of the current heat index formulation—between
now and the end of the century. The numbers presented
here represent the average over 30-year periods—a histori-
cal baseline (1971–2000), midcentury (2036–2065), and late
century (2070–2099)—and the average of 18 independent
climate models. 7 We present results nationally, by region, by
state, and by “urban area,” defined as a city with more than
50,000 people (US Census Bureau 2019). We calculated the
number of people exposed to extreme heat conditions based
on 2010 population statistics and assume no growth in popu-
lation or change in distribution (CIESIN 2017; US Census
Bureau 2010a).
Our analysis includes three scenarios associated with
different levels of global heat-trapping emissions and future
warming (Van Vuuren et al. 2011) (Figure 4):
1. A “no action” scenario, 8 in which heat-trapping emis-
sions continue to rise throughout the 21st century and
global average temperatures warm by nearly 8°F (4.3°C)
above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. This sce-
nario is consistent with our current and historical emis-
sions growth.
2. A “slow action” scenario, in which heat-trapping emis-
sions start to decline at midcentury. This scenario proj-
ects a most likely warming of 4.3°F (2.4°C) globally by the
year 2100.
3. A “rapid action” scenario, in which future global average
warming is limited to 3.6°F (2°C) above pre-industrial
temperatures, as prescribed by the 2015 Paris Agreement."
> To prove the model is good they need to make predictions.
Andy Burns
Nov 2, 2019, 6:52:13 AM11/2/19
to
Java Jive wrote:
sorry I've not replied all week, I did download the NOAA dataset,
intending to see how selective he'd been with his chosen period, but
just been too busy all week.
> Starts of as he means to go on, by misrepresenting and exaggerating what
> the report says.
Yes, I know he's got an axe to grind
> Then, surprise, surprise, he does what you claim above he doesn't do,
> creates a selection bias.
I'm not bothered by his "coldest few months" or whatever, I'll dismiss
that as part of his little digs at the UCS
> We all know that temperatures in the US as
> elsewhere are subject to seasonal and yearly variations, many of which
> are caused by decadal oscillations such as El Nino, and consequently
> some years are hotter than others, and it's average trends *over long
> periods of time* that matter. So what does he do? He isolates in time
> and in space the opening six months of this year for the US as being the
> coldest on record! That's exactly what Jim was talking about!
Exactly, and it was the conclusions he drew from 100+ years of data vs
the UCS narrower 40 year period that interested me, not the 6 months.
> If you really want to see what is happening to US climate, it's here,
> and it's a different picture to that claimed by Tony HelluvaLiar:
>
> https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
That's a bit of a bait-and-switch tactic, because the UCS claim, and his
counter-claim are for the count of hot days per year *not* the average
temperature.
sorry I've not replied all week, I did download the NOAA dataset,
intending to see how selective he'd been with his chosen period, but
just been too busy all week.
> Starts of as he means to go on, by misrepresenting and exaggerating what
> the report says.
> Then, surprise, surprise, he does what you claim above he doesn't do,
> creates a selection bias.
that as part of his little digs at the UCS
> We all know that temperatures in the US as
> elsewhere are subject to seasonal and yearly variations, many of which
> are caused by decadal oscillations such as El Nino, and consequently
> some years are hotter than others, and it's average trends *over long
> periods of time* that matter. So what does he do? He isolates in time
> and in space the opening six months of this year for the US as being the
> coldest on record! That's exactly what Jim was talking about!
the UCS narrower 40 year period that interested me, not the 6 months.
> If you really want to see what is happening to US climate, it's here,
> and it's a different picture to that claimed by Tony HelluvaLiar:
>
> https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
counter-claim are for the count of hot days per year *not* the average
temperature.
Jim Lesurf
Nov 2, 2019, 6:52:55 AM11/2/19
to
In article <qpi80v$7ep$1...@dont-email.me>, Vir Campestris
That was as far as their development of space travel got them. :-)
Java Jive
Nov 2, 2019, 7:20:40 AM11/2/19
to
On 02/11/2019 10:52, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>
> sorry I've not replied all week, I did download the NOAA dataset,
> intending to see how selective he'd been with his chosen period, but
> just been too busy all week.
Yes, we all have more imnportant things to do!
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>
> sorry I've not replied all week, I did download the NOAA dataset,
> intending to see how selective he'd been with his chosen period, but
> just been too busy all week.
>> Starts of as he means to go on, by misrepresenting and exaggerating
>> what the report says.
>
> Yes, I know he's got an axe to grind
>
>> He isolates in time and in space the
>> opening six months of this year for the US as being the coldest on
>> record! That's exactly what Jim was talking about!
>
> Exactly, and it was the conclusions he drew from 100+ years of data vs
> the UCS narrower 40 year period that interested me, not the 6 months.
No, I think you've misunderstood the way their conclusions were obtained.
>> opening six months of this year for the US as being the coldest on
>> record! That's exactly what Jim was talking about!
>
> Exactly, and it was the conclusions he drew from 100+ years of data vs
> the UCS narrower 40 year period that interested me, not the 6 months.
They were obtained by averaging 18 climate model predictions. AFAIAA
runs of climate models to make predictions use all and the best data
available, otherwise their usefulness would be seriously impaired.
Don't forget it was running a weather model twice, the first time to one
decimal point less accuracy than the second, and getting wildly
different results, that led to the discovery that Earth's climate system
is chaotic, and consequently to chaos theory as a branch of mathematics.
So what would be the point of making any run without all the best data
that you have, except merely as a test run to ensure that your
programming is not going to crash when fed the full data?
Having obtained the results, then, as previously described, they
probably felt that they needed to supply the public and government with
some sort of everyday handle on what the results would mean to ordinary
people in terms that they could understand, and so compared the results
with roughly the span of 'living memory'.
>> If you really want to see what is happening to US climate, it's here,
>> and it's a different picture to that claimed by Tony HelluvaLiar:
>>
>> https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
>
> That's a bit of a bait-and-switch tactic, because the UCS claim, and his
> counter-claim are for the count of hot days per year *not* the average
> temperature.
On 28/10/2019 00:47, Java Jive wrote:
>
> For example, the graph 'Extremes in Maximum Temperature' (you can select
> other graphs of interest from the drop-down lists):
>
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/01-12/1
... this being closer to the concerns of the original UCS report and
> other graphs of interest from the drop-down lists):
>
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/01-12/1
HelluvaLiar's bogus reply.
Jim Lesurf
Nov 2, 2019, 10:42:11 AM11/2/19
to
In article <qpjoq0$13sn$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive
FWIW I've finally got around to spending more time on a program to
calculate and show graphs of the 'wow and flutter' from a turntable! The
aim being to generate a nice graphic so people can more easily deduce what
is causing the variations. Doing this primarly for Linux, but someone else
ported the earlier version to Windows, so that should happen when I've
settled.
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 02/11/2019 10:52, Andy Burns wrote:
> >
> > Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >
> > sorry I've not replied all week, I did download the NOAA dataset,
> > intending to see how selective he'd been with his chosen period, but
> > just been too busy all week.
> Yes, we all have more imnportant things to do!
To some extent. Guess it depends on what someone regards as 'important'.
> On 02/11/2019 10:52, Andy Burns wrote:
> >
> > Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >
> > sorry I've not replied all week, I did download the NOAA dataset,
> > intending to see how selective he'd been with his chosen period, but
> > just been too busy all week.
> Yes, we all have more imnportant things to do!
FWIW I've finally got around to spending more time on a program to
calculate and show graphs of the 'wow and flutter' from a turntable! The
aim being to generate a nice graphic so people can more easily deduce what
is causing the variations. Doing this primarly for Linux, but someone else
ported the earlier version to Windows, so that should happen when I've
settled.
Vir Campestris
Nov 9, 2019, 11:30:09 AM11/9/19
to
links will repay some study.
The Grauniad link led me to
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444
Which has got some ice core data from Greenland.
That does indeed show a rapid rise in ice surface temperature in the
centre of the Greenland icecap since the industrial revolution.
But...
it's merely brought it back to the mean from the last 4000 years, which
is as far back as the cores go.
I could believe there was a spike triggered by the wars of the early
20thC. I could believe that there's a spike triggered by our excessive
CO2 generation in the last few years, and that this is merely the slope
of a long upward rise in temperature.
Or I could believe it's just regression to the mean. Not proven (though
scary)
So I went looking for the antarctic data. And found this:
<https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/>
AKA
http://tinyurl.com/ovwpca3
Now that definitely shows CH4 and CO2 concentrations rising rapidly post
industrial revolution.
It also shows Deuterium concentration, which is a proxy for temperature,
over the last 800,000 years.
The D levels (hence the temp) are all over the place. It's quite normal
to have rapid rises of D and CO2 levels at about the same time. The one
we've got now doesn't look unusual.
Then there's a zoomed in graph showing the data since the end of the
last ice age. For some odd reason it covers 22,000 to 9000 years ago -
the most recent data is missing.
Odd. No doubt the unbelievers will say this is deliberate. What are they
trying to hide?
I also found
<https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core>
AKA
http://tinyurl.com/j23nomu
which has the raw antarctic data.
I can see a bunch of flat(ish) lines in the D, deltaD and O18 series.
I'd hoped to have something convincing. I didn't find it.
Andy
Java Jive
Nov 10, 2019, 7:43:48 AM11/10/19
to
>>
>>> To prove the model is good they need to make predictions.
>>
>> Er, isn't that *exactly* what their document does?
>
> Well, it's taken me a while to get back to this, because I think the
> links will repay some study.
>
> The Grauniad link led me to
>
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444
>
> Which has got some ice core data from Greenland.
>
> That does indeed show a rapid rise in ice surface temperature in the
> centre of the Greenland icecap since the industrial revolution.
>
> But...
>
> it's merely brought it back to the mean from the last 4000 years, which
> is as far back as the cores go.
So? That's not really the point, is it? The central claim of climate
>>> To prove the model is good they need to make predictions.
>>
>> Er, isn't that *exactly* what their document does?
>
> Well, it's taken me a while to get back to this, because I think the
> links will repay some study.
>
> The Grauniad link led me to
>
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444
>
> Which has got some ice core data from Greenland.
>
> That does indeed show a rapid rise in ice surface temperature in the
> centre of the Greenland icecap since the industrial revolution.
>
> But...
>
> it's merely brought it back to the mean from the last 4000 years, which
> is as far back as the cores go.
scientists, the one that is most disputed by denialists, is that over
the long term increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, however caused,
raise surface temperatures of the earth, and vice versa, that raising
surface temperatures in turn raises the amount of atmospheric CO2, which
together form a positive feedback loop. What you have found supports
that central claim, in that, while temperatures have always undergone
long term fluctuations, recent rises in CO2 levels caused by man have
been accompanied by rises in temperature.
> So I went looking for the antarctic data. And found this:
>
> <https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/>
>
> AKA
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ovwpca3
>
> Now that definitely shows CH4 and CO2 concentrations rising rapidly post
> industrial revolution.
> It also shows Deuterium concentration, which is a proxy for temperature,
> over the last 800,000 years.
>
> The D levels (hence the temp) are all over the place. It's quite normal
> to have rapid rises of D and CO2 levels at about the same time. The one
> we've got now doesn't look unusual.
that CO2 and T (or proxies for T) are linked in the past as they are now
in the present.
> Then there's a zoomed in graph showing the data since the end of the
> last ice age. For some odd reason it covers 22,000 to 9000 years ago -
> the most recent data is missing.
>
> Odd. No doubt the unbelievers will say this is deliberate. What are they
> trying to hide?
period to zoom in on is perhaps somewhat arbitrary, and I didn't spot
anything in the text that explained their choice, but showing the
critical period of escape from the last ice age does at least show a
period that is within human existence yet of minimum possible human
interference with the climate, and thus to me seems a perfectly
reasonable choice:
"Looking at the warming out of the last glacial period in detail, we can
see how remarkably closely Antarctic temperature and CO2 tracked each
other. It is often said that the temperature ‘leads’ the CO2 during the
warming out of a glacial period. On the most recent records, there is a
hint that the temperature started to rise slightly (at most a few tenths
of a degree) before the CO2, as expected if changes in Earth’s orbit
cause an initial small warming."
> I also found
>
> <https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core>
>
> AKA
>
> http://tinyurl.com/j23nomu
>
> which has the raw antarctic data.
>
> I can see a bunch of flat(ish) lines in the D, deltaD and O18 series.
data that you then discuss. For us to be able to have a meaningful
discussion, you'll have to give a link to the actual data series itself.
> I'd hoped to have something convincing. I didn't find it.
doubt, if anything on the contrary, what you've linked shows yet again
that CO2 and T are closely linked throughout known climate history.
Vir Campestris
Nov 15, 2019, 12:56:07 PM11/15/19
to
On 10/11/2019 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
> You certainly haven't produced anything that is a convincing reason for
> doubt, if anything on the contrary, what you've linked shows yet again
> that CO2 and T are closely linked throughout known climate history.
Sadly what I hoped to find was the smoking gun: CO2, followed by temp.
> You certainly haven't produced anything that is a convincing reason for
> doubt, if anything on the contrary, what you've linked shows yet again
> that CO2 and T are closely linked throughout known climate history.
Both rising together doesn't prove whether both were caused by some
other random factor. Correlation is not causation.
I think it's highly probably that all the CO2 we're churning out is
going to raise the temperature. Just as all the plastics were producing
are causing all sorts of problems, just as dioxins and DDT and... I
could go on.
I want a proof to hit people with.
Andy
Java Jive
Nov 15, 2019, 1:51:57 PM11/15/19
to
On 15/11/2019 17:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 10/11/2019 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> You certainly haven't produced anything that is a convincing reason
>> for doubt, if anything on the contrary, what you've linked shows yet
>> again that CO2 and T are closely linked throughout known climate history.
>
> Sadly what I hoped to find was the smoking gun: CO2, followed by temp.
That's unrealistic, firstly because during past ice-ages climate change
> On 10/11/2019 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> You certainly haven't produced anything that is a convincing reason
>> for doubt, if anything on the contrary, what you've linked shows yet
>> again that CO2 and T are closely linked throughout known climate history.
>
> Sadly what I hoped to find was the smoking gun: CO2, followed by temp.
was temperature led, and also because, although there are time-lags in
the system, I doubt whether the ice cores have sufficient resolution to
show them, so all you would expect to see is the correlation.
> Both rising together doesn't prove whether both were caused by some
> other random factor. Correlation is not causation.
raise temperature, so there doesn't seem any reason to doubt that this
correlation is indeed causation.
> I think it's highly probably that all the CO2 we're churning out is
> going to raise the temperature. Just as all the plastics were producing
> are causing all sorts of problems, just as dioxins and DDT and... I
> could go on.
>
> I want a proof to hit people with.
already be convinced, for others it's tantamount to a religion, and
proof, however compelling to others, will be ignored by them anyway.
Java Jive
Nov 15, 2019, 11:26:05 PM11/15/19
to
On 15/11/2019 21:53, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <qqmorl$9mv$3...@dont-email.me>,
> temperature change.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/6temp.jpg
I wonder you have the nerve to show that graph again, after I've proved
that you removed it from a denialist site in order to hide its denialist
provenance, but I suppose it just goes to show that once a liar, always
a liar!
To remind you, as you have a 'habit' of 'forgetting' things that don't
fit in with your quasi-religion, the graph originally came from here ...
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
... and was drawn up the page's author Monte Hieb - we know this for
certain because he gives underneath it two *separate* and *different*
citations for the source data of the two plots in it, but *none* for the
graph itself. There are several problems with this graph which are
discussed below, but for now, let's take a closer a look at the graph's
author, who has no qualifications in climate science that I can find,
his only two papers being ...
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Monte_Hieb
"Biaxial Horizontal Swelling Strain in West Virginia Coal Mine Roof
Rocks in Response to Moisture Adsorption"
"Passive mine blast attenuators constructed of rock rubble for
protecting ventilation seals"
... so he's yet another geologist paid by the coal and mining industries
and dancing to their tune, and apparently has no climate scientific
qualifications whatsoever.
> Explain why at 438 million years ago we had an ice age with CO2 at
> 4000ppm. If CO2 is the temperature control knob, how did we get that
> ice age? You simply cannot deny that there must be another factor it
> cannot be CO2 at that point in history or any other. QED!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.tech.digital-tv/P2ea1shN0ns/yBajVFKoBgAJ
I've explained it already - again you chose to ignore it because the
explanation didn't fit with your religion - but in fact I've since
discovered two more things about that graph which makes it even more
misrepresentational ...
The first is simple enough, the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg
C, now I wonder why he's done that? It couldn't have been visually to
make the temperature curve appear well below the CO2 curve, could it?
The second is that by beginning his data at 600MyBP, he conveniently
misses out the phenomenon known as 'Snowball Earth', the most recent
episode of which ended 635MyBP:
http://www.snowballearth.org/index.html
There are several reasons why he might choose to funk out of including
this, one being is that it is one of the most complicated and least well
understood periods of geology, but another being that once the earth
froze down to about 20-40 deg Lat (estimates of the tipping point vary),
then the increasing reflectivity of the icing earth would then runaway
catastrophically to produce conditions at the equator which would be
broadly comparable to Antarctica now, and then the *only* means of
escape would have been the venting of CO2 by volcanoes, which eventually
reached concentrations high enough to melt the snowball, and once that
melt had begun, then, for a short while, as water vapour became free in
large enough quantities to join the greenhouse, the increase in
temperature would also have been for a time runaway and by our standards
catastrophic - and naturally a climate denialist like Monte Hieb might
be thought reluctant to discuss this.
Also calculations surrounding the snowball earth have revealed that the
earth can exist in three stable states, one of which is snowball earth,
and could move catastrophically quickly, by geological standards and
probably in human terms also, from one to the other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
"In the 1960s, Mikhail Budyko, a Russian climatologist, developed a
simple energy-balance climate model to investigate the effect of ice
cover on global climate. Using this model, Budyko found that if ice
sheets advanced far enough out of the polar regions, a feedback loop
ensued where the increased reflectiveness (albedo) of the ice led to
further cooling and the formation of more ice, until the entire Earth
was covered in ice and stabilized in a new ice-covered equilibrium.[8]
While Budyko's model showed that this ice-albedo stability could happen,
he concluded that it had in fact never happened, because his model
offered no way to escape from such a feedback loop. In 1971, Aron
Faegre, an American physicist, showed that a similar energy-balance
model predicted three stable global climates, one of which was snowball
earth.[9]
This model introduced Edward Norton Lorenz's concept of intransitivity
indicating that there could be a major jump from one climate to another,
including to snowball earth."
> An ice age with 4000ppm CO2, the oceans didn't boil off, the planet
> did not fry, quite the opposite.
As has been explained to you before, and as above, CO2 levels were not
as high as the graph claimed, and many other factors were at work
besides CO2: the earth was changing between different states of the
snowball and what followed, present day continents were all gathered
into a single supercontinent called Gwondanaland centred near and
covering the south pole, and the sun was 4% dimmer:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=97
Also (my emphasis):
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Monte Hieb, as others have done, took his CO2 concentrations "from
Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2.
As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that
time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400
and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a *10 million year timestep*,
leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate
Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term
CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be
taken literally.""
> (Leaving aside pollutants which CO2 is not) When we burn coal, gas,
> oil we are returning the CO2 balance to a fraction of what it was for
> most of the planets existence. It is returning the CO2 to the
> atmosphere where it was long ago. It is restoration work, give the
> plants back their food, a very slight step back to the atmosphere
> that started life.
>
> Earth's entire history has been spent with CO2 far higher than now,
> LOOK AT THE GRAPH - CO2 in geological time scales is lower than it
> has ever been.
But, again as has been explained to you before, we, in common with most
of the other flora and fauna now present on earth, weren't around then
- 99.9% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct - and we
don't know how well or badly *we* can cope with with a higher
CO2/temperature regime - CO2 and global temperatures are now higher
than they have ever been at any other time during human existence on
this earth.
> In the last 10 thousand years there has been a correlation between
> CO2 and temperature with CO2 always LAGGING temperature by 600-800
> years every cycle. It's temperature that eventually warms the vast
> oceans which release CO2 and hence the rise hundreds of years later.
Because - again as has been explained to you countless times before -
before humans started producing CO2, the main driving factor of
climate change into and out of the ice ages was changes in earth's orbit
leading to changes in insolation, the amount of the sun's radiation
reaching the earth. However, as the recent correlation between CO2
levels and temperature prove, if you kick-start the feedback loop from
the other side by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, then the feedback
will operate in exactly the same manner until a new point of equilibrium
is reached.
> In the 1970s the BBC were making programmes about the coming ice-age
> and we were all going to freeze. Why? because from 1945 to 1975
> (that's 30 years) temperatures were dropping and dropping and yet
> surprise surprise CO2 was in the post war boom and rising fast.
> Explain that through CO2?
There was global dimming caused by pollution, combined with shorter term
decadal cycles such as El Nino/La Nina and the Atlantic equivalents that
are superimposed upon the longer-term trend that has been ongoing since
the industrial revolution and, again, this is something which has been
explained to you countless times before.
> Explain why the scientists keep being caught data tampering - yes
> they do! Lowering the past and raising the present and omitting known
> warm periods 'because they are a problem'. Yes they do!
No they don't. If you think they do, give proof, and I mean ACTUAL
PROOF, not worthless allegations from geologists paid by the fossil fuel
industry such as Monty HeebeeJeebies and Tony HelluvaLiar.
> Explain why before ww2 there was a rise in temperatures with an
> almost identical slope to the one after 1975. What caused that?
Decadal oscillations.
> What caused the medieval warm period and all the other warm periods
> in history. What caused the cold periods, look at the graph - not CO2.
Your graph doesn't resolve to those sorts of timescales.
> Explain why there has been no net warming for 21 years and net
> cooling for 3 years.
Nonsense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
9 out of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the new millenium
and the 10th was 1998.
> The longer this goes on the more data tampering
> is happening and the more people are screaming about climate.
> Desperation because their absurd predictions never come to fruition
> or even close. How many times do we have to be given a ten or twelve
> year warning and for that to fail before we learn? We've had this
> since the eighties, planet not dead yet.
But it *IS* getting hotter!
> Explain why antarctic ice in 2017 and 2018 was above the the norm not
> below it.
It's really is extraordinary how you make wild claims like this, when
almost the first link in any related search shows that you're wrong ...
https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
... there were good years for ice in 2012 and 2014, but 2019 is already
below the average for 2009-2018.
> Explain why the media keeps telling us storms are worse and more
> frequent, when they're not, there more reported because there is more
> people in remote areas to report it.
While that is probably a factor, the jury's still out, so your claim is
premature. For example, if you search for ...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=are+storms+getting+more+violent
... you will find contradictory opinions. However it remains likely
that if you put more energy into a storm system by increasing
atmospheric temperatures, then the resulting storm will have more energy
to harness and thus be more violent, and some evidence is presented in
the links found that suggest that this is indeed happening.
> Explain why with a growing
> population the deaths from weather is massively less now than in the
> past.
Because most nations now have
:-) Better forecasting of extreme weather events;
:-) Better communication so those in danger can be advised;
:-) Better emergency services so that victims can be rescued;
:-) Better health care so that more victims are saved.
> Many *thousands* of scientists not paid to prove man is causing
> climate change have signed letters saying there is no climate
> emergency. Most suggest that thinking that CO2 is the temperature
> control knob for the planet is absurd.
This is another attempt to lie by calling white 'black' and black
'white'; in the list you linked the other day, there was *ONE*, JUST
FUCKING ONE, climate scientist, and he had provably made several very
public mistakes which he'd had to retract; none of the others were
climate scientists, and some of them were geologists working in the
fossil fuel industry and dancing to their employers' tune.
> But the science is settled.
Yes, pretty much it is, however much you may dislike the fact.
> They tell me with science that CO2 is a green house gas but that it
> absorbs a much narrower band of infra-red frequencies that the vastly
> more copious water vapour. They also point out that at this narrow
> band of frequencies nothing is escaping the planet as we are. More
> CO2 will do nothing because nothing is escaping now at CO2 absorption
> frequencies.
>
> Watch the video.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zaQWAaPAg&feature=youtu.be
I already have, and already have debunked it; this time READ, MARK,
LEARN, and INWARDLY DIGEST what you don't like being told:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.tech.digital-tv/P2ea1shN0ns/Pngb2N8eBgAJ
> Yes, I know it will be scoffed at. Don't say you weren't told.
>
> Currently CO2 causes:
> Drought
> Flood
> Extreme low temperature
> Extreme high temperature
> Bush fires
> more frequent storms
> more violent storms.
> Etc. etc. etc. people need something to believe in.
Clearly *you* do, you are easily the worst poster of quasi-religious
propaganda garbage here.
> But you will notice in the last week we've had cold in the USA and
> Canada, snow in Australia, Italy, France and Spain which of cause is
> CO2 but as so often it is the coldest since 19xx so what caused the
> event in 19xx?
And record wildfires in California and Australia. HOW MANY TIMES MUST
YOU BE TOLD THAT IT'S THE LONG TERM THAT COUNTS!
> It's the sun and the earth's relationship to it that causes all of
> this not bloody CO2.
They are BOTH drivers of climate change.
> If the BBC tells you its a fact it probably isn't. If they say the
> science is settled it defiantly isn't.
Certainly they are a far more reliable source of information than your
unwelcome impersonation of Goebbels trolling denialist lies.
> Look at the facts yourself,
> how can this the settled, science is never settled unless you wish to
> kill debate, why would you want to do that?
Because it's impossible to 'debate' with a quasi-religious fanatic idiot
like yourself! Your posting record proves that absolutely.
> BBC is propaganda not news. If they are so sure of their position why
> does the BBC not allow any scientist space to offer alternative
> views?
Because most of those who want to air 'alternative views' are not
climate experts, but merely liars, like yourself.
> Why was there an internal instruction that no anti climate
> change views must see the light of transmission.
Where is your proof of this assertion?
> Oh the BBC will do
> well under the totalitarian Corbyn government.
Corbyn has yet to be elected, and I doubt whether the relationship
between the BBC and a Corbyn government will be any more or less
uncomfortable than with any other of recent years.
> But I tell you what, lets abandon rationality, go for corrupt and
> paid for bent science and data tampering and lets go live in a cave
> and then do moron dancing in the streets of dead cities as we go back
> to the stone age because of a false religion.
That's not what I or anyone else is advising, but by all means go and
make an arse of yourself by living in a cave, if that's what you want to
do, at least you won't be wasting our time here.
> Or lets not go that
> far, perhaps build huge windmills for so called CO2 free energy that
> released huge amounts to build and transport the things that ruin the
> landscape and kills wildlife. Did you see the picture of the eagle
> last week, with one wing sliced off by these monstrous obscenities.
> But they supply energy when the wind is blowing...
Or we could simply put one in front of your arse that you speak out of
- that should power the whole country easily.
>> Sadly what I hoped to find was the smoking gun: CO2, followed by
>> temp.
>
> But it doesn't exist because it isn't true. I'm cynical enough to
> believe climate scientist especially the bent ones know this.
You're not 'cynical', just a pathetic pub bore without a pub, a
stereotypical coffin-dodging arrogant fool who thinks he knows better
than everyone else.
>> Both rising together doesn't prove whether both were caused by some
>> other random factor. Correlation is not causation.
>
> Even the correlation is next to none existent take the recent 1945 to
> 1975 period
Another lie, it's actually very good (3rd graph down):
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
>> I think it's highly probably that all the CO2 we're churning out is
>> going to raise the temperature.
>
> You mean with zero evidence and that's what you're got, you would
> like a cause to believe in. It's a religion and a false one at that.
> It's a death cult.
You're the one here who is most obviously playing the role of a
religious inquisitor trying to suppress science.
>> Just as all the plastics were producing are causing all sorts of
>> problems, just as dioxins and DDT and... I could go on.
>
> Oh now I fully agree. All of those are horrors that we should make
> every effort to prevent. That is pollution, CO2 is the plant food and
> essential to life.
Vitamins are essential to life, but some of them are toxic if taken in
sufficient quantities. The question at issue is not whether we should
have *no* CO2 in the atmosphere, but how much is too much.
> Plants grow better at greater than 1000ppm CO2 which is why farmers
> fill green houses with CO2. Plants start to die at less than 150ppm.
And that is being considered as a means of recycling CO2 so that it
won't go into the atmosphere. There's a major greenhouse complex
somewhere in the SE, Kent I think, that was trialling this about a year
or two back, but I can't remember any more details than that.
>> I want a proof to hit people with.
>
> You will never find it, you will find attempts to fake it.
Another lie; white being called 'black' again.
> I wouldn't mind so much if the 'cure' was to build modern untra safe
> nuclear power plants - something realistic to fix the imaginary
> problem but no, lets build thousands of bloody windmills.
And again - what a conveniently short memory that you have - it has
already been explained to you within the last month or so why, after
current plant reaches end-of-life, nuclear power is not a realistic
option for this country:
"As I've explained at least a dozen times before, we in the UK don't
have any worthwhile sources of fissile material, so we'd have to import
all except what can be recycled from decommissioned weaponry and spent
fuel, in other words most of it, after about 10-20 years, virtually all
of it, and not only is this strategically questionable merely in terms
of national security, but, to make matters worse, globally there isn't
enough nuclear fuel to go round - I've been posting links to this page
on the World Nuclear Association website for over a decade now, and the
prognosis never seem to improve much, if at all; note the graphs at the
bottom which show that meeting future demand as currently estimated
requires the sources marked as 'prospective' be brought online, and if
you search the rest of that page for that word, it doesn't occur
anywhere there, so is not defined, and we have to guess at its meaning;
probably something like the following would be close: "Resources that
are believed to be present from preliminary surveys, but have not yet
been accurately assessed", which doesn't exactly inspire confidence:
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets.aspx"
I ask again, how do you propose to recompense us in this ng for the
collective waste of time that you cause with your crap quasi-religious
propaganda? How do you justify it with whatever part of the
pile-of-shite that passes for your brain you choose to call your
'conscience'?
>
> In article <qqmorl$9mv$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/11/2019 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> what you've linked shows yet again that CO2 and T are closely
>>> linked throughout known climate history.
>
> Ok, so look at the graph and tell me that CO2 is the cause of
>>
>> On 10/11/2019 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> what you've linked shows yet again that CO2 and T are closely
>>> linked throughout known climate history.
>
> temperature change.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/6temp.jpg
I wonder you have the nerve to show that graph again, after I've proved
that you removed it from a denialist site in order to hide its denialist
provenance, but I suppose it just goes to show that once a liar, always
a liar!
To remind you, as you have a 'habit' of 'forgetting' things that don't
fit in with your quasi-religion, the graph originally came from here ...
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
... and was drawn up the page's author Monte Hieb - we know this for
certain because he gives underneath it two *separate* and *different*
citations for the source data of the two plots in it, but *none* for the
graph itself. There are several problems with this graph which are
discussed below, but for now, let's take a closer a look at the graph's
author, who has no qualifications in climate science that I can find,
his only two papers being ...
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Monte_Hieb
"Biaxial Horizontal Swelling Strain in West Virginia Coal Mine Roof
Rocks in Response to Moisture Adsorption"
"Passive mine blast attenuators constructed of rock rubble for
protecting ventilation seals"
... so he's yet another geologist paid by the coal and mining industries
and dancing to their tune, and apparently has no climate scientific
qualifications whatsoever.
> Explain why at 438 million years ago we had an ice age with CO2 at
> 4000ppm. If CO2 is the temperature control knob, how did we get that
> ice age? You simply cannot deny that there must be another factor it
> cannot be CO2 at that point in history or any other. QED!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.tech.digital-tv/P2ea1shN0ns/yBajVFKoBgAJ
I've explained it already - again you chose to ignore it because the
explanation didn't fit with your religion - but in fact I've since
discovered two more things about that graph which makes it even more
misrepresentational ...
The first is simple enough, the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg
C, now I wonder why he's done that? It couldn't have been visually to
make the temperature curve appear well below the CO2 curve, could it?
The second is that by beginning his data at 600MyBP, he conveniently
misses out the phenomenon known as 'Snowball Earth', the most recent
episode of which ended 635MyBP:
http://www.snowballearth.org/index.html
There are several reasons why he might choose to funk out of including
this, one being is that it is one of the most complicated and least well
understood periods of geology, but another being that once the earth
froze down to about 20-40 deg Lat (estimates of the tipping point vary),
then the increasing reflectivity of the icing earth would then runaway
catastrophically to produce conditions at the equator which would be
broadly comparable to Antarctica now, and then the *only* means of
escape would have been the venting of CO2 by volcanoes, which eventually
reached concentrations high enough to melt the snowball, and once that
melt had begun, then, for a short while, as water vapour became free in
large enough quantities to join the greenhouse, the increase in
temperature would also have been for a time runaway and by our standards
catastrophic - and naturally a climate denialist like Monte Hieb might
be thought reluctant to discuss this.
Also calculations surrounding the snowball earth have revealed that the
earth can exist in three stable states, one of which is snowball earth,
and could move catastrophically quickly, by geological standards and
probably in human terms also, from one to the other:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
"In the 1960s, Mikhail Budyko, a Russian climatologist, developed a
simple energy-balance climate model to investigate the effect of ice
cover on global climate. Using this model, Budyko found that if ice
sheets advanced far enough out of the polar regions, a feedback loop
ensued where the increased reflectiveness (albedo) of the ice led to
further cooling and the formation of more ice, until the entire Earth
was covered in ice and stabilized in a new ice-covered equilibrium.[8]
While Budyko's model showed that this ice-albedo stability could happen,
he concluded that it had in fact never happened, because his model
offered no way to escape from such a feedback loop. In 1971, Aron
Faegre, an American physicist, showed that a similar energy-balance
model predicted three stable global climates, one of which was snowball
earth.[9]
This model introduced Edward Norton Lorenz's concept of intransitivity
indicating that there could be a major jump from one climate to another,
including to snowball earth."
> An ice age with 4000ppm CO2, the oceans didn't boil off, the planet
> did not fry, quite the opposite.
As has been explained to you before, and as above, CO2 levels were not
as high as the graph claimed, and many other factors were at work
besides CO2: the earth was changing between different states of the
snowball and what followed, present day continents were all gathered
into a single supercontinent called Gwondanaland centred near and
covering the south pole, and the sun was 4% dimmer:
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=97
Also (my emphasis):
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Monte Hieb, as others have done, took his CO2 concentrations "from
Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2.
As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that
time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400
and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a *10 million year timestep*,
leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate
Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term
CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be
taken literally.""
> (Leaving aside pollutants which CO2 is not) When we burn coal, gas,
> oil we are returning the CO2 balance to a fraction of what it was for
> most of the planets existence. It is returning the CO2 to the
> atmosphere where it was long ago. It is restoration work, give the
> plants back their food, a very slight step back to the atmosphere
> that started life.
>
> Earth's entire history has been spent with CO2 far higher than now,
> LOOK AT THE GRAPH - CO2 in geological time scales is lower than it
> has ever been.
But, again as has been explained to you before, we, in common with most
of the other flora and fauna now present on earth, weren't around then
- 99.9% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct - and we
don't know how well or badly *we* can cope with with a higher
CO2/temperature regime - CO2 and global temperatures are now higher
than they have ever been at any other time during human existence on
this earth.
> In the last 10 thousand years there has been a correlation between
> CO2 and temperature with CO2 always LAGGING temperature by 600-800
> years every cycle. It's temperature that eventually warms the vast
> oceans which release CO2 and hence the rise hundreds of years later.
Because - again as has been explained to you countless times before -
before humans started producing CO2, the main driving factor of
climate change into and out of the ice ages was changes in earth's orbit
leading to changes in insolation, the amount of the sun's radiation
reaching the earth. However, as the recent correlation between CO2
levels and temperature prove, if you kick-start the feedback loop from
the other side by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, then the feedback
will operate in exactly the same manner until a new point of equilibrium
is reached.
> In the 1970s the BBC were making programmes about the coming ice-age
> and we were all going to freeze. Why? because from 1945 to 1975
> (that's 30 years) temperatures were dropping and dropping and yet
> surprise surprise CO2 was in the post war boom and rising fast.
> Explain that through CO2?
There was global dimming caused by pollution, combined with shorter term
decadal cycles such as El Nino/La Nina and the Atlantic equivalents that
are superimposed upon the longer-term trend that has been ongoing since
the industrial revolution and, again, this is something which has been
explained to you countless times before.
> Explain why the scientists keep being caught data tampering - yes
> they do! Lowering the past and raising the present and omitting known
> warm periods 'because they are a problem'. Yes they do!
No they don't. If you think they do, give proof, and I mean ACTUAL
PROOF, not worthless allegations from geologists paid by the fossil fuel
industry such as Monty HeebeeJeebies and Tony HelluvaLiar.
> Explain why before ww2 there was a rise in temperatures with an
> almost identical slope to the one after 1975. What caused that?
Decadal oscillations.
> What caused the medieval warm period and all the other warm periods
> in history. What caused the cold periods, look at the graph - not CO2.
Your graph doesn't resolve to those sorts of timescales.
> Explain why there has been no net warming for 21 years and net
> cooling for 3 years.
Nonsense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
9 out of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the new millenium
and the 10th was 1998.
> The longer this goes on the more data tampering
> is happening and the more people are screaming about climate.
> Desperation because their absurd predictions never come to fruition
> or even close. How many times do we have to be given a ten or twelve
> year warning and for that to fail before we learn? We've had this
> since the eighties, planet not dead yet.
But it *IS* getting hotter!
> Explain why antarctic ice in 2017 and 2018 was above the the norm not
> below it.
It's really is extraordinary how you make wild claims like this, when
almost the first link in any related search shows that you're wrong ...
https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
... there were good years for ice in 2012 and 2014, but 2019 is already
below the average for 2009-2018.
> Explain why the media keeps telling us storms are worse and more
> frequent, when they're not, there more reported because there is more
> people in remote areas to report it.
While that is probably a factor, the jury's still out, so your claim is
premature. For example, if you search for ...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=are+storms+getting+more+violent
... you will find contradictory opinions. However it remains likely
that if you put more energy into a storm system by increasing
atmospheric temperatures, then the resulting storm will have more energy
to harness and thus be more violent, and some evidence is presented in
the links found that suggest that this is indeed happening.
> Explain why with a growing
> population the deaths from weather is massively less now than in the
> past.
Because most nations now have
:-) Better forecasting of extreme weather events;
:-) Better communication so those in danger can be advised;
:-) Better emergency services so that victims can be rescued;
:-) Better health care so that more victims are saved.
> Many *thousands* of scientists not paid to prove man is causing
> climate change have signed letters saying there is no climate
> emergency. Most suggest that thinking that CO2 is the temperature
> control knob for the planet is absurd.
This is another attempt to lie by calling white 'black' and black
'white'; in the list you linked the other day, there was *ONE*, JUST
FUCKING ONE, climate scientist, and he had provably made several very
public mistakes which he'd had to retract; none of the others were
climate scientists, and some of them were geologists working in the
fossil fuel industry and dancing to their employers' tune.
> But the science is settled.
Yes, pretty much it is, however much you may dislike the fact.
> They tell me with science that CO2 is a green house gas but that it
> absorbs a much narrower band of infra-red frequencies that the vastly
> more copious water vapour. They also point out that at this narrow
> band of frequencies nothing is escaping the planet as we are. More
> CO2 will do nothing because nothing is escaping now at CO2 absorption
> frequencies.
>
> Watch the video.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-zaQWAaPAg&feature=youtu.be
I already have, and already have debunked it; this time READ, MARK,
LEARN, and INWARDLY DIGEST what you don't like being told:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.tech.digital-tv/P2ea1shN0ns/Pngb2N8eBgAJ
> Yes, I know it will be scoffed at. Don't say you weren't told.
>
> Currently CO2 causes:
> Drought
> Flood
> Extreme low temperature
> Extreme high temperature
> Bush fires
> more frequent storms
> more violent storms.
> Etc. etc. etc. people need something to believe in.
Clearly *you* do, you are easily the worst poster of quasi-religious
propaganda garbage here.
> But you will notice in the last week we've had cold in the USA and
> Canada, snow in Australia, Italy, France and Spain which of cause is
> CO2 but as so often it is the coldest since 19xx so what caused the
> event in 19xx?
And record wildfires in California and Australia. HOW MANY TIMES MUST
YOU BE TOLD THAT IT'S THE LONG TERM THAT COUNTS!
> It's the sun and the earth's relationship to it that causes all of
> this not bloody CO2.
They are BOTH drivers of climate change.
> If the BBC tells you its a fact it probably isn't. If they say the
> science is settled it defiantly isn't.
Certainly they are a far more reliable source of information than your
unwelcome impersonation of Goebbels trolling denialist lies.
> Look at the facts yourself,
> how can this the settled, science is never settled unless you wish to
> kill debate, why would you want to do that?
Because it's impossible to 'debate' with a quasi-religious fanatic idiot
like yourself! Your posting record proves that absolutely.
> BBC is propaganda not news. If they are so sure of their position why
> does the BBC not allow any scientist space to offer alternative
> views?
Because most of those who want to air 'alternative views' are not
climate experts, but merely liars, like yourself.
> Why was there an internal instruction that no anti climate
> change views must see the light of transmission.
Where is your proof of this assertion?
> Oh the BBC will do
> well under the totalitarian Corbyn government.
Corbyn has yet to be elected, and I doubt whether the relationship
between the BBC and a Corbyn government will be any more or less
uncomfortable than with any other of recent years.
> But I tell you what, lets abandon rationality, go for corrupt and
> paid for bent science and data tampering and lets go live in a cave
> and then do moron dancing in the streets of dead cities as we go back
> to the stone age because of a false religion.
That's not what I or anyone else is advising, but by all means go and
make an arse of yourself by living in a cave, if that's what you want to
do, at least you won't be wasting our time here.
> Or lets not go that
> far, perhaps build huge windmills for so called CO2 free energy that
> released huge amounts to build and transport the things that ruin the
> landscape and kills wildlife. Did you see the picture of the eagle
> last week, with one wing sliced off by these monstrous obscenities.
> But they supply energy when the wind is blowing...
Or we could simply put one in front of your arse that you speak out of
- that should power the whole country easily.
>> Sadly what I hoped to find was the smoking gun: CO2, followed by
>> temp.
>
> believe climate scientist especially the bent ones know this.
You're not 'cynical', just a pathetic pub bore without a pub, a
stereotypical coffin-dodging arrogant fool who thinks he knows better
than everyone else.
>> Both rising together doesn't prove whether both were caused by some
>> other random factor. Correlation is not causation.
>
> 1975 period
Another lie, it's actually very good (3rd graph down):
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
>> I think it's highly probably that all the CO2 we're churning out is
>> going to raise the temperature.
>
> like a cause to believe in. It's a religion and a false one at that.
> It's a death cult.
You're the one here who is most obviously playing the role of a
religious inquisitor trying to suppress science.
>> Just as all the plastics were producing are causing all sorts of
>> problems, just as dioxins and DDT and... I could go on.
>
> every effort to prevent. That is pollution, CO2 is the plant food and
> essential to life.
Vitamins are essential to life, but some of them are toxic if taken in
sufficient quantities. The question at issue is not whether we should
have *no* CO2 in the atmosphere, but how much is too much.
> Plants grow better at greater than 1000ppm CO2 which is why farmers
> fill green houses with CO2. Plants start to die at less than 150ppm.
And that is being considered as a means of recycling CO2 so that it
won't go into the atmosphere. There's a major greenhouse complex
somewhere in the SE, Kent I think, that was trialling this about a year
or two back, but I can't remember any more details than that.
>> I want a proof to hit people with.
>
Another lie; white being called 'black' again.
> I wouldn't mind so much if the 'cure' was to build modern untra safe
> nuclear power plants - something realistic to fix the imaginary
> problem but no, lets build thousands of bloody windmills.
And again - what a conveniently short memory that you have - it has
already been explained to you within the last month or so why, after
current plant reaches end-of-life, nuclear power is not a realistic
option for this country:
"As I've explained at least a dozen times before, we in the UK don't
have any worthwhile sources of fissile material, so we'd have to import
all except what can be recycled from decommissioned weaponry and spent
fuel, in other words most of it, after about 10-20 years, virtually all
of it, and not only is this strategically questionable merely in terms
of national security, but, to make matters worse, globally there isn't
enough nuclear fuel to go round - I've been posting links to this page
on the World Nuclear Association website for over a decade now, and the
prognosis never seem to improve much, if at all; note the graphs at the
bottom which show that meeting future demand as currently estimated
requires the sources marked as 'prospective' be brought online, and if
you search the rest of that page for that word, it doesn't occur
anywhere there, so is not defined, and we have to guess at its meaning;
probably something like the following would be close: "Resources that
are believed to be present from preliminary surveys, but have not yet
been accurately assessed", which doesn't exactly inspire confidence:
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets.aspx"
I ask again, how do you propose to recompense us in this ng for the
collective waste of time that you cause with your crap quasi-religious
propaganda? How do you justify it with whatever part of the
pile-of-shite that passes for your brain you choose to call your
'conscience'?
Jim Lesurf
Nov 16, 2019, 5:53:11 AM11/16/19
to
a function of wavelength and the nature of Black Body Radiation and its
dependence on temperature, etc. Ditto, probably for water vapour, etc.
The problem is that understanding these issues isn't simply a matter of
cherry-picking, but of understanding all the relevant evidence and
processes. That's why I've repeatedly pointed to a good starting point in
the form of a book that covers a wide range of factors, timescales, types
of measurement, etc, etc. Alas it is hundreds of pages long. So I doubt I
or anyone else is going to re-type it here, or read the posting if anyone
did!
Andy Burns
Nov 17, 2019, 5:44:48 AM11/17/19
to
Java Jive wrote:
> the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg C, now I wonder why he's
> done that?
Why would you prefer 0°C instead of absolute zero?
> the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg C, now I wonder why he's
> done that?
Java Jive
Nov 17, 2019, 8:33:20 AM11/17/19
to
with little or no scientific knowledge can most easily relate to. All
degrees K would achieve is confusion in the minds of the general public
that would be a perfect breeding ground for denialism: "This must be
wrong! Today's temperatures are nowhere near 280 degrees! This must be
'fraudulent science'!"
NY
Nov 17, 2019, 8:41:00 AM11/17/19
to
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:qqri6t$oq3$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
reference points (0 and 100) that match the freezing and boiling points of
water, with an alternative scale that starts at Absolute Zero (-273 deg C)
but which uses the same size units (ie any temperature in deg C is defined
to be the same temperature in K with an offset of about 273).
Chris Green
Nov 17, 2019, 9:16:04 AM11/17/19
to
use Celsius. Zero degrees Celsius isn't 'zero' in any significant
sort of way, it just happens to be the freezing point of water. So
having the temperature scale starting at zero Celsius would really be
no more helpful than starting at zero Fahrenheit. Having the scale
from zero Kelvin (i.e. absolute zero) might make sense, but not much
when we're talking about climate.
--
Chris Green
·
Andy Burns
Nov 17, 2019, 9:33:12 AM11/17/19
to
Chris Green wrote:
> I think the question is rather "why start at 0 deg C" rather than why
> use Celsius. Zero degrees Celsius isn't 'zero' in any significant
> sort of way
Exactly, Charles accuses the graph of using an arbitrary floor of 285°K
> I think the question is rather "why start at 0 deg C" rather than why
> use Celsius. Zero degrees Celsius isn't 'zero' in any significant
> sort of way
(presumably because he sees it as exaggerating the spikiness of the
graph) but would prefer an arbitrary floor of 273°K (which would make
for a flatter graph, maybe it should have a ceiling of 373°K too?)
Java Jive
Nov 17, 2019, 11:16:34 AM11/17/19
to
On 17/11/2019 14:09, Chris Green wrote:
>
> I think the question is rather "why start at 0 deg C" rather than why
> use Celsius. Zero degrees Celsius isn't 'zero' in any significant
> sort of way, it just happens to be the freezing point of water.
Yes, but a philosophical discussion of the merits or otherwise of the
>
> I think the question is rather "why start at 0 deg C" rather than why
> use Celsius. Zero degrees Celsius isn't 'zero' in any significant
> sort of way, it just happens to be the freezing point of water.
Celsius scale is not the point here. The point is to use a scale that
is in everyday use that therefore people are accustomed to, and part of
that use is drawing the axis where it is normally drawn, not at some
arbitrarily chosen other point, where the motives of the person in
choosing that other point immediately and rightly draw suspicion.
> So
> having the temperature scale starting at zero Celsius would really be
> no more helpful than starting at zero Fahrenheit. Having the scale
> from zero Kelvin (i.e. absolute zero) might make sense, but not much
> when we're talking about climate.
current average global temperatures, and this may be why that axis was
chosen as being nearer to the current average, but the graph is not
labelled accordingly as degrees above or below present, but as degrees
C, and therefore the odd choice of axis is highly questionable.
Java Jive
Nov 17, 2019, 11:22:34 AM11/17/19
to
used to graphs of temperature which have their axes drawn at 0 degrees
C, and in fact, although a scientist by training, even I looked at the
graph several times before I noticed that the axis wasn't at 0 degrees
C, so while the choice of a different axis in a scientific context might
draw little comment, such a choice in a public denialist context is
highly questionable - personally, I have no doubt that it was intended
to mislead.
brightside
Nov 17, 2019, 12:53:25 PM11/17/19
to
using Celsius / Centigrade values in the equation of Stefan Boltzmann
law!!
--
brightside S9
Java Jive
Nov 17, 2019, 3:33:27 PM11/17/19
to
table 'SI derived units with special names and symbols'):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
> Try
> using Celsius / Centigrade values in the equation of Stefan Boltzmann
> law!!
Celsius/Centigrade and Kelvin, it just wouldn't be very convenient:
j-star = sigma * (t-273.15)^4
NY
Nov 17, 2019, 4:04:49 PM11/17/19
to
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:qqsaqk$c4h$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>> Celsius / Centigrade is not a 'scientific' scale in any sense.
>
> Actually, it is, it's a 'Derived Unit' within the SI system (see the table
> 'SI derived units with special names and symbols'):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
>
>> Try
>> using Celsius / Centigrade values in the equation of Stefan Boltzmann
>> law!!
>
> You could do it, because there is a functional relationship between
> Celsius/Centigrade and Kelvin, it just wouldn't be very convenient:
>
> j-star = sigma * (t-273.15)^4
It's used for scientific measurements of conditions (eg reaction rate at 20
>
> Actually, it is, it's a 'Derived Unit' within the SI system (see the table
> 'SI derived units with special names and symbols'):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
>
>> Try
>> using Celsius / Centigrade values in the equation of Stefan Boltzmann
>> law!!
>
> You could do it, because there is a functional relationship between
> Celsius/Centigrade and Kelvin, it just wouldn't be very convenient:
>
> j-star = sigma * (t-273.15)^4
deg C), though I agree that a lot of equations only "work" properly with
Kelvin temperatures. Obviously it makes no difference what zero-point you
use if you are comparing *differences* in temperature: 274-273 K is the same
difference as 10-0 deg C.
As a non-scientific scale, it makes a *lot* more sense to have a temperature
scale that puts the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water
at round numbers of degrees, rather than using a scale which puts zero at
the lowest temperature that Herr Fahrenheit could achieve with a
brine/ammonium chloride mixture. I've seen it suggested that 0 deg F was
originally the coldest temperature that was recording in Fahrenheit's
village. I've not seen any good explanation of how the 100 deg F point was
defined, given that blood heat and boiling water (both good reference
points) in the early days are both obscure numbers: blood heat is *nearly*
100 deg F and boiling water is *nearly* 200 deg F, but not close enough to
have been used as definitions.
Maybe I'm looking at it with modern eyes, in which *everything* is defined
to use multiples of 10 (*), rather than any other base - unless that base
happens to be 2 (or 16) in computing.
(*) Since that's the base we count in, given that we have 10 digits (fingers
and thumbs) and 10 toes.
Indy Jess John
Nov 17, 2019, 6:13:29 PM11/17/19
to
On 17/11/2019 21:04, NY wrote:
> given that blood heat and boiling water (both good reference
> points) in the early days are both obscure numbers: blood heat is *nearly*
> 100 deg F and boiling water is *nearly* 200 deg F, but not close enough to
> have been used as definitions.
I was told at school (late 1950s) that Mr Fahrenheit took his own
> given that blood heat and boiling water (both good reference
> points) in the early days are both obscure numbers: blood heat is *nearly*
> 100 deg F and boiling water is *nearly* 200 deg F, but not close enough to
> have been used as definitions.
temperature and made that 100 deg F, but he wasn't well at the time.
Thus he had a scale of 0 to 100, and by simple arithmetic that gave 212
deg F as the boiling point of water. Unfortunately he published his
scale and others were using it by the time he checked his temperature
again and discovered it was no longer 100 deg.
>
> (*) Since that's the base we count in, given that we have 10 digits (fingers
> and thumbs) and 10 toes.
>
The dozens count was also done on the digits of the hand. If you take
> (*) Since that's the base we count in, given that we have 10 digits (fingers
> and thumbs) and 10 toes.
>
the thumb and count the three sections to each of the four fingers, that
gives 12 on one hand (hence pence in a shilling), and using both hands
you either get 60 (seconds in a minute etc) by counting the five digits
on the other hand, or 144 which is counting 12 on both hands.
Jim
Roderick Stewart
Nov 18, 2019, 5:22:13 AM11/18/19
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:33:16 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
A one degree temperature rise - that's a tiny fraction of a percent!
Rod.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
Nov 18, 2019, 5:32:40 AM11/18/19
to
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:53:24 +0000, brightside
<brigh...@sonnenkinder.org> wrote:
>>Yes, it makes sense for the everyday scientific temperature scale to have
>>reference points (0 and 100) that match the freezing and boiling points of
>>water, with an alternative scale that starts at Absolute Zero (-273 deg C)
>>but which uses the same size units (ie any temperature in deg C is defined
>>to be the same temperature in K with an offset of about 273).
>
>
>Celsius / Centigrade is not a 'scientific' scale in any sense. Try
>using Celsius / Centigrade values in the equation of Stefan Boltzmann
>law!!
It's related in terms of simple numbers to the physical properties of
<brigh...@sonnenkinder.org> wrote:
>>Yes, it makes sense for the everyday scientific temperature scale to have
>>reference points (0 and 100) that match the freezing and boiling points of
>>water, with an alternative scale that starts at Absolute Zero (-273 deg C)
>>but which uses the same size units (ie any temperature in deg C is defined
>>to be the same temperature in K with an offset of about 273).
>
>
>Celsius / Centigrade is not a 'scientific' scale in any sense. Try
>using Celsius / Centigrade values in the equation of Stefan Boltzmann
>law!!
one of the commonest and most vital substances we know, and with which
everyone is reasonably familiar.
The scientists may have subsequently redefined it in terms of their
own standards to keep everything consistent, but for practical
everyday purposes the numbers are still the same, or so close as to
make no difference, and particularly easy to remember.
Rod.
Chris Green
Nov 18, 2019, 5:48:04 AM11/18/19
to
--
Chris Green
·
Jim Lesurf
Nov 18, 2019, 7:10:57 AM11/18/19
to
In article <qqsclf$364$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:qqsaqk$c4h$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> >> Celsius / Centigrade is not a 'scientific' scale in any sense.
> "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:qqsaqk$c4h$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> >> Celsius / Centigrade is not a 'scientific' scale in any sense.
> It's used for scientific measurements of conditions (eg reaction rate at
> 20 deg C), though I agree that a lot of equations only "work" properly
> with Kelvin temperatures. Obviously it makes no difference what
> zero-point you use if you are comparing *differences* in temperature:
> 274-273 K is the same difference as 10-0 deg C.
I'm not sure if this has been resolved as yet, but there has been an
> 20 deg C), though I agree that a lot of equations only "work" properly
> with Kelvin temperatures. Obviously it makes no difference what
> zero-point you use if you are comparing *differences* in temperature:
> 274-273 K is the same difference as 10-0 deg C.
enduring problem with the lack of exact alignment and scaling between 'C'
and 'K' scales because of the the difficulty of using a 'boiling point of
water' rather than something better defined like a 'triple point'. So it
has been the case that 274 - 273 K *hasn't* been exactly the same as 10 - 0
C! I recall seeing discussions over this some time ago in 'Physics Today'.
Not that it will matter much when making a cup of tea. :-)
Jim Lesurf
Nov 18, 2019, 7:20:14 AM11/18/19
to
In article <259aag-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net>
wrote:
Of the average vibrational/movement kinetic energy of the patrticles if
you're referring to a material's 'temperature' using the most common form.
Jim
> -
wrote:
you're referring to a material's 'temperature' using the most common form.
Jim
> -
Roderick Stewart
Nov 18, 2019, 9:07:10 AM11/18/19
to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 10:42:10 +0000, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
>> >>> the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg C, now I wonder why he's
>> >>> done that?
>> >>
>> >> Why would you prefer 0°C instead of absolute zero?
>> >
>> >Because Centigrade is the scientific scale that most everyday people
>> >with little or no scientific knowledge can most easily relate to. All
>> >degrees K would achieve is confusion in the minds of the general public
>> >that would be a perfect breeding ground for denialism: "This must be
>> >wrong! Today's temperatures are nowhere near 280 degrees! This must be
>> >'fraudulent science'!"
>>
>> A one degree temperature rise - that's a tiny fraction of a percent!
>>
>A tiny fraction of a percent of *what*?
A tiny fraction of a percent of 280 degrees of course!
>> >>> the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg C, now I wonder why he's
>> >>> done that?
>> >>
>> >> Why would you prefer 0°C instead of absolute zero?
>> >
>> >Because Centigrade is the scientific scale that most everyday people
>> >with little or no scientific knowledge can most easily relate to. All
>> >degrees K would achieve is confusion in the minds of the general public
>> >that would be a perfect breeding ground for denialism: "This must be
>> >wrong! Today's temperatures are nowhere near 280 degrees! This must be
>> >'fraudulent science'!"
>>
>> A one degree temperature rise - that's a tiny fraction of a percent!
>>
>A tiny fraction of a percent of *what*?
Which is much less than the percentage change in 17 degrees.
Which just goes to show that all we have to do is use absolute
temperature and global warming becomes insignificant!
I bet Greta never thought of that.
Rod.
Chris Green
Nov 18, 2019, 12:33:04 PM11/18/19
to
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <259aag-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net>
> wrote:
> > Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:33:16 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg C, now I wonder why
> > > >>> he's done that?
> > > >>
> > > >> Why would you prefer 0°C instead of absolute zero?
> > > >
> > > >Because Centigrade is the scientific scale that most everyday people
> > > >with little or no scientific knowledge can most easily relate to.
> > > >All degrees K would achieve is confusion in the minds of the general
> > > >public that would be a perfect breeding ground for denialism: "This
> > > >must be wrong! Today's temperatures are nowhere near 280 degrees!
> > > >This must be 'fraudulent science'!"
> > >
> > > A one degree temperature rise - that's a tiny fraction of a percent!
> > >
> > A tiny fraction of a percent of *what*?
>
> Of the average vibrational/movement kinetic energy of the patrticles if
> you're referring to a material's 'temperature' using the most common form.
>
But a one degree change in (say) 250 degrees Kelvin is a larger
> In article <259aag-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net>
> wrote:
> > Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 13:33:16 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> the temperature scale doesn't start at 0 deg C, now I wonder why
> > > >>> he's done that?
> > > >>
> > > >> Why would you prefer 0°C instead of absolute zero?
> > > >
> > > >Because Centigrade is the scientific scale that most everyday people
> > > >with little or no scientific knowledge can most easily relate to.
> > > >All degrees K would achieve is confusion in the minds of the general
> > > >public that would be a perfect breeding ground for denialism: "This
> > > >must be wrong! Today's temperatures are nowhere near 280 degrees!
> > > >This must be 'fraudulent science'!"
> > >
> > > A one degree temperature rise - that's a tiny fraction of a percent!
> > >
> > A tiny fraction of a percent of *what*?
>
> Of the average vibrational/movement kinetic energy of the patrticles if
> you're referring to a material's 'temperature' using the most common form.
>
percentage change than a one degree change in (say) 500 degrees
Kelvin. That's the poiunt I was trying to make! :-)
--
Chris Green
·
Terry Casey
Nov 19, 2019, 6:56:55 AM11/19/19
to
In article <5814ca4...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
no...@audiomisc.co.uk says...
274 - 273 = 1 and 10 - 0 = 10 so they are not remotely like
the same!
Or am I missing out on some obscure alien method of
calculation here?
--
Terry
no...@audiomisc.co.uk says...
>
> In article <qqsclf$364$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:qqsaqk$c4h$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> In article <qqsclf$364$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > "Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:qqsaqk$c4h$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> > Obviously it makes no difference what zero-point you use
> > if you are comparing*differences* in temperature:
> > 274-273 K is the same difference as 10-0 deg C.
>
>
> So it has been the case that 274 - 273 K *hasn't* been
> exactly the same as 10 - 0C! I recall seeing discussions
> over this some time ago in 'Physics Today'.
>
> Not that it will matter much when making a cup of tea. :-)
???
>
> Not that it will matter much when making a cup of tea. :-)
274 - 273 = 1 and 10 - 0 = 10 so they are not remotely like
the same!
Or am I missing out on some obscure alien method of
calculation here?
--
Terry
Java Jive
Nov 19, 2019, 7:35:09 AM11/19/19
to
On 19/11/2019 11:23, Bob Latham wrote:
> See graphs
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/MannVBall.jpg
More lies. I do not tweet, but it didn't take much effort to discover
that this graph has apparently been lifted from Twitter, and that the
top graph, the one derided by denialists, has actually been *FAKED*!
Michael Mann, whose original and very different graph was victimised by
the FAKE, has this to say (note the original graph on the right hand side):
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1168722487984754691
Michael E. Mann
Verified account @MichaelEMann
Climate change denier Tim Ball & his supporters have been promoting a
fake graph on twitter (lower left). See the real version of the graph
(right) and read what legitimate researchers have had to say about it in
the peer-reviewed literature:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Jones_jo00100w.pdf
Michael E. Mann
Verified account @MichaelEMann
Sep 2
So to summarize, Tim Ball & his supporters have been promoting a (A)
FAKE version of a 1990 #IPCC graph that (B) only represented one
locality (central England) and (C) was only ever meant to be schematic
illustration (rather than a quantitative reconstruction) of temperature"
> No sign of the 17th centuary deep cold or the Dickensian winters or
> the medieval Optimum. Almost as if someone was hiding the past.
>
> Almost as if they're exaggerating the present. Data tampering,
> bending the truth - No, surely not.
>
> I know which graph looks the most credible and the Canadian court got
> it right. The word "fraud" being used, can't think why.
So the above is more crap lies from our incubus Goebbels.
> See graphs
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/MannVBall.jpg
More lies. I do not tweet, but it didn't take much effort to discover
that this graph has apparently been lifted from Twitter, and that the
top graph, the one derided by denialists, has actually been *FAKED*!
Michael Mann, whose original and very different graph was victimised by
the FAKE, has this to say (note the original graph on the right hand side):
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1168722487984754691
Michael E. Mann
Verified account @MichaelEMann
Climate change denier Tim Ball & his supporters have been promoting a
fake graph on twitter (lower left). See the real version of the graph
(right) and read what legitimate researchers have had to say about it in
the peer-reviewed literature:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Jones_jo00100w.pdf
Michael E. Mann
Verified account @MichaelEMann
Sep 2
So to summarize, Tim Ball & his supporters have been promoting a (A)
FAKE version of a 1990 #IPCC graph that (B) only represented one
locality (central England) and (C) was only ever meant to be schematic
illustration (rather than a quantitative reconstruction) of temperature"
> No sign of the 17th centuary deep cold or the Dickensian winters or
> the medieval Optimum. Almost as if someone was hiding the past.
>
> Almost as if they're exaggerating the present. Data tampering,
> bending the truth - No, surely not.
>
> I know which graph looks the most credible and the Canadian court got
> it right. The word "fraud" being used, can't think why.
So the above is more crap lies from our incubus Goebbels.
Java Jive
Nov 19, 2019, 7:39:04 AM11/19/19
to
On 19/11/2019 11:56, Terry Casey wrote:
>
> In article <5814ca4...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> no...@audiomisc.co.uk says...
>>
>
> In article <5814ca4...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> no...@audiomisc.co.uk says...
>>
>> So it has been the case that 274 - 273 K *hasn't* been
>> exactly the same as 10 - 0C! I recall seeing discussions
>> over this some time ago in 'Physics Today'.
>>
>> Not that it will matter much when making a cup of tea. :-)
>
> ???
>
> 274 - 273 = 1 and 10 - 0 = 10 so they are not remotely like
> the same!
>
> Or am I missing out on some obscure alien method of
> calculation here?
I suspect typo or senior moment - they happen to the best of us!
>> exactly the same as 10 - 0C! I recall seeing discussions
>> over this some time ago in 'Physics Today'.
>>
>> Not that it will matter much when making a cup of tea. :-)
>
> ???
>
> 274 - 273 = 1 and 10 - 0 = 10 so they are not remotely like
> the same!
>
> Or am I missing out on some obscure alien method of
> calculation here?
Java Jive
Nov 19, 2019, 11:20:08 AM11/19/19
to
On 19/11/2019 12:35, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2019 11:23, Bob Latham wrote:
>> See graphs
>>
>> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/MannVBall.jpg
>
> More lies. I do not tweet
And one of the main reasons for that is the absurdity of trying to
>
> On 19/11/2019 11:23, Bob Latham wrote:
>> See graphs
>>
>> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/MannVBall.jpg
>
> More lies. I do not tweet
express complex ideas such as Climate Science within the character limit
allowed, which makes it the perfect breeding ground for at best
oversimplification, down through headline-grabbing emotional
manipulation of political views, to at worst the outright lying of
denialism of anything and everything, including Climate Change.
> but it didn't take much effort to discover
> that this graph has apparently been lifted from Twitter, and that the
> top graph, the one derided by denialists, has actually been *FAKED*!
> Michael Mann, whose original and very different graph was victimised by
> the FAKE, has this to say (note the original graph on the right hand side):
that the bottom, not the top, graph was faked!
Andrew
Nov 21, 2019, 9:46:46 AM11/21/19
to
On 21/11/2019 13:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> See Antarctica graphs..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/IMG_0077.jpg
>
> Enjoy the warm while you can. The current interglacial is less warm
> than previous events and centuries of biting cold will soon return.
> This may come quite suddenly. It would be wise start to build nuclear
> reactors NOW.
>
> The lower graph shows that the last millennium was warmer than this
> one by some margin.
>
>
> The climate crisis will come when the cold returns and it surely
> will. There is no abnormal warming and none at all for 21 years and
> cooling for the last 3.
>
> Man and his/her CO2 are utterly irrelevant. Only fools could believe
> this political scam.
>
>
> No proof what so ever man's CO2 changing climate or that CO2 has ever
> changed the climate. Even correlation is very poor.
>
>
> Not CO2.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob.
>
Good news for polar bears and penguins then :-)
> See Antarctica graphs..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/IMG_0077.jpg
>
> Enjoy the warm while you can. The current interglacial is less warm
> than previous events and centuries of biting cold will soon return.
> This may come quite suddenly. It would be wise start to build nuclear
> reactors NOW.
>
> The lower graph shows that the last millennium was warmer than this
> one by some margin.
>
>
> The climate crisis will come when the cold returns and it surely
> will. There is no abnormal warming and none at all for 21 years and
> cooling for the last 3.
>
> Man and his/her CO2 are utterly irrelevant. Only fools could believe
> this political scam.
>
>
> No proof what so ever man's CO2 changing climate or that CO2 has ever
> changed the climate. Even correlation is very poor.
>
>
> Not CO2.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob.
>
Good news for polar bears and penguins then :-)
Indy Jess John
Nov 21, 2019, 10:39:15 AM11/21/19
to
Jim
Andrew
Nov 21, 2019, 11:47:00 AM11/21/19
to
everyone will be spending £5000 a year to heat their house
rather than the £1200-ish now.
How many kilowatts of leccy will somewhere like the new
London Hospital Whitechapel need just to heat it ?
Either the national grid will melt, or... (ominously)
all those smart meters will cut off residential and
business users just to keep the hospitals going during
a winter blocking high pressure scenario with freezing
fog blocking out all the PV panels during the day and
wind turbines stationary.
Max Demian
Nov 21, 2019, 6:04:42 PM11/21/19
to
On 21/11/2019 20:24, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <qr680i$1cr5$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Polar bears are doing very well I'm told, growing in numbers all the
> time. I bet annoys the climate bedwetters.
Vicious creatures, polar bears. People doing scientific work in the
arctic have to have a lookout to warn them if one is sneaking up on them.
--
Max Demian
> In article <qr680i$1cr5$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Polar bears are doing very well I'm told, growing in numbers all the
> time. I bet annoys the climate bedwetters.
Vicious creatures, polar bears. People doing scientific work in the
arctic have to have a lookout to warn them if one is sneaking up on them.
--
Max Demian
John
Nov 22, 2019, 4:54:46 AM11/22/19
to
Java Jive
Nov 22, 2019, 7:43:34 PM11/22/19
to
On 21/11/2019 13:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> See Antarctica graphs..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/IMG_0077.jpg
Stop stealing images from other people's sites. Quite apart from the
> See Antarctica graphs..
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/IMG_0077.jpg
loss of all meaningful scientific context, assuming there actually is
any which is a hugely generous assumption for any post made by you, it's
a breach of intellectual copyright.
The top graph shows Vostok ice-core data which already are very well
known, there is nothing new there. The bottom one was almost certainly
obtained through image manipulation from the results here (Fig 4) ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018219303190
... and, as it refers to Antarctic temperatures alone, you can not use
it to claim that worldwide temperatures followed the same pattern.
Global temperatures are shown here, and do not follow the pattern of
cooling in the hacked graph above:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
> Enjoy the warm while you can. The current interglacial is less warm
> than previous events and centuries of biting cold will soon return.
> This may come quite suddenly. It would be wise start to build nuclear
> reactors NOW.
>
> The lower graph shows that the last millennium was warmer than this
> one by some margin.
>
> The climate crisis will come when the cold returns and it surely
> will. There is no abnormal warming and none at all for 21 years and
> cooling for the last 3.
>
> Man and his/her CO2 are utterly irrelevant. Only fools could believe
> this political scam.
>
> No proof what so ever man's CO2 changing climate or that CO2 has ever
> changed the climate. Even correlation is very poor.
>
> Not CO2.
assertions stated as though they are facts, which of course they are not.
Java Jive
Nov 22, 2019, 8:15:49 PM11/22/19
to
On 22/11/2019 17:22, Bob LieToThem wrote:
> Here is a very much shorter cycle which is going to us...
>
> Scary stuff real climate change..
>
> Every 172 years predictable.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZw4DdocxN0
>
> Global warming my A**e.
I suspect that's where the video came from, because certainly it's
shite. For example:
1:20 "Sun is getting cooler" Wrong, it got hotter during the early
1900s but has been pretty well constant since, so not only can it not
explain the current warming, nor can it be used to predict cooling.
https://skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
3:55 A truly farcical attempt to link posited climate cycles with the
rise and fall of major civilisations, but anyone looking at the screen
can see at a glance that really there's no fit at all. So, for example,
the Ancient Egyptians New Kingdom straddle a peak in the graph, while
the other kingdoms of Ancient Egypt are strangely absent. The ancient
Greeks are, comparatively to the Egyptians New Kingdom, are in a trough,
while the Romans on are on a falling slope that ends lower than both.
During the Viking age, temperatures were at an all-time low before,
before rising during the medieval warm period. There is absolutely no
correlation of anything with anything else there at all. And that's not
to mention that none of these civilisations were actually global
civilisations, so, even if there was some link between average
temperatures and the rise of great civilisations, we shouldn't
necessarily expect any correlations with global temperatures, merely
with those local to a given civilisation!
And the rest is just more unsubstantiated denialist assertions stated as
thought they are fact.
You're really scraping the bottom of the cesspit now, Bob LieToThem.
I ask again:
Who is paying you to post this festering shite?
How are you going to repay us for our collective time that you waste by
doing so?
> Here is a very much shorter cycle which is going to us...
>
> Scary stuff real climate change..
>
> Every 172 years predictable.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZw4DdocxN0
>
> Global warming my A**e.
I suspect that's where the video came from, because certainly it's
shite. For example:
1:20 "Sun is getting cooler" Wrong, it got hotter during the early
1900s but has been pretty well constant since, so not only can it not
explain the current warming, nor can it be used to predict cooling.
https://skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
3:55 A truly farcical attempt to link posited climate cycles with the
rise and fall of major civilisations, but anyone looking at the screen
can see at a glance that really there's no fit at all. So, for example,
the Ancient Egyptians New Kingdom straddle a peak in the graph, while
the other kingdoms of Ancient Egypt are strangely absent. The ancient
Greeks are, comparatively to the Egyptians New Kingdom, are in a trough,
while the Romans on are on a falling slope that ends lower than both.
During the Viking age, temperatures were at an all-time low before,
before rising during the medieval warm period. There is absolutely no
correlation of anything with anything else there at all. And that's not
to mention that none of these civilisations were actually global
civilisations, so, even if there was some link between average
temperatures and the rise of great civilisations, we shouldn't
necessarily expect any correlations with global temperatures, merely
with those local to a given civilisation!
And the rest is just more unsubstantiated denialist assertions stated as
thought they are fact.
You're really scraping the bottom of the cesspit now, Bob LieToThem.
I ask again:
Who is paying you to post this festering shite?
How are you going to repay us for our collective time that you waste by
doing so?
John
Nov 23, 2019, 7:27:44 AM11/23/19
to
Alex .
Nov 23, 2019, 11:32:32 AM11/23/19
to
"Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:58177f...@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>
> Just like a religion - no evidence what so ever but we have original
> sin - your carbon footprint and repentance. We now have a high priest
> little girl who is being used and abused.
Abused? She and her parents are raking in the cash. They must know it's all garbage but, like the rest of the elites, are quite happy to terrorise the masses with relentless psychological manipulation and big lies.
Here's the latest Greta farce:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/22/greta-thunberg-time-traveller-1891-photo
My money's on 'Photoshop and a friend at the Library'.
Java Jive
Nov 23, 2019, 12:37:25 PM11/23/19
to
On 23/11/2019 15:56, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <qrb8js$urk$1...@dont-email.me>,
I wonder what 'trap' that would be?
> Interesting. I don't see JJ directly as his posts get directed to my
> bin.
Yet, you keep posting shit, to which no-one else except replies, which I
do merely to refute it. So that means either you are lying now, which
is quite likely, because I've caught you out lying several times
recently, and in fact you are reading my replies, and that's why you
keep posting despite no-one else seeming to be taking any notice of you,
or else you are so hopelessly sad that you keep posting shit that you
suspect no-one else is reading, just so that you can reinforce your own
misinformation by reading it yourself. I'm not particularly interested
whichever is true, but as long as you keep posting shit, I will refute it.
> Attacks me for stealing images from other people's sites. Well they
> came in the most part from twitter where I assume the authors want
> the images in public domain as much as possible, isn't that the idea.
Then why not link to them in situ in Twitter? It's because you are
trying, unsuccessfully, to disguise their denialist origins, because you
think, wrongly, that in a technical/scientific newsgroup such as this
they are more likely to carry weight. The trouble with that mistaken
belief is that they are being posted by *YOU*, and therefore have little
or no credence at all, exactly because of who is posting them, because
you've been caught out lying about this topic so many times.
> Instead of attacking me, convince me there is any global warming
> above what has happened before and then prove it is man and CO2 doing
> it.
I'm not interested in convincing a religious bigot, merely in setting
the record straight for others who may have the misfortune to step in
your shit.
> I'll quote something I read on twitter... Very sensible and fair.
>
> "Until you can tell me exactly what caused Minoan/Roman/Medieval
> warm periods, Dark Ages/Little Ice age cooling, early 20th century
> warming & mid 20th century cooling , I refuse to believe you
> understand natural variability enough to rule it out as the #1 cause
> of post 170s warming."
>
> Spot on.
It says everything about your lack of any meaningful intelligence that
you think a subject as complex as climate science can be discussed
rationally and objectively in as little as 288 characters.
> There is NO evidence that anything abnormal is happening. Even if
> there was, there is No evidence that CO2 is causing anything.
> Temperatures were warmer a thousand years ago than they are today.
> Why was it OK then but a threat now?
Wrong, for the umpteenth time, the fit between CO2 and temperature is
quite good, 3rd graph down:
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Also:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
> The climate argument was badly damaged which the ice core data showed
> that temperature led CO2 not as they would have it.
Again, as explained before that's because there is more than one driver
of global warming, the two most important being insolation and CO2. If
you increase either, then the earth warms, if you decrease either, then
it cools. During recent ice ages, it has been insolation that has been
the triggering driver, but now it's becoming CO2. Also, it's a positive
feedback mechanism, if you increase temperature, you get more
atmospheric CO2, if you increase atmospheric CO2, then you increase
temperature.
> Then the
> greenhouse gas theory says that the warming should be more noticeable
> in the upper atmosphere where it is supposedly being trapped, but no,
> not happening. So no proof at all that CO2 has ever caused
> temperature change. Especially when there was an ice age for millions
> of years with CO2 ten times higher than now.
Nonsense (my emphasis):
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html
"CO2 occurs naturally throughout Earth's atmosphere and is the primary
radiative *cooling* agent in the energy balance of the mesosphere
(~50-90 km altitude) and thermosphere (>90 km). The same properties of
CO2 that cause it to *trap* heat in the troposphere (<15 km) make it an
efficient *cooler* at higher altitudes.
> Why did the planet cool from 1940 to 1975 (35 years) just as CO2 shot
> up after WW2?
Oceanic decadal oscillations.
> Just like a religion - no evidence what so ever but we have original
> sin - your carbon footprint and repentance. We now have a high priest
> little girl who is being used and abused.
The worst quasi-religious in this ng is yourself.
> The science is settled but to be sure any scientist that says the
> polar bears are doing well at the moment must be sacked and was.
>
> We've had certain scientists' emails talking about 'tweaking' data to
> make it warmer now and colder in the past and even the medieval warm
> period being removed from history because it was a problem. There are
> plenty of before and after graphs on the net showing clear official
> tampering.
Then link to them, so that, most probably, we can show you how and why
they are false:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000b8p2
> A court case that found against Mann's hockey stick graph pretty much
> due to lack of supporting evidence.
Wrong, apparently it was thrown out due to a technicality, delay in
bringing to court:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568
> What do you expect to happen if you pay some scientists to
> investigate man's influence on climate? Yes, that narrow.
>
> Why have BBC and MSM shut down any scientist who is anti AGW? If the
> science is settled and the argument is that strong, why do you need
> to silence people? Doing this proves the argument is very weak.
It merely means that the rest of us are sick to death of listening to
jerks like you, Christopher Wankton, and Nigel Flawson, none of whom
know anything about the subject, trying to pass yourselves off as
experts and spreading fake news.
> What does it take to smell the rat?
Not very much when it's you.
> Who benefits from the AGW scam? I think this is an unholy and
> possibly unknowing alliance between; Lefties who talk about "climate
> criminals" and want to kill capitalism, greedy groups who are into
> carbon trading and doing nicely, people making a fortune making
> windmills and solar energy kit, and of course the Greens oh dear.
The real question is: Who benefits from promoting denialism? Of
course, it's big oil.
> Now though, so many people have a finger in the pie this nonsense is
> unstopable so we must silence the nay sayers because we have no
> decent argument to support this false religion.
>
> You are a bad person if you are a non believer.
>
> Here ends today's reading...
Blah! Blah! All the above are just more wishful denialist assertions
stated as though they are fact. You have never been able to supply a
shred of evidence that has stood up to even the briefest rational
investigation whatsoever.
I ask again:
Who is paying you to post this shit here?
How do you propose to repay the rest of the group for wasting their
time in doing so, again, and again?
>
> In article <qrb8js$urk$1...@dont-email.me>,
I wonder what 'trap' that would be?
> Interesting. I don't see JJ directly as his posts get directed to my
> bin.
Yet, you keep posting shit, to which no-one else except replies, which I
do merely to refute it. So that means either you are lying now, which
is quite likely, because I've caught you out lying several times
recently, and in fact you are reading my replies, and that's why you
keep posting despite no-one else seeming to be taking any notice of you,
or else you are so hopelessly sad that you keep posting shit that you
suspect no-one else is reading, just so that you can reinforce your own
misinformation by reading it yourself. I'm not particularly interested
whichever is true, but as long as you keep posting shit, I will refute it.
> Attacks me for stealing images from other people's sites. Well they
> came in the most part from twitter where I assume the authors want
> the images in public domain as much as possible, isn't that the idea.
Then why not link to them in situ in Twitter? It's because you are
trying, unsuccessfully, to disguise their denialist origins, because you
think, wrongly, that in a technical/scientific newsgroup such as this
they are more likely to carry weight. The trouble with that mistaken
belief is that they are being posted by *YOU*, and therefore have little
or no credence at all, exactly because of who is posting them, because
you've been caught out lying about this topic so many times.
> Instead of attacking me, convince me there is any global warming
> above what has happened before and then prove it is man and CO2 doing
> it.
I'm not interested in convincing a religious bigot, merely in setting
the record straight for others who may have the misfortune to step in
your shit.
> I'll quote something I read on twitter... Very sensible and fair.
>
> "Until you can tell me exactly what caused Minoan/Roman/Medieval
> warm periods, Dark Ages/Little Ice age cooling, early 20th century
> warming & mid 20th century cooling , I refuse to believe you
> understand natural variability enough to rule it out as the #1 cause
> of post 170s warming."
>
> Spot on.
It says everything about your lack of any meaningful intelligence that
you think a subject as complex as climate science can be discussed
rationally and objectively in as little as 288 characters.
> There is NO evidence that anything abnormal is happening. Even if
> there was, there is No evidence that CO2 is causing anything.
> Temperatures were warmer a thousand years ago than they are today.
> Why was it OK then but a threat now?
Wrong, for the umpteenth time, the fit between CO2 and temperature is
quite good, 3rd graph down:
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Also:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
> The climate argument was badly damaged which the ice core data showed
> that temperature led CO2 not as they would have it.
Again, as explained before that's because there is more than one driver
of global warming, the two most important being insolation and CO2. If
you increase either, then the earth warms, if you decrease either, then
it cools. During recent ice ages, it has been insolation that has been
the triggering driver, but now it's becoming CO2. Also, it's a positive
feedback mechanism, if you increase temperature, you get more
atmospheric CO2, if you increase atmospheric CO2, then you increase
temperature.
> Then the
> greenhouse gas theory says that the warming should be more noticeable
> in the upper atmosphere where it is supposedly being trapped, but no,
> not happening. So no proof at all that CO2 has ever caused
> temperature change. Especially when there was an ice age for millions
> of years with CO2 ten times higher than now.
Nonsense (my emphasis):
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html
"CO2 occurs naturally throughout Earth's atmosphere and is the primary
radiative *cooling* agent in the energy balance of the mesosphere
(~50-90 km altitude) and thermosphere (>90 km). The same properties of
CO2 that cause it to *trap* heat in the troposphere (<15 km) make it an
efficient *cooler* at higher altitudes.
> Why did the planet cool from 1940 to 1975 (35 years) just as CO2 shot
> up after WW2?
Oceanic decadal oscillations.
> Just like a religion - no evidence what so ever but we have original
> sin - your carbon footprint and repentance. We now have a high priest
> little girl who is being used and abused.
> The science is settled but to be sure any scientist that says the
> polar bears are doing well at the moment must be sacked and was.
>
> We've had certain scientists' emails talking about 'tweaking' data to
> make it warmer now and colder in the past and even the medieval warm
> period being removed from history because it was a problem. There are
> plenty of before and after graphs on the net showing clear official
> tampering.
Then link to them, so that, most probably, we can show you how and why
they are false:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000b8p2
> A court case that found against Mann's hockey stick graph pretty much
> due to lack of supporting evidence.
Wrong, apparently it was thrown out due to a technicality, delay in
bringing to court:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568
> What do you expect to happen if you pay some scientists to
> investigate man's influence on climate? Yes, that narrow.
>
> Why have BBC and MSM shut down any scientist who is anti AGW? If the
> science is settled and the argument is that strong, why do you need
> to silence people? Doing this proves the argument is very weak.
It merely means that the rest of us are sick to death of listening to
jerks like you, Christopher Wankton, and Nigel Flawson, none of whom
know anything about the subject, trying to pass yourselves off as
experts and spreading fake news.
> What does it take to smell the rat?
Not very much when it's you.
> Who benefits from the AGW scam? I think this is an unholy and
> possibly unknowing alliance between; Lefties who talk about "climate
> criminals" and want to kill capitalism, greedy groups who are into
> carbon trading and doing nicely, people making a fortune making
> windmills and solar energy kit, and of course the Greens oh dear.
The real question is: Who benefits from promoting denialism? Of
course, it's big oil.
> Now though, so many people have a finger in the pie this nonsense is
> unstopable so we must silence the nay sayers because we have no
> decent argument to support this false religion.
>
> You are a bad person if you are a non believer.
>
> Here ends today's reading...
Blah! Blah! All the above are just more wishful denialist assertions
stated as though they are fact. You have never been able to supply a
shred of evidence that has stood up to even the briefest rational
investigation whatsoever.
I ask again:
Who is paying you to post this shit here?
How do you propose to repay the rest of the group for wasting their
time in doing so, again, and again?
Java Jive
Nov 23, 2019, 1:06:37 PM11/23/19
to
On 23/11/2019 17:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> A court case that found against Mann's hockey stick graph pretty much
>> due to lack of supporting evidence.
>
> Wrong, apparently it was thrown out due to a technicality, delay in
> bringing to court:
> https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568
Further information:
>>
>> A court case that found against Mann's hockey stick graph pretty much
>> due to lack of supporting evidence.
>
> Wrong, apparently it was thrown out due to a technicality, delay in
> bringing to court:
> https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568
https://www.quora.com/Why-would-Michael-Mann-who-invented-the-hockey-stick-model-refuse-to-release-his-cherry-picked-research-data-in-a-court-of-law
An extract from the court paper:
"[15] Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding
that, on balance, Justice requires the action be dismissed, The parties
are both in their eighties Dr Ball is in poor health. He has had this
action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years
and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds
to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory
statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The
memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the
matter goes to trial. "
Java Jive
Nov 23, 2019, 2:37:12 PM11/23/19
to
On 23/11/2019 16:31, Bob Latham wrote:
> An interesting read.
>
> https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/a-simple-explanation-of-the-new-climate-science/
>
> but the science is settled yeah right. >
> Enjoy.
>
> Not CO2. CO2 is plant food.
Initial reading suggests that he doesn't understand the geological
carbon cycle that is taught at undergraduate level in universities
across the world, and his calculations are missing the flow from land to
sea.
Further following the link that he gives to the IPCC report that he
claims to be wrong ...
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
... shows that flow as being clearly marked in Fig 6.1 as being 0.9PcC/yr.
So I ask again:
> An interesting read.
>
> https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/a-simple-explanation-of-the-new-climate-science/
>
> but the science is settled yeah right. >
> Enjoy.
>
> Not CO2. CO2 is plant food.
Initial reading suggests that he doesn't understand the geological
carbon cycle that is taught at undergraduate level in universities
across the world, and his calculations are missing the flow from land to
sea.
Further following the link that he gives to the IPCC report that he
claims to be wrong ...
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
... shows that flow as being clearly marked in Fig 6.1 as being 0.9PcC/yr.
So I ask again:
Vir Campestris
Nov 24, 2019, 3:37:34 PM11/24/19
to
On 23/11/2019 15:56, Bob Latham wrote:
> The climate argument was badly damaged which the ice core data showed
> that temperature led CO2 not as they would have it. Then the
> The climate argument was badly damaged which the ice core data showed
> greenhouse gas theory says that the warming should be more noticeable
> in the upper atmosphere where it is supposedly being trapped, but no,
> not happening. So no proof at all that CO2 has ever caused
> temperature change. Especially when there was an ice age for millions
> of years with CO2 ten times higher than now.
I've missed this. Can you point me at that data please?
> in the upper atmosphere where it is supposedly being trapped, but no,
> not happening. So no proof at all that CO2 has ever caused
> temperature change. Especially when there was an ice age for millions
> of years with CO2 ten times higher than now.
The stuff I saw showed no clear lead for either.
Andy
Java Jive
Nov 24, 2019, 5:15:59 PM11/24/19
to
On 24/11/2019 20:37, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
> On 23/11/2019 15:56, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> The climate argument was badly damaged which the ice core data showed
>> that temperature led CO2 not as they would have it.
The climate argument was NOT badly damaged, because it's exactly what
>
> On 23/11/2019 15:56, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> The climate argument was badly damaged which the ice core data showed
>> that temperature led CO2 not as they would have it.
current climate modelling would expect - given a positive feedback
loop between temperature and CO2, increasing one will increase the
other, which will then increase the one, then the other, etc, etc until
a new point of equilibrium is reached. Since before the current era of
human-released CO2 the principal driver of climate change was the amount
of insolation, solar radiation striking the earth, which changed
regularly as a consequence of changes in the earth's orbit, you'd
naturally expect that temperature would tend to lead CO2 in that scenario.
like nearly all climate science data nowadays, the Vostok data is freely
available from the original scientific source, you can download it
yourself and play around with it, as I've done myself. This is the
temperature series, you'd have to get the CO2 from somewhere else:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_isotope.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/readme_petit1999.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
>> Then the
>> greenhouse gas theory says that the warming should be more noticeable
>> in the upper atmosphere where it is supposedly being trapped, but no,
>> not happening.
all, see the link I gave before:
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html
>> So no proof at all that CO2 has ever caused
>> temperature change. Especially when there was an ice age for millions
>> of years with CO2 ten times higher than now.
sure you don't need me to do so all over again.
> I've missed this. Can you point me at that data please?
least not any that stand up to scientific investigation!
> The stuff I saw showed no clear lead for either.
the simple-minded, to refute climate science, but understate or deny the
vast majority of facts that support it - this is unsurprising, because
to them it's a religion, and facts don't really matter to religious bigots.
The Vostok data does suggest a *slight* lead of temperature over CO2,
but that's exactly what one would expect from our understanding of how
the climate works!
Vir Campestris
Nov 25, 2019, 3:55:01 PM11/25/19
to
On 25/11/2019 20:44, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article<qrepmd$skr$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Quick look found this interesting one...
> http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/eemian-Vostok-Co2.png
>
> As can be seen, temp falls off long before CO2.
That's not the data.
Andy
> In article<qrepmd$skr$2...@dont-email.me>,
> http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/eemian-Vostok-Co2.png
>
> As can be seen, temp falls off long before CO2.
That's not the data.
Andy
Java Jive
Nov 25, 2019, 5:13:55 PM11/25/19
to
On 25/11/2019 20:44, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <qrepmd$skr$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
> In article <qrepmd$skr$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I've missed this. Can you point me at that data please?
>
>> The stuff I saw showed no clear lead for either.
>
>
>> The stuff I saw showed no clear lead for either.
>
> Quick look found this interesting one...
> http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/eemian-Vostok-Co2.png
>
> As can be seen, temp falls off long before CO2.
Which is a graph, again taken out of scientific context, from this page:
> http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/eemian-Vostok-Co2.png
>
> As can be seen, temp falls off long before CO2.
http://www.malefnin.com/ib/topic/81990-grodurhusakenningin-og-annad-bull/?page=556
So, let's look at its scientific context:
" Time Lags and Feedbacks (1990s)
During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that at the
end of the last glacial period, the initial rise of temperature in
Antarctica had preceded CO2 changes by several centuries. Some
scientists doubted that dates could be measured so precisely, but as as
better cores were extracted the data increasingly pointed to a time
lag.(53a*) This surprised and confused many people. If changes in CO2
began after changes in temperature, didn’t that contradict the
greenhouse theory of global warming? But in fact the lag was not good news.
lIt seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not
initiated the glacial cycles. In fact most scientists had long since
abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown
that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called
"Milankovitch cycles") matched the timing of ice ages with startling
precision. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and
season varied predictably over millenia. As some had pointed out ever
since the 19th century, in times when sunlight fell more strongly on
northern latitudes in the spring, snow and sea ice would not linger so
long; the dark earth and seawater would absorb more sunlight, and get
warmer. However, calculations showed that this subtle effect should
cause no more than a small regional warming. How could almost
imperceptible changes in the angle of sunlight cause entire continental
ice sheets to build up and melt away?
The new ice cores suggested that a powerful feedback amplified the
changes in sunlight. The crucial fact was that a slight warming would
cause the level of greenhouse gases to rise slightly. For one thing,
warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as the vast
Arctic tundras warmed up, the bogs would emit more CO2(and another
greenhouse gas, methane, also measured in the ice with a lag behind
temperature). The greenhouse effect of these gases would raise the
temperature a little more, which would cause more emission of gases,
which would... and so forth, hauling the planet step by step into a warm
period. Many thousands of years later, the process would reverse when
the sunlight falling in key latitudes weakened. Bogs and oceans would
absorb greenhouse gases, ice would build up, and the planet would slide
back into an ice age. This finally explained how tiny shifts in the
Earth's orbit could set the timing of the enormous swings of glacial cycles.
Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity
might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop. The ancient ice
ages were the reverse of our current situation, where humanity was
initiating the change by adding greenhouse gases. As the gas level rose,
temperature would rise with a time lag — although only a few decades,
not centuries, for the rates of change were now enormously faster than
the orbital shifts that brought ice ages.
There were many ways temperature or other climate features could
influence the carbon dioxide level one way or another. Perhaps
variations of temperature and of weather patterns caused land vegetation
to release extra CO2, or take it up... perhaps the oceans were involved
through massive changes in their circulation or ice cover... or through
changes in their CO2-absorbing plankton, which would bloom or decline
insofar as they were fertilized by minerals, which reached them from
dusty winds, rivers, and ocean upwelling, all of which could change with
the climate... or perhaps there were still more complicated and obscure
effects. Into the 21st century, scientists kept finding new ways that
warming would push more of the gas into the atmosphere. As one of them
remarked, "it is difficult to explain the demise of the ice sheets
without the added heating from CO2 ... this gas has killed ice sheets in
the past and may do so again."(54)
A key point stood out. The cycling of carbon through living systems was
not something to trifle with. In the network of feedbacks that made up
the climate system, CO2 was a main driving force. This did not prove by
itself that the greenhouse effect was responsible for the warming seen
in the 20th century. And it did not say how much warming the rise of CO2
might bring in the future. What was now beyond doubt was that the
greenhouse effect had to be taken very seriously indeed.(55)"
QED.
Java Jive
Nov 26, 2019, 10:38:18 AM11/26/19
to
On 26/11/2019 12:17, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <qrepmd$skr$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> In article <qrepmd$skr$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I've missed this. Can you point me at that data please?
>
>> The stuff I saw showed no clear lead for either.
>
> So if the climate alarmists are right, why did CO2 rise and fall so
>
>> The stuff I saw showed no clear lead for either.
>
> much and for so long?
>
> Here's an interesting read for you...
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
My reading of just the abstract and the first few sections immediately
rang alarm bells in my mind, as it would or should have done in anyone's
who understands how the greenhouse effect works, because of the very
limited sources of CO2 data used. First recall that both climate
scientists and even most denialists are agreed that increasing the
temperature of the sea releases CO2 from its surface, this is one part
of the positive feedback loop. Having though about that, read this
excerpt from the paper:
"Only sites where samples are predominantly of well-mixed marine
boundary layer (MBL) air representative of a large volume of the
atmosphere are considered for the global CO2 data series (IPCC AR4,
2007). These key sites are typically at remote marine sea level
locations with prevailing onshore winds, to minimize the effects of
inland vegetation and industries. Measurements from sites at higher
altitude and from sites close to anthropogenic and natural sources and
sinks are excluded from the global CO2 estimate."
In other words, they've cherry-picked their CO2 monitoring sites to
maximise the effect of CO2 release from the oceans! In fact, the
absorption of radiation by CO2 is most significant in its effects at mid
to higher levels in the atmosphere, at lower levels thermal conduction
and transport, and absorption by water vapour, are more significant ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
"The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation
(with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from
the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative
energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere,
largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an
important greenhouse gas
...
Within the region where radiative effects are important, the description
given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic. Earth's
surface, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength,
infrared heat in the range of 4–100 μm.[16] At these wavelengths,
greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar
radiation are more absorbent.[16] Each layer of atmosphere with
greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from
lower layers. It reradiates in all directions, both upwards and
downwards; in equilibrium (by definition) the same amount as it has
absorbed. This results in more warmth below. Increasing the
concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and
reradiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the
surface below.[14]
Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms
(such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms are
able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the
dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents — N2,
O2, and Ar — are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared
radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and
emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other,
non-IR-active, gases."
Given this, how can you possibly measure the effect of CO2 on
temperature by measuring its concentration only at the planet's surface?
Consequently, I performed some due diligence, which, if he was at all
interested at arriving at the truth, Gob LieToThem would have performed
for himself ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Humlum
"Humlum is a member of the Norwegian organization Climate Realists,
which questions aspects of the scientific assessment of climate change
that have been expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). He is active in Norwegian and Danish debate about science
on the issue, arguing that current climate change is mainly a natural
phenomenon.[1] Together with Jan-Erik Solheim and Kjel Stordahl, he
published the article "Identifying natural contributions to late
Holocene climate change" in Global and Planetary Change in 2011. The
article argues that changes in the sun's and moon's influence on the
earth may explain most of the historical and current climate change. The
theory in the article was opposed by several scientists.[5] He predicted
in 2013 that the climate would most likely become colder in the coming
10–15 years.[6]"
Note that this hasn't happened.
"In April 2018 he joined the Academic Advisory Council of the Global
Warming Policy Foundation, a London think tank that questions aspects of
the greenhouse warming theory.[7]"
So, affiliated to a well-known denialist organisation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
"Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and
global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim
Mark Richardson
Highlights
• Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not
supported by the data
• Their use of differentiated time series removes long term
contributions.
• This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
• Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is
indistinguishable from zero.
• The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the
entire rise.
Abstract
Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from
January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use
of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the
presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data
sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass.
Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire
observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from
zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by
Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does
not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1."
Vir Campestris
Nov 26, 2019, 4:56:24 PM11/26/19
to
On 25/11/2019 22:13, Java Jive wrote:
> Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity
> might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.
Now that of course is the scary bit.
> Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity
> might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.
That paper ties up with what our favourite denier has been saying - that
temperature rises cause CO2 to go up.
But...
We're doing something unique in our records - we're stuffing a whole lot
of fossil carbon back into the atmosphere.
It seems quite possible to me that this may cause a bit of warming. We
cant look back to the last time this happened on this scale - because it
hasn't.
Certainly the way in which cities are always warmer than their
surroundings, and the way hard surfaces are usually hotter than natural
ones, suggest that even _without_ any CO2 effect we're going to be
warming the planet up.
Then we have this feedback effect that seems to bring us out of ice
ages. Once the planet warms up a bit, more CO2 is released over the next
few hundred years, and all the glaciers melt.
So if our CO2 - or just our released energy - warms us up, the tundra
dries out releasing CO2. The oceanic clathrates break down. And CO2
carries on going up, so we end up in a new (meta) stable state at a
higher temperature. Carboniferous climate anyone?
The problem is of course what we do about it.
The last time Britain was CO2 neutral was probably about when Abraham
Derby built Iron Bridge. 1779, so let's say 1750. When the population
was about 11 million, most of whom were peasant farmers.
Current population is 67 million. There just isn't enough land for us to
feed ourselves without modern technology - which includes using fossil
fuels.
Andy
Jim Lesurf
Nov 27, 2019, 6:01:49 AM11/27/19
to
In article <qrk727$uod$3...@dont-email.me>, Vir Campestris
> So if our CO2 - or just our released energy - warms us up, the tundra
> dries out releasing CO2. The oceanic clathrates break down. And CO2
> carries on going up, so we end up in a new (meta) stable state at a
> higher temperature. Carboniferous climate anyone?
Also consider methane from clathrates and deep ocean as possible factors.
Hard to assess, but may become a problem.
> Current population is 67 million. There just isn't enough land for us to
> feed ourselves without modern technology - which includes using fossil
> fuels.
Well, it depends to some extent what kind of food we eat and how it is
produced. And in history we brought in food in exchange for exports... but
of course that may simply shuffle the effects 'out of sight' abroad.
However if you listen to something like the recent '50 things' R4 item on
PV and see how the bids made for 'alternatives' have been developing. The
add in changes in diet, farming, etc, this may well already be adapting.
FWIW personally, I had to give up eating (red) meat and dairy some time ago
for purely medical reasons as I now have a chronic problem. But other
people are also doing so for other reasons. And in the context of another
thread topic (flooding) moving a lot of upland areas from sheep to forest,
etc, may well be sensible for more reasons than one in the near future.
Jim
<vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/11/2019 22:13, Java Jive wrote:
> > Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by
> > humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.
[snip]
> On 25/11/2019 22:13, Java Jive wrote:
> > Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by
> > humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.
> So if our CO2 - or just our released energy - warms us up, the tundra
> dries out releasing CO2. The oceanic clathrates break down. And CO2
> carries on going up, so we end up in a new (meta) stable state at a
> higher temperature. Carboniferous climate anyone?
Hard to assess, but may become a problem.
> Current population is 67 million. There just isn't enough land for us to
> feed ourselves without modern technology - which includes using fossil
> fuels.
produced. And in history we brought in food in exchange for exports... but
of course that may simply shuffle the effects 'out of sight' abroad.
However if you listen to something like the recent '50 things' R4 item on
PV and see how the bids made for 'alternatives' have been developing. The
add in changes in diet, farming, etc, this may well already be adapting.
FWIW personally, I had to give up eating (red) meat and dairy some time ago
for purely medical reasons as I now have a chronic problem. But other
people are also doing so for other reasons. And in the context of another
thread topic (flooding) moving a lot of upland areas from sheep to forest,
etc, may well be sensible for more reasons than one in the near future.
Jim
Norman Wells
Nov 27, 2019, 6:42:39 AM11/27/19
to
On 26/11/2019 21:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
> Current population is 67 million. There just isn't enough land for us to
> feed ourselves without modern technology - which includes using fossil
> fuels.
We can't feed ourselves anyway. We have to import 40% of what we eat
> Current population is 67 million. There just isn't enough land for us to
> feed ourselves without modern technology - which includes using fossil
> fuels.
already.
The problem governments will not address is world over-population, to
which we are contributing our full share. All animal species breed like
there's no tomorrow until their resources run out. Then they suffer
famine, disease, and catastrophic population decline. We're no
different, even though we think we are, and the same will happen to us.
We'll apply a few stinging measures in the meantime to eke out a few
more years, like banning fossil fuels, not eating meat, devouring
insects or going full vegetarian instead, stopping travel etc, and will
generally revert to the stone age, but it will all be sticking plasters
to no avail.
The only thing we can do to avert the apocalypse is to stop breeding
now, ensure we revert to a population the world can actually support
sustainably, and keep it there.
But no-one's advocating that because it's just too difficult and
unpopular. So, it won't be done, and we'll continue trundling our merry
way towards the cliff edge that no-one will open their eyes to see.
Sorry, but it's all inevitable.
Java Jive
Nov 27, 2019, 8:48:06 AM11/27/19
to
On 27/11/2019 11:42, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 26/11/2019 21:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> Current population is 67 million. There just isn't enough land for us
>> to feed ourselves without modern technology - which includes using
>> fossil fuels.
>
> We can't feed ourselves anyway. We have to import 40% of what we eat
> already.
Wwweeelll, it rather depends on what *type* of food you mean, whether
> On 26/11/2019 21:56, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> Current population is 67 million. There just isn't enough land for us
>> to feed ourselves without modern technology - which includes using
>> fossil fuels.
>
> We can't feed ourselves anyway. We have to import 40% of what we eat
> already.
it's indigenous 'staple diet' foods, such as wheat for making bread, or
'luxury' foods such as coffee and tea, the latter of which we have got
so used to that we no longer consider them to be luxuries, but they are
still in the sense that we could survive without them, however reluctant
we may be to do so.
For staple food that can be grown indigenously, we actually grow more
than 70% of it, but when you add in 'luxury' goods as well, then your
figures are about right:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-global-and-uk-supply
> The problem governments will not address is world over-population, to
> which we are contributing our full share. All animal species breed like
> there's no tomorrow until their resources run out. Then they suffer
> famine, disease, and catastrophic population decline. We're no
> different, even though we think we are, and the same will happen to us.
>
> We'll apply a few stinging measures in the meantime to eke out a few
> more years, like banning fossil fuels, not eating meat, devouring
> insects or going full vegetarian instead, stopping travel etc, and will
> generally revert to the stone age, but it will all be sticking plasters
> to no avail.
>
> The only thing we can do to avert the apocalypse is to stop breeding
> now, ensure we revert to a population the world can actually support
> sustainably, and keep it there.
>
> But no-one's advocating that because it's just too difficult and
> unpopular. So, it won't be done, and we'll continue trundling our merry
> way towards the cliff edge that no-one will open their eyes to see.
>
> Sorry, but it's all inevitable.
The Other John
Nov 27, 2019, 12:52:09 PM11/27/19
to
In article <qrluqk$lb8$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, ja...@evij.com.invalid says...
https://tregothnan.co.uk/
--
TOJ.
> Wwweeelll, it rather depends on what *type* of food you mean, whether
> it's indigenous 'staple diet' foods, such as wheat for making bread, or
> 'luxury' foods such as coffee and tea, the latter of which we have got
> so used to that we no longer consider them to be luxuries, but they are
> still in the sense that we could survive without them, however reluctant
> we may be to do so.
>
There's Cornish tea available (at a price!):
> it's indigenous 'staple diet' foods, such as wheat for making bread, or
> 'luxury' foods such as coffee and tea, the latter of which we have got
> so used to that we no longer consider them to be luxuries, but they are
> still in the sense that we could survive without them, however reluctant
> we may be to do so.
>
https://tregothnan.co.uk/
--
TOJ.
Java Jive
Nov 27, 2019, 1:34:07 PM11/27/19
to
On 27/11/2019 17:52, The Other John wrote:
>
> There's Cornish tea available (at a price!):
>
> https://tregothnan.co.uk/
LOL! I wonder what their sales figures are - they ought to be
>
> There's Cornish tea available (at a price!):
>
> https://tregothnan.co.uk/
vanishingly small, but there are fools everywhere, so perhaps not!
Roderick Stewart
Nov 28, 2019, 4:47:45 AM11/28/19
to
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:42:37 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>The problem governments will not address is world over-population, to
>which we are contributing our full share. All animal species breed like
>there's no tomorrow until their resources run out. Then they suffer
>famine, disease, and catastrophic population decline. We're no
>different, even though we think we are, and the same will happen to us.
>
>We'll apply a few stinging measures in the meantime to eke out a few
>more years, like banning fossil fuels, not eating meat, devouring
>insects or going full vegetarian instead, stopping travel etc, and will
>generally revert to the stone age, but it will all be sticking plasters
>to no avail.
>
>The only thing we can do to avert the apocalypse is to stop breeding
>now, ensure we revert to a population the world can actually support
>sustainably, and keep it there.
>
>But no-one's advocating that because it's just too difficult and
>unpopular. So, it won't be done, and we'll continue trundling our merry
>way towards the cliff edge that no-one will open their eyes to see.
All sadly absolutely correct, except that just stopping breeding
wouldn't do any good, because even if, theoretically, we could get
everyone to do this, after X years there would be nobody alive younger
than X. We'd have to make sure not to let X exceed our maximum
fertility age or we'd wipe ourselves out entirely. Even then, for a
while we'd have a strange population consisting of nothing but
children and geriatrics.
It would have to managed somehow as a percentage reduction in the
birth rate, not too severe or a topheavy age balance would make some
of our infrastructures unworkable. It would probably take a couple of
centuries or so before we would see any worthwhile improvement, so it
would require a type of commitment from every nation on the planet
that I doubt many are capable of, even without religion sticking its
oar in. We know from some ancient structures that must have taken many
lifetimes to complete (Stonehenge for instance) that people were once
capable of adopting a mindset in which they could devote their lives
to things that they as individuals would not live long enough to see,
so perhaps the key is to rediscover how they managed that.
Whatever we do, we can't continue to increase our use of fixed
resources. If we don't somehow limit the rate of increase of our
population, initially to a lower value, eventually to zero when the
population itself has reached some acceptable value, Mother Nature
will, and I don't think we'll like her methods at all.
Rod.
wrote:
>The problem governments will not address is world over-population, to
>which we are contributing our full share. All animal species breed like
>there's no tomorrow until their resources run out. Then they suffer
>famine, disease, and catastrophic population decline. We're no
>different, even though we think we are, and the same will happen to us.
>
>We'll apply a few stinging measures in the meantime to eke out a few
>more years, like banning fossil fuels, not eating meat, devouring
>insects or going full vegetarian instead, stopping travel etc, and will
>generally revert to the stone age, but it will all be sticking plasters
>to no avail.
>
>The only thing we can do to avert the apocalypse is to stop breeding
>now, ensure we revert to a population the world can actually support
>sustainably, and keep it there.
>
>But no-one's advocating that because it's just too difficult and
>unpopular. So, it won't be done, and we'll continue trundling our merry
>way towards the cliff edge that no-one will open their eyes to see.
wouldn't do any good, because even if, theoretically, we could get
everyone to do this, after X years there would be nobody alive younger
than X. We'd have to make sure not to let X exceed our maximum
fertility age or we'd wipe ourselves out entirely. Even then, for a
while we'd have a strange population consisting of nothing but
children and geriatrics.
It would have to managed somehow as a percentage reduction in the
birth rate, not too severe or a topheavy age balance would make some
of our infrastructures unworkable. It would probably take a couple of
centuries or so before we would see any worthwhile improvement, so it
would require a type of commitment from every nation on the planet
that I doubt many are capable of, even without religion sticking its
oar in. We know from some ancient structures that must have taken many
lifetimes to complete (Stonehenge for instance) that people were once
capable of adopting a mindset in which they could devote their lives
to things that they as individuals would not live long enough to see,
so perhaps the key is to rediscover how they managed that.
Whatever we do, we can't continue to increase our use of fixed
resources. If we don't somehow limit the rate of increase of our
population, initially to a lower value, eventually to zero when the
population itself has reached some acceptable value, Mother Nature
will, and I don't think we'll like her methods at all.
Rod.
Bill Wright
Nov 28, 2019, 2:09:36 PM11/28/19
to
On 28/11/2019 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> All sadly absolutely correct, except that just stopping breeding
> wouldn't do any good, because even if, theoretically, we could get
> everyone to do this, after X years there would be nobody alive younger
> than X. We'd have to make sure not to let X exceed our maximum
> fertility age or we'd wipe ourselves out entirely. Even then, for a
> while we'd have a strange population consisting of nothing but
> children and geriatrics.
You can't take away shagging from the urban poor. It's one of their main
>
> All sadly absolutely correct, except that just stopping breeding
> wouldn't do any good, because even if, theoretically, we could get
> everyone to do this, after X years there would be nobody alive younger
> than X. We'd have to make sure not to let X exceed our maximum
> fertility age or we'd wipe ourselves out entirely. Even then, for a
> while we'd have a strange population consisting of nothing but
> children and geriatrics.
things.
Bill
Java Jive
Nov 28, 2019, 2:15:06 PM11/28/19
to
On 28/11/2019 18:21, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <qrk727$uod$3...@dont-email.me>,
> driven BS are as evil/mad as holocaust deniers? I think so.
It is entirely possible that in the long term climate denialism will
cost more lives than the holocaust through making it more difficult to
reach global agreement on actions to avoid climate change.
> More evidence of graph tampering apparently...
Yes, graph tampering by denialists. It's very interesting how keen they
are to accuse others of this, because, like so many stupid people, they
accuse others of having exactly their own faults, and thereby reveal
exactly their own pattern of behaviour. See below ...
> "HadCRUT3 data set says that the global temperature has had no
> warming trend from Jan 1997 to Dec 2012. People called the period a
> hiatus, but CRU of East Anglia deleted the no warming trend using
> HadCRUT4."
>
> See graphs yourself...
>
> http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/trend
Typical denialist BS by
:-( Complaining that refinement of methods, in this case from HadCRUT3
to HadCRUT4, are attempts to 'rig' the data. The changes between the
two series are explained here ...
https://skepticalscience.com/hadcrut4_a_detailed_look.html
"The biggest difference arises from the change in the sea surface
temperatures after the second world war. As we saw previously, at the
end of the war there was a switch from using warm-biased engine room
intake (ERI) temperatures back to using cool-biased bucket measurements
- shown on the right. (The switch from buckets to ERIs at the beginning
of the war was already corrected in existing records.) This known but
previously uncorrected cool bias required an upward adjustment to the
post-war sea surface temperatures.
Land temperatures estimates over the past two decades have increased in
the new series owing to improved coverage of the fastest-warming high
Northern latitudes. This change is solely due to the inclusion of
additional data, rather than any change in methodology ..."
:-( Carefully choosing the start and end points of a short period
Oceanic cycle such as El Nino to give a completely misleading
impression. For the umpteenth time, what matters is long-term trends
over many decades into many centuries. For the umpteenth time, the
trend since the Industrial Revolution is shown here along with its close
correlation with CO2:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
> Sceptical, who me? Can't think of more than 20 reasons why.
There is only one that matters: because you are damned old fool too
arrogant too realise just what a hopelessly damned old fool you really are.
I ask again:
Who is paying you to post this shit here?
How do you propose to repay the rest of the group for wasting their
time dragging over this issue again and again ad nauseam?
> In article <qrk727$uod$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2019 22:13, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by
>>> humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.
>
>> Now that of course is the scary bit.
>
>> That paper ties up with what our favourite denier has been saying -
>> that temperature rises cause CO2 to go up.
>
> Oh dear, is that to imply people who don't believe this politically
>> On 25/11/2019 22:13, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by
>>> humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.
>
>> Now that of course is the scary bit.
>
>> That paper ties up with what our favourite denier has been saying -
>> that temperature rises cause CO2 to go up.
>
> driven BS are as evil/mad as holocaust deniers? I think so.
It is entirely possible that in the long term climate denialism will
cost more lives than the holocaust through making it more difficult to
reach global agreement on actions to avoid climate change.
> More evidence of graph tampering apparently...
Yes, graph tampering by denialists. It's very interesting how keen they
are to accuse others of this, because, like so many stupid people, they
accuse others of having exactly their own faults, and thereby reveal
exactly their own pattern of behaviour. See below ...
> "HadCRUT3 data set says that the global temperature has had no
> warming trend from Jan 1997 to Dec 2012. People called the period a
> hiatus, but CRU of East Anglia deleted the no warming trend using
> HadCRUT4."
>
> See graphs yourself...
>
> http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.1/to:2012.12/mean:12/trend
Typical denialist BS by
:-( Complaining that refinement of methods, in this case from HadCRUT3
to HadCRUT4, are attempts to 'rig' the data. The changes between the
two series are explained here ...
https://skepticalscience.com/hadcrut4_a_detailed_look.html
"The biggest difference arises from the change in the sea surface
temperatures after the second world war. As we saw previously, at the
end of the war there was a switch from using warm-biased engine room
intake (ERI) temperatures back to using cool-biased bucket measurements
- shown on the right. (The switch from buckets to ERIs at the beginning
of the war was already corrected in existing records.) This known but
previously uncorrected cool bias required an upward adjustment to the
post-war sea surface temperatures.
Land temperatures estimates over the past two decades have increased in
the new series owing to improved coverage of the fastest-warming high
Northern latitudes. This change is solely due to the inclusion of
additional data, rather than any change in methodology ..."
:-( Carefully choosing the start and end points of a short period
Oceanic cycle such as El Nino to give a completely misleading
impression. For the umpteenth time, what matters is long-term trends
over many decades into many centuries. For the umpteenth time, the
trend since the Industrial Revolution is shown here along with its close
correlation with CO2:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
> Sceptical, who me? Can't think of more than 20 reasons why.
There is only one that matters: because you are damned old fool too
arrogant too realise just what a hopelessly damned old fool you really are.
I ask again:
Who is paying you to post this shit here?
How do you propose to repay the rest of the group for wasting their
Java Jive
Nov 28, 2019, 2:17:42 PM11/28/19
to
shagging doesn't have to produce children, and it's the latter that is
the problem.
Bill Wright
Nov 28, 2019, 2:30:50 PM11/28/19
to
On 28/11/2019 19:15, Java Jive wrote:
> It is entirely possible that in the long term climate denialism will
> cost more lives than the holocaust through making it more difficult to
> reach global agreement on actions to avoid climate change.
Warmism is already costing lives in the third world. Opposition to coal
> It is entirely possible that in the long term climate denialism will
> cost more lives than the holocaust through making it more difficult to
> reach global agreement on actions to avoid climate change.
fired power stations has caused electrification of rural areas to slow
down. This means that antibiotics can't be refrigerated, people are
cooking on carcinogen-belching open fires, education is suffering
because of poor lighting, dissemination of information about better
agricultural practice is hampered by poor communications, etc. The
greenies are quite happy to keep the world's poor in the stone age.
After all they really want to take us all back to the stone age.
Bill
Bill Wright
Nov 28, 2019, 2:32:12 PM11/28/19
to
On 28/11/2019 19:17, Java Jive wrote:
>
> It's one of everbody's main things, within a certain age span, but
> shagging doesn't have to produce children, and it's the latter that is
> the problem.
It is inevitable that children are produced. Many of the poor have no
>
> It's one of everbody's main things, within a certain age span, but
> shagging doesn't have to produce children, and it's the latter that is
> the problem.
more sense than dogs.
Bill
Chris Green
Nov 28, 2019, 3:03:03 PM11/28/19
to
--
Chris Green
·
Chris Green
Nov 28, 2019, 3:03:04 PM11/28/19
to
might be true. Do you have actual evidence/statistics to show this?
--
Chris Green
·
Chris Green
Nov 28, 2019, 3:03:04 PM11/28/19
to
where the women, in particular, are educated have much lower
birthrates.
Hopefully this won't, therefore (because you can't suddenly educate
loads of people) happen too quickly so the population won't become
preponderantly old.
--
Chris Green
·
Bill Wright
Nov 28, 2019, 3:47:09 PM11/28/19
to
On 28/11/2019 20:00, Chris Green wrote:
>> You can't take away shagging from the urban poor. It's one of their main
>> things.
>>
> Yes, so the answer is, as we know already - education. Societies
> where the women, in particular, are educated have much lower
> birthrates.
Yes but there will always be the total thickoes who can't be taught. So
>> You can't take away shagging from the urban poor. It's one of their main
>> things.
>>
> Yes, so the answer is, as we know already - education. Societies
> where the women, in particular, are educated have much lower
> birthrates.
we will end up with a race of morons. Mind you it's already happening.
Bill
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages