Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Long Live HFC]

Of course you won't. It's a religion to you.

nope. i don't actually care about AGW at all. not gonna be my problem. i just get annoyed at the anti-science numpties like yourself that pontificate on subjects you have 0 knowledge or experience with. dan26 only holds his opinion on AGW because of his extreme right politics. he pretend he understands the science and pertinent issues but in reality he's just a partisan nutjob.

It's like me arguing evolution, and you arguing creationism.

funny. this is how history will remember you.

Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism, Holocaust denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/

 

[Windhover]

Yes. If not fudge, then grossly exaggerate the predicted warming. Same diff. The end result is wrong.

Then you do agree there are peer reviewed papers sourced from empirical evidence that support alarmist AGW. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU REPETITIVELY AND WRONGLY CLAIM. You just reject the conclusions of those peer reviewed papers because, according to you, Lord Monkey and some journo, they fudge or grossly exaggerate the warming. A completely different point all together.

 

[medusala]

But I am surprised you would have any truck circulating its conclusions though. I mean, you do know that its workings are derived from that simply awful thingy - IPCC 5?

It is very simple old boy. They wanted to look at sensitivity re temps to emissions. Now if they used different inputs and came to a different outcome re sensitivity they would have been accused of comparing apples and oranges.

The IPCC it would appear has massively overstated the sensitivity. Hardly a surprise to anyone who has followed this.

 

[Windhover]

It is very simple old boy. They wanted to look at sensitivity. Now if they used different inputs and came to a different outcome re sensitivity they would have been accused of comparing apples and oranges.

But surely meds the fact that Curry used IPCC 5 makes any conclusion she reached on sensitivity utterly erroneous as far as you are concerned. I mean, if you think IPCC 5 is crap (and I am given to understand you do) than anything sourced from IPCC 5 must be crapped. You don't get to cherry pick the peer reviewed papers that (partially) support your peculiar opinions derived from such a corrupted source whilst condemning out of hand other opinions based on IPCC 5. That doesn't make any sense . . . oh . . . I see . . . hi confirmation bias.

 

[medusala]

But surely meds the fact that Curry used IPCC 5 makes any conclusion she reached on sensitivity utterly erroneous as far as you are concerned.

I have explained this once. It is very, very simple. That you cant grasp this is hardly my problem.

The basic point is EVEN if you use IPCC inputs you get a low number.

 

[Dan26]

i just get annoyed at the anti-science numpties like yourself that pontificate on subjects you have 0 knowledge or experience with.

No, you get annoyed, because the scientific truth conflicts with your obvious left big government view of the world.

Get over it.

dan26 only holds his opinion on AGW because of his extreme right politics.

No I don't. You see just SAYING that about me doesn't make it right. You have to supply evidence. Now I've supplied 10 points, all of which are facts.

Do you have any reason to disbelieve any of them, and if so which ones. Tell me which points you don't agree with. You havn't been able to come up with any and this has been going back and forth for 24 hours.

So come on..... what don't you agree with out of the 10 facts I have mentioned. Which one have I got wrong?

 

[Power Raid]

I really don't know how hard it is for you to understand.

There are peer reviewed papers with empirical measurements.

BUT

There is not a single peer reviewed paper with empirical evidence THAT human emission of C02 are the main driver of warming, or THAT human emissions of C02 are dangerous.

You are just being semantic. Is it really that hard to change your opinion? If you're basing your opinion on the supposed "consensus" favouring the alarmists, you should probably look at point number 7.

I sense you might be trying to emphasise something

 

[Power Raid]

No, you get annoyed, because the scientific truth conflicts with your obvious left big government view of the world.

Get over it.



No I don't. You see just SAYING that about me doesn't make it right. You have to supply evidence. Now I've supplied 10 points, all of which are facts.

Do you have any reason to disbelieve any of them, and if so which ones. Tell me which points you don't agree with. You havn't been able to come up with any and this has been going back and forth for 24 hours.

So come on..... what don't you agree with out of the 10 facts I have mentioned. Which one have I got wrong?

Dan26, you seem to know about the issue. is it just a topic of interest or training?

 

[Dan26]

I sense you might be trying to emphasise something

What would give you that idea?

 

[Long Live HFC]

No I don't. You see just SAYING that about me doesn't make it right. You have to supply evidence.

your right-wing opinions are well known. i don't need to supply any evidence of them. they "inform" and distort how you approach a topic like AGW. that is my conclusion on the evidence i currently have.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Dan26, you seem to know about the issue. is it just a topic of interest or training?

lol.

 

[mottrain]

nope. i don't actually care about AGW at all. not gonna be my problem. i just get annoyed at the anti-science numpties like yourself that pontificate on subjects you have 0 knowledge or experience with. dan26 only holds his opinion on AGW because of his extreme right politics. he pretend he understands the science and pertinent issues but in reality he's just a partisan nutjob.



funny. this is how history will remember you.



http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/

ROFL really reckon you should stop playing the political side game but it is not surprising considering it is a common choice of alarmist climate change campaigners to sprout.

Then you do agree there are peer reviewed papers sourced from empirical evidence that support alarmist AGW. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU REPETITIVELY AND WRONGLY CLAIM. You just reject the conclusions of those peer reviewed papers because, according to you, Lord Monkey and some journo, they fudge or grossly exaggerate the warming. A completely different point all together.

Evidence says that they were wrong on their results.

your right-wing opinions are well known. i don't need to supply any evidence of them. they "inform" and distort how you approach a topic like AGW. that is my conclusion on the evidence i currently have.

Your lefty loony views distort how you observe this issue.

 

[Long Live HFC]

hahahaha. the only people that think im a lefty are idiot extremists on the right.

 

[medusala]

One never ceases to be amazed at the stupidity of the green lobby.

http://order-order.com/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-poised-to-upset-130-billion-green-drive.html

Germany will miss its 2022 climate targets for greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants as the country’s use of coal surges. Last year the coal-generated share of electricity hit the highest in 24 years.
The country also opened more new coal-fired power plants in 2013 than any other time in the past 20 years as it moves to stop the lights going out and shut down all nuclear power stations by 2022. Germany’s “Energiewende” green revolution has so far cost over €100 billion for consumers. “Despite the massive expansion of renewable energies, achieving key targets for the energy transition and climate protection by 2020 is no longer realistic,” Thomas Vahlenkamp, a wonk at McKinsey admitted to Bloomberg

 

[Brown Bottle]

Thanks for the link. Here's some of the main findings.

• Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
• The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for the hiatus in warming.
• Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming
• Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
• Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
• Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent

I believe they were YOUR main findings. That's because you of course chose to ignore the actual findings. It does take a special intellect to ignore the entire body of evidence. Your logic would extend to watching Gary Ablett Jr have a bad game and then assert that he's no good, wouldn't it cancat

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf



Maybe you missed the summary points:

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {6, 11–14}

Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed
1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C
for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will
continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to
exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures
SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}

Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not
be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet
and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8).
{12.4, 14.3}

The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from
the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation. {11.3, 12.4}

It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern
Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface
temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. {12.4, 13.4}

Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century (see Figure SPM.9). Under
all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971
to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice
sheets. {13.3–13.5}

Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase
of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will
increase ocean acidification. {6.4}

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st
century and beyond (see Figure SPM.10). Most aspects of climate change will persist for many
centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century
climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. {12.5}

 

[Lester Burnham]

I believe they were YOUR main findings. That's because you of course chose to ignore the actual findings. It does take a special intellect to ignore the entire body of evidence.

That's a very strange comment. I quoted what the evidence of what observed data tells us. You are stating what failed models are predicting.

 

[Power Raid]

lol.

so this is an area of your training?

 

[Power Raid]

I believe they were YOUR main findings. That's because you of course chose to ignore the actual findings. It does take a special intellect to ignore the entire body of evidence. Your logic would extend to watching Gary Ablett Jr have a bad game and then assert that he's no good, wouldn't it cancat

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf


View attachment 82629
Maybe you missed the summary points:

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all
components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and
sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. {6, 11–14}

Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed
1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C
for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will
continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to
exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform (see Figures
SPM.7 and SPM.8). {11.3, 12.3, 12.4, 14.8}

Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not
be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet
and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions (see Figure SPM.8).
{12.4, 14.3}

The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from
the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation. {11.3, 12.4}

It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern
Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface
temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease. {12.4, 13.4}

Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century (see Figure SPM.9). Under
all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971
to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice
sheets. {13.3–13.5}

Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase
of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will
increase ocean acidification. {6.4}

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st
century and beyond (see Figure SPM.10). Most aspects of climate change will persist for many
centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century
climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. {12.5}

you have to love political documents

 

[Power Raid]

What would give you that idea?

this and THAT

 

[Long Live HFC]

so this is an area of your training?

hell no. but i know enough to realise dan26 is talking bollocks (hence hasn't been 'trained').

 

[Power Raid]

hell no. but i know enough to realise dan26 is talking bollocks (hence hasn't been 'trained').

it's not relevant for the thread but, out of interest what is your background?

 

[Brown Bottle]

That's a very strange comment. I quoted what the evidence of what observed data tells us. You are stating what failed models are predicting.

It's not strange at all. You selectively quoted without reference. Why do scientists use models cancat?

 

[Brown Bottle]

you have to love political documents

You have to love the idea that all of this work should be dismissed because "these people are just trying to protect their funding / livelihood" or whatever cynical motive people who only believe in the power of the $ ascribe to others who have different values that are beyond their comprehension.

 

[Docker Clint]

Forget this clearly non existent climate change Dan26, from an economic standpoint, what's the plan when oil runs out? Do we wait until then to move towards renewables?

 

[Brown Bottle]

Forget this clearly non existent climate change Dan26, from an economic standpoint, what's the plan when oil runs out? Do we wait until then to move towards renewables?

Can't we just plant more oil trees?