Climate Change Arguing

[its free real estate]

sorted, why is the temperature on earth not -150°, like the moon?

 

[Frank Bunn]

sorted, why is the temperature on earth not -150°, like the moon?

A bit like a Gold Coast home game - there's no atmosphere.

The temperature on the moon varies between about 130° C and minus 173° C depending on if it's an area facing the sun.

 

[its free real estate]

A bit like a Gold Coast home game - there's no atmosphere.

The temperature on the moon varies between about 130° C and minus 173° C depending on if it's an area facing the sun.

Why does the earth not have a 470° atmosphere like Venus?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Why does the earth not have a 470° atmosphere like Venus?

Is it because we have the IPCC and they don't?

 

[its free real estate]

Is it because we have the IPCC and they don't?

No. Can you not answer the question?

 

[Power Raid]

"Including many scientists"

3% or less
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

You clearly haven’t read your own link

Otherwise you wouldn’t spruik it

 

[SSwans2011]

You clearly haven’t read your own link

Otherwise you wouldn’t spruik it

It affirms everything I've suggested from the consensus to a correlation between rejection of man-made climate change and a lack of scientific expertise to misinformation (mostly disseminated by Conservative sources with vested interests) causing a reduction in climate literacy levels.

 

[Power Raid]

It affirms everything I've suggested from the consensus to a correlation between rejection of man-made climate change and a lack of scientific expertise to misinformation (mostly disseminated by Conservative sources with vested interests) causing a reduction in climate literacy levels.

Read the sub links and look at the groups that believe in climate change and those that don’t

Also consider the question put forward in the multiple choice which explains the variance in that and proper papers.

 

[SSwans2011]

Read the sub links and look at the groups that believe in climate change and those that don’t

Also consider the question put forward in the multiple choice which explains the variance in that and proper papers.

Genuinely no idea what you're trying to infer here. If it's another attack on the 97% thing, that's a minor point. The overarching point is there is a clear and major consensus.

If you're trying to infer the denial groups are even comparably reliable, then I'm genuinely flabbergasted. Either way, like I said earlier, I'm not wasting anymore time on the topic. It genuinely is a waste of my time to be arguing this in 2019 with all the evidence available.

 

[Power Raid]

Genuinely no idea what you're trying to infer here. If it's another attack on the 97% thing, that's a minor point. The overarching point is there is a clear and major consensus.

If you're trying to infer the denial groups are even comparably reliable, then I'm genuinely flabbergasted. Either way, like I said earlier, I'm not wasting anymore time on the topic. It genuinely is a waste of my time to be arguing this in 2019 with all the evidence available.

Please read the sub links re the independent groups vs those with a vested interest in climate change.

It’s interesting that those groups who studied the history of CO2 as part of their job are sub 50% vs those who have a vested interest are closer to 100%. The study then goes on to ignore groups in the % that don’t agree with there desired outcome.


The other issue is what is the actual question there is 97% support? Anyone with a brain would agree we have an impact. That doesn’t acknowledge how much, whether it’s good or bad. In short the 97% figure is embarrassing as it doesn’t provide context.

 

[Frank Bunn]

No. Can you not answer the question?

Why don't you just get to the point instead of asking silly questions.

 

[QuietB]

And let some other country take all the jobs, economical benefits and with no change to global emissions?

Were already doing our fair share in meeting Paris targets without sending the economy down the toliet.

There is zero chance Australia meets their Paris target on our current trajectory;

 

[QuietB]

Men don't pay their wages, corporations do! Imagine if as a scientist, you denied climate change and then suddenly can't find any employment. I'd also like to know how many of them are indoctrinated by universities to be commie Leftists coz it common knowledge that communism is openly promoted in universities. It's a small price to pay to lie for global communism isn't it? Communism to them may be more important than telling the truth! It appears that socialism(communism) is pretty important to you Lefties and you've already shown me that you are prepared to lie for it!

This post pretty much sums up why Australia's only contribution to the world is to dig coal and ore

 

[armpit]

This post pretty much sums up why Australia's only contribution to the world is to dig coal and ore

This post pretty much sums up why Australia's only contribution to the world is to dig coal and ore

Not having your needs met? No sense of social safety. No food clothing and shelter?

We got footballer and olympic medalists. We've got the hills hoist. We've got clean food, air and water.

If you want to wail about something, wail about unsustainable human populations.

 

[armpit]

That is your problem right there.

There is the debatable global warming/ climate change and then there is the very real, loss of environment and species because of the weight of human numbers.

Put your energies into something that will actually work.

 

[Taylor]

Climate change is real. Australia getting all the way to zero emissions will have no impact on where the planet goes on climate change.

None of the policies want to get to zero emissions and zero emissions doesn't change the outcome. We need technological solution. Fusion power, carbon capture to bring it down again.

Everything else is feel good stuff for people who would rather think they are part of the solution when they aren't.

Fusion is the key because the growing middle class in India and China deserve to live like we do and that can power it without it costing the planet.

 

[armpit]

Climate change is real. Australia getting all the way to zero emissions will have no impact on where the planet goes on climate change.

None of the policies want to get to zero emissions and zero emissions doesn't change the outcome. We need technological solution. Fusion power, carbon capture to bring it down again.

Everything else is feel good stuff for people who would rather think they are part of the solution when they aren't.

Fusion is the key because the growing middle class in India and China deserve to live like we do and that can power it without it costing the planet.

Yes we need technological solutions, but you know oil and all that. They will come you'd think, but jeez, a can't wrap my head around a billion middle class Indians wanting to plug in as it stands. Where does it come from? Shouldn't there be more responsibility to limit the need? By culling human populations by practising conscious birth control, not by abortions, starvation, wars etc etc.

I'm asking because I'm stuffed if I can think of a better solution.

 

[Taylor]

Yes we need technological solutions, but you know oil and all that. They will come you'd think, but jeez, a can't wrap my head around a billion middle class Indians wanting to plug in as it stands. Where does it come from? Shouldn't there be more responsibility to limit the need? By culling human populations by practising conscious birth control, not by abortions, starvation, wars etc etc.

I'm asking because I'm stuffed if I can think of a better solution.

I expect that the population will level out as quality of life increases.

 

[its free real estate]

Why don't you just get to the point instead of asking silly questions.

The direction and purpose of my questions should be obvious. The temperature on earth is directly related to the existence and composition of the atmosphere (is this false?). Molecular nitrogen and oxygen are the main components of our atmosphere, however these are relatively invisible to infrared radiation (is this false?). Water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane are each larger, more complex gaseous compounds, more 'excitable' by infrared (this is basic molecular physics), therefore contribute more to the planet's atmosphere being optimum for life than the majority components of the atmosphere (is this false?). Water vapour and methane have shorter lifespans in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can remain stable in it over millennia (is this false?). The geological record, going back to the Paleoproterozoic, shows earth's surface temperature depending on the composition of the atmosphere, with variations in the carbon cycle being prime determinants (is this false?).

To refute any of this, you have to refute first principles, and a series of observations from multiple disciplines. The founding basis of all science is first principles, observation and parsimony. Not peer review, not how many papers you publish, not models. Axioms, epistemology and rationalism. Climate deniers require the axioms and observations to be false, and obscurantism. Essentially an entire edifice of science, not 'climate science', but observations from physics, chemistry and geology that often go back 150 years must be wrong.

Does the ozone layer matter? Does the Van Allen belt matter? If for instance human activity was interfering with the earth's dynamo, would you be a gamma ray annihilation denier? Why do you think this planet is at all habitable? Magic?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Your argument is based on a strawman. Pretty much everyone agrees that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased in recent years, that the Earth has warmed a little and that man's activities have played some part. Beyond that there are many significant questions to be answered.


Why is there such a poor correlation between CO2 levels and temperature ?

How much will temperatures rise?

What is the CO2 sensitivity ie the temperature increase produced by a doubling of CO2 when the system reaches equilibrium?

Why do IPCC model projections tend to overestimate temperature rises?

Is the IPCC an objective scientific body or a political body with a goal of proving man made global warming?

Is the temperature rise dangerous or beneficial?

What is the economic cost of trying to prevent warming by reducing CO2?

Given that Australia's contribution to man made CO2 emissions is miniscule what should be our policy on coal mining and coal power stations?

 

[its free real estate]

Your argument is based on a strawman.

No it isn’t.

Pretty everyone agrees that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased in recent years, that the Earth has warmed a little and that man's activities have played some part.

Your seasoned posting on this subject over many years says otherwise. You have in the past asserted it is impossible for humans to change the climate. Yet at the same time expressed belief that we could terraform other planets.

Strange inconsistency to your views.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Your seasoned posting on this subject over many years says otherwise. You have in the past asserted it is impossible for humans to change the climate. Yet at the same time expressed belief that we could terraform other planets.

I don't remember saying CO2 levels in the atmosphere haven't increased in recent years, that the Earth hasn't warmed a little or that man's activities haven't played some part. I don't remember talking about terraforming either.

But when I said 'Pretty much everyone agrees' I was talking about climate scientists. However, there are differing views amongst scientists on the answers to those other questions I asked.

 

[Bollox]

Are you suggesting (gasp) a carbon tax on polluters?

If there were ever to be a carbon bloody tax then they can first slap it on the bloody fire brigades, CFA and volunteer fire fighters.
Yet another damn burn going on as I type. Got a call from home to say they can hardly breathe with the damn smoke. I can see it in the distance from here...huge plumes of smoke.

Next time any of us hear ANY pollution statistics re our cities...make damn sure you ask if backburning and "safety" burns have been factored in, and the stats adjusted accordingly for this anthropegenic disgrace.

Every year they get more numerous. They get bored ...so they light fires, so that we don't get fires. Go figure.

I don't doubt pollution might be rising in our major cities...but they better bloody well factor this shit in or the numbers are moronic garbage.

Just one of these "small" burns is like half Sydney lighting coal fireplaces in every house for a week.

We're going to have crispy goanna and brush turkey roadkill again for dinner tonight by the sounds. Phukkers.

 

[Socrates2]

Not having your needs met? No sense of social safety. No food clothing and shelter?

We got footballer and olympic medalists. We've got the hills hoist. We've got clean food, air and water.

If you want to wail about something, wail about unsustainable human populations.

What??? What the hell does a hills hoist have to do with anything? If you have a moral code, you take action on climate change, if you don't have a moral code just make light of the situation and spread anti-science propaganda like you are doing.

 

[Socrates2]

Liberal party have no climate minister and put a pro-coal stooge in charge of energy. People around the world must think Australians are the most selfish people on the planet. Still #2 on per capita emmissions in the world which in itself is a disgrace. Rich Western country gives the middle finger to the rest of the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-do-in-war-time-where-is-the-climate-minister