Climate Change Arguing

[HurleyHepsHird]

Germany will have spent $1.5 trillion and 45 years waiting for renewables to work........only to reduce CO2 by 10% post closing their reactors. Then by introducing the EV, due to the failure of renewables, they will increase CO2 double CO2 emissions from vehicles.

With events like this, do we continue down this failed path or simply follow New Zealand, Ontario, France, Norway, Sweden, Tasmania etc and roll out hydro and nuclear? Most of these jurisdictions delivered a solution that worked prior to the 80s.....or do we wait 100 years for effective action, waste trillions and put our future generations, polar bears and baby seals at risk?

It's time to act!

We've had this discussion before where you were wrong over and over. I'm not rebooting it.

 

[Power Raid]

We've had this discussion before where you were wrong over and over. I'm not rebooting it.

just point a jurisdiction on earth that has gone down the renewables pathway that has delivered a CO2 outcome close to 40-70g per kwhr


#crickets
#Imnotrebooting
#Keeprunning
#Inmyhead
#FictitiousStan

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

"cLImatE CHaNGe Is uN FaKe nEws".

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

Just so they don't get buried by PRs bullshit.

 

[Power Raid]

Just so they don't get buried by PRs ********.

if I'm wrong.............simply point a jurisdiction on earth that has gone down the renewables pathway that has delivered a CO2 outcome close to 40-70g per kwhr

this link will help

Interactive App | Electricity Maps

Track real-time and historical electricity data worldwide — see production mix, CO2 emissions, prices, cross-border exports, and much more.

www.electricitymap.org

 

[Chief]

We've all seen this?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Great.

 

[kranky al]

Not everyone including many scientists, aren't as foolish as you to believe the climate change BS! It's a scam to escalate Globalism! The banks have a habit of running things into debt to take control and this is no different! $19billion in annual interest that us taxpayers pay, not enough for you huh?

How about you show us a single solitary peer reviewed published paper by a climate scientist debunking mmcc.

Do that and you can say many scientists.

Because right now you can see non peer reviewed articles by physicists and geologists refuting it - and every single one ive ever seen is by someone who profits immensely fromnthe fossil fuel industry

Ive never seen a single climate scientist do so.

 

[Crankitup]

How about you show us a single solitary peer reviewed published paper by a climate scientist debunking mmcc.

Do that and you can say many scientists.

Because right now you can see non peer reviewed articles by physicists and geologists refuting it - and every single one ive ever seen is by someone who profits immensely fromnthe fossil fuel industry

Ive never seen a single climate scientist do so.

- Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Year: 2009, Journal: Energy & Environment)

1350+ more where that came from.

 

[kranky al]

- Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
(Year: 2009, Journal: Energy & Environment)

A man with a degree in geography

I said a climate scientist not a paid shill for the oil industry

<<<Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology.>>>

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) Credentials Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England, 1982. [1], [2] M.A., University of Manitoba, 1971. [1], [2] B.A., University of Winnipeg, 1970. [1], [2] Background Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to...

www.desmogblog.com

What im asking for is a published peer reviewed article denying mmcc from a CLIMATE SCIENTIST

- not a physicist - not your dads best mates cat - not a mechanical engineer.

Applied Climate Science - University of Southern Queensland

Understand climate change and assess the impact humans have upon the climate system by studying Climate Studies at USQ.

www.usq.edu.au

A recognised climate scientist

 

[Crankitup]

A man with a degree in geography

<<<Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology.>>>

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) Credentials Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England, 1982. [1], [2] M.A., University of Manitoba, 1971. [1], [2] B.A., University of Winnipeg, 1970. [1], [2] Background Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to...

www.desmogblog.com

Your source is Desmogblog? Nice. You do realise his thesis was on climate and that the climate program at The University of Winnipeg was part of the geography department don't you? The fact is he gained his Ph. D. in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology. He was one of the first people in Canada to receive a PhD in climatology.

 

[kranky al]

Your source is Desmogblog? Nice. You do realise his thesis was on climate and that the climate program at The University of Winnipeg was part of the geography department don't you? The fact is he gained his Ph. D. in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology. He was one of the first people in Canada to receive a PhD in climatology.

Actually bullshit - absolute bullshit


The guy tried to sue for slander and withdrew the suit when the court ordered him to turn over proof of his qualifications.

His degree is historical geography.

Nice try fail

 

[Crankitup]

Actually bulls**t - absolute bulls**t

Right. I made 4 statements of fact and since you have said bullsheet twice, presumably you believe I've lied on 4 occasions. Since you're calling me a liar in such strident terms, I don't think it's out of order for me to request your proof of what you call my lies restated below.

(1) His thesis was on Climate.
(2) The Climate program at the University of Winnipeg was part of the Geography department (in the 1980's).
(3) He gained his PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology.
(4) He was one of the first people in Canada to receive a PhD in climatology.

The guy tried to sue for slander and withdrew the suit when the court ordered him to turn over proof of his qualifications.

This is where I call bullsheet. The lawsuit was dropped because he didn't have the money to continue it. No big oil money like you mistakenly believe. No tobacco money. No government grants (unlike the other side). He's retired.

P.S. It's a shame we have to go at this hammer and tong on a day when our mutual team has smashed Fremantle so brilliantly but so be it.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

One climate crisis disaster happening every week, UN warns

One climate crisis disaster happening every week, UN warns

Developing countries must prepare now for profound impact, disaster representative says

www.theguardian.com

 

[Crankitup]

One climate crisis disaster happening every week, UN warns

One climate crisis disaster happening every week, UN warns

Developing countries must prepare now for profound impact, disaster representative says

www.theguardian.com

Extreme Weather Events - EWE. That's the new acronym they want to push. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was found to be too limiting so it morphed into Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). Then it doesn't matter in the long term if it gets hotter or colder it's still our fault. That still isn't grabbing enough headlines so along comes Extreme Weather Events (EWEs) (first used in 2012 I think). That will always capture the public's attention.

Here's what Dr Tim Ball (who I referred to above) thought about it when they first tried pushing it in 2012.

Claims Of More Severe Weather With Warming Are Based On IPCC Errors and Omissions

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports are the ‘scientific’ source of claims for more severe and extreme weather. In fact the incidence and severity of extreme weather— hurricanes, wind storms, tornados, heat waves, drought, floods, ice storms, etc—have not generally increased recently and are well within long term natural variability.

IPCC are also wrong because in their models the data on which they are built is insufficient, the basic physics incorrect, and major mechanisms are inadequate or missing. But don’t take my word for it as the IPCC don’t hide their limitations.[1] Instead they know people, especially the media, don’t read or understand the Science Report. They, cynically produce a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) written with a certainty completely unjustified by the Science Report.



The IPCC claim that polar temperatures will increase more than tropical with warming. This reduces the temperature contrast across the Polar Front, the main boundary between polar and tropical air. Frequency and intensity of all middle latitude (30-65°) severe weather is a function of this temperature contrast and including intense low pressure systems and tornadoes. It is evident in North America along what is called Tornado Alley. Reduce that contrast, traditionally called the Zonal Index, and severe weather potential is decreased.

Hurricanes are tropical; witness the terminology problems that developed when Sandy moved north and weakened. They form in all tropical oceans (0-30°), but Atlantic ones receive more media attention as the damage to expensive human structures is greater.

The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is a major mechanism in the formation and intensity of hurricanes. It’s an oscillation in the direction and intensity of upper level tropical winds. These reflect the link between the lower stratosphere and the troposphere and are used for hurricane predictions.

The IPCC says:

“Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.”

Hurricanes develop from tropical Easterly Waves fueled by moisture evaporated from warm tropical water. The IPCC tells us, “Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed.” The thunderstorms circle into tropical storms beyond 8° of latitude where Coriolis Force becomes effective and only become hurricanes when wind speed exceeds 120 kph. Energy transfers from the ocean to fuel the thunderstorms that form the wall around the eye of the hurricane. They are massive and powerful but too small to show up on the large grid of the IPCC computer models.

As Essex and McKitrick (E & M) explain:

“at this moment, and at every moment, there are thousands of active thunderstorms in the hot, moist places of the planet. There are tens of millions of them in any year. It should be clear that this great and constant roar of atmospheric air conditioning is an important part of the global energy budget and should figure significantly into any model of the global climate. However the mighty creature overhead, along with all of its cousins, is too small to show up in even the biggest and grandest global climate models. They are in the jargon of the field, sub grid scale -computerese for” they fall between the cracks.”
The IPCC concede; “The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.”

There’s virtually no data from the vast oceans that dominate the tropics so the IPCC applied parameterization to create data. They use model output as ‘real’ data input for another model. The IPCC comment reveals the speculative nature of the process: “The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.”

E & M comment:

“The use of such parameterization means the resulting computer calculation procedures are models and not computations of basic theory. Climate models do not represent a theory for climate… Therefore, forecasting climate change with a model, in lieu of the theory is a dicey proposition. Parameterizations do not normally conform to the laws of physics, and it is only the laws of physics that are guaranteed not to change with climate. There is no such guarantee for parameterizations.”

IPCC history is replete with confrontations, but usually orchestrated PR responses deflect them. Most were only significant to people who knew the scientific deception being practiced. Chris Landsea a major authority on hurricanes and currently Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center was an IPCC member until his resignation in 2005. In a public letter he itemized concern about politicization of the IPCC, and specifically his input on hurricanes. Major conflict was with Kevin Trenberth, long time participant and hyper-advocate for IPCC science.

Landsea wrote,

“Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic.”

In 2006 Landsea co-authored a paper showing there was no link between hurricanes and global warming.

It’s likely the Harvard conference was organized by John Holdren, later Obama’s Science Czar but then professor of environmental policy and director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. While at Harvard Holdren organized the 2003 vicious attacks on Baliunas and Soon because they published historical evidence of the Medieval Warm Period. (MWP).

Public interest and concern about global warming had declined. Sandy was barely and very briefly a Category I hurricane, but provided an opportunity to scare the public again. The problem is the science and evidence are still incorrect. It won’t make any difference because climate science remains political propaganda and the truth is not required. As Will Rogers said, “If you ever injected truth into politics you would have no politics.”

[1] All IPCC quotes in bold are from the Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8, FAR 2007.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Extreme Weather Events - EWE. That's the new acronym they want to push. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was found to be too limiting so it morphed into Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). Then it doesn't matter in the long term if it gets hotter or colder it's still our fault. That still isn't grabbing enough headlines so along comes Extreme Weather Events (EWEs) (first used in 2012 I think). That will always capture the public's attention.

Here's what Dr Tim Ball (who I referred to above) thought about it when they first tried pushing it in 2012.

Grab your tinfoil hat fellas, it's time to read some boomer posting.

 

[Taylor]

How about you show us a single solitary peer reviewed published paper by a climate scientist debunking mmcc.

Do that and you can say many scientists.

Because right now you can see non peer reviewed articles by physicists and geologists refuting it - and every single one ive ever seen is by someone who profits immensely fromnthe fossil fuel industry

Ive never seen a single climate scientist do so.

I'm not disagreeing with your point at all in this comment, but it's interesting that you discount the view of someone because of their personal financial benefits their position on the topic brings, but don't do the same to the climate scientists.

Science has a long track record of people who have made their name, relevance and living from their science being right - then when they were challenged they fought very hard against that new theory. Scorning new ideas that threatened their position. That's going to be even worse now in our current single issue dismissive culture, particularly in tertiary institutions. You could be absolutely right but you'll be called out at as a fool, tarnished forever and it'll take you working very hard to prove yourself right.

Not even by the peer group, but their cheerleaders will destroy the charlatans for their revered leaders because they have also pinned their position to their chests and it has become of them.

And that goes both directions on this particular issue.

 

[Taylor]

Extreme Weather Events - EWE. That's the new acronym they want to push. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was found to be too limiting so it morphed into Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). Then it doesn't matter in the long term if it gets hotter or colder it's still our fault. That still isn't grabbing enough headlines so along comes Extreme Weather Events (EWEs) (first used in 2012 I think). That will always capture the public's attention.

Here's what Dr Tim Ball (who I referred to above) thought about it when they first tried pushing it in 2012.

The last time I looked at the Australian Beureu of Meterology stats for Cyclones we have been trending downwards. Reading that statement would sound clearly wrong to people, because we have obviously been having more and worse cyclones in Australia, obviously. Except not. We are getting a lot more media on it though.

Here's the stat.

Spoiler

 

[kranky al]

I'm not disagreeing with your point at all in this comment, but it's interesting that you discount the view of someone because of their personal financial benefits their position on the topic brings, but don't do the same to the climate scientists.

Science has a long track record of people who have made their name, relevance and living from their science being right - then when they were challenged they fought very hard against that new theory. Scorning new ideas that threatened their position. That's going to be even worse now in our current single issue dismissive culture, particularly in tertiary institutions. You could be absolutely right but you'll be called out at as a fool, tarnished forever and it'll take you working very hard to prove yourself right.

Not even by the peer group, but their cheerleaders will destroy the charlatans for their revered leaders because they have also pinned their position to their chests and it has become of them.

And that goes both directions on this particular issue.

Heres the thing.

The oil companies would pay a bunch of climate scientists any amount of money if one would release a paper and the others peer review it.

There is no limit to what you could ask - climate scientists dont get paid a lot - especially in comparison to what they could get off the oil companies.

But then again who wants to go down in history as the single biggest quisling/ judas mankind has ever had?

Everyone who studies climate science acknowledges we are having an effect on the climate. The discussion they are having is whether the effects will be just very bad or catastrophic and whether and what we can do to mitigate it.


So yeah - so far the oil companied havnt managed to get any of these mid level salaried people to break ranks.

 

[GoldenSky]

The last time I looked at the Australian Beureu of Meterology stats for Cyclones we have been trending downwards. Reading that statement would sound clearly wrong to people, because we have obviously been having more and worse cyclones in Australia, obviously. Except not. We are getting a lot more media on it though.

Here's the stat.

Spoiler

Haha they only like some "science" though. Preferably if the "science" is actually just the ranting of a left-winger.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Haha they only like some "science" though. Preferably if the "science" is actually just the ranting of a left-winger.

No, actual peer reviewed papers published in a reputable journal, where findings are replicable and experiments/meta-analysis or data collection and modelling is performed by experts in the field.

Science isn't just some walnut brained partisan jerkoff, consisting of blogs, hack op-eds and boomer memes.

 

[Taylor]

No, actual peer reviewed papers published in a reputable journal, where findings are replicable and experiments/meta-analysis or data collection and modelling is performed by experts in the field.

Science isn't just some walnut brained partisan jerkoff, consisting of blogs, hack op-eds and boomer memes.

You'd be amazed what you can get published these days.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

You'd be amazed what you can get published these days.

"Reputable journal where findings are replicable". What is it with you flogs and not reading?

 

[Taylor]

"Reputable journal where findings are replicable". What is it with you flogs and not reading?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, but cheers for the slap in the face on your way to patting yourself on the back

 

[Lebbo73]

Grab your tinfoil hat fellas, it's time to read some boomer posting.

The only one with the tinfoil hat on is misinformed foot soldiers like yourself.

Heres the thing.

The oil companies would pay a bunch of climate scientists any amount of money if one would release a paper and the others peer review it.

There is no limit to what you could ask - climate scientists dont get paid a lot - especially in comparison to what they could get off the oil companies.

But then again who wants to go down in history as the single biggest quisling/ judas mankind has ever had?

Everyone who studies climate science acknowledges we are having an effect on the climate. The discussion they are having is whether the effects will be just very bad or catastrophic and whether and what we can do to mitigate it.


So yeah - so far the oil companied havnt managed to get any of these mid level salaried people to break ranks.

Absolute baloney. Where is your proof? Most of the deniers have said that they haven’t received a cent.

 

[kranky al]

The only one with the tinfoil hat on is misinformed foot soldiers like yourself.

Absolute baloney. Where is your proof? Most of the deniers have said that they haven’t received a cent.

Are you telling me that the Koch Family Foundations - who have spent $127,006,756 directly financing 92 groups that have attacked climate change science and policy solutions, from 1997-2017 wouldnt throw a few lazy mill at a dissention.....

The fossil fuel industry that bribes politicians worldwide - contributes tens of millions to pacs, has no-show jobs waoting for politicians the moment they are finished in politics

Would all of a sudden develop morality if a trio of climate scientists said they would tow the fossil fuel industries line?

F#% you are f#%** hilarious!!!


Lebbo73 have you considered a career in comedy?

 

[Crankitup]

I remember years ago Michael Mann (hockey stick fame) tried to smear anyone who had received a cent from the Koch Family/ Corporation.

Backfired a little when the hypocrisy of his employer (Pennsylvanian State University) receiving funds from them as well as the University of Virginia (where he did his thesis) was pointed out.