Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[trawlerman]

The IPCC draft report summary has been reproduced in his thread and it isn‘t alarmist or “doomsday”. It mentions nothing about the survival of the species. It informs the Paris agreement which has a stated goal keeping global temperature rise from exceeding 2C from preindustrial levels by the end of this century. This is what we’ve signed up to.

And what is the importance of the 2 degrees? Why did they agree to that figure and not 4, 6 or 8?

 

[M Malice]

The IPCC draft report summary has been reproduced in his thread and it isn‘t alarmist or “doomsday”. It mentions nothing about the survival of the species. It informs the Paris agreement which has a stated goal keeping global temperature rise from exceeding 2C from preindustrial levels by the end of this century. This is what we’ve signed up to.

Thanks, I haven't read the IPCC report and have no plans to, if there is no need for alarm and doomsday is not around the corner we can take our time and carefully consider all options.

I have confidence that science will find a solution to mans contribution to climate change, I'm actually more concerned about waste, water and air pollution.... and what about 3rd world poverty, lack of adequate health care and education.

 

[mcnulty]

And what is the importance of the 2 degrees? Why did they agree to that figure and not 4, 6 or 8?

Because the warmer the more uncertain and most like deleterious the effects will be. Pretty sure if it were 8 we would all be screwed.

 

[mcnulty]

Thanks, I haven't read the IPCC report and have no plans to, if there is no need for alarm and doomsday is not around the corner we can take our time and carefully consider all options.

I have confidence that science will find a solution to mans contribution to climate change, I'm actually more concerned about waste, water and air pollution.... and what about 3rd world poverty, lack of adequate health care and education.

We’ve had plenty of time. We’ve dithered over this for over a decade. The longer we leave it the more difficult it will be. It’s time to act- what form that action takes should be the starting point of discussions.

 

[trawlerman]

Because the warmer the more uncertain and most like deleterious the effects will be. Pretty sure if it were 8 we would all be screwed.

So really they don't need to mention anything about consequences in the IPCC report - they put a figure on the limit that is generally regarded as the tipping point.
I think some of the smart world leaders would have held off signing off on 2 degrees and gone for a higher figure so they can sit on their hands and do nothing, in contrast to people with brains who wouldn't worry about a number and just dug deep and try and prevent any rise from occurring.

 

[mcnulty]

So really they don't need to mention anything about consequences in the IPCC report - they put a figure on the limit that is generally regarded as the tipping

In very broad terms:

Projections[edit]

• Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.
• The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios
• The global water cycle will change, with increases in disparity between wet and dry regions, as well as wet and dry seasons, with some regional exceptions.
• The oceans will continue to warm, with heat extending to the deep ocean, affecting circulation patterns.
• Decreases are very likely in Arctic sea ice cover, Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover, and global glacier volume
• Global mean sea level will continue to rise at a rate very likely to exceed the rate of the past four decades
• Changes in climate will cause an increase in the rate of CO
  2 production. Increased uptake by the oceans will increase the acidification of the oceans.
• Future surface temperatures will be largely determined by cumulative CO
  2, which means climate change will continue even if CO
  2 emissions are stopped.

The summary also detailed the range of forecasts for warming, and climate impacts with different emission scenarios. Compared to the previous report, the lower bounds for the sensitivity of the climate system to emissions were slightly lowered, though the projections for global mean temperature rise (compared to pre-industrial levels) by 2100 exceeded 1.5 °C in all scenarios.

 

[Bazzar]

It's amazing how Russians in Oymyakon have adapted to living in a climate that regularly hovers around -38C in winter, often gets to -50C and has recorded -67C, then on the opposite end of the scale Dallol, Ethiopia has an average annual temperature of 34.6C, an annual average high temperature is 41C and the hottest month has an average high of 46.7C

It's brilliant how humans, as well as flora and fauna can adapt to such large variations in temprature.
Climate changing? We'll survive.

 

[Bazzar]

In very broad terms:

Projections[edit]

• Further warming will continue if emissions of greenhouse gases continue.
• The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios
• The global water cycle will change, with increases in disparity between wet and dry regions, as well as wet and dry seasons, with some regional exceptions.
• The oceans will continue to warm, with heat extending to the deep ocean, affecting circulation patterns.
• Decreases are very likely in Arctic sea ice cover, Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover, and global glacier volume
• Global mean sea level will continue to rise at a rate very likely to exceed the rate of the past four decades
• Changes in climate will cause an increase in the rate of CO
  2 production. Increased uptake by the oceans will increase the acidification of the oceans.
• Future surface temperatures will be largely determined by cumulative CO
  2, which means climate change will continue even if CO
  2 emissions are stopped.

The summary also detailed the range of forecasts for warming, and climate impacts with different emission scenarios. Compared to the previous report, the lower bounds for the sensitivity of the climate system to emissions were slightly lowered, though the projections for global mean temperature rise (compared to pre-industrial levels) by 2100 exceeded 1.5 °C in all scenarios.

If sea levels are "continuing" to rise then how come 4th generation sydney rock oyster farmer John Blankenstein on a radio interview two weeks ago said
tides are "identical" now at Nelson Lagoon and Wapengo Lake NSW when the business first started 70 years ago?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Is there any wonder that people like me have no idea if the world is warming as part of human activity, or due to a cyclical event.
If someone 20 years ago says there will be no ice left on Kilimanjaro by 2020 and it's still there then they were obviously wrong.
Can we go back to people like that man quoted in your newspaper post above and say "are you some sort of idiot"

"Lonnie Thompson, is an American paleoclimatologist and Distinguished University Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at The Ohio State University."

Should be marched out of his university along with his mates that have also made failed, catastrophic predictions.

 

[mcnulty]

If sea levels are "continuing" to rise then how come 4th generation sydney rock oyster farmer John Blankenstein on a radio interview two weeks ago said
tides are "identical" now at Nelson Lagoon and Wapengo Lake NSW when the business first started 70 years ago?

Do you understand the basic difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence?

 

[Bazzar]

Do you understand the basic difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence?

So an oyster farmer at the same location "hasn't" had an increase is sea levels in the 70 years they have been farming?

 

[mcnulty]

So an oyster farmer at the same location "hasn't" had an increase is sea levels in the 70 years they have been farming?

How did he measure it? What were his records? What methodology did he use?

Science>>>>>anecdote.

That’s a rule.

 

[Bazzar]

How did he measure it? What were his records? What methodology did he use?

Science>>>>>anecdote.

That’s a rule.

They strictly monitor tidal levels as their entire business relies heavily on them. They have for 70 years.

Mimosa rock oysters

 

[mcnulty]

They strictly monitor tidal levels as their entire business relies heavily on them. They have for 70 years.

You didn’t answer the question. What was their methodology?

It’s anecdotal evidence. From one tiny corner of the globe. Against scientific evidence it just doesn’t stack up. That’s just the way it is. And thank god for that.

Anecdotal Evidence: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Anecdotal evidence is often used in the absence of, or in an attempt to refute, scientific evidence. In this lesson, learn what anecdotal evidence...

study.com

 

[Crankitup]

At least I don't make things up for the sake of benefactors like CFACT. You continuously use sources that exaggerate or make fake news. Pretty poor.

How ironic. Your statement is an exaggeration in itself.

Further I'm curious as to how you can come to the the conclusion CFACT exaggerates or makes false news when you've told us at #6,790 you don't read it FFS.

 

[Corpuscles]

How did he measure it? What were his records? What methodology did he use?

Please advise how you or a scientist would, or could, measure it?

 

[Bazzar]

You didn’t answer the question. What was their methodology?

It’s anecdotal evidence. From one tiny corner of the globe. Against scientific evidence it just doesn’t stack up. That’s just the way it is. And thank god for that.

Anecdotal Evidence: Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Anecdotal evidence is often used in the absence of, or in an attempt to refute, scientific evidence. In this lesson, learn what anecdotal evidence...

study.com

Do you think after 70 years they wouldn't know if tidal levels have changed?

At least you know more than the business owner. Lucky this thread has your expertise on oyster farming.,

Whale Hole oyster beds, Wapengo Lake NSW

 

[mcnulty]

Please advise how you or a scientist would, or could, measure it?

There’s a wealth of published literature out there. It all requires methodology to be outlined. If you want to find out, knock yourself out

 

[Crankitup]

All of them have interests in the fossil fuel industry.

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

Media Transparency calculates that between 1991 and 2006 CFACT gained $1,280,000 from 18 grants from only two foundations -- the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.[10] The Carthage Foundation granted $1,105,000 to CFACT between 1991 - 2006, while the Sarah Scaife Foundation sent $175,000 to the group between 1996 - 2001.

On its website tracking grants to groups, the conservative Capital Research Center listed CFACT as having received grants of $60,500 from Chevron between 1994 and 1998. (The CRC lists the grants comprising $16,000 in each of 1994, 1995 and 1996 and $12,500 in 1998). The CRC also listed CFACT from having received $25,000 from DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund $25,000 and a token $500 from the Ford Motor Company Fund.[11]

This BS line again??

Last time you took this route I responded with #5,840 and you went silent. Care to respond to it now?

Also, while you're at it you could respond to #2,951. It wasn't specifically directed at you but I'm curious as to your thoughts.

 

[Bazzar]

There’s a wealth of published literature out there. It all requires methodology to be outlined. If you want to find out, knock yourself out

So you dispute and criticise someone who has farmed the waters for 70 years without knowing their methodology of measuring tides, then when pressed on how you the expert would do it, go tell someone else to look it up. Realy?

 

[mcnulty]

So you dispute and criticise someone who has farmed the waters for 70 years without knowing their methodology of measuring tides, then when pressed on how you the expert would do it, go tell someone else to look it up. Realy?

I’m saying his “evidence” is insignificant relative to scientific evidence to the contrary.

Sorry if you don’t like it, but thems the rules.

 

[Corpuscles]

There’s a wealth of published literature out there. It all requires methodology to be outlined. If you want to find out, knock yourself out

IOW you have no f'n idea! LOL!
Just a sheep that swallows what you are told.

You challenge the oyster famers methodology but cannot even describe the methodology you favour.

"Scientific versus anecdotal" or such you said.

One relies on satellite data, put into a model, manipulated with some guesswork variables, then compares results to expected, if necessary "calibrate" to correct, and then claim mm perfect averages for a whole continent
Versus
Been there saw it with his own eyes, has had equipment and posts there for 70 years and says:
'Nah! Pretty much the same as 70 years ago'

No one could EVEN detect even 50mm. There are things called waves , swell, and tides and no fecking scientist gets out from behind his computer screen!

Then like gypsy palm or crystal ball reader "cold reads" the future :
"I see a tall dark handsome whale swimming in Penrith/ Craigeburn"

 

[Bazzar]

I’m saying his “evidence” is insignificant relative to scientific evidence to the contrary.

Sorry if you don’t like it, but thems the rules.

What is his actual evidence? Have you seen the 70 years of detailed records?
Science can say the levels are up, but he has proof in his two areas they are exactly the same.

 

[mcnulty]

IOW you have no f'n idea! LOL!
Just a sheep that swallows what you are told.

You challenge the oyster famers methodology but cannot even describe the methodology you favour.

"Scientific versus anecdotal" or such you said.

One relies on satellite data, put into a model, manipulated with some guesswork variables, then compares results to expected, if necessary "calibrate" to correct, and then claim mm perfect averages for a whole continent
Versus
Been there saw it with his own, has had equipment and posts there for 70 years and says
Nah! Pretty much the same as 70 year ago

No one could EVEN detect even 50mm. There are things called waves , swell, and tides and no fecking scientist gets out from behind his computer screen!

Then like gypsy palm or crystal ball reader "cold reads" the future :
"I see a tall dark handsome whale swimming in Penrith/ Craigeburn"

I can’t figure out if your a troll or just incredibly stupid. Let me put it this way- I don’t check the methodology for published articles on non operative approaches to the treatment of osteosarcoma either. Or a zillion other things. GEDDITTTT?

I trust that those most qualified will do this and make appropriate judgements accordingly. As you yourself do uncritically every day. Except when you decide to make an exception.

This is the dumbest straw man in the history of dumb straw men.

 

[Crankitup]

There’s a wealth of published literature out there.

A lot of it is garbage when it comes to predicted vs actual sea level rise. 30 years ago we were told the Maldives would be gone by now. Why isn't it gone? You can read all the published literature on the issue you like but when it turns out to be so spectacularly wrong as that, you have to start thinking maybe people like Nils Axel Morner (who said the opposite throughout the whole period), were actually worth listening to after all.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Evid_Based_Climate_Sci/Ev_Based_Climate_Sci_Chap7.pdf

http://21sci-tech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf