The Triumph of Science

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, Verbal said:

I tried, but realised it would mean inventing a new language, like the one my two-year-old niece uses

Your niece is permanently pissed on cheap brandy and sheep dip as well?  

[sydney_saint]

I'm a bit late to the debate, but happy to answer a couple of questions on climate change. Or at least recommend GM looks at the Climate change thread where I have already done my best to carefully explain the science and processes. For his reference, I work in climate change and have done for over a decade. 

I haven't read through everything, but I will answer the first question though on ppm, where you say you don't understand the link between ppm and global surface temperature. And that's absolutely fine, there isn't an expectation for everyone to be a climate scientist. But whether or not people understand it, it doesn't stop it from being true.

We know that the concentration of ghgs in 1900 was around 300ppm. Slightly less by some estimates. We also now that as of now that the number is up to just past 400ppm. In the same timeframe we have directly measured a global surface temperature rise of around 1 degree. Both of these facts have been measured and verified from numerous independent studies across the world. They aren't open for debate, unless someone can provide a clear, robust and repeatable study that shows it isn't the case. No one can. Even the oil and gas companies with all their billions can not show that

There are also many, many studies which scientifically demonstrate the link between increased concentration of ghgs, and global surface temperature rise which are directly backed by what we have observed. Not just now, but also throughout earth's history. They are  intrinsically linked.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

18 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

There are also many, many studies which scientifically demonstrate the link between increased concentration of ghgs, and global surface temperature rise which are directly backed by what we have observed. Not just now, but also throughout earth's history. They are  intrinsically linked.

 

What was the level of ghgs when the Antartic was forest 33 million years ago or when the Arctic had no ice 3 million years ago?

[Guided Missile]

1 hour ago, sydney_saint said:

I'm a bit late to the debate, but happy to answer a couple of questions on climate change. Or at least recommend GM looks at the Climate change thread where I have already done my best to carefully explain the science and processes. For his reference, I work in climate change and have done for over a decade. 

I haven't read through everything, but I will answer the first question though on ppm, where you say you don't understand the link between ppm and global surface temperature. And that's absolutely fine, there isn't an expectation for everyone to be a climate scientist. But whether or not people understand it, it doesn't stop it from being true.

We know that the concentration of ghgs in 1900 was around 300ppm. Slightly less by some estimates. We also now that as of now that the number is up to just past 400ppm. In the same timeframe we have directly measured a global surface temperature rise of around 1 degree. Both of these facts have been measured and verified from numerous independent studies across the world. They aren't open for debate, unless someone can provide a clear, robust and repeatable study that shows it isn't the case. No one can. Even the oil and gas companies with all their billions can not show that

There are also many, many studies which scientifically demonstrate the link between increased concentration of ghgs, and global surface temperature rise which are directly backed by what we have observed. Not just now, but also throughout earth's history. They are  intrinsically linked.

 

Many thanks for your contribution. A couple of questions. Exactly how was the temperature and CO2 concentration measured in 1900 and where? Around 300ppm in 1900   and just over 400 ppm now as concentrations doesn't do it for me, as I doubt the assay methods are the same, nor the location. I have no doubt the concentration of CO2 is linked to the global atmospheric temperature, but my burning question is whether the increase in the concentration of CO2 observed precedes or follows any increase in global temperature. That's the $35 trillion question.  

Edited 4 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

...,, but my burning question is whether the increase in the concentration of CO2 observed precedes or follows any increase in global temperature. That's the $35 trillion question.  

If global temperature rises are a consequence of higher CO2 levels, then reducing CO2 emissions should be a necessary action, and the money should be spent.

If higher CO2 levels are a consequence of global warming, what factor/s is/are causing the warming ? How have these factors increased in their effect over the last 100 years, such that the correlation matches that supposedly demonstrated by 'evidence' of CO2 driving the warming ? Where does the increased CO2 come from under this hypothesis ? Does human action, ( fossil fuels, deforestation, oceanic pollution ), not have an effect in this case ?

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

What was the level of ghgs when the Antartic was forest 33 million years ago or when the Arctic had no ice 3 million years ago?

https://phys.org/news/2009-09-co2-secrets-antarctic-formation.html

[aintforever]

Oh no, not another old Gammon failing to understand climate change thread.

[Fan The Flames]

The climate has always naturally fluctuated along with ghgs, and some people are hoping to prove that our current climate change is more natural than man made.

But that misses the point, regardless of the cause of climate change, if reducing man made carbon emissions can help mitigate or slow down climate change, regardless of the underlying cause, then we have to spend the money and do it.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

https://phys.org/news/2009-09-co2-secrets-antarctic-formation.html

Doesn't answer the question : What was the level of ghgs when the Antartic was forest 33 million years ago or when the Arctic had no ice 3 million years ago?

[Whitey Grandad]

14 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

The climate has always naturally fluctuated along with ghgs, and some people are hoping to prove that our current climate change is more natural than man made.

But that misses the point, regardless of the cause of climate change, if reducing man made carbon emissions can help mitigate or slow down climate change, regardless of the underlying cause, then we have to spend the money and do it.

 

All very good, but will it prevent the next ice age*

 

*yes, I know that we are still in one - see above. All I'm concerned about is not getting crushed under an ice sheet a mile thick.

[sydney_saint]

21 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Doesn't answer the question : What was the level of ghgs when the Antartic was forest 33 million years ago or when the Arctic had no ice 3 million years ago?

Around 3 million years ago they were roughly around the levels they were today. Around 33m they were much, much higher. Correspondingly, 33 million years the global surface temperature was several degrees warmer. 

[sydney_saint]

2 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Many thanks for your contribution. A couple of questions. Exactly how was the temperature and CO2 concentration measured in 1900 and where? Around 300ppm in 1900   and just over 400 ppm now as concentrations doesn't do it for me, as I doubt the assay methods are the same, nor the location. I have no doubt the concentration of CO2 is linked to the global atmospheric temperature, but my burning question is whether the increase in the concentration of CO2 observed precedes or follows any increase in global temperature. That's the $35 trillion question.  

To be honest, there have been so many studies on global surface temperature rise and concentration of greenhouse gas emissions accounting for the last few centuries (and others tackling thousands or millions of years). It is not a case of someone doing a study in 1900, and us doing it now and saying 'hang on a minute, look, these numbers are different! Something is going on!'.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of studies from different researchers, different methodologies, and consistent and rigorous challenges to those methodologies. And regardless of what is used,  the conclusions are always similar. That increased concentrations in greenhouse gas emissions leads to increase global surface temperatures. In fact, it has such solid evidence behind it that the burden if proof really is to demonstrate that it is not the case. Which is absolutely encouraged and conducted in the research. About 90% of science is challenging existing theory. If it could be legitimately demonstrated that the Earth has not warmed to ~1 degree in the last centuary, and that the concentration of GHGs has also not gone up, that the oil and gas companies, russia, the saudis, even the UK, would not be whipping out their collective dicks and saying this science is bullshit and we have proof?

 

[badgerx16]

52 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Doesn't answer the question : What was the level of ghgs when the Antartic was forest 33 million years ago or when the Arctic had no ice 3 million years ago?

It answers the first part if you bother to read it.

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

All very good, but will it prevent the next ice age*

 

*yes, I know that we are still in one - see above. All I'm concerned about is not getting crushed under an ice sheet a mile thick.

You won't live for 30 thousand years, so don't worry.

[Guided Missile]

13 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

It is not a case of someone doing a study in 1900, and us doing it now and saying 'hang on a minute, look, these numbers are different! Something is going on!'.

That is exactly what you did in your post as a means of "proving" anthropogenic climate change. Your response is typical of someone whose job and the means funding it are reliant on the proof of anthropogenic climate change and given that, it is not surprising that the thousands of grant chasers are singing from the same hymn sheet.

I would like you to cite a single paper that proves that the increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm caused global temperatures to rise by 1oC in the last century and not that the global temperature increased by approximately 1oC in the last century which caused the CO2 levels to increase from 300 to 400ppm. Any measurement made before this time are all proxy measurements and those, as any scientist worth his salt would acknowledge, are inherently unreliable. So, a single citation would be appreciated.

[Fan The Flames]

He's getting set to drop a gotcha bomb.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, sydney_saint said:

Around 3 million years ago they were roughly around the levels they were today. Around 33m they were much, much higher. Correspondingly, 33 million years the global surface temperature was several degrees warmer. 

Given that there were no humans around at that time polluting the atmosphere, what would you attribute that to?

PS, technically still not answered the question : 

Quote

What was the level of ghgs when the Antartic was forest 33 million years ago

Which was asked after your claim that :

Quote

Not just now, but also throughout earth's history. They are  intrinsically linked.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

It answers the first part if you bother to read it.

Nope.  And I reserve the right to go all MLG on you.  It didn't answer the question at all.  The report merely mentions that the drop in CO2 levels caused the increase of ice in the Antartic.  It didn't put a figure on what the CO2 levels were, which is what the question was asking!

Edit - apologies I must have skimmed over the part that states :

Quote

Oligocene climate transition and that the Antarctic ice sheet began to form when CO₂ in the atmosphere reached a tipping point of around 760 parts per million (by volume)

So it did answer the question - which is a good thing because it means I'm not really like MLG  

Fag packet maths - if it took circa 120 years for the CO2 to rise by 100ppm it looks like we have at least another 250 years before it even gets close to the tipping point (and that's assuming that CO2 levels will increase linearly like they have in the last 120 years).  I'm afraid that I won't be around to witness that and I doubt that anyone five generations from now will remember me (after all, they'll probably have their own problems to deal with).

Edited 4 October, 2021 by Weston Super Saint

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, sydney_saint said:

 

There are hundreds, if not thousands of studies from different researchers, different methodologies, and consistent and rigorous challenges to those methodologies. And regardless of what is used,  the conclusions are always similar. That increased concentrations in greenhouse gas emissions leads to increase global surface temperatures. In fact, it has such solid evidence behind it that the burden if proof really is to demonstrate that it is not the case. 

 

Does anybody else find it amusing? On the one hand we have somone who clearly knows what they are talking about on a subject such as the poster above. He posts logically and knowledgeably.

On the other hand we have our resident know alls such as the Village Idiot and the Shit for Brains Pompey Poly thicko. 

I think I know who I believe.

 

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

If global temperature rises are a consequence of higher CO2 levels, then reducing CO2 emissions should be a necessary action, and the money should be spent.

If higher CO2 levels are a consequence of global warming, what factor/s is/are causing the warming ? How have these factors increased in their effect over the last 100 years, such that the correlation matches that supposedly demonstrated by 'evidence' of CO2 driving the warming ? Where does the increased CO2 come from under this hypothesis ? Does human action, ( fossil fuels, deforestation, oceanic pollution ), not have an effect in this case ?

Would somebody please "quote" the above post as GM supposedly has me on ignore, and in this instance I am genuinely not trying to wind him up. I would like him to give a reasoned answer to the second part of my post.

 

Ta muchly.

Edited 4 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

On 04/10/2021 at 15:11, Weston Super Saint said:

Nope.  And I reserve the right to go all MLG on you.  It didn't answer the question at all.  The report merely mentions that the drop in CO2 levels caused the increase of ice in the Antartic.  It didn't put a figure on what the CO2 levels were, which is what the question was asking!

Edit - apologies I must have skimmed over the part that states :

So it did answer the question - which is a good thing because it means I'm not really like MLG  

Fag packet maths - if it took circa 120 years for the CO2 to rise by 100ppm it looks like we have at least another 250 years before it even gets close to the tipping point (and that's assuming that CO2 levels will increase linearly like they have in the last 120 years).  I'm afraid that I won't be around to witness that and I doubt that anyone five generations from now will remember me (after all, they'll probably have their own problems to deal with).

 

Thats assuming the geological and biological situations are the same now as 33 million years ago . They arent. 

We have compromised earth's ability to self regulate. Pre man higher CO2 emissions were eventually counter balanced by more vigorous tree growth and the spread of forests to new areas, locking up the carbon for hundreds of years. Now were are digging up locked up carbon in fossil fuels and releasing them by burning. At the same time have chopped down the large majority of the forests and replaced them with agriculture - so carbon is no longer locked up and instead released again the same year.    

Edited 8 October, 2021 by buctootim

[sydney_saint]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

That is exactly what you did in your post as a means of "proving" anthropogenic climate change. Your response is typical of someone whose job and the means funding it are reliant on the proof of anthropogenic climate change and given that, it is not surprising that the thousands of grant chasers are singing from the same hymn sheet.

I would like you to cite a single paper that proves that the increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm caused global temperatures to rise by 1oC in the last century and not that the global temperature increased by approximately 1oC in the last century which caused the CO2 levels to increase from 300 to 400ppm. Any measurement made before this time are all proxy measurements and those, as any scientist worth his salt would acknowledge, are inherently unreliable. So, a single citation would be appreciated.

I debated Scally plenty in the Climate Change thread with lots of back and forth. I am happy to talk to others here as well. You however have decided to make it personal by attacking my professional credibility with laughably baseless claims. I am happy to debate with others, but I ain't sinking to that level. 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, sydney_saint said:

I debated Scally plenty in the Climate Change thread with lots of back and forth. I am happy to talk to others here as well. You however have decided to make it personal by attacking my professional credibility with laughably baseless claims. I am happy to debate with others, but I ain't sinking to that level. 

You disagree with him so your opinion, status, experience, and knowledge are all irrelevant. 😉

[sydney_saint]

 

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Given that there were no humans around at that time polluting the atmosphere, what would you attribute that to?

PS, technically still not answered the question : 

Which was asked after your claim that :

 

Apologies, not sure if I am fully following your point? If it is around whether there are factors outside humans that cause climate change, then the answer is absolutely yes. No one is saying otherwise! There are numerous feedback systems that can accelerate and decelerate warming and we have a damn good understanding of them. 

So 33 million years ago, the ppm was somewhere around 1500-2000 if memory serves me right (I'm actually super busy today so don't have time to dig out the numbers) and several degrees warmer. Which demonstrates what I was saying that increase greenhouse gas emissions have been linked to temperature changes throughout the planet's history. 

 

[Guided Missile]

1 minute ago, sydney_saint said:

I debated Scally plenty in the Climate Change thread with lots of back and forth. I am happy to talk to others here as well. You however have decided to make it personal by attacking my professional credibility with laughably baseless claims. I am happy to debate with others, but I ain't sinking to that level. 

So your job is not reliant on the proof of anthropogenic climate change for its funding. I'm sorry it appeared I questioned your professional credibility. You would help that by citing a single paper that proves that the increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm caused global temperatures to rise by 1oC in the last century and not that the global temperature increased by approximately 1oC in the last century which caused the CO2 levels to increase from 300 to 400ppm. I don't want a debate, just some science I can understand. Oh and just to be clear on what has driven my research over the past 40 years. Correlation doesn't imply causation. It's an easy trap to fall into, especially with such a complicated dataset as climate "science". 

[OldNick]

I was born in 1959 (yes an old fossil to most of you, but your arrogance of youth will disappear pretty quickly as you soon get there as well)

at that time the worlds population was circa 3.3bn just 60 years later it is approx 7.7bn. Consumption alone of all commodities will have increased accordingly ( probably more due to our society now) Therefore in laymans terms we all have to decrease all our consumption bymore than halve just to get back to those 1960 levels. Good luck with that.

I may also respectfully add that Climate Change is a massive business with 100,000's peoples jobs tied to it. Including people on here, big business and self interest. Sky have a climate show on every night FFS, they have to find stories to frighten the kids, who a large part are living in fear. Its cynical and not right. I notice that the polar caps are the coldest for decades, obviously a coincidence but had they warmed they'd be all over it.

I read about medieval warming and the mini ice age in the 1600's odd that 

[Guided Missile]

17 minutes ago, OldNick said:

I read about medieval warming and the mini ice age in the 1600's odd that 

Apparently medieval warming and the mini ice age in the 1600's (and the Roman warming period) do not form part of the global climate history of this planet, because they are purely regional climate effects. You see, with climate science, tree rings are the gold standard.

[sydney_saint]

7 minutes ago, OldNick said:

I was born in 1959 (yes an old fossil to most of you, but your arrogance of youth will disappear pretty quickly as you soon get there as well)

at that time the worlds population was circa 3.3bn just 60 years later it is approx 7.7bn. Consumption alone of all commodities will have increased accordingly ( probably more due to our society now) Therefore in laymans terms we all have to decrease all our consumption bymore than halve just to get back to those 1960 levels. Good luck with that.

I may also respectfully add that Climate Change is a massive business with 100,000's peoples jobs tied to it. Including people on here, big business and self interest. Sky have a climate show on every night FFS, they have to find stories to frighten the kids, who a large part are living in fear. Its cynical and not right. I notice that the polar caps are the coldest for decades, obviously a coincidence but had they warmed they'd be all over it.

I read about medieval warming and the mini ice age in the 1600's odd that 

Whilst I get your point there are peoples jobs attached to climate change, you must remember that is dwarfed completely by the number of jobs and economic dependency on fossil fuels. It's like people saying that the Government exaggerated Covid for the sake of the pharmaceutical companies. Why would every country simultaneously trash their economy for the sake of a handful of a companies? It makes no sense at all. Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity. Same logic here. Why would everyone be protecting a relatively handful of climate change jobs? 

I've answered plenty of questions on climate change on here. I've only asked one back, albeit several times, and so far everyone has ignored it.

If climate change wasn't happening as stated in the IPCC reports, why haven't the oil and gas companies, oil dependent nations or other fossil fuel industries such as aviation, provided any credible research demonstrating it? They would be applauded to high heaven if they could show most Governments, including the UK, that it wasn't happening. Why have Exxon, who spent millions on climate denial, accepted the science? 

Just for fun, here is Exxon predicting warming attached to ppm all the way back in 1982. Turns out they pretty much nailed it.

 

Quickly, on the medieval warming, that's a long debunked theory that gets bandied about. There has been no study showing there was a discernable deviation in global temperatures. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, sydney_saint said:

Why have Exxon, who spent millions on climate denial, accepted the science? 

 

Profit.

They know the planet is warming as well as everyone else does.

They also know that the world is currently so hooked on fossil fuels that it really isn't going to affect their bottom line - I imagine during the years they spent millions trying to deny it, they weren't so confident, but turns out we can't get rid of fossil fuels because the alternatives still aren't reliable enough.

The sooner we crack the conundrum of nuclear fusion (and scalability) the faster we will solve the climate crisis....

[Guided Missile]

2 hours ago, sydney_saint said:

Whilst I get your point there are peoples jobs attached to climate change, you must remember that is dwarfed completely by the number of jobs and economic dependency on fossil fuels. It's like people saying that the Government exaggerated Covid for the sake of the pharmaceutical companies. Why would every country simultaneously trash their economy for the sake of a handful of a companies? It makes no sense at all. Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity.

And that is where you lost your professional and scientific credibility.

[Mystic Force]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

And that is where you lost your professional and scientific credibility.

What professional credibility do you have? Could I check out your published work? Can I read your journal articles? Is the problem with the data collection, the methodology or the conclusions? Is it possible to show me which studies are flawed and why they were wrong.

Science is freaking amazing, it provides me with a good life. But because I said so is not normally the way we do it. My area of work has nothing to do with studying climate but I am sufficiently knowledgeable to read the papers on the subject that pertain to the chemistry portion and get what they are saying and understand the data sets. Not sure there are many others on here who have actually read a climate study research paper or attended a lecture with someone presenting their research. The whole point of science is that it is based on demonstrable facts. We do not know everything so a lot of the knowledge is provisional, science gives us the framework to flesh out the details, and that the point.

 

Regards

 

Dr Mysticforce PhD

[Guided Missile]

10 hours ago, Mystic Force said:

What professional credibility do you have? Could I check out your published work? Can I read your journal articles? Is the problem with the data collection, the methodology or the conclusions? Is it possible to show me which studies are flawed and why they were wrong.

Keep up, mate. I was replying to a poster who claimed to have 10 years of climate science experience and was prepared to answer our questions. After another poster and myself made the suggestion that his job and the funding supporting it may rely on the concept of anthropogenic climate change, rather than answer my genuine scientific question, he made a rambling and non-scientific post about major oil companies, finally stating: "Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity". That is when I challenged his scientific impartiality. FFS He's not going to "bend over for them"?  

By the way, congratulations on achieving your PhD. I know how hard that achievement is, from the number of PhD's that have worked for me.  

[Tamesaint]

 

53 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

 

By the way, congratulations on achieving your PhD. I know how hard that achievement is, from the number of PhD's that have worked for me.  

Poor sods.

Edited 5 October, 2021 by Tamesaint

[OldNick]

15 hours ago, sydney_saint said:

Whilst I get your point there are peoples jobs attached to climate change, you must remember that is dwarfed completely by the number of jobs and economic dependency on fossil fuels. It's like people saying that the Government exaggerated Covid for the sake of the pharmaceutical companies. Why would every country simultaneously trash their economy for the sake of a handful of a companies? It makes no sense at all. Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity. Same logic here. Why would everyone be protecting a relatively handful of climate change jobs? 

I've answered plenty of questions on climate change on here. I've only asked one back, albeit several times, and so far everyone has ignored it.

If climate change wasn't happening as stated in the IPCC reports, why haven't the oil and gas companies, oil dependent nations or other fossil fuel industries such as aviation, provided any credible research demonstrating it? They would be applauded to high heaven if they could show most Governments, including the UK, that it wasn't happening. Why have Exxon, who spent millions on climate denial, accepted the science? 

Just for fun, here is Exxon predicting warming attached to ppm all the way back in 1982. Turns out they pretty much nailed it.

 

Quickly, on the medieval warming, that's a long debunked theory that gets bandied about. There has been no study showing there was a discernable deviation in global temperatures. 

Hi, thanks for your reply and you put across good points. I agree that there is something going on but I wonder if mans arrogance that it is all down to him may be a problem.

Nobody has come back and accepted that population more than doubling in only 60 years is not the major contributor to pollution. As I said, our consumption will have increased more than the doubling of population as the 21st century human uses more than they did in 1960.  Therefore we will have to reduce each and everyone's consumption by more than half to get back to that place. I understand this is a basic way of looking at it, but I think it is how more people will understand it rather than looking at graphs. You and your people look at graphs all the time and totally understand them, but to most people who are in other fields just see lines.

Science is fantastic and has helped mans progress, ironically a lot of it will end up destroying us.

 

 

[OldNick]

12 hours ago, Mystic Force said:

What professional credibility do you have? Could I check out your published work? Can I read your journal articles? Is the problem with the data collection, the methodology or the conclusions? Is it possible to show me which studies are flawed and why they were wrong.

Science is freaking amazing, it provides me with a good life. But because I said so is not normally the way we do it. My area of work has nothing to do with studying climate but I am sufficiently knowledgeable to read the papers on the subject that pertain to the chemistry portion and get what they are saying and understand the data sets. Not sure there are many others on here who have actually read a climate study research paper or attended a lecture with someone presenting their research. The whole point of science is that it is based on demonstrable facts. We do not know everything so a lot of the knowledge is provisional, science gives us the framework to flesh out the details, and that the point.

 

Regards

 

Dr Mysticforce PhD

That could be seen as the arrogance of the scientific world. I have quoted a few occasions where academics have been so aloof that that they have missed basics. eg the space probe where millions of dollars were spent and the thing ran out of fuel as some calculated in gallons others in litres, how a Southampton university professor told me and my father in the 1970's that all the elements had been found and it was impossible that were any more, and also the Southampton Uni with the secret to some kind of fuel revolution, again missing a basic calculation.

Please do not think Im discrediting a Phd, I left school at 16 and so have no paper qualifications,and so admire your work. 

 

Edited 5 October, 2021 by OldNick

[Whitey Grandad]

35 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Hi, thanks for your reply and you put across good points. I agree that there is something going on but I wonder if mans arrogance that it is all down to him may be a problem.

Nobody has come back and accepted that population more than doubling in only 60 years is not the major contributor to pollution. As I said, our consumption will have increased more than the doubling of population as the 21st century human uses more than they did in 1960.  Therefore we will have to reduce each and everyone's consumption by more than half to get back to that place. I understand this is a basic way of looking at it, but I think it is how more people will understand it rather than looking at graphs. You and your people look at graphs all the time and totally understand them, but to most people who are in other fields just see lines.

Science is fantastic and has helped mans progress, ironically a lot of it will end up destroying us.

 

 

Yes, often overlooked. The biggest polluter is man himself. (And women of course. And people of all persuasions however they style themselves.

[sydney_saint]

14 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

And that is where you lost your professional and scientific credibility.

I have a golden rule in life. If ever I am in situation where I am talking, debating or arguing with someone, and either one of us makes personal attacks or attacks on credibility, then I will simple walk away from it. Whether it is my partner, friends, some dude in the pub or online. Because if someone is at that stage, they have likely closed off their mind. Why should I continue to answer your questions if I am just opening up myself to personal attack? Why would I do that? You have now jumped in to attack my credibility twice now. I get anxiety very easily online, so I am not going to put myself through any more potential attacks on me. 

You will also note that despite the fact I have worked in this area for a long time, I have not once made a personal attack on a single person or brought their experience into it. I could easily have done so as well but respect is a massive deal for me.

I will answer your question. But it is the last one before you go on ignore. It's gonna be long, and no doubt you will dismiss it as rambling, but then that soon won't be my problem.

To directly attribute the rise to 300ppm to 400ppm can not be directly observed as we do not have a control planet. What we can do is thousands of other studies that demonstrate the link. We can look through historical records to demonstrate the relationship between GHGs and global surface temperature rise. We can do studies on the net impacts of natural cooling and warming forces. We do studies on the ground observing the impacts of climate change. We do studies on causation of additive human emissions as well, and seeing as you are very interested in it, it took 10 minutes to grab some articles on it. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf , https://www.scirp.org/html/12-4700202_36931.htm, http://epa.niif.hu/02500/02583/00058/pdf/EPA02583_applied_ecology_2019_02_50675080.pdf  https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR_Ch3_Detection_and_Attribution.pdf, plus many more.

We do thousands of studies to put together an unbelievably coherent picture. I used this in the climate change thread when replying to Scally, but I am going to copy and paste it here as well.

Take a look at this and what do you see?

Of course. It's a rabbit. 

Now imagine the rabbit was made by thousands of people, each creating their own little square to make the rabbit over decades. Maybe some of the squares are a little faded, and maybe some of them aren't even complete yet as we don't have the tools to create that square yet. Regardless. It is still a rabbit.

You may see one with a thread hanging out, and untangle that single square. Maybe even take a couple of little squares. Well? It is still a rabbit. There are just so many thousands of robust other squares there that you need to untangle before it doesn't look like a rabbit. 

The process of getting research published is long and grueling and often for little reward. I had a paper published over three years after I completed it. The checks and challenges is ridiculous tough and brutal. The fact there are thousands of studies that have gone through this process should give anyone confidence. This false claim you have that everyone sings from the same book to protect funding is pure fantasy to be honest. It requires a conspiracy that thousands of researchers, all 195 nation states that sign off the IPCC report line by line, institutional investors and major companies including fossil fuel companies are all in on it. None of them have managed to provide evidence to challenge the existing model, many of whom have spent hundreds of millions collectively trying to do so. Every single scientific concept is always and permanently open to be challenged. But evidence is required. 

But here is my suggestion to you before I put you on ignore. If you truly have evidence that the science is wrong, or that you can provide evidence for a counter argument that explains the warming outside the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions, then sell it man! Don't just tap away angrily at a keyboard! There are so many companies and nation states that would pay a kings ransom for it. You wouldn't be sitting behind a screen right now. You would be on a Caribbean island getting served cocktails by scantily clad locals! So just do it!

P.S. Happy to answer everyone elses questions if anyone is interested.

 

[Verbal]

sydney, you have the patience of Job trying to deal rationally and knowledgeably with this desiccated lemon.  But you eventually got to where the rest of us already were: see buctootim for details

[Fan The Flames]

4 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Keep up, mate. I was replying to a poster who claimed to have 10 years of climate science experience and was prepared to answer our questions. After another poster and myself made the suggestion that his job and the funding supporting it may rely on the concept of anthropogenic climate change, rather than answer my genuine scientific question, he made a rambling and non-scientific post about major oil companies, finally stating: "Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity". That is when I challenged his scientific impartiality. FFS He's not going to "bend over for them"?  

By the way, congratulations on achieving your PhD. I know how hard that achievement is, from the number of PhD's that have worked for me.  

Don't you mean the number of PhDs that have worked on you? 

Edited 5 October, 2021 by Fan The Flames

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, sydney_saint said:

 

But here is my suggestion to you before I put you on ignore. If you truly have evidence that the science is wrong, or that you can provide evidence for a counter argument that explains the warming outside the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions, then sell it man! Don't just tap away angrily at a keyboard!

 

You will be waiting a long time, the bloke is just a sad old troll.

Keep posting, it's refreshing to read input from someone who clearly has a more in-debth knowledge of the subject.

[Tamesaint]

56 minutes ago, aintforever said:

You will be waiting a long time, the bloke is just a sad old troll.

Keep posting, it's refreshing to read input from someone who clearly has a more in-debth knowledge of the subject.

Yes...but wait until the Village Idiot wades in with his 2 pennyworth. He will drag down  the quality of this thread. 

[Guided Missile]

Okay, ladies, village idiot here. In the absence of a clear answer to my question regarding whether CO2 is the cart or the horse in regard to global warming, I dived into one to the papers that our jolly swagman quoted above. It seems he is sensitive to professional criticism unlike me, so please don't quote me, as he wants me on ignore. I have dived into the rabbit hole of a paper in Nature, as the proof that anthropogenic warming is caused by an increase in CO2 concentrations from 0.03 % to 0.04% since 1850, the start of the industrial revolution. This CO2 increase has caused an alarming rise of 0.1C per decade since 1951-2012, according to the paper, ("On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature" by Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, ElisaGarcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang) I also dived into the critical paper cited by this one, "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" by Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy. (SCIENCE 15 OCTOBER 2010 VOL 330)

These papers confirm one thing to me. They are, in common with every other published paper on climate change, forced to deal with an extremely complicated topic by using a combination of modelling and proxy measurements of temperature and CO2 concentrations, certainly for periods prior to the 20th century. The papers are written in a language that I am not familiar with and to justify the $35 trillion governments are planning to spend, they don't convince me. A couple of extracts from these papers:

Quote

A recent modelling study confirms CO2 as the principal knob governing earth’s temperature. Despite principal plausibility being achieved in this way there are still several open research questions, one being the “missing heat”. Also, as the state-of-the-art climate models mostly overestimated the global warming during the last 20 years, additional data driven and model independent corroboration is desirable to support the attribution assessment

 

...and:

Quote

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate thecausal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. To introduce the method we calculate the information flow (IF) in nat (natural unit of information) per unit time [nat/ut] from the 156 years annual time series of global CO2 concentration to GMTA as 0.348± 0.112 nat/ut and −0.006± 0.003 nat/ut in the reverse direction
Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis. Natural forcing (solar forcing and volcanic activities) contributes only marginally to the global temperature dynamics during the last 150 years. Human influence, especially via CO2 radiative forcing, has been detected to be significant since about the 1960s. This provides an independent statistical confirmation of the results from process based modelling studies. Investigation of the temperature simulations from the CMIP5 ensemble is largely in agreement with the conclusion drawn from the observational data. However on very long time scales (800,000 years) the IF is only significant in the direction from air temperature to CO2. This supports the idea that the feedback of GHGs to temperature changes seems to be much slower than the fast response of temperature to changes in GHGs.
The spatial explicit analysis strongly indicates that the increasing anthropogenic forcing is causing very differing effects regionally with some regions in the southern hemisphere showing large IF values. Regions of significant IF do coincide with regions having stronger than average recent warming trends. Our observational data-based study, therefore, not only provides complementary support for the results from global circulation modelling, but also calls for attention for further research in regions of increased sensitivity to the forcing resulting from anthropogenic activities.

I love the calls for additional research, highlighted.

So, I tried, but have not been able to find a scientific answer to my question, nor find any science in climate science. I am left being reminded of Michael Fish. 

[Fan The Flames]

What actually is wrong with spending $35 trillion?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

What actually is wrong with spending $35 trillion?

It all depends what you waste it on.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It all depends what you waste it on.

And whether the results are guaranteed.

[Tamesaint]

5 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Okay, ladies, village idiot here. 

Don't flatter yourself mate. The Village Idiot is Weston. You are the Shit for Brains, Pompey Poly thicko.

HTH

😁😁😁

 

 

[Guided Missile]

Cast your minds back to 2009 when an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Now, we all know that the major oil companies are "corrupt as hell", but read one of the emails below, from a senior climate scientist and advisor to the IPCC,  Dr. Edward R. Cook, Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory:

Quote

From: Edward Cook† <drdendro@…>
To: Keith Briffa‡ <k.briffa@…>
Subject: An idea to pass by you
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:32:11 -0400

Hi Keith,

After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley’s follow-up talk on how everybody but him has f**ked up in reconstructing past NH [Northern Hemisphere] temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the tentative title:

“Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The Greatest Uncertainties?”
Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D’Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones (??), Mann (infinite?)

I am afraid the Mike [Mann] and Phil [Jones] are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in—Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can contribute without just defending their past work—this is the key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and don’t start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than any other.

Here are my ideas for the paper in a nutshell (please bear with me): …

7) Publish, retire, and don’t leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f**k-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f**k-all).

Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of seasonality of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed temperatures.

I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.

If you don’t want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a hot potato. I honestly don’t want to do it without your participation. If you want to be the lead on it, I am fine with that too.

Cheers,

Ed

And people wonder how I have the temerity to challenge a junior climate "scientist" and his professional credibility?

[buctootim]

35 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Cast your minds back to 2009 when an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Now, we all know that the major oil companies are "corrupt as hell", but read one of the emails below, from a senior climate scientist and advisor to the IPCC,  Dr. Edward R. Cook, Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory:

And people wonder how I have the temerity to challenge a junior climate "scientist" and his professional credibility?

Haha. Your lack of self awareness is awesome! You think 2003 emails from a small number of researchers at one university undermines the global climate science consensus. Everybody knows about the historic malpractice at UEA 18 years ago. You know what it changes? Nothing.    

Edited 6 October, 2021 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal from Matt Ridley, which pretty much sums up my feeling about the dismal state of much of the current scientific profession, in their approach to both the origin of covid 19 and climate change:

Quote

Vaccines have been central to the question of “misinformation” and the White House’s pressure campaign against social media to censor it. Mr. Ridley worries about the opposite problem: that social media “is complicit in enforcing conformity.” It does this “through ‘fact checking,’ mob pile-ons, and direct censorship, now explicitly at the behest of the Biden administration.” He points out that Facebook and Wikipedia long banned any mention of the possibility that the virus leaked from a Wuhan laboratory.

“Conformity,” Mr. Ridley says, “is the enemy of scientific progress, which depends on disagreement and challenge. Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as the physicist Richard Feynman put it.” Mr. Ridley reserves his bluntest criticism for “science as a profession,” which he says has become “rather off-puttingly arrogant and political, permeated by motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.” Increasing numbers of scientists “seem to fall prey to groupthink, and the process of peer-reviewing and publishing allows dogmatic gate-keeping to get in the way of new ideas and open-minded challenge.”

"Mob pile-ons"? I love it. A theory is correct if most people ascribe to it, apparently.

[Fan The Flames]

Ridiculous that someone thinks fact checking is wrong.