Political correctness gone mad?

Anything else you want to talk about.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Dave Saxton » Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:55 pm

Hi Marc,

Employing the precautionary principle requires several assumptions:

That we can mount an effective response in any case
That atmospheric co2 concentration is really a function of human co2 emissions
That replacing hydro carbon fuels is even feasible.
That greater co2 emissions are not actually beneficial

Bjorn Lomborg has demonstrated that we currently have no effective response option:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/546963969200 ... show-clips

By spending $trillion a year for the next 100 years on climate change mitigation we will only reduce global warming by 0.17 degrees C- 100 years from now. For the record Lomborg is not a skeptic and is using the absurdly high IPCC ECS for his calculations. Using a more realistic ECS the reduction is only 0.05 *C, and using the most likely ECS of less than 1*C the reduction is 0.02*C.

The assumption that we can replace a significant portion of fossil fuels with renewables is simply impossible. Right now, all the wind energy in the world -all of it-accounts for less than 1% of the worlds energy demand. And solar is even weaker. In 30 or 40 years it will still be less than 5% even if we pull out all the stops. The Energiewende is failing.

https://makroskop.eu/2016/12/energiewende-am-ende/
The English version:
http://energypost.eu/end-energiewende/

Typical output from wind farms are less than 30% of name plate. The environmental impacts and upon wildlife from wind farms and solar are horrendous. Even if wind could provide continuous nameplate power, it would require over 800 million wind turbines to provide current world energy demands. An impossibility on required land mass alone.

There are currently about 1,600 brand new high efficiency coal plants under construction in the world, mostly in Asia. Japan has decided to bank its future on coal power (the most cost effective) and currently has more than 40 new coal power plants under construction. This will give Asia a huge advantage economically going forward. The rest of the world better wake up or face economic catastrophe.

In the last few years human co2 emissions has stabilized but atmospheric co2 concentration has continued to rise. This makes perfect sense scientifically if one understands the global carbon cycle, and that annual human co2 emissions-all of it- are less than 4% of the annual co2 budget. We really have no or very little control over co2 concentration. It’s going to do what it is going to do regardless.

We assume that increased co2 concentration is all detrimental. This is not necessarily the case. co2 concentration increase has resulted in a greener Earth, shrinking deserts, and greatly improved crop yields. If I recall correctly, that every 20ppm increase in co2 concentration results in a 5% increase in crop yields. If we could somehow reduce the c02 concentration to early 20th century levels it would be genocidal.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:07 pm

Hi Dave,

so you can rule out the possibility with certainty that there will no negative effect by increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Dave Saxton » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:52 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:Hi Dave,

so you can rule out the possibility with certainty that there will no negative effect by increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?


Remember the curve is logarithmic. Most warming from co2 concentration has already occurred. Warming change becomes applied less and less as the concentration increases. The ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is per doubling of concentration. We are projected to only get to 680 ppm by 2100. A catastrophic outcome from co2 emissions is pretty close to impossible. Catastrophic outcomes from other means are another matter.

I chose this link to provide some graphs but the text is pretty informative too:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carb ... ll-it-can/
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:56 pm

If I understand it correctly there are a lot of different climate sensitivity estimates. Again, what if Nova, Idso et cetera are wrong?
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:54 am

Then we are a battleship with a jammed rudder surrounded by the enemy, because there is nothing we humans can do to change the situation. In fact by implementing climate mitigation policies it will be counter productive, because climate mitigation will have devastating impacts on the world economies-hurting the poor the most. Doing nothing would be the better course of action.

However take heart, there are ice core proxies that indicates we will reach only 560 ppm by 2100. This would represent a doubling of co2 concentration from 1830. We are 1/2 way there, but have only seen about a .7*K temperature anomaly. The next 280 ppm will cause considerably less than .7* due to the logarithmic manifestation to the increase in co2 concentration. We will not see any run away warming because most of the warming we will see has already happened.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby RF » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:20 am

OpanaPointer wrote:
RF wrote:[

What I do notice is that every time I challenge you to back up your assertions and clichés you avoid answering, as if you have no arguments or evidence to justify your claims.

97% of scientists in the field agree with the model. You are wrong. Prove them wrong and I'll listen to your claims. Until then the burden of proof is on you.


Go back and read my earlier posts. This issue of 97% of scientists ''agreeing with AGW'' is incorrect. I specifically raised that point myself as an example of how statistics are misused for political campaigning. The actual percentage of scientists promoting AGW as opposed to mentioning it has been calculated as less than 1% of the number of ''peer reviewed articles.'' That is an even smaller minority than that which believes there is no warming at all, from any cause.

I have also explained the scientific reasons why I believe AGW is wrong. So far nobody has answered or commented on these points.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby RF » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:24 pm

OpanaPointer wrote: You are wrong. Prove them wrong and I'll listen to your claims. Until then the burden of proof is on you.


Again you make a statement without any evidence or justification for it. I am wrong. Full stop. What sort of debate is that?

The essence of scientific progress is to take a proposition - such as whether warming exists and if so what causes it - and test it. The method of testing is to challenge the proposition by trying to prove that it is false. If it is demonstrated to be false then clearly it is disproved. If it cannot be falsified then it remains a theory, a theory that could be correct, or a theory that could still be wrong because the test that would falsify it has not been applied. Any scientist will know this, it is first year degree level material on any science degree, be it natural science or social science.
The burden of proof therefore is in this case on the supporters of the AGW hypothesis, such as yourself. Now instead of the ''mountains of evidence'' you claim exists all you can do is quote an infamous statistic which I and other contributors have already demonstrated to be false.

Even if 97% of the membership of the natural science professions did agree that AGW was definitely happening that in itself does not constitute proof. It is a 97% consensus of opinion, that is opinion only - without the testing to try to falsify the proposition.
To put it into simple terms, take the case of the Birmingham Six. In a criminal trial in the 1970's twelve jurors unanimously convicted the six accused of the Birmingham pub bombings. Does the 100% majority for conviction mean that they must be right, that guilt was proved beyond all doubt? Not so according to a later Court of Appeal, who overturned the convictions ..... majority opinion is just that, it isn't absolute proof because even a 100% view can still turn out to be WRONG.

It is also claimed by the AGW lobbyists that the evidence that ''proves'' AGW is on the basis of a balance of probability. That is that an increase in CO2 which they cannot prove is causing warming through human activity must therefore be true as a balance of probability. This is a very misleading concept that true scientists will not accept because it is so unreliable - it is in fact nothing other than guesswork and assumption. It has no scientific value.

Now the upshot of all this is that AGW cannot be proved. Apart from the dodgy methodology applied by the AGW lobbyists, there is substantial scientific evidence to disprove it, which has already been presented in this thread.

So we come back to my challenge to you to produce your scientific proof, without resorting to cliches, abuse and statistics already exposed as false. Lets be clear, unsupported statements like ''you are wrong'' is not evidence it is opinion and that opinion is already demonstrated to be false.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Mostlyharmless » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:10 pm

I find the posts of the opponents of global warming very puzzling because, while it is sometimes clear what they do not believe, it is not at all obvious what they do believe.

For example, does RF accept the evidence from satellite measurements of the Earth's surface temperature, the average troposphere temperature and the stratosphere temperature which now extend over almost 40 years? Does he also accept the measurements of solar radiance over the same period? Does he accept the measurements of carbon dioxide concentration (the Keeling Curve)?

RF wrote: ...snip...
For myself, as I acknowledge that the quote was not addressed specifically to me, I concur that there has been a slight increase in global temperatures that is caused by a natural process. Periods of warming and cooling can be traced back over millions of years. Over the last 350 years there has been a warming in the northern hemisphere from a cold period due to the natural cycles of the sun. Human activity as a contributor to that warming in my view is insignificant, although not zero.

The carbon dioxide content of Earth's atmosphere has fluctuated substantially of the millennia. Currently it has been only a trace gas and as such insufficient to trigger a warming process on its own. There is evidence that the CO2 content of Earth's atmosphere is starting to increase - but that increase is not material to rises in global temperatures.

Methane is even more of a trace gas. It is a very light gas and Earth's gravity is insufficient to hold on to it, so most of the methane will vent into outer space.

We are now past the current solar maximum. I would expect temperatures over the next 350 years to remain stable with possibly a small temperature increase. If there was no human activity on Earth I would expect temperatures to gradually reduce to where they were in Tudor times, so yes there is a small human impact. But not of the order of the AGW lobbyists.

If you feel that my view is unreasonable you can start the debate in another thread dedicated to that subject.

However, what is meant by natural processes? The Earth's climate reflects an energy balance with solar radiation arriving and heat being radiated back into space. There have being significant changes in climate but those changes have explanations, they are not simply random fluctuations. For example, the eruption of Samalas in 1257 may have ended the Medieval Warm Period and that of Tambora in 1815 may have given Dickens the idea of White Christmases. On a much longer timescale, we have the Milankovitch cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles. However, none of volcanic eruptions, changes in Solar radiance nor orbital effects are plausible explanations of the observed data. The Solar radiance might work for surface and troposphere temperatures if it had changed just before we started to measure it accurately but in that case it would cause stratospheric warming rather than cooling. The only thing that could cause the combination of surface and troposphere warming and stratospheric cooling is if the troposphere became better at trapping the heat.

Then we can calculate that the observed rise in carbon dioxide concentration would actually make the troposphere more opaque to infrared. Even Dave Sexton's favourite contrarian, Dr. Roy Spencer, estimates that doubling the carbon dioxide concentration would raise temperatures 1.3 degrees (according to https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... inaccurate but I seem to remember finding 1.25 degrees somewhere on own Roy Spencer's site). As he assumes very few feedbacks, that figure is I suspect both a transient and an equilibrium value.

Thus, there is no possible sensible way of denying that CO2 is warming the planet. The issue is by how much and what consequences will arise. Unfortunately, that is very difficult. Thus, the political argument on what if anything needs to be done occurs in the shadow of scientists arguing for between 1.3 and more than 6 degrees warming. The fact that the majority would say about 3 to 3.5 degrees does not prove anything. The subject is too complicated to prove. It is just where the bookmakers would give you the worse odds.

Unfortunately, 3 degrees of warming would raise sea level about 5 metres, which might depress property prices in London and in several other places.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby RF » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:37 am

Mostlyharmless wrote:For example, does RF accept the evidence from satellite measurements of the Earth's surface temperature, the average troposphere temperature and the stratosphere temperature which now extend over almost 40 years? Does he also accept the measurements of solar radiance over the same period? Does he accept the measurements of carbon dioxide concentration (the Keeling Curve)?


Go back and read my earlier posts.

You will then see that I have answered all of these questions directly.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby RF » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:49 am

Mostlyharmless wrote:
Thus, there is no possible sensible way of denying that CO2 is warming the planet. The issue is by how much and what consequences will arise. Unfortunately, that is very difficult.


It is made difficult because there is no proof, only subjective opinion from the limited information we have, which is the basis of your first sentence quoted here.
The issue as you identify it has the one key aspect missing - what the politicians choose to do about it and whether it will have any impact.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby RF » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:54 am

Mostlyharmless wrote:
However, what is meant by natural processes?


As you have managed to quote some of my views and then ignored them, I would inform you that my reference to natural processes was meaning all processes outside human activity and control.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Dave Saxton » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:17 pm

Mostlyharmless wrote:
For example, does RF accept the evidence from satellite measurements of the Earth's surface temperature, the average troposphere temperature and the stratosphere temperature which now extend over almost 40 years? Does he also accept the measurements of solar radiance over the same period? Does he accept the measurements of carbon dioxide concentration (the Keeling Curve)?


If you accept Santer and Sherwood’s argument that there is a hot spot, then you must reject the direct measurement data from more than 28 million radiosondes since 1958 that prove it is missing.

Radiosondes are the best tools to measure the missing troposphere hotspot, because satellite measurements lack the necessary resolution, per height. Nonetheless, the satellite record still shows troposphere cooling just as co2 concentration approached 400 ppm:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2 ... 2014/trend

This coincides with no significant temperature rise, as indicated by the satellites, between the two recent Super El Ninos and as human co2 emissions exploded during the 2000s:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... 15.4/trend

Thus, the political argument on what if anything needs to be done occurs in the shadow of scientists arguing for between 1.3 and more than 6 degrees warming.


I take it that you dismiss Dr. David Evans observation:

Hence:
• The ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 concentration) might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.
• The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, μ, is likely less than 20%
•The CO2 sensitivity, is likely less than 0.15 °C W−1 m2 (less than a third of the solar
sensitivity). Given a non-ascending WVEL (water vapor emissions level), it is difficult to construct a scenario consistent with the observed data in which the influence of CO2 is greater than this.


I can’t take an ECS above about 1*C (on the high side) seriously. A rise of greater than 1* once we reach the doubling of concentration from pre industrial times will certainly not be manifest. If as you claim that there has been a 0.8* increase since 1950 when the co2 concentration was 310 ppm, the next 90-100 ppm will certainly be far less than 0.8* due to the logarithmic manifestation. These estimates of 3-5* ECS are just way beyond reason. We are currently at about 400 ppm. How long until we reach 800 ppm and could see another Approx. 0.25-1* temperature increase above current levels due to co2 concentration, assuming concentration rises unabated and no natural variation intervenes? 150 years? 200 years from now?

Remember that the MWP was significantly warmer than it is now, and when the co2 concentration by proxy record was less than 270 ppm. The range of natural variation is great.

You are correct that it about the significance, and it is not significant.

Regarding sea level rise, we have not seen an acceleration in rate of sea level rise. It is still rising the same 1-3 mm per year that it has been for centuries. Yes, that is millimeters, not centimeters, and certainly not meters.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby Mostlyharmless » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:16 am

Dave Saxton wrote:...snip...

Regarding sea level rise, we have not seen an acceleration in rate of sea level rise. It is still rising the same 1-3 mm per year that it has been for centuries. Yes, that is millimeters, not centimeters, and certainly not meters.

The 5 metre figure was obviously taken from someone's model of equilibrium after a 3 degree rise in average temperatures. It clearly implied significant melting of ice on Greenland and Antarctica. There are huge delays built into the system. We are seeing the ocean surface temperature rising but the deep ocean is lagging far behind. If we could magically heat all the ocean by 3 degrees, we would see about a 2 metre rise in sea level by thermal expansion. However, we will have to wait for hundreds of years to see that sort of heating and as Dave says, measurements suggest a rise of approximately a millimetre or so per year.

Even my confidence that the combination of troposphere warming and stratosphere cooling was absolute proof that the troposphere was becoming more opaque to infrared took a knock today while I was dog walking. Someone, who I can only reference as Chop's Owner, suggested that the ozone depletion by CFCs could have made the stratosphere more transparent and caused the cooling.

I am becoming convinced that global warming is even more complicated than deciding if an arrangement of armour can benefit by yaw enough to balance out the weakening effects of using multiple layers.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby RF » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:35 am

Mostlyharmless wrote:
I am becoming convinced that global warming is even more complicated than deciding if an arrangement of armour can benefit by yaw enough to balance out the weakening effects of using multiple layers.


The issue 'global warming'' is indeed complicated and made more so by the efforts being made to try to rationalise something that is not actually happening into something that the promoters of AGW want to happen.
Key amongst this is the obsession with the 3 degree centigrade temperature increase which seems to be the holy grail of the AGW dogma.

I prefer to see the whole picture in macroclimatic and mesoclimatic terms. Earth's atmosphere is constantly subject to microclimatic change and over millions of years has seen many periods of warming and cooling, some of them far more extreme than even in the wildest dreams of AGW fantasists. Over the ages and going even further back in time the composition of Earth' atmosphere has changed substantially, with much higher concentrations of CO2 than we have at present.

Looking at the other planets in the solar system we can see that the Earth has probably the most placid weather systems of them all, despite the Earth's closeness to the sun.
Venus offers a demonstration of real global warming - it is closer to the sun, no internal heating processes so no protective magnetosphere, a very active thick CO2 atmosphere and very slow rotation. All due obviously to natural processes.
Mars also has a CO2 atmosphere but very much thinner, due to stripping by the solar wind. Despite a 97% CO2 content Mars is a very cold planet. No global warming process here as it is further way from the sun, though interestingly there are signs of warming as its polar ice caps seem to be slightly shrinking. The environment on Mars with its CO2 atmosphere for me undermines the credibility of CO2 as a universal greenhouse gas.
Jupiter has vast quantities of methane in its atmosphere. It is also far colder than Mars. Even allowing for its much greater distance from the sun, it does offer a rather bemusing example of how a more extreme greenhouse gas simply is not warming the place up.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 569
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Political correctness gone mad?

Postby paul.mercer » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:38 pm

Gentlemen,
Going back to my original post re political correctness, surely trying to influence children to be 'gender neutral', removing the word 'Christmas' from cards, taking off labels naming children clothes for 'Girls or 'Boys' and doing something similar for men and women's toilets amongst a host of other stupid ideas is taking this politically correct attitude too far? I do wonder just who these people who dream up this nonsense think they are doing.


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest