Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
You seem desperate to muddy the waters rather than confront the fact that Low sensitivity to C02 is shown in MANY empirically evidenced papers.
Here is a more recent one that you will dismiss no doubt after you have looked up on how to discredit it on [NOT]Skeptical science.
Lewis/Curry : https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Lindzen/Choi : http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
If your still here have a look here: 100+ Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
If sensitivity is low then there is no need to argue about feedback.
You have no proof that the PETM was caused by C02, whatever caused that,it was not human activity.
It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect!
Human carbon dioxide adds at most only 0.0039 of the greenhouse effect, and may well be less.
Maybe it was your experience at university that has got you so worried and given you a warped idea of what settled science is?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,072
That recent xmas celebrity Mastermind episode where the question is what is her name and the reply was "Sharon!" and John Humphries deadpan reply has gone viral apparently, even Greta changed her Twitter account name to... Sharon. Lol.
Can't say I'm a fan of Greta Thunberg but on the other hand she's doing what she believes in for what she believes is a good cause.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,854
already posted
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,308
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Post 1848
Nah, just bored of people posting sub par "data" to try and refute something generally considered accurate, or at least accurate enough. There's so much junk posted about climate change, generally coming from a relatively small number of sites and organizations. So far you posted a fair chunk of them...
Nope, I won't dismiss it entirely. I will point out however (and this is the great thing about peer reviewed science that so many climate change sceptics don't seem to understand), several people have already written papers pointing out the errors in the modelling used in the paper (eg Dessier et al., 2018) . The lead author is also has a history of misrepresenting data. That said, it's all broadly irrelevant because while the Lewis/Curry paper does indeed suggest CO2 does have a forcing effect, it's just on the lower end of the IPCC models (which still indicates human emissions are raising temperature....)
I have no proof the dinosaur died out 65 million years ago either, or that many other generally accepted geological and scientific theories are accurate (such as the theory of evolution, there's no "proof" to that either). Proof is a very strong word when we're talking about science and if we relied on "proof" then we wouldn't be where we are now in terms of development and scientific advancement.
But again, not that it really matters in this case, because the argument was not that the PETM was cased by CO2. The PETM was provided as an example of a feedback loop. Anglians snowball earth was also another good example in the opposite direction (cooling not heating). As you say, the PETM was one hell of a greenhouse effect that caused a major extinction effect. From empirical evidence over the last 100-200 years of global temperatures we're heading in that direction far faster than happened then. Does that not worry you, especially when we start looking at the PETM and theories of why there was a runaway temperature increase?)
And? The greenhouse effect is what stops earth being like Mars or Venus. Minor changes can have significant impacts on Earths climate. A change of 4 degrees is massive from a livability point of view, but relatively tiny compared to the 290c difference between space and Earths average temperature.
The issue here is largely to do with the definition of "settled" science, you're right. There will always be indications and evidence pointing to other theories, and pieces of evidence that doesn't agree with the bulk of the evidence. That's one of the main jobs of a scientist, to sort the evidence and weight it based on reliability and repeatability.
Climate sceptics spend their lives using wonky data at the fringes of science that generally don't tally with what the bulk of the information is telling us. Just because some (such as the website of 100 papers that fall on the low side of CO2 forcing estimates you provided) don't fit doesn't mean that a theory is wrong. We shouldn't dismiss legitimate papers (note here legitimate, not random non peer reviewed papers you started with) out of hand, but they should be analyzed and weighted against other papers saying the exact opposite (and there are plenty of papers to support a higher sensitivity to CO2 than the IPCC are using).
Again a lot of words trying to score points to back up your stance.
In reality few are needed, your evidence for high sensitivity seems to be all model based.
I have more faith in observational\empirical evidence than models, that have been shown to be useless : https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
We can both throw stones at each other, i could throw some at Dessler/stevens if i felt like it, but that will not change the fact that the only thing that matters is how sensitive the climate is to C02 from a CAGW perspective.
Being the sceptic that i am, anything based on a model of our chaotic climate system from the side that gave us "climategate" does not convince me easily.
Show me a model based on a complete understanding of the climate and how it works [ a long way off ], then add a track record of accuracy that agrees with observations. That would be amazing, and i really think it would be very useful thing for us to have, even if it was to show my current stance to be wrong.
I originally responded to you because of your comment about Richard Linzdens comment that i posted.
I doubt highly that you can put forward anyone who is more qualified than him to discuss C02 in the atmosphere. If he makes a comment on this subject i think he is worth listening to.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
I just see, blather.
So the snow flakes will now ditch the car/bus ride to school where they can chill with their phones/mates, in favour of walking/cycling? Be it 1,5, or even 10 miles? They're now going to get up extra early on a school day? Even when it's cold, raining and miserable? Because they're honest?
As if man. The massive majority of millennials will do whatever suits them, just like all other generations before them.
Nothing new. Just more disturbing depths of narcissism and attention seeking.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,022
- Location
- melee island
He is also a known liar who said he did not recieve any money from a fossil fuel company, it was later discovered that he did.
He also claimed the link between smoking and lung cancer is weak.
He's also been wrong on many a climate issue https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
Not sure there's room for half measures. Haven't we 'stolen childhoods' with our toxic ways?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,022
- Location
- melee island
Of course there is, its called balance.
"Russia is putting a positive spin on climate change. In a document published on a government website last weekend, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev outlined a "national adaptation plan" that describes the potential benefits of global warming even as the country seeks to cope with its adverse effects.
Russia is warming two and a half times faster than the rest of the globe, as the document acknowledges. The consequences of climate change will "have a significant and growing impact on the country's socioeconomic development, living conditions, human health and on the economy," according to document from the country's economic development ministry translated by CBS MoneyWatch.
But global warming isn't all bad, according to the document. In addition to negative effects such as increased flooding, greater risk of wildfires and the melting of permafrost, the Russian government lists some "potentially positive" changes.
For example, shorter winters mean residents can save on home-heating fuel, the document says. Less Arctic ice also makes it easier for Russian ships to navigate the Arctic Ocean, opening new sea routes, while more land can be used to grow crops as once-frozen areas thaw out.
The plan puts forth some broad measures to tackle the effects of climate change, including constructing dams, using drought-resistant crops and temporarily resettling people in the line of danger.
Much like U.S. President Donald Trump, who has described the idea of man-made climate change as a "hoax," Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied that humans are responsible for climate change.
"Nobody knows the origins of global climate change," Putin said at his annual press conference last month. "In the history of our Earth there have been periods of warming and cooling and it could depend on processes in the universe," he said, while acknowledging the challenge of dealing with environmental changes.
Russia, the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, formally joined the Paris climate agreement last year, after a historic forest fire season in Siberia burned an area the size of Greece.
The vast majority of scientists agree that human use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. Since the middle of the 19th century, the planet has warmed about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit on average, which has been linked to more heat waves, more extreme weather events and . Arctic areas are warming much faster than the average."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia...nge-publishes-a-plan-outlining-its-positives/
Putin says no one knows - of course he lies. With such policies, it becomes clear who is interested in the global warming
Russia is warming two and a half times faster than the rest of the globe, as the document acknowledges. The consequences of climate change will "have a significant and growing impact on the country's socioeconomic development, living conditions, human health and on the economy," according to document from the country's economic development ministry translated by CBS MoneyWatch.
But global warming isn't all bad, according to the document. In addition to negative effects such as increased flooding, greater risk of wildfires and the melting of permafrost, the Russian government lists some "potentially positive" changes.
For example, shorter winters mean residents can save on home-heating fuel, the document says. Less Arctic ice also makes it easier for Russian ships to navigate the Arctic Ocean, opening new sea routes, while more land can be used to grow crops as once-frozen areas thaw out.
The plan puts forth some broad measures to tackle the effects of climate change, including constructing dams, using drought-resistant crops and temporarily resettling people in the line of danger.
Much like U.S. President Donald Trump, who has described the idea of man-made climate change as a "hoax," Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied that humans are responsible for climate change.
"Nobody knows the origins of global climate change," Putin said at his annual press conference last month. "In the history of our Earth there have been periods of warming and cooling and it could depend on processes in the universe," he said, while acknowledging the challenge of dealing with environmental changes.
Russia, the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, formally joined the Paris climate agreement last year, after a historic forest fire season in Siberia burned an area the size of Greece.
The vast majority of scientists agree that human use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. Since the middle of the 19th century, the planet has warmed about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit on average, which has been linked to more heat waves, more extreme weather events and . Arctic areas are warming much faster than the average."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia...nge-publishes-a-plan-outlining-its-positives/
Putin says no one knows - of course he lies. With such policies, it becomes clear who is interested in the global warming
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
The temperature is recovering from the ice age. In that sense it is strictly impossible to say humans are responsible. Imo it seems more than likely we are contributing, even accelerating it, but I think VP has been very careful with his wording. Put another way he is saying, "We didn't start it."
Politicians
Politicians
The temperature is recovering from the ice age. In that sense it is strictly impossible to say humans are responsible. Imo it seems more than likely we are contributing, even accelerating it, but I think VP has been very careful with his wording. Put another way he is saying, "We didn't start it."
Politicians
Humans are responsible. And humans would be very naive if they think that things will go smoothly without unexpected and unplanned surprises. Such as a complete dry out of the Amazon rainforest region which could accelerate the global warming even further, so effectively making all their efforts best described with "Project Venus" wording!
CO2 levels have been flat for at least thousands of years before the industrial revolution took place around 1850.
There is data starting from year 1800 or so. The data shows that during the preindustrial times, the sea level actually had fallen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
I stand by my statement. Epistemolgically-speaking, it is impossible to know this. There is no control group. Please don't think I'm a denier, and I respect your belief, but it can not be proven. It is a technical point and shouldn't stop us taking mitigating action wherever possible.
There isn't a control group for the Theory of Gravity either. Just saying.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
That's why it's a theory.