1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

London Climate Protests

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crinkleshoes, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. altus

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2005

    Posts: 380

    Allan MacRae sums up the term "Global warming better than i can.

    "The current usage of the term “climate change” is vague and the definition is routinely changed in the literature,
    such that it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore non-scientific nonsense.

    “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper

    Climate has always changed. Current climate is not unusual and is beneficial to humanity and the environment.
    Earth is in a ~10,000 year warm period during a ~100,000 year cycle of global ice ages.

    The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified decades ago
    when fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 increased sharply after ~1940, while global temperature cooled from ~1945 to ~1977.
    Also, there is no credible evidence that weather is becoming more chaotic – both hurricanes and tornadoes are at multi-decade low levels of activity."

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/11/Khandekar-Extreme-Weather.pdf

    "Even if all the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2,
    the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C,
    which is not enough to produce dangerous global warming."

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

    I believe "climate crisis" is the new buzz word.
     
  2. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,843

  3. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,447

    @altus: It's not a buzzword and normally we'd take the earliest uses of a term as the definition, it's not vague (1977) and it's a term that's been in use before Allan MacRae was probably born (1956).

    And once again you're presenting a strawman, climate scientists don't say the climate does not change, they say it's changing more rapidly than life on earth can cope with.

    Perhaps you should spend sometime reading this site that looks into the claims of climate change skeptics with skepticism.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  4. altus

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2005

    Posts: 380

    Mr Murphy.
    "And once again you're presenting a strawman, climate scientists don't say the climate does not change, they say it's changing more rapidly than life on earth can cope with."

    You dont have to tell me "climate scientists don't say the climate does not change" only an idiot would think that.
    Im not sure you understand what he is saying tbh from your reply.
    I think the world can cope with C02, it always has before and i see no reason for it not to now.
    Is you favourite word "strawman", you do use it a lot.
    There is no point in dancing around the table, just show me where climate sensitivity is shown to be high and where a "model" is not used to show it.
    I have no faith in climate models as they have been shown to fail time after time, so lets stick with observations and empirical evidence.
    That i would be interested to read.

    I have been well aware of SkS for a long time, theres nothing of note there other than propaganda.
    The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  5. timebomb26

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 26, 2012

    Posts: 1,498

    Location: Saitama

    You read what he says, claim that's not what you think and then continue to miss the point completely. You think the world can cope with CO2, because it always has. Yes, C02 levels are believed to have been around the same levels as today, but this cycle happens over millions of years. What we're seeing now is it happening rapidly over a few decades. The world will be just fine, it's just vast majority of every living creature that will suffer.
     
  6. flea.rider

    Hitman

    Joined: Aug 7, 2017

    Posts: 651

    you all expect people who get funding (that's a very nice wage) to turn around and say whoops we made a mistake ? it's like the dark matter argument billions upon billions have been spent and nothing but they keep saying it's true because there getting paid .
    now that the population has been brainwashed over the course of 20 or so yrs .. "we believe it to be true" 99.9% of what the forecasted din't happen the temp rise is no where near what they said ..
    the simple reason that rains and winds are moving is because the Hadley cells are expanding due to less heat from the sun .
    this has all happened before and will happen again
     
  7. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,447

    Well it seems I do as you keep saying the climate has changed in the past despite being told that's not what climate change means.
    I'm certainly starting to understand where your coming from and the reason i keep saying "strawman" is because people like you keep using them, you keep misrepresenting what's been said because you find that an easier position to attack. Even saying that you think the world can cope with increased CO2 is a strawman, nobody is saying that increased levels of CO2 is going to result in the world ending, it was hear long before humans walked the earth and it will be hear long after we've gone.

    As you've been repeatedly told it's not about a world ending cataclysmic event that leaves a blank space where earth used to circle the sun, it's about CO2 levels jumping rapidly and the global warming that's resulted being highly disruptive and possibly leading to mass extinctions.
    IDK what you'd class as high climate sensitivity, perhaps if you defined that a little better I'd be able to help out.

    I've already provided you with links to at least two examples of research conducted in 1956 and 1977 that have been shown, with the passage of time, to be very accurate...
    If you have no faith in models then may i suggest you stop reading about scientific research as it's full of them, models make predictions that are then tested against actual results, if you have no faith in models then you've failed to understand why they're used and failed to understand their limitations, they're a tool and like most tools they can be used incorrectly just as it seems you're doing.

    That there pretty much tells us all we need to know, a site that provides links to firsthand research so people can make up their own minds is not information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, it's information, information doesn't have an agenda. And FYI the blog, just like me, is not easily convinced and doubts the climate sceptics who by their own definition are sceptical of the science, that's neither sceptical nor scientific, it's putting the climate sceptics claims to the test and finding them wanting.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019
  8. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 8,362

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Still waiting on your sources. You have some right?
     
  9. altus

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2005

    Posts: 380

    You assume a lot. Theres plenty of evidence that the IPCC ignore data that does not fit with the agenda.
    pre-industrial C02 levels is just one.

    "By applying the inverse relation between numbers of leaf stomata and atmospheric CO2concentration, stomatal frequency analysis of fossil birch leaves from lake deposits in Denmark reveals a century-scale CO2 change during the prominent Holocene cooling event that occurred in the North Atlantic region between 8,400 and 8,100 years B.P. In contrast to conventional CO2 reconstructions based on ice cores from Antarctica."

    "It thus may be concluded that leaf-based CO2 data support a much more dynamic evolution of the Holocene CO2 regime than previously thought. In effect, there seems to be every indication that the occurrence of Holocene CO2 fluctuations is more consistent with current observations and models of past global temperature changes than the common notion of a relatively stable CO2 regime until the onset of the Industrial Revolution."

    https://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011

    "“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”

    "The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution "

    "The pre-industrial CO2 level was not significantly lower than current levels. Neither they nor the present readings are high relatively to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that preindustrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combined with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase when all records show the opposite then it is not surprising that IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong."

    "Stomata data show the higher readings and variability when compared to the excessively smoothed ice core record and aligns quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core 2000-year record shown is approximately 265 ppm, while it is at least 300 ppm for the stomata record."

    https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf
     
  10. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,447

    You're misrepresenting what's been said again.

    No one, other than yourself, is saying CO2 levels have not been higher in the past, they're saying it's the rate of change.
     
  11. altus

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2005

    Posts: 380

    If you had bothered to read\understood the above you would see there is no rate of change to worry about.
    Why do you think rate of change matters anyway, its not as if the human componenent of total C02 matters.
    Its tempreture and soil moisture that matters.
    Do yourself a favour and try to understand the basics of total C02 in the atmosphere.
    Its not the best quality but it is well explainded.
    Professor Murray Salby shows in this video how the human portion is of no consequence.

     
  12. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,447

    I did read and i do understand what you posted, it's just that i disagree with it and take issue with your constant claims that CO2 has been higher in the past when that's not the argument being put forward.
     
  13. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,843

    If the Sahara desert becomes green again sooner than the previously expected due to the axial tilt shift, will it cool the Planet because the vegetation keeps the daily temperatures lower, and will the average temperature change by much given the now extremes between the days and nights there?

    Whatever:



    Look at these clouds formations over Africa:

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,447

    You're asking for way to much there, altus wouldn't be able to do that without prattling on about CO2 levels being higher in the past. ;)
     
  15. altus

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 17, 2005

    Posts: 380

    :cool:
     
  16. flea.rider

    Hitman

    Joined: Aug 7, 2017

    Posts: 651

     
  17. flea.rider

    Hitman

    Joined: Aug 7, 2017

    Posts: 651

  18. flea.rider

    Hitman

    Joined: Aug 7, 2017

    Posts: 651

    MET OFFICE REPORTS HOTEST EASTER EVER ???? but it was 1.9 c higher in 2011 26.9c and in 1949 it was 29.4 ???
    so are they looking after there grants/wage ... pushing the warming agenda ?
     
  19. robfosters

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 1, 2010

    Posts: 28,954

    Location: Welling, London

  20. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,166

    Location: London

    Perhaps if you read the stories properly, or didn't rely on tabloid hyperbole, you'd have realised that the Met Office weren't claiming hottest ever, weren't just referring to England and weren't trying to make a direct connection with climate change and explained clearly why the weather was so hot for the time of year. Any other message would be entirely your inference not theirs.

    Record Easter temperatures in three nations of the UK
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48004374

    UK temperature hits 70-year high for Easter bank holiday
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...st-day-of-year-as-mercury-hits-a-70-year-high

    No doubt you'll be along again soon to cite the current unseasonal cold snap as further evidence that the 'warming agenda' is all a conspiracy?