Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24
Send Topic Print
mindless hysterics from climate skeptics (Read 18554 times)
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #285 - Dec 9th, 2019 at 5:45pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 10:23am:
Frank wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:45am:
The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:36am:
Frank wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:32am:
human co2 us a very small percentage of the total atmospheric co2 economy.


Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Another person who doesn't understand the carbon cycle, and that human emissions are ADDITIONAL CO2 that are accumulating in the atmosphere

Since co2 is not from a single source, EVERY kind of co2 is ADDITIONAL to the others.

Forest fire caused by lightening - natural. Caused by arsonist - anthropogenic and so additional.... Tongue


You still obviously don't understand the carbon cycle
Natural emissions of CO2 are roughly balanced by natural absorption of CO2 giving us a stable and comfortably warm climate.
Forest fires only last a few days or weeks and are balanced out by the regrowth afterward
Burning fossil fuels however has been going on for at least 150 years and the CO2 has been ACCUMULATING in the atmosphere



Well, there is this graph on Skeptical Science - Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism. It shows the natural and human contributions to the CO2 economy. It lumps together CO2 from emissions and land use. Better land use is terefore a significant factor in balancing what goes out and what is absorbed.

The graph obviously doesn't take into consideration all other factors that make up the climate so it is simplistic and deceptive, as Judith Curry points out. Capture more CO2 naturally - trees and vegetation - or by technology.

...


I think the biggest resistance is to the hysterics of the Adam Brandt and Extension Rebellion/ Greta Thunberg kind. No self-respecting adult can go along with their idiotic antics. (and of course they are not protesting in Beijing and Delhi).

The idiotic fringe of politics has made the 'climate' its signature issue. A huge disservice to any legitimate and common sense concern.




Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:31pm by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #286 - Dec 9th, 2019 at 6:11pm
 
I am a Groucho Marxist when it comes to the Adam Brant/Extinction Rebellion/Socialist Alliance/Green hysterics about about the 'climate'.

Whatever they say I'm against it. On principle. I could never side with their likes. Vulgar, lumpen  bullies.



Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 9th, 2019 at 8:48pm by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 18051
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #287 - Dec 9th, 2019 at 6:34pm
 
The thing with those numbers is that it doesn't look at the uncertainties.

In Wild et al 2015 they assessed the imbalance as 0.6w/m2.

But the imbalance is ten times smaller than the uncertainty in the measurement of the major flows (incoming and outgoing): 0.6 w/m2 in a flow of 240 w/m2 or about two-tenths of a percent.

What it means is that the IPCC claims to identify and and attribute (to CO2) a global energy imbalance of a magnitude that is so small that — if it exists — it is fully explained by our ignorance/uncertainty about the precise values of the energy flows we are trying to balance.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
tickleandrose
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4102
Gender: female
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #288 - Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:26pm
 
Gnads wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 2:38pm:
tickleandrose wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 1:27pm:
Wether or not, the CO2 is cause of climate change or not, it is less of importance.  What is important, is that, humanity is facing a transitional period from the types of energy generation.  Fossil fuels and Coals are finite resources, a type of stored biological solar power.  It is not matter of if, but when this type of resource would run out.  And both fossil fuels and coal takes a long time to become an usable form.

Fossile fuels and coals are also important for more essential travel needs: such as air space, and as well as plastics - used in a variety of applications (e.g. medical military and everyday uses)   As yet, we dont have a viable alternative for them.  So.. what we have left of the finite resource, we need to conserve it for those more important things. 

Therefore we need to innovate into new technologies, or at least start the process, so that our future generation would not be negatively impacted by our inaction. 


If coal is so finite & besides our existing coal mines & the few new ones planned ......

how come the CSG Fracking Industry can find all this 1,000s of hectares of coal seams underground to frack all over every state in this country? .....

and when the coal seams are fracked out they have like in the USA all these shale seams mapped out to frack for gas????


So we have a few different energies all under fossil fuel - Oil, gas and Coal.  The math is simple.  In terms of oil, globally, we consume around 11 billion tonnes.  Each tonnes of these fuel takes around tens of millions to hundreds of millions years to form naturally.  As you know from high school science, fossile fuels are buried dead organic matters that was altered as aresult of anaerobic digestion.  When i talk about finite resources, I am not talking about absolute depletion - that is a misunderstanding.  Because, statistically, since Earth is so large in relation to humanity, despite best efforts, there would always be remenant of pockets of reserves somewhere.  No, what we talk about, is we are fast reaching a point where the cost of extracting those resources would become so expensive, thus make it not viable to extract anymore. 

Fracking is one of the techniques used by companies to extract oil by injecting high pressure water into the ground.  When we first started extracting oil, this was not needed.  However, after years of extraction, the conventional method would only extract less and less for the same effort and cost. 

Fracking of course, also come with enormous environmental cost.  See this article for details.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/26/fracking-the-reality-the-risks-and-what-the-future-holds
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #289 - Dec 9th, 2019 at 10:01pm
 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 9th, 2019 at 10:20pm by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49476
At my desk.
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #290 - Dec 10th, 2019 at 1:37pm
 
Frank wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:32am:
freediver wrote on Dec 8th, 2019 at 7:05pm:
[quote author=Frank link=1574571749/263#263 date=1575792316][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/259#259 date=1575791432][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/233#233 date=1575761400][quote author=Frank link=1574571749/208#208 date=1575684764][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/200#200 date=1575676895]


I can quote Frank saying that C02 emissions have no effect on climate at all.



Quote:
Do our C02 emissions effect the climate Frank?


You have not been asking the same question. FD. And you still haven't  quoted me to substantiate your first, 'totalitarian' assertion of  'no effect'.
To your second, different question: no direct causality only minimal indirect effect (human co2 us a very small percentage of the total atmospheric co2 economy). It most certainly is not the driver of any global  climate variations. There is no 'climate crisis'.  Deforestation and predatory land use are more significant human effects on local climate variations. Once more, all together:

Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways. Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming
...
Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require centuries of management.

The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult.  Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. The monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems and effective solutions.

Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/8


The 'climate crisis' is hysterics.


So that's a no, but really a yes?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 18051
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #291 - Dec 10th, 2019 at 1:46pm
 
...

"45% of the ice loss occurred before 1900, when atmospheric was still below 300 ppm. By 1950, 75% of the ice loss had occurred. Only 25% of the ice loss has occurred since humans allegedly became the primary drivers of climate change. At the time of “The Ice Age Cometh” (1975), 90% of the ice loss had already occurred.

In the extremely unlikely event that the climate models are right, 90% of the ice loss occurred before an anthropogenic fingerprint could be discerned."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/09/sea-level-rise-acceleration-jevrejeva-vs-...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Robot
Senior Member
****
Offline


Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #292 - Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:31pm
 
Frank wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 5:45pm:
The graph obviously doesn't take into consideration all other factors that make up the climate so it is simplistic and deceptive,


Frank: "This simplified picture is simple!"

The IPCC has one with more arrows. It's all very pointy.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 18051
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #293 - Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:35pm
 
Robot wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:31pm:
The IPCC has one with more arrows. It's all very pointy.



Have they? What does their model of imbalance say? Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Robot
Senior Member
****
Offline


Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #294 - Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:41pm
 
lee wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:35pm:
Robot wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:31pm:
The IPCC has one with more arrows. It's all very pointy.



Have they? What does their model of imbalance say? Wink


Look, pal: Frank wants more arrows, that's all there is to it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 18051
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #295 - Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:51pm
 
Robot wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 6:41pm:
Look, pal: Frank wants more arrows, that's all there is to it.



So how many more arrows petal? Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #296 - Dec 10th, 2019 at 8:21pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 1:37pm:
Frank wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:32am:
freediver wrote on Dec 8th, 2019 at 7:05pm:
[quote author=Frank link=1574571749/263#263 date=1575792316][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/259#259 date=1575791432][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/233#233 date=1575761400][quote author=Frank link=1574571749/208#208 date=1575684764][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/200#200 date=1575676895]


I can quote Frank saying that C02 emissions have no effect on climate at all.



Quote:
Do our C02 emissions effect the climate Frank?


You have not been asking the same question. FD. And you still haven't  quoted me to substantiate your first, 'totalitarian' assertion of  'no effect'.
To your second, different question: no direct causality only minimal indirect effect (human co2 us a very small percentage of the total atmospheric co2 economy). It most certainly is not the driver of any global  climate variations. There is no 'climate crisis'.  Deforestation and predatory land use are more significant human effects on local climate variations. Once more, all together:

Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways. Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming
...
Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require centuries of management.

The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult.  Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. The monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems and effective solutions.

Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/8


The 'climate crisis' is hysterics.


So that's a no, but really a yes?

You piss into Sydney Harbour and it will effect its temperature. Significantly? No.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Robot
Senior Member
****
Offline


Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #297 - Dec 11th, 2019 at 4:06am
 
Frank wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 8:21pm:
You piss into Sydney Harbour and it will effect its temperature. Significantly? No.


"Really small numbers all look the same to me."
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 48261
Gender: male
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #298 - Dec 11th, 2019 at 6:12pm
 
Robot wrote on Dec 11th, 2019 at 4:06am:
Frank wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 8:21pm:
You piss into Sydney Harbour and it will effect its temperature. Significantly? No.


"Really small numbers all look the same to me."



Sense of proportion.  That's what the hysterics have abandoned - climate, identity, politics, education, literature.  You are all bloody Gretas when you are not Dereks or Yassmins or Waleeds and Caitlyn Jenners.

Barbie World has turned into Freaky World in a few short years. And the freakery is far from over.








Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 11th, 2019 at 6:40pm by Frank »  

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49476
At my desk.
Re: mindless hysterics from climate skeptics
Reply #299 - Dec 11th, 2019 at 9:47pm
 
Frank wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 8:21pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 10th, 2019 at 1:37pm:
Frank wrote on Dec 9th, 2019 at 9:32am:
freediver wrote on Dec 8th, 2019 at 7:05pm:
[quote author=Frank link=1574571749/263#263 date=1575792316][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/259#259 date=1575791432][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/233#233 date=1575761400][quote author=Frank link=1574571749/208#208 date=1575684764][quote author=freediver link=1574571749/200#200 date=1575676895]


I can quote Frank saying that C02 emissions have no effect on climate at all.



Quote:
Do our C02 emissions effect the climate Frank?


You have not been asking the same question. FD. And you still haven't  quoted me to substantiate your first, 'totalitarian' assertion of  'no effect'.
To your second, different question: no direct causality only minimal indirect effect (human co2 us a very small percentage of the total atmospheric co2 economy). It most certainly is not the driver of any global  climate variations. There is no 'climate crisis'.  Deforestation and predatory land use are more significant human effects on local climate variations. Once more, all together:

Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways. Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming
...
Climate change – both manmade and natural – is a chronic problem that will require centuries of management.

The extreme rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion and other activists is making political agreement on climate change policies more difficult.  Exaggerating the dangers beyond credibility makes it difficult to take climate change seriously. The monomaniacal focus on elimination of fossil fuel emissions distracts our attention from the primary causes of many of our problems and effective solutions.

Common sense strategies to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, improve environmental quality, develop better energy technologies, improve agricultural and land use practices, and better manage water resources can pave the way for a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – supporting climate change mitigation while improving human well being. These strategies avoid the political gridlock surrounding the current policies and avoid costly policies that will have minimal near-term impacts on the climate. And finally, these strategies don’t require agreement about the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

We don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will evolve, and we will undoubtedly be surprised. Given this uncertainty, precise emissions targets and deadlines are scientifically meaningless. We can avoid much of the political gridlock by implementing common sense, no-regrets strategies that improve energy technologies, lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient to extreme weather events.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/8


The 'climate crisis' is hysterics.


So that's a no, but really a yes?

You piss into Sydney Harbour and it will effect its temperature. Significantly? No.


Did you misunderstand the question the first ten times I asked? Or were you just too hysterical to notice the crap coming out of your mouth?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24
Send Topic Print