Page 286 of 297 FirstFirst ... 186236276284285286287288296 ... LastLast
Results 4,276 to 4,290 of 4455
  1. #4276
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ... There are climate change skeptics like Lord Monckton that i don't have much time for; there are some like Ian Plimer that i have some time for; there are Nobel prize winning physicists like Freeman Dawson who sometimes sound a bit like Bjorn Lomberg ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pou3...st=WL&index=64 ) and other Nobel winning physicists who definitely do believe that climate change is a hoax
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxH...st=WL&index=63
    Instead of demonising Lomberg as a fraud,it would be more helpful to identify his objections to Paris and respond to them. Even if he's wrong, it doesn't mean he's a fraud. I mean, just because Tim Flannery got it wrong on Perth and Al Gore got it wrong on Arctic Ice....
    Let's work backwards. Firstly, I don't rely on either Tim Flannery or Al Gore for my information on AGW, so even if they got it wrong, it's not important to me. Secondly, it's Freeman Dyson, and while he's won many awards, he hasn't won the Nobel. Ivar Giaever did win the Nobel Prize in Physics almost fifty years ago, but there are many, many other (more recent) winners who disagree with him - he's almost certainly the only Physics laureate who holds the view that AGW is a pseudoscience. When there are disputes about science, the best advice is to stick to the majority view of the experts, such as NASA and the CSIRO. There will always be scientists who hold a minority opinion, but relying on them is not recommended.

    The articles posted by Ian did identify many mistakes by Lomborg. Particularly his evaluation of the Paris Agreement, which relied on clearly faulty assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that honest dialogue won't happen here. Not when a response to a claim that Peta Credlin will split the Liberal party is so quickly and needlessly turned into claims that Lomborg is just mouthing a set of rehearsed lines (PB) and Peta is represented as a woman without agency, just slavishly following Tony Abbott (IM). O well.... as you must. At least no-one reads it .... a bit like the Paris Agreement, really.
    I explained why I thought Credlin was just repeating a set of lines. And why Australia should be taking action to reduce AGW. If you don't have a response, fair enough. But out in the real world, there isn't much support in Australia for Credlin's policies.

    EDIT: To support my claim that Credlin is on the losing side of the argument, in the Essential poll here, only 29% of those polled supported withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, with 47% opposing it.
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 14-01-2019 at 07:04 PM. Reason: Polling data added.

  2. #4277
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Thanks for the correction, Patrick. I have no idea why i saw Dyson and wrote Dawson. I can't pass it off as a Gerard Henderson style John Laws style deliberate mistake - more like an old-fashioned mistake. Of course, one good correction deserves another - I don't think I said that you said Peta Credlin was just repeating a set of lines - you just made that up. I also don't think Professor Dyson, for Dyson he is, would be content with your dismissal of Ivar Giaever on the grounds that most scientists disagree with him. Apparently Freeman Dyson's response, when asked why he wasn't going along with the climate change consensus, said, "I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic." I would be interested in learning more about why Ivar Giaever is wrong, but I was already aware that most take a different view.... and that majority opposition is irrelevant one way or the other.

    With respect to the predictions of Tim and Al, it wasn't my intention to use their famously wrong predictions as an argument against AGW. I'm surprised you read it that way. I had read an earlier post from you about AGW and hadn't thought much about it, one way or the other. No, my point was simply to show that just because someone who isn't a climate specialist is proved wrong about some prediction or the other, it doesn't make them a fraud. I'm happy to be celebrating the 12th anniversary of Al Gore's prediction that there would be no ice at all in the Arctic within five years, but I don't think he's a fraud. Yet Bjorn Lomborg says the Paris Agreement is unlikely to achieve its stated aims - and lists his reasons - and is held to a different standard than good ole Al an' Tim. It's not difficult to identify his 5 main reasons - I've already posted links to them, and most are NOT about the science - but I'm still waiting for reasons why his assumptions about China are wrong; his assumptions about the take-up of nuclear are wrong; his assumptions about the willingness of the global agricultural sector to slaughter millions and millions and millions of cattle are wrong; etc. As he says, accept the science .... but then show how Paris is not based on a wishlist of highly unlikely miracles if the targets are to be met. And yes, speaking of miracles, I'm still waiting for an apology from IM to Peta C. for his distressingly telling misogyny.

    Finally, on your subject of AGW: can you please advise me how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural emissions and how much is caused by people? I've seen different figures for this. Ian Plimer says that it's 97-3 (so that the total of Australia's emissions is in the order of 1.38% of 3%). Please tell me we're not that insignificant. I'm already feeling insignificant as it is - and No,sorry, No polling allowed on this one - the last thing we need is more emissions from the rude and godless multitude.

  3. #4278
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Thanks for the correction, Patrick. I have no idea why i saw Dyson and wrote Dawson. I can't pass it off as a Gerard Henderson style John Laws style deliberate mistake - more like an old-fashioned mistake. Of course, one good correction deserves another - I don't think I said that you said Peta Credlin was just repeating a set of lines - you just made that up.
    But I did say that - although I never said that you said that I said it:
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    As with Lomborg, so with Credlin:
    When Lomborg talks about climate change, he has a set of rehearsed lines saying he accepts that climate change is real, its caused by humans and that it’s a problem. But when Lomborg does venture beyond his standard talking points into climate science commentary, he routinely infuriates genuine climate scientists. In my view, this is for good reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I also don't think Professor Dyson, for Dyson he is, would be content with your dismissal of Ivar Giaever on the grounds that most scientists disagree with him. Apparently Freeman Dyson's response, when asked why he wasn't going along with the climate change consensus, said, "I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic." I would be interested in learning more about why Ivar Giaever is wrong, but I was already aware that most take a different view.... and that majority opposition is irrelevant one way or the other.
    Any good scientist should be a skeptic - in the area they are studying. However, in an area where they are not an expert, any good scientist accepts the consensus view. Science would be impossible without this. Skeptical Science's refutation of Glaever puts it nicely:
    But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    With respect to the predictions of Tim and Al, it wasn't my intention to use their famously wrong predictions as an argument against AGW. I'm surprised you read it that way. I had read an earlier post from you about AGW and hadn't thought much about it, one way or the other. No, my point was simply to show that just because someone who isn't a climate specialist is proved wrong about some prediction or the other, it doesn't make them a fraud. I'm happy to be celebrating the 12th anniversary of Al Gore's prediction that there would be no ice at all in the Arctic within five years, but I don't think he's a fraud.
    Except Al Gore didn't make that prediction. He was quoting an expert who said it could happen, and Gore also makes it clear that it was not the consensus view - you can watch the video here.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Yet Bjorn Lomborg says the Paris Agreement is unlikely to achieve its stated aims - and lists his reasons - and is held to a different standard than good ole Al an' Tim. ...
    Have a look at the picture road runner posted. Using only two years of data, and ignoring the 25-year trend, really is an epic fail in data analysis - and all Lomborg's own work. So either he doesn't know how to properly analyse data, or he's misrepresenting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Finally, on your subject of AGW: can you please advise me how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural emissions and how much is caused by people? I've seen different figures for this. Ian Plimer says that it's 97-3 (so that the total of Australia's emissions is in the order of 1.38% of 3%). Please tell me we're not that insignificant. I'm already feeling insignificant as it is - and No,sorry, No polling allowed on this one - the last thing we need is more emissions from the rude and godless multitude.
    Glad to help. Skeptical Science provides the answer:
    But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years). Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
    While Australia's contribution to this is relatively small, all of the small contributions add up to a significant problem. And since Australia is going to suffer the effects more than many other countries, it doesn't make sense for Australia to do nothing and hope that other countries don't make the same decision. Not to mention that Australia can reduce its emissions without any significant cost, unlike many other countries, so we can be a significant world leader.

  4. #4279
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    But I did say that - although I never said that you said that I said it: PB

    No - you said:

    When Lomborg talks about climate change, he has a set of rehearsed lines PB

    Are you saying that Lomborg is really Credlin in disguise?

    Thanks for the links. Any advance on Plimer's 97-3 ratio - or can i assume that Australia's contribution to the unbalancing is 1.38% of 3% x 0.6?

    Any repsonse to Lomborg's actual problems with the Paris Agreement?
    Last edited by idledim; 15-01-2019 at 08:48 AM.

  5. #4280
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    But I did say that - although I never said that you said that I said it: PB

    No - you said:

    When Lomborg talks about climate change, he has a set of rehearsed lines PB

    Are you saying that Lomborg is really Credlin in disguise?

    Thanks for the links. Any advance on Plimer's 97-3 ratio - or can i assume that that Australia's contribution to the unbalancing 1.38% of 3% x 0.6?
    Some responses to Pilmer here.
    Did he really say that warming stopped in 1998? Geez that's a bit embarrassing.

    For the CO2 levels, NASA has the answer:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_res...arbon-dioxide/

    Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air. ...

    meep meep

  6. #4281
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    But I did say that - although I never said that you said that I said it: PB
    No - you said: When Lomborg talks about climate change, he has a set of rehearsed lines PB
    Are you saying that Lomborg is really Credlin in disguise?
    No - but I also said: "As with Lomborg, so with Credlin".
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Thanks for the links. Any advance on Plimer's 97-3 ratio - or can i assume that Australia's contribution to the unbalancing is 1.38% of 3% x 0.6?
    That seems to be correct. It sounds small, but the combined effect of all those emissions is quite dramatic:
    All-time highest minimum temperatures have been broken in three places as a heatwave sets in across much of Australia, threatening more record hot days.
    Meekatharra in Western Australia and Fowlers Gap and White Cliffs in New South Wales all registered an overnight minimum of 33C on Monday. Severe to extreme heatwave conditions extending from the interior of WA across South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and NSW will bring maximum temperatures of 8C to 12C above average, and in some places up to 16C above average before the end of the week.
    Added together, the combined emissions from countries which individually emit less than 5% of the global total make up about 40% of that total. So if all these countries decided to do nothing to reduce emissions, it would be very bad for Australia.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Any repsonse to Lomborg's actual problems with the Paris Agreement?
    Ian already covered that here. To quote just one problem with his analysis:
    For the EU, in both the optimistic and the pessimistic cases, Lomborg assumes that after 2030 emissions increase. This is to completely ignore the fact that EU emissions have been steadily decreasing since 1990. It also ignores the EU's 2050 target of an 80% reduction.
    That seems a very strange choice for an 'optimistic' scenario.

    Lomborg himself admits that he ignores any policy starting after 2030:
    I will investigate policies that have practical political implications soon and have a verifiable outcome by 2030, but not policies that promise actions only or mostly starting after 2030.
    The problem with this is that Paris is only the first step - it was never intended to solve the problem by itself. But without that first step, the problem will never be solved.

  7. #4282
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Health authorities warn not just the vulnerable at risk as temperatures soar
    The Australian, 16 January 2019

    Health and emergency authorities are urging Australians to prepare for “oppressive” conditions as the week-long heatwave lingers across the country. ...

    Emergency services have warned that even healthy people were vulnerable during extreme heatwave conditions.

    “When it is extremely hot during the day and it does not cool down at night, it is hard for your body to cool itself,” a spokesman from South Australia’s SES said. “In an extreme heatwave even healthy people who do not take action to keep cool can become very ill.”

    The Bureau of Meteorology said the heatwave conditions should not be treated as “just a bit of summer heat” after NSW Health recorded a 13 per cent increase in deaths and a 14 per cent jump in people attending the Emergency department during the 2011 heatwave. ...
    meep meep

  8. #4283
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    I wonder if The Australian is making the connection between the increased temperatures and the almost 50% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas?

  9. #4284
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,794
    What would Australia look like powered by 100% renewable energy?
    The Guardian
    28.1.19

    ...the majority of Australia’s energy companies are working towards a very different future for the country’s energy system, a future powered by clean, renewable energy.

    There are now at least nine studies conducted during the decade that have analysed how Australia can move from an electricity system based on polluting coal and gas to one powered by the sun, wind and waves.

    The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) – the body tasked with making sure we have energy when we need it – found there were “no fundamental limits to 100% renewables”, and that the current standards of the system’s security and reliability would be maintained.

    These studies show different pathways towards 100% renewable energy, but what they all agree on is that it can be achieved.

    So how would it work? If we get our policies and regulation right, the electricity system of the future could look something like this:...

  10. #4285
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,794
    German commission proposes coal exit by 2038

    Clean Energy Wire
    26.1.19

    The final report of Germany's coal exit commission sets out a pathway for the country to phase out the fossil power source and make progress on its slow emissions reductions. Delegations from industry, environmental NGOs, civil society and policymakers have agreed in talks lasting for more than half a year that Germany should end coal-fired power generation by 2038, with an option to end it by 2035. In a first step, Germany should switch off 12.5 gigawatts of capacity by 2022. The document gives detailed answers on how the country can cope with the implications that a coal exit will have on the economic future of mining regions, on the power price, industrial competitiveness, supply security and the transition to a clean energy system. Overall, media estimated that affected regions should get some 40 billion euros in support over the next 20 years....

  11. #4286
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    State of the climate: How the world warmed in 2018

    ... A number of records for the Earth’s climate were set in 2018:

    • It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2017 and 2018.
    • It was the fourth warmest year on record for surface temperature.
    • It was the sixth warmest year in the lower troposphere – the lower part of the atmosphere.
    • Greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.
    • Sea ice was well below the long-term average at both poles for most of the year. The summer Arctic sea ice minimum was the sixth lowest since records began in the late 1970s. ...
    Last edited by road runner; 02-02-2019 at 06:23 PM.
    meep meep

  12. #4287
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,794
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    State of the climate: How the world warmed in 2018

    ... A number of records for the Earth’s climate were set in 2018:

    • It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2017 and 2018.
    • It was the fourth warmest year on record for surface temperature.
    • It was the sixth warmest year in the lower troposphere – the lower part of the atmosphere.
    • Greenhouse gas concentrations reached record levels for CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.
    • Sea ice was well below the long-term average at both poles for most of the year. The summer Arctic sea ice minimum was the sixth lowest since records began in the late 1970s. ...
And 2019 is not looking any better, with January being the hottest month ever recorded and the heat tipped to last until April.
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  • #4288
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Hobart was almost 10 degrees (!) hotter than Brisbane today. I bet that hasn't happened very often.

  • #4289
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Hobart was almost 10 degrees (!) hotter than Brisbane today. I bet that hasn't happened very often.
    Today was Hobart's hottest recorded March day by 1.8 degrees and Tasmania's hottest March day ever (Cape Bruny AWS with 39.7 ended up beating Hobart with 39.1. Hobart even beat Bushy Park, a place past New Norfolk that's infamous for being very hot on hot days and very cold on cold ones.)

    This summer in Hobart has been ridiculous. We had a hot dry summer in 2016 and I thought, oh, it's like 1998, peak of the oscillation, we won't get one like that again for a while. And this is although Tasmania is generally modelled as being relatively mild in terms of temperature impacts of climate change.

    We've also had a lot of fires started by dry lightning strikes, some of which have become very large (often after joining with others) and one of which has been burning for over two months. The it's-not-climate-change brigade point to other massive fires in Tasmania in the past, such as the 1890s, 1934 and 1967 - but none of those were actually natural. 1967 had an abundance of fire in the landscape before it started as a result of people burning off. The earlier fires were started by people deliberately burning land for the purposes of opening up grazing land and/or mineral exploration.

  • #4290
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Today was Hobart's hottest recorded March day by 1.8 degrees and Tasmania's hottest March day ever (Cape Bruny AWS with 39.7 ended up beating Hobart with 39.1. Hobart even beat Bushy Park, a place past New Norfolk that's infamous for being very hot on hot days and very cold on cold ones.)

    This summer in Hobart has been ridiculous. We had a hot dry summer in 2016 and I thought, oh, it's like 1998, peak of the oscillation, we won't get one like that again for a while. And this is although Tasmania is generally modelled as being relatively mild in terms of temperature impacts of climate change.

    We've also had a lot of fires started by dry lightning strikes, some of which have become very large (often after joining with others) and one of which has been burning for over two months. The it's-not-climate-change brigade point to other massive fires in Tasmania in the past, such as the 1890s, 1934 and 1967 - but none of those were actually natural. 1967 had an abundance of fire in the landscape before it started as a result of people burning off. The earlier fires were started by people deliberately burning land for the purposes of opening up grazing land and/or mineral exploration.
    Greater weather extremes are something we're going to have to learn to live with, it seems. That's with a planet 1°C hotter so far. 2°, the current Paris target, will be livable but with major upheavals. If we continue with business-as-usual, we're looking at 4°-5° hotter by 2100, which would be a different planet.

    BTW this tread is acting funny again. Your post was decapitated, but recovered when I quoted it.

  • Page 286 of 297 FirstFirst ... 186236276284285286287288296 ... LastLast

    Thread Information

    Users Browsing this Thread

    There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Evangelism and Climate Change
      By Ian Murray in forum Religion and Science
      Replies: 14
      Last Post: 11-04-2017, 11:24 AM
    2. Climate Change (read bottom up)
      By antichrist in forum Politics
      Replies: 29
      Last Post: 11-10-2010, 01:00 PM
    3. Climate Change Is Irreversable ??
      By Bruce Oates in forum Religion and Science
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: 28-01-2009, 09:55 PM
    4. The Death of Climate Change Consensus
      By Spiny Norman in forum Politics
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: 21-12-2007, 11:38 AM
    5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
      By Cat in forum Non-Chess
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •