Global Warming

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Geez, the whole rainfall in Australia thing was brought up by L2R2R a couple of years ago and, as was pointed out then, the changes in rainfall in Australia are regional - from what I remember it was a case of falling rainfall in SE Australia and rising in NW Australia. As was pointed out then, clearly to no avail as L2R2R has yet again brought it up as he must assume we have no memory of the way his argument fell flat on its face then, the changes in average rainfall across all of Australia is a useless stat given the different regions of Australia have quite different climates.

I'm not going back to debunk the selective use of data by L2R2R yet again, I just can't be bothered dealing with someone who is unwilling to learn from previous debates.

There is no long-term trend of decreasing rainfall in Australia.

We've always had flood. We've always had drought. It never falls in the same place year after year.

Wrong: https://www.universetoday.com/14232...y-accurate-within-1-20th-of-a-degree-celsius/

You can cite studies that cherry-pick, the models are flawed by the IPCC's own admission. They've always, always run hot.

Yep, it is all a big conspiracy isn't it? The UN, the scientists, hey, even a few of us Richmond supporters, we're all conspiring to manipulate global wealth via some concocted theory of climate change, sure Lee

It is the UN's goal by its own admission. Numerous quotes from UN members stating this proliferate in this thread. Ignore them if you like, it doesn't change the fact that the climate change movement is political.

 

[AngryAnt]

It is the UN's goal by its own admission. Numerous quotes from UN members stating this proliferate in this thread. Ignore them if you like, it doesn't change the fact that the climate change movement is political.

Of course it's political. There is the science - which is not political - then there has to be changes to policy, business, industry, lifestyle, consumerism. How could that not be political?

 

[AngryAnt]

There is no long-term trend of decreasing rainfall in Australia.

We've always had flood. We've always had drought. It never falls in the same place year after year.

You can cite studies that cherry-pick, the models are flawed by the IPCC's own admission. They've always, always run hot.

Models are models, they are useful in extrapolating change in complex systems, they are not perfect. No-one has ever denied this. This is not some sort of smoking gun.

The trends are clear, the models are very accurate and getting more accurate. The physical signs of climate change abound. You never address environmental change, receding glaciers, sea temp warming, the list goes on and on.

It's always minor quibbles with some model or another, some data set or another. It's because your argument loses in the real world.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

L2R2R, you say that the science does not have the answers.

You then say that I am misquoting you when I ask (ask, not state) if you think we should do nothing given the evidence.

You claim that you are not denying that something is happening, then go on to imply that the temperature records are being manipulated, snipe at the edges of the scientific debate to try and attempt to undermine the vast majority of the science that shows climate change is happening and that human activity is the cause.

You look like Castagna trying a pinpoint pass in our forward 50, pity how it goes out of bounds.

I'll ask the same question I have been asking for years: we all know climate change is happening, we can all see the impacts, why do you keep trying to deny reality and clutch on to the crap the deniersphere trots out?

Not sure why it's necessary to repeat myself so often.

It has been warming gradually at a rate of approx 0.14 degrees per decade. So yes, it is warming. No, there is no climate emergency.

Is man contributing to the warming? Very likely.
To what degree? Nobody can say for certain.
Is it possible for man to shape earth's climate? Nobody can say for certain.
Will earth continue to warm? More likely than unlikely, but nobody can say for certain.
Is it sensible to evolve to cleaner energy sources? Yes, at a manageable pace.
Is the climate narrative alarming people unduly? Yes.

 

[DavidSSS]

Just keep sniping at the edges Lee, we all know it is happening, we can all see the impacts, and they are not small.

The big picture is clear and all your sniping about little issues changes nothing.

A smoking gun would be the models saying that it will warm and it cools, not that the models are a little bit out, we knew that already.

DS

PS: not posting the latest underestimate of warming from Spencer this month I see, is that because the -0.01C result for June suited you but the +0.20C for July not so much?

 

[AngryAnt]

Not sure why it's necessary to repeat myself so often.

It has been warming gradually at a rate of approx 0.14 degrees per decade. So yes, it is warming. No, there is no climate emergency.

1. Is man contributing to the warming? Very likely.
2. To what degree? Nobody can say for certain.
3. Is it possible for man to shape earth's climate? Nobody can say for certain.
4. Will earth continue to warm? More likely than unlikely, but nobody can say for certain.
5. Is it sensible to evolve to cleaner energy sources? Yes, at a manageable pace.
6. Is the climate narrative alarming people unduly? Yes.

1. Certain.
2. Determined. Clear causation between human produced CO2, increase in CO2 in atmosphere and related warming. The only unknown is environmental change such as increased methane release in arctic and other regions because of anthropogenic warming - ie the tipping points that will accelerate warming.
3. Yes we can, it's observable. Our effects are observable from space - deforestation, destruction of habitats, dead zones in the oceans are all contributing to climate in addition to CO2 release.
4. Yes, it will. As long as atmospheric CO2 doesn't decrease and other variables don't override this, then yes it will increase.
5. Already cheaper than fossil fuels and this is already reflected in fossil fuel investments and changed company strategies. The problems that remain are engineering, not cost, eg managing variable power inputs to the grid
6. Doesn't worry those who are deniers and are OK to accept environmental loss and increased death rates particularly in the developing world, who instead are more concerned with sharks killing 6 humans per year. Several hundred thousand extra deaths per year from malaria are much less important.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Just keep sniping at the edges Lee, we all know it is happening, we can all see the impacts, and they are not small.

The big picture is clear and all your sniping about little issues changes nothing.

A smoking gun would be the models saying that it will warm and it cools, not that the models are a little bit out, we knew that already.

I don't have a problem with your opinion, but at various times you've resorted to personal barbs simply because I don't subscribe to it. I'm also prepared to alter my opinion if the evidence points that way; not sure you could say the same with your "science is settled" attitude.

 

[DavidSSS]

I don't have a problem with your opinion, but at various times you've resorted to personal barbs simply because I don't subscribe to it. I'm also prepared to alter my opinion if the evidence points that way; not sure you could say the same with your "science is settled" attitude.

Have I ever called you a "goddamn arrogant sonofabitch"?

If you want to see someone who dishes out personal barbs, look in the mirror.

Oh, and keep sniping at the edges, one day you might convince someone . . . yeah right.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Have I ever called you a "goddamn arrogant sonofabitch"?

If you want to see someone who dishes out personal barbs, look in the mirror.

Oh, and keep sniping at the edges, one day you might convince someone . . . yeah right.

Yet to throw the first punch, ever.

 

[AngryAnt]

Yet to throw the first punch, ever.

That's a good one. King of the hissy-fits.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

That's a good one. King of the hissy-fits.

Have only ever punched back.

 

[DavidSSS]

Have only ever punched back.

Pathetic, no arguments so you throw a fit when this is pointed out, throw abuse and then complain about abuse.

What a joke.

Meanwhile the impact of climate change continues while some try and divert attention by sniping at anything which goes against their already settled position.

Apart from the raging fires in Turkey and Greece, climate change is threatening species:

A new study published today in Global Change Biology provides valuable new data that highlights how species extinction risk is accelerating due to rapid climate change and an increase in extreme climate events, such as glacial calving and sea ice loss.

In particular, Emperor Penguins rely on sea ice for their breeding, and as we all know, this is disappearing:

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

Have only ever punched back.

LOL - neither David nor I exert the swear filter hardly at all. You don't like what we write, you throw a fit.

That's fine, sticks and stones and all that. It's amusing you think you are the one sinned against though.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Pathetic, no arguments so you throw a fit when this is pointed out, throw abuse and then complain about abuse.

Debate the topic not the poster. No problems that way.

Not everything is “climate change”, David. You can’t keep citing every individual weather event or anomaly as evidence.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Antarctic sea ice shows seasonal variation but no long-term decline.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...nderstanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

But protecting the emperor penguin whose numbers are at worst stable will keep some more researchers in a job.

 

[DavidSSS]

Antarctic sea ice shows seasonal variation but no long-term decline.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...nderstanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

But protecting the emperor penguin whose numbers are at worst stable will keep some more researchers in a job.

Typical, compare apples to oranges - did you think I wouldn't notice?

You see, Antarctica, unlike the Arctic, is a continent, it has land.

The video from NASA above shows Antarctic Ice Loss, not sea ice extent. You do realise that it is ice thinning over land which adds to oceans rising? The penguins are in danger, there is evidence.

Nice bit of sniping though, just keep up the attempts to discredit the overwhelming evidence with diversions like this, you will keep convincing no-one.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Typical, compare apples to oranges - did you think I wouldn't notice?

You see, Antarctica, unlike the Arctic, is a continent, it has land.

The video from NASA above shows Antarctic Ice Loss, not sea ice extent. You do realise that it is ice thinning over land which adds to oceans rising? The penguins are in danger, there is evidence.

Nice bit of sniping though, just keep up the attempts to discredit the overwhelming evidence with diversions like this, you will keep convincing no-one.

Zero deception here, in fact I suspect the deception lies with you. Why the hell are you switching to land ice after your penguin spiel when the penguins need sea ice? Or are you just confused?

Confess your error please, David.

 

[DavidSSS]

Zero deception here, in fact I suspect the deception lies with you. Why the hell are you switching to land ice after your penguin spiel when the penguins need sea ice? Or are you just confused?

Confess your error please, David.

Why did you post a chart about sea ice extent in response to a NASA video on ice loss?

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Why did you post a chart about sea ice extent in response to a NASA video on ice loss?

I didn't look at the video. You brought up the penguins which is topical. You even mentioned sea ice. So why did you throw a random unrelated curveball about total ice mass?

Confess your error please, David.

Besides, the NASA study by Zwally still stands.

Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses

 

[DavidSSS]

I brought up the penguins because climate change is a threat and, yes, because it has been mentioned recently.

Why do you respond to a video you didn't even watch, is that the quality of your research? Do you not consider evidence which contradicts your pre-conceived conclusions?

Are the scientists wrong to say Emperor Penguins are threatened by climate change?

Do you know more than those who have studied Emperor Penguins for decades?

DS