Climate Disruption.

A place to discuss politics and things related to Govts
Message
Author
User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12988
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Climate Disruption.

#481 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:37 am

Let's try the approach I always take with students, which I should add is entirely in keeping with everything in the Government-dictated syllabus.

1. In recent geological time, there have been much bigger and more rapid changes in global temperature, e.g. ice ages, which science cannot explain. We have a disjointed set of hypotheses, nothing more. Even if AGW is making a difference at the moment, it is because the bigger forces (which we don't understand) are canceling themselves out at the moment. It's like looking at prairie grass height by watching a rabbit eating its way across a field, and coming up with a theory.....then 2 million bison turn up.
2. Furthermore, the IPCC makes no effort to try and apply their current models to those periods.
3. The quality of much of the data used is terrible by the authorities' own standards, e.g. placement of temperature sensors in Urban Heat Islands. There is no effort being made to establish a reliable set of sensors. The corrections made to those sensors to yield the data used in the models are either highly debatable, private, or both. This is not how science is done.
4. The science used in, for example, Mann's 'hockey stick' projection, would not get past a Grade 10 teacher. A proxy is substituted for tree ring data when that data no longer fits his theory. There's no other reason given. The tree ring data diverges significantly, and no effort has been made to continue sampling the initial tree-ring data. Mann claimed it would be too difficult to re-identify the original trees (in South America). Some nasty person went off on a walking holiday, taking with him the same borer type used by Mann. They found the trees, matching the boring holes exactly. Mann's not interested. This is laughably corrupt practice by any scientific standards. Mann's case against someone who called him a liar has just collapsed because he refuses to provide the justification for his data.
5. Every time there's a correction to IPCC-used data, it results in an increase in apparent AGW. This is beyond believable. Random and even systemic errors should on average cause corrections which both enhance and reduce the original trends.
6. The IPCC models don't work. They've had long enough now to start producing trends that match reality, and they don't. Every IPCC report has to reduce the possible temperature rise, and the original report's levels of confidence are already proven to be deeply wrong.
7. The level of vitriol in attacking questioners is way beyond science. Questioning is the vital mechanism by which truth is established. There's a great quote in the movie 'Contact', where the protagonist make a bold statement, then tells her colleague "Make me a liar". A good scientist welcomes questioning. Even the basic term used is Climate Change Denier, which is a deliberate lie. Almost no-one questioning AGW is denying climate change, they are questioning the cause of it. It's like me saying "You are 'not a racist rapist', but I'll shorten that to 'racist rapist' for convenience."

AGW is not science. It meets almost none of the criteria that count as basic science when we teach that to students, and none of the important ones. It meets all the criteria for bad science that we use as an example for students, like the heliocentric solar system debate.

Sisemen

Re: Climate Disruption.

#482 Post by Sisemen » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:56 am

A group of twenty plus senior firefighting executives, with truly massive experience, have seen fit to point out to the PM that our climate has changed drastically, and that they believe that exporting coal potentially fueling greater change is having a serious detrimental effect on the country as a whole.

I am also a “senior firefighting executive with truly massive experience” - well, maybe not at State level, but 25 years experience at Local Government level in senior positions - and I believe that exporting coal has got sweet f*** all to do with the current bush fire situation. This has more to do with good winter rains in the past year or so, an increase in fuel levels, reduced prescribed burning (possibly down to ‘green’ policies) and some temporary, but not unusual, weather conditions which Australia experiences on a regular basis.

Am I lobbying the PM? Pig’s arse. I wouldn’t be so stupid. Neither am I one of the gullible frightened section of the community that gets taken in by the weekly ABC scare story or posturing by these sorts of clowns.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12988
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Climate Disruption.

#483 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:06 am

A group of twenty plus senior firefighting executives, with truly zero experience in coal exporting effects on climate change, have decided to sound off about coal exporting effects on climate change.
FTFY! ;)))

"I've sailed the Atlantic! What's your problem?"
"I have to get up 4 times a night to pee"
"Take two aspirin; come back and see me next week"

User avatar
Alisoncc
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:20 am
Location: Arrakis
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Climate Disruption.

#484 Post by Alisoncc » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:45 am

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:37 am
Let's try the approach I always take with students, which I should add is entirely in keeping with everything in the Government-dictated syllabus.
Please do not patronise. I have had previous experience with science teachers who think they know it all. I can quote you two instances where mankind has affected our environment. I don't have a refernce for the first but ....

I have read on a few occasions that following the Plague (Black Death) throughout Europe so much land reverted to forest from being farmed that it influenced the climate temperature. It cooled. I don't have figures to hand.

The second is very well documented. Remember the hole in the ozone layer. In Australia there was talk about a significant increase in melanomas if it persisted. The world, through the UN and other bodies, negotiated the discontinuance of CFC's and other products used in refrigeration which were believed to be causing the problem with the ozone layer.
Ozone depletion consists of two related events observed since the late 1970s: a steady lowering of about four percent in the total amount of ozone in Earth's atmosphere (the ozone layer), and a much larger springtime decrease in stratospheric ozone around Earth's polar regions. The latter phenomenon is referred to as the ozone hole. There are also springtime polar tropospheric ozone depletion events in addition to these stratospheric events.

In 2019, NASA announced the "ozone hole" was the smallest ever since it was first discovered in 1982.

The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is manufactured chemicals, especially manufactured halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants and foam-blowing agents (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, halons), referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS). These compounds are transported into the stratosphere by turbulent mixing after being emitted from the surface, mixing much faster than the molecules can settle. Once in the stratosphere, they release halogen atoms through photodissociation, which catalyze the breakdown of ozone (O3) into oxygen. Both types of ozone depletion were observed to increase as emissions of halocarbons increased.
So mankind is capable of affecting the worlds climate given the will. The problem is there are far too many smartarses who believe they know better than a huge percentage of the worlds scientific community. Unfortunately few of them will be around when the brown stuff hits the fan.

PS. Sise what was your involvement. Keeping track of the paper clips and drawing pins used.
Rev Mother Bene Gesserit.

Sent from my PDP11/05 running RSX-11D via an ASR33 (TTY)

User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5913
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

Re: Climate Disruption.

#485 Post by llondel » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:57 am

Anything that encourages people to use more renewable energy and save the fossil fuels for things that can't easily be done by other means is a good thing. Plus it means I get a lower electric bill courtesy of solar power equipment that has become cheap enough for me to afford.

Slasher

Re: Climate Disruption.

#486 Post by Slasher » Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:02 am

The problem is there are far too many smartarses who believe they know better than a huge percentage of the worlds scientific community.
Fox if you’re a “smartarse” then you should wear it as a badge of Honour. Too many bloody dumbarses around who claim they are “scientists” as well as the “knowledgeable” Unwashed who cannot debate nor refute hard facts presented by “smartarses” and fall back on ad hominem crap and clicheic generalities.

BTW your second last post was a good burst. AGW is certainly not a Science but a religion. “Believers” and “Deniers” are reserved for institutionalised Faiths such as ER and other idiotic rabble.

Sise. 👍🏻

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: Climate Disruption.

#487 Post by AtomKraft » Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:20 am

Alison.
The ozone hole problem was attributed to use of CFCs, and successfully fixed by massively reducing use of same.

97% of greenhouse gas emissions are not related to human activity, and are outside of our control. Water vapour and methane are both massively more influencing than CO2.

The measured change over the last 100 years is only 0.6-0.8 of one degree! That's not controversial.thats what the AGW mob claim.

In the seventies,the idiot scientists claimed w were all screwed because a new ice age was coming.

Climate changes without influence from us, it always has.

Don't panic!

If there's a problem with fires in Aus, I'd suggest dealing with it with normal measures like extra firefighters.
This will work better than limiting coal mining, FFS.

Sisemen

Re: Climate Disruption.

#488 Post by Sisemen » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:49 am

PS. Sise what was your involvement. Keeping track of the paper clips and drawing pins used.

Contemptible and totally beneath you Alison.

Brigade Lieutenant, Brigade Captain, Fire Control Officer, Training Officer, Incident Controller, Area Incident Controller, Local Emergency Management Controller, author of the Local Emergency Management Plan, Chairman of the Local Emergency Management Planning Committee and instigator, planner and manager of the Area First Response Incident Control Team.

That do you?

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12988
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Climate Disruption.

#489 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:01 am

I am not being patronising.
To be patronising is to treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority. I'm asking bloody awkward, unhelpful (to the AGW crowd) questions that intend solely to establish science from speculation. I have no status to be derived from the answer either way. I am asking very simple questions that are based on the roots of science. So are the rest of the AGW questioners. That the AGW crowd can't answer those points, and that I don't see them being directly addressed here either, is fundamental. If these points can't be answered, then AGW isn't science, and therefore is just a belief.
The effect of CFCs on the hole in the ozone layer cannot be equated to AGW. Alison has used the term "believed to be" for both, but I don't think that's valid. The science was much stronger for CFCs. I am unaware of a single scientist or science teacher who disputed either the science or the solution for CFC reduction.
So mankind is capable of affecting the worlds climate given the will.
No. Not in any practical sense, except in terms of mass agriculture and deforestation. The hole in the ozone layer is not the same problem.
Anything that encourages people to use more renewable energy and save the fossil fuels for things that can't easily be done by other means is a good thing. Plus it means I get a lower electric bill courtesy of solar power equipment that has become cheap enough for me to afford.
Llondel, sensible things that encourage more use of renewables, etc, yes. Anything, no. And there's quite a list of things which are not sensible these days, and a fair number of things which do encourage renewable energy but don't save fossil fuels, the solar panels on Gordon Brown's house in Edinburgh for one. Stupid virtue signaling where the panels will never return the fossil energy required to make them. One may get a lower electricity bill, but an even bigger tax bill increase.

I recently built a house that used 40% less energy than similar ones next to it. I'm now recycling an old barn. I have a solar powered boat. I campaigned successfully for Green provincial representatives at our last election, as did a number of others with engineering degrees. I am completely in agreement with minimising mankind's impact on the planet, and I'm doing it in my daily life. I'm also seriously p!ssed off that a large number of simple measures which can have a huge effect are being totally ignored by both politicians and the AGW crowd, who would rather trash the entire economy on the basis of something which has serious questions they won't address, and do it aggressively to boot. Next year, I wouldn't be allowed to recycle that barn, as the Government here will require planning permits, which I'll never get because it cannot meet Code. So, to get a barn, I'd have to knock it down and build new, which would use 3x the amount of materials. F#cking stupid. I'd also have to keep the existing stairway in the house which requires you to lean in for the last 8 feet as the roof slopes in, because the new code is literally impossible to fit into the house without making it one bedroom instead of the three I can get building it to this year's Code, because existing features, no matter how stupid and dangerous, are grandfathered in. Building regs are scattered with insanities like this, none of which are in the least bit conserving of materials, and the UK is far worse than Canada.

User avatar
probes
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:01 pm
Location: 'Urop
Gender:

Re: Climate Disruption.

#490 Post by probes » Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:35 am

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:01 am
... mass agriculture and deforestation.
and mass consumption, and mass idiocies like the bio-whatever in fuel, to make it "green" for god-knows-which producers. Or cars, that go closer to 1.0 and higher in kw, meaning you have to buy a new one sooner due to engine 'kaputt'.

But, it's depressing to see the news of wild fires.

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Climate Disruption.

#491 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:12 am

And yet many reputable scientists and scientific organisations (e.g. the NOAA) and large insurers (e.g. Munich Re et al) are convinced of the science behind the claims that anthropogenic climate is a very real phenomenon.

I am apt to believe that such large and complex issues are not best canvassed on internet forums such as this one where so much unscientific and often personal belief or politically based bias colours the minds of the interested and generally well meaning parties (whatever their opinions)! I say opinions because I bet there are no accredited climate scientists posting on this thread nor on any of the many similar threads on other aviation focused fora on looks at from time to time.
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
OFSO
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 18600
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Climate Disruption.

#492 Post by OFSO » Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:21 am

GG, you are absolutely right. None of our opinions are any more than that, although if we were many years younger they might get us a free transatlantic hop on a catamaran...

Sisemen

Re: Climate Disruption.

#493 Post by Sisemen » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:11 am

Those of us who are gratuitously labelled “deniers” always make it clear that it is our opinion only and we freely declare so. On the other hand those who “believe” always state as an absolute fact that the figures presented to them are totally true and that theirs is an incontrovertible stance. The fact that they have read the same pieces as the “deniers” but have arrived at a different opinion seems to be lost on them.

Those whose background is science know full well that nothing in the scientific field is ever “settled” and that for theories to stand up to scrutiny observable and repeatable evidence is required - unless, of course, your field and your income relies on generous grants and then you might be tempted to be economical with the truth and prostitute your ideals.

User avatar
OFSO
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 18600
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Climate Disruption.

#494 Post by OFSO » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:32 am

And of course it is an open-ended situation as 'repeatable' never stops. Give enough time 1+1 might equal 3 one day. A little reading on the subject of quantum theory reveals immutable laws* that would have been dismissed and caused outrage 50 years ago. Nothing can ever be proven.

* For now, anyway !

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Climate Disruption.

#495 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:46 am

Sisemen wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:11 am

Those whose background is science know full well that nothing in the scientific field is ever “settled” and that for theories to stand up to scrutiny observable and repeatable evidence is required - unless, of course, your field and your income relies on generous grants and then you might be tempted to be economical with the truth and prostitute your ideals.
I agree with you in the main but must point out that Insurers like Munich Re have no vested interest in grants etc. but actually need to know the truth of the matter as the risk of getting this question wrong could cost them billions. The fact that their research is pointing to a conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is most likely a risk is very telling I think.
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12988
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Climate Disruption.

#496 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:55 am

Some of us sailed across the Atlantic on our own catamarans. I did it for a purpose, to transport my belongings (and me). Built my own solar panel and used it to power the boat too.
One does not have to be an accredited climate scientist to ask the basic questions about the science I am asking, though I am MInstP for what that's worth.

Climate is changing. The insurers adjust to that. The causes are largely immaterial to them, and they generally change their rates annually, so the insurers are a very poor example to support AGW.
NOAA gets larger grants by supporting claims of AGW. Try getting a grant to question AGW. Another very poor supporting example.

The basic questions I and others are asking on the science remain unanswered, and I don't care how many people with however many letters after their name you line up. If the science isn't sound, then it's just a belief.

Probes - agreed.

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Climate Disruption.

#497 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:09 pm

PS. Sise what was your involvement. Keeping track of the paper clips and drawing pins used.
I note a bit of ribbing here between you ex RAF chaps has caused some offence which I am sure was not intended or meant maliciously! ;)))

For the record as somebody who didn't serve in the RAF but in another service in another country I can confirm the one guy who I never irritated in the army was the chap who controlled the paperclips, not least because he controlled my postings, my pay and, most importantly, my leave. Having irritated the cook/chef during basics I learned quickly that everybody has a critical role to play (even as I lost a lot of weight due to my comment that had resulted in my rations being very short indeed)! =))
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Climate Disruption.

#498 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:26 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:55 am


Climate is changing. The insurers adjust to that. The causes are largely immaterial to them, and they generally change their rates annually, so the insurers are a very poor example to support AGW.

The basic questions I and others are asking on the science remain unanswered, and I don't care how many people with however many letters after their name you line up. If the science isn't sound, then it's just a belief.
Er no in connection with the first emboldened point. I can assure that you the cause is very important indeed and is essential in many areas (think of mortality by cause for example)...

And on the second emboldened it seems to me that you are making an a priori judgement on the basis of the science without providing any proof to back up your proposition that the science isn't sound. It may be your opinion that the science (or maybe even the question asked) isn't sound but that's all you are providing! The mere gainsaying of another's opinion with your own does not an argument make! ;)))
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12988
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Climate Disruption.

#499 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:31 pm

That the climate may cause increased damage is of course important to them. What I meant is that the underlying cause from a scientific viewpoint is not important. Neither AGW nor anti-AGW people are going to disagree much on the likely weather-related chances of damage to property next year. Almost all of us agree that climate change is happening, and we would pretty much agree that it will be 0.013K warmer globally next year.
I'm making no judgements. I'm insisting that the AGW scientists robustly defend their theories and predictions based on standard scientific principles, which they are not doing. I don't have to prove it's not sound until they've proved it is sound, which they haven't! Take for example the situation I described earlier about Mann's refusal to continue sampling the trees which lead to the hockey stick prediction. Not to do so undermines his case completely. It's not his opinion, he's making a scientific claim. I have not given my opinion on AGW, I've questioned his claim based on the standard principle of requiring continued observation of phenomena which is being used for continued prediction. It's like opinion polls. You can't just rely on a 2015 poll for what might happen in 2019, you have to keep asking.

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Climate Disruption.

#500 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:54 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:31 pm
What I meant is that the underlying cause from a scientific viewpoint is not important.
The underlying the cause/science of events that might impact the underlying number of specific types of claim is very important to re-insurers I can assure you. Hence you will find subject matter specialists in many varied areas working for or or sub-contracted by the industry to understand the science and any causality associated with subjects as diverse as AIDS, cardiovascular diseases, AGW, aircraft hull losses etc. etc.

Why would Munich Re for example spend millions on AGW studies etc?

https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/clima ... anity.html
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

Post Reply