The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

[James Regan + 1,776]

27 minutes ago, Red said:

I hate linking to Youtube as a rule, but occasionally it's easier than me explaining predacious denial.

Try explaining the facts in layman’s terms and add some understandable take aways in an unbiased manner and less aggression. You may surprise yourself? In the end we all seek enlightenment it is the end game to life and living in harmony.

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by James Regan

[Red + 252]

8 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Try explaining the facts in layman’s terms and add some understandable take aways in an unbiased manner and less aggression. You may surprise yourself? In the end we all seek enlightenment it is the end game to life and living in harmony.

That's very funny.  Increasing CO2 levels warm the planet.  Scientists have a theory about the warming properties of greenhouse gases.

The above is repeated ad nauseum.  If you seek enlightenment, try religion.  If you seek knowledge, try science.

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, wrs said:

Here is an analysis that is based on recent data and which suggests that temperature drives CO2 levels and that temperature is a function of planetary alignment with the moon and sun.  This makes far more sense than AGW.

https://dockery208841154.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/co2_vs_temp_2018_paper_2.pdf

On the basis of measurements at one sample point (which could have been subject to wide range of variables)  you conclude a disassociation of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

On the other hand we have other denialists here claiming that the thousands of sampling points that support the AGW theory is insufficient to form the basis of a valid theory. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 minutes ago, Red said:

That's very funny.  Increasing CO2 levels warm the planet.  Scientists have a theory about the warming properties of greenhouse gases.

The above is repeated ad nauseum.  If you seek enlightenment, try religion.  If you seek knowledge, try science.

Bob, not trying to be funny or sarcastic just interesting to know your agenda as I assume you are anti fossil fuels ( never good to assume but will risk it this time) and your obviously very intelligent and passionate about global warming.

I just can’t imagine a world without fossil fuels, imagine if oil and it’s By-products just vanished overnight, how long would we last ? 10 days maybe a fortnight?

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, James Regan said:

Bob, not trying to be funny or sarcastic just interesting to know your agenda as I assume you are anti fossil fuels ( never good to assume but will risk it this time) and your obviously very intelligent and passionate about global warming.

I have a lot of money invested in oil shares (enough to buy 3 Tesla Model S), including the 5 largest oil companies traded on the  the ASX.  I presently have a buy order on Whitehaven Coal - more for its coking coal output than thermal coal.  I have friends who are mining engineers - one being part owner of a Queensland coal mine.

Fossil fuels are essential for the advancement of "developing" world economies (and I include China) at the moment because there literally is not enough energy capacity in production to meet demand.  That is not the case in developed economies, and is proven by the UK in particular, but largely across the EU, where renewables continue to replace other forms of energy generation.

The above has no relevance to climate science.

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, Red said:

UAH and RSS use exactly the same source data.  They get slightly different results.

UAH continues to neglect problems with their output and only begrudgingly makes good after they get laughed at by industry peers.  Satellite source data is the most manipulated of all temperature data, yet is assumed by so many to be a gold standard. 

Yet again, another post that offers nothing new, and carries on the well worn tradition of science denial.

 

Thanks for a massive laugh.   I said nothing about the data source.  Said everything about an error band and how it is manipulated.  If you only use the (+) top end and not the (-), that makes you a douche statistically.

As for the two sources, RSS starts with a model of temperature gauge data sets and and then extrapolates data elsewhere.  UAH starts with weather balloon data and extrapolates.  One is biased due to city data(RSS) and the other is not(UAH).  BOTH show far less warming than any temperature data set(~50% less), which unequivocally shows MASSIVE bias due to city island warming zones where majority of temperature gauges reside. 

As for one of the "manipulations" that is determined by the drift in the satellites.  And both sets have been accounting for it. 

[WCS + 13]

The problem is the left wing media and their agenda to destroy oil. Globally 16% of the CO2 comes from vehicle emissions ( gas and diesel), Why not focus on the 48% CO2 that’s from heating and electrical generation. Why don’t the politicians spend more time on reforestation , redirecting some of theses flood waters to desert areas, limit immigration to reduce the degradation of land ( paved paradise and put up a parking lot). It’s all about taxes , Carbon taxes to pay off the debt .

Maybe Red can explain why the weakening of the earth’s magnetosphere plays no part in global climate change (warming) with more solar radiation entering the atmosphere and since water is diamagnetic how does this affect the ocean currents when earth’s magnetic field is changing and may flip.

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

As for the two sources, RSS starts with a model of temperature gauge data sets and and then extrapolates data elsewhere. 

Both use exactly the same source data.  Beyond that they use a wide arrange of statistical techniques to arrive at a temperature figure.  Your claims as to how temperatures are derived are fabrications.

By the way, I commented on Tony Heller's video uplink that made the claim you appear to have copied.  I have repeatedly challenged Heller on his many falsehoods, and occasionally he has replied with his typical non-science.  Others in cyberspace earn good money from pointing out how ridiculous Heller's claims are, and they use peer reviewed science with links to sources.  The climate science denial camp is vacuous in that regard.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Red
added second paragraph

[Red + 252]

8 minutes ago, WCS said:

The problem is the left wing media and their agenda to destroy oil.

That is not climate science!

 

8 minutes ago, WCS said:

Maybe Red can explain why the weakening of the earth’s magnetosphere plays no part in global climate change (warming) with more solar radiation entering the atmosphere and since water is diamagnetic how does this affect the ocean currents when earth’s magnetic field is changing and may flip.

Given that insolation is measured then how the radiation arrived is somewhat inconsequential. However, how much is able to leave as IR is not.

Your idea about water is novel.  Write a paper on it and present it for peer review.

 

[James Regan + 1,776]

2 hours ago, Red said:

I have a lot of money invested in oil shares (enough to buy 3 Tesla Model S), including the 5 largest oil companies traded on the  the ASX.  I presently have a buy order on Whitehaven Coal - more for its coking coal output than thermal coal.  I have friends who are mining engineers - one being part owner of a Queensland coal mine.

Fossil fuels are essential for the advancement of "developing" world economies (and I include China) at the moment because there literally is not enough energy capacity in production to meet demand.  That is not the case in developed economies, and is proven by the UK in particular, but largely across the EU, where renewables continue to replace other forms of energy generation.

The above has no relevance to climate science.

 

 

My agenda is clear as I make my living from the oilfield, there are some highly educated people on this forum who make their living from advocating Climate Change and speak professionally on the matter.

I think it’s hypocrisy.

Why would you buy a Tesla that’s So Cal.

[Red + 252]

28 minutes ago, James Regan said:

My agenda is clear as I make my living from the oilfield, there are some highly educated people on this forum who make their living from advocating Climate Change and speak professionally on the matter.

I think it’s hypocrisy.

Why would you buy a Tesla that’s So Cal.

I retired some years ago and my investments pay the bills, so I have nothing to gain from posting at this site.  And it's not an issue to me that people derive a living from the FF industry.

I don't understand how it's possible that "there are some highly educated people on this forum who make their living from advocating Climate Change," because climate change is not at all desirable.  Maybe they explain what it means and its potential impacts?

The hypocrisy I rail against is where those people in the developed world, which has burnt FF for a century or more, now want to "blame" the developing world for a problem they were never a part of.

As for Tesla cars, the waiting list in Oz is very long, and they are to big for what I need anyways, so they are not on my shopping list.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Red
people are not so old

[WCS + 13]

OK Red. Here is an article from NASA, Mar20/ 2003

“NASA study finds increasing solar trend that can change climate. Since 1970 the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased .05% per decade. This trend is important because if sustained over many decades it could cause significant climate change”.

I do find it hot when the sun beats down on me but not in the shade. When they measure the temperatures is it always in the shade?

The developing world is China and its 1 billion plus population that went from a basically bicycle riding third world status in 1970 to a modern powerhouse ,full of cars , concrete skyscrapers , paved roads , coal fired plants you have now. That is climate impact

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by WCS

[Red + 252]

15 minutes ago, WCS said:

“NASA study finds increasing solar trend that can change climate. Since 1970 the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased .05% per decade. This trend is important because if sustained over many decades it could cause significant climate change”.

So what?

15 minutes ago, WCS said:

The developing world is China and its 1 billion plus population that went from a basically bicycle riding third world status in 1970 to a modern powerhouse ,full of cars , concrete skyscrapers , paved roads , coal fired plants you have now. That is climate impact

I do the math, and it tells me that your point is trivial.  Prove that your point is not.

[WCS + 13]

OK Red let’s see your math. Prove to me that the modernization of China has no impact on climate change. China a country that has a population the size of North America , Europe and Russia combined . Looking at your chart there is a point of inflection where GHG start to increase followed by global warming and that aligns with the start of China’s road to modernization.

Well you see Red , if more solar radiation enters the earth then the hotter it gets here , it melts more ice ,heats up more land and water which causes more evaporation and more GHG are released.

Edited June 19, 2019 by WCS

[wrs + 893]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

On the basis of measurements at one sample point (which could have been subject to wide range of variables)  you conclude a disassociation of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

On the other hand we have other denialists here claiming that the thousands of sampling points that support the AGW theory is insufficient to form the basis of a valid theory. 

The author does and I don't see anything wrong with the analysis in the first part which is what really matters for rejecting the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels produce rising temperature.  He produces a pretty good case in the second part of the paper that the data are cyclic which implies a connection to synodic cycles he identifies.

As to other skeptics, all it takes is one dataset to reject the hypothesis, either it always works everywhere or it's rejected.  That is the way science is supposed to work.

[wrs + 893]

15 hours ago, WaytoPeace said:

Thanks WRS for the suggestion for more paragraphs.  Good point.  But, how do you refute the point that despite spending millions of dollars to support research and studies hoping to challenge the prevailing scientific view that the increase in greenhouse gases is the major contributor to global warming and climate change, few results of those financed studies have ever been published and now almost all the majors are endorsing the Pope’s call for a tax on carbon emissions?  After all, wouldn’t they have the most to gain to try to deny that view?  

Consensus isn't science and never will be.  This is well exemplified in the case of Galileo when the pope said the sun revolved around the earth and all the scientists at the time other than Galileo agreed.  We certainly know that the consensus was wrong then and the reason was the inability to measure parallax with their instruments.  Today we have better tools and ability to measure the variables of interest to AGW and using tree rings as a proxy for temperature is unacceptable.  Any data prior to 1980 I think is pretty much garbage based on my study of the data itself.  

As to the oil companies, they will do whatever keeps them on top going forward.  What does their acquiescence to the carbon tax have to do with science?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

17 hours ago, wrs said:

Can you rebut the paper or understand it?

I can not rebut it without doing some serious research, but this probably has more to do with science not being my field. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

5 hours ago, wrs said:

Consensus isn't science and never will be.  This is well exemplified in the case of Galileo when the pope said the sun revolved around the earth and all the scientists at the time other than Galileo agreed.  We certainly know that the consensus was wrong then and the reason was the inability to measure parallax with their instruments.  Today we have better tools and ability to measure the variables of interest to AGW and using tree rings as a proxy for temperature is unacceptable.  Any data prior to 1980 I think is pretty much garbage based on my study of the data itself.  

As to the oil companies, they will do whatever keeps them on top going forward.  What does their acquiescence to the carbon tax have to do with science?

Pope never said the sun revolved around the earth.  No scientists have ever said that as all the ancients, Greek(other than aristotole), Egyptians, Babylonians all said otherwise.  That is a modern myth put forth by atheists after the Scopes trial.  Galileo was imprisoned for going to the Princes instead of through the Catholic priesthood who ruled modern Italy.  In short, Galileo was a pawn in the fight for power.  The time period is critical because this is the time when Protestantism was not yet in full swing but getting close and thus the power of the pope was in jeopardy and the Catholic ruling body was in jeopardy as well. 

[WHY + 12]

Thank you Red for correcting me. Certainly given that you have degrees (BA CS, BS EE and MS Eng) plus 30 years as an engineer is something I do not have. It is interesting to note that I cannot think of any engineer I have ever worked with who LISTENS to anything anyone says to them unless it is another higher ranking engineer. 

Nevertheless, you did not answer my question!! As an engineer who is always RIGHT and wants to be seen to be RIGHT and will not under any circumstances admit not being RIGHT - please set me RIGHT. How big is the calamity ahead of us? Clearly you believe it is a major cluster-f since you are spending an inordinate amount of time defending the AGW position. Although, to be honest I find everything you present very difficult to follow. Could you perhaps get off your high horse long enough and in simple enough language to indicate why you and the Pope are so closely aligned?

[James Regan + 1,776]

29 minutes ago, WHY said:

Thank you Red for correcting me. Certainly given that you have degrees (BA CS, BS EE and MS Eng) plus 30 years as an engineer is something I do not have. It is interesting to note that I cannot think of any engineer I have ever worked with who LISTENS to anything anyone says to them unless it is another higher ranking engineer. 

Nevertheless, you did not answer my question!! As an engineer who is always RIGHT and wants to be seen to be RIGHT and will not under any circumstances admit not being RIGHT - please set me RIGHT. How big is the calamity ahead of us? Clearly you believe it is a major cluster-f since you are spending an inordinate amount of time defending the AGW position. Although, to be honest I find everything you present very difficult to follow. Could you perhaps get off your high horse long enough and in simple enough language to indicate why you and the Pope are so closely aligned?

I tried and was answered in his normal fashion as he is too busy downing others and being smug. No Manifest ever given just argues to appear smart. Must have an amazing life to spend it rambling on like a broken record. Should stick to his AGW forums and get stroked. RoBot 🤖 

[Red + 252]

7 hours ago, wrs said:

The author does and I don't see anything wrong with the analysis in the first part which is what really matters for rejecting the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels produce rising temperature. 

Except it is not a GLOBAL approach so completely fails the test from the outset.

7 hours ago, wrs said:

He produces a pretty good case in the second part of the paper that the data are cyclic which implies a connection to synodic cycles he identifies.

LOL - it doesn't even pass the "sniff" test.  It needs to offer an explanation which is consistent with the circumstances and it does not.

7 hours ago, wrs said:

As to other skeptics, all it takes is one dataset to reject the hypothesis, either it always works everywhere or it's rejected.  That is the way science is supposed to work.

No, it requires an EXPLANATION,  and it does not offer one.

7 hours ago, WCS said:

Prove to me that the modernization of China has no impact on climate change.

I said your point was trivial.

7 hours ago, WCS said:

Well you see Red , if more solar radiation enters the earth then the hotter it gets here ....

More triviality.  The problem with your point is that irradiance has been on a decadal scale decline sine the 1970s.  So if less radiation has been entering the earth - which is proven to be the case - then why is the opposite of your idea the case?

1 hour ago, WHY said:

How big is the calamity ahead of us?

Look at what is happening around the world today to get an idea.  You can of course choose to believe that nothing is different - that's your prerogative.  But science has a few messages.  At a generational level it cannot improve because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived (lasting a century or so), and the heat of the oceans will not dissipate for many decades at best.

Anyhow, a really good read was and still is the Stern Report.

1 hour ago, James Regan said:

I tried and was answered in his normal fashion as he is too busy downing others and being smug.

First, I did answer your recent questions in some detail.  Next, there are now 5 IPCC Reports I rely on, plus thousands of peer reviewed science papers.  I never wrote them, so the smugness is not for me to own.   This forum is living proof of the non-science that lives in the minds of many and informs them.

 

[Red + 252]

7 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I can not rebut it without doing some serious research, but this probably has more to do with science not being my field. 

It's possible to rebut the paper from the outset, especially as a "technical" rebuttal was sought.  Look at Figure 1 and ask yourself why CO2 was presented as a trend line, but temperature was not.  Here's what the paper says:

"The clear and obvious difference between the two raises the possibility that there may be no common causal factor whereby the CO2 concentration drives the temperature as claimed by the IPCC."

The scale chosen for temperature, along with the "noise" of monthly data, is mischievous. In fact the satellite record shows a trend of temperature increase of around 0.2 degrees per decade.  

So, if the chart shows a long term trend (40 years) of increasing temperature, and it's consistent with increasing CO2 levels, where is this obvious difference between the two?

The entire paper lacks rigour and only exists because we live in a world where cyberspace allows the pedestrian to be Olympian.

[NickW + 2,714]

21 hours ago, WCS said:

The problem is the left wing media and their agenda to destroy oil. Globally 16% of the CO2 comes from vehicle emissions ( gas and diesel), Why not focus on the 48% CO2 that’s from heating and electrical generation. Why don’t the politicians spend more time on reforestation , redirecting some of theses flood waters to desert areas, limit immigration to reduce the degradation of land ( paved paradise and put up a parking lot). It’s all about taxes , Carbon taxes to pay off the debt .

Maybe Red can explain why the weakening of the earth’s magnetosphere plays no part in global climate change (warming) with more solar radiation entering the atmosphere and since water is diamagnetic how does this affect the ocean currents when earth’s magnetic field is changing and may flip.

Eh? 

I have lived in both the UK and Australia and in both countries there have been significant efforts to improve energy efficiency in housing and businesses. I assume similar approaches have been taken across the developed world. 

My wife is Iranian and according to her brother similar efforts have been made in Iran too - despite it being awash with Natural Gas. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, WHY said:

Thank you Red for correcting me. Certainly given that you have degrees (BA CS, BS EE and MS Eng) plus 30 years as an engineer is something I do not have. It is interesting to note that I cannot think of any engineer I have ever worked with who LISTENS to anything anyone says to them unless it is another higher ranking engineer. 

Nevertheless, you did not answer my question!! As an engineer who is always RIGHT and wants to be seen to be RIGHT and will not under any circumstances admit not being RIGHT - please set me RIGHT. How big is the calamity ahead of us? Clearly you believe it is a major cluster-f since you are spending an inordinate amount of time defending the AGW position. Although, to be honest I find everything you present very difficult to follow. Could you perhaps get off your high horse long enough and in simple enough language to indicate why you and the Pope are so closely aligned?

That would explain many of the problems I have seen in the Oil and Gas industry in the UK, Oz and Saudi Arabia and indeed more recently in rail transport in Europe!

The infallibility of the Engineer!🙈🙉🙊

[WCS + 13]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Eh? 

I have lived in both the UK and Australia and in both countries there have been significant efforts to improve energy efficiency in housing and businesses. I assume similar approaches have been taken across the developed world. 

My wife is Iranian and according to her brother similar efforts have been made in Iran too - despite it being awash with Natural Gas. 

I’m all for energy efficiency 100%. My point is that oil ( gas powered vehicles primarily) is the focus of attack when it only contributes globally ,16% of the man made CO2.