Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

[KirkDuyt]

In an ideal world, after being proven wrong so many times in a matter of 24 hours would lead to @Mark Pawelek realizing he's wrong and enlighten himself. Obviously it's too late to admit in here pubicly that all he thought he knew is wrong, but perhaps, when no one's watching, he can reinvent himself and change his Twitter handle.

You have to weed out the ignorance one soul at a time I spose.

 

[Buster15]

Why are you lot still entertaining him?

It is the other way round I can assure you.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

The Arctic icecap would not cause the sea level to rise because the ice already displaces the water. Put a couple of ice cubes in a glass of water and leave them for an hour or so and then tell me if volume is the same before and after they have melted.

I never commented on the Arctic in particular. It's coverage is seasonal. There are no thick Glazers over the North Pole. Nor do I disagree with what you wrote. As I understand it: 3 main causes of sea level rise: (a) Melting Glazers, (b) expanding (warming) ocean, (c) land 'bouncing back' after suffering glaciation beforehand.

All we is small sea level rise in most places at 8 inches per century. 3mm per year. Consistent with (c) in Northern Europe.

Back in late 1980s, I was told much of South London would regularly be flooded within 20 / 30 years. We were told the Maldives would entirely vanish within 3 decades. They should be gone by now. During that time, some Maldive islands actually expanded in size. The population trebled with climate refugees seeking sunnier climates and warmer beaches. Insurers continue to insure new hotels by the beaches which "scientists" tell me should be under water by now. Just how many fake climate catastrophe media stories, planted by climate scientists do you think I can fall for? Are you hoping to sell me a dud 2nd-hand car, or something?

History shows Glazers are more likely to advance during the coming Eddy minimum than retreat. I'm not interested in what anyone's models say anymore on climate except solar physicists.

 

[Smores]

I never commented on the Arctic in particular. It's coverage is seasonal. There are no thick Glazers over the North Pole. Nor do I disagree with what you wrote. As I understand it: 3 main causes of sea level rise: Melting Glazers, expanding (warming) ocean, land 'bouncing back' after suffering glaciation beforehand.

All we is small sea level rise in most places at 8 inches per century. 3mm per year.

Back in late 1980s, I was told much of South London would regularly be flooded within 20 / 30 years.

Brain-dead mantra of the melting icecaps leading to catastrophe was fake science 30 years ago, and still is today. History shows Glazers are more likely to advance during the coming Eddy minimum than retreat. I'm not interested in what anyone's models say anymore on climate except solar physicists.

You mean the late 80s when the Thames barrier was built? Hmm i wonder if that's related to the lack of flooding these days.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

You mean the late 80s when the Thames barrier was built? Hmm i wonder if that's related to the lack of flooding these days.

No, it's not. Thames barrier only protects only Central and West London. None of the unprotected area suffered flooding since the barrier was built, but much of it like Lower Belevedere, Thamesmead is reclaimed salt-marsh, which is basically sea level.

Was the 1928 London flood caused by climate change? No. Has the Thames barrier stopped any floods? No. Because there hasn't been an incident like 1928, or 1953 since it was built.

 

[nimic]

I'm not interested in what anyone's models say anymore on climate except solar physicists.

The attitude of a true discerning observer.

I don't think I've ever met anyone as entrenched in a position, all evidence to the contrary, as you. You've been wrong about the most basic of issues throughout this thread, and yet you soldier on.

 

[Eriku]

The attitude of a true discerning observer.

I don't think I've ever met anyone as entrenched in a position, all evidence to the contrary, as you. You've been wrong about the most basic of issues throughout this thread, and yet you soldier on.

Indeed. Let’s nevermind people who specialise in the effects of heating on weather systems, hydrology, embryology, and the general ridiculously complex interplay and symbiosis of life and life-sustaining forces on earth. All we need is people who are clued up about the physics of the sun.

The mind boggles...

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Indeed. Let’s nevermind people who specialise in the effects of heating on weather systems, hydrology, embryology, and the general ridiculously complex interplay and symbiosis of life and life-sustaining forces on earth. All we need is people who are clued up about the physics of the sun.

The mind boggles...

That Stewart Lee video was spot on.

 

[Eriku]

That Stewart Lee video was spot on.

The consensus on Nessie is well off!

 

[4bars]

I never commented on the Arctic in particular. It's coverage is seasonal. There are no thick Glazers over the North Pole. Nor do I disagree with what you wrote. As I understand it: 3 main causes of sea level rise: (a) Melting Glazers, (b) expanding (warming) ocean, (c) land 'bouncing back' after suffering glaciation beforehand.

All we is small sea level rise in most places at 8 inches per century. 3mm per year. Consistent with (c) in Northern Europe.

Back in late 1980s, I was told much of South London would regularly be flooded within 20 / 30 years. We were told the Maldives would entirely vanish within 3 decades. They should be gone by now. During that time, some Maldive islands actually expanded in size. The population trebled with climate refugees seeking sunnier climates and warmer beaches. Insurers continue to insure new hotels by the beaches which "scientists" tell me should be under water by now. Just how many fake climate catastrophe media stories, planted by climate scientists do you think I can fall for? Are you hoping to sell me a dud 2nd-hand car, or something?

History shows Glazers are more likely to advance during the coming Eddy minimum than retreat. I'm not interested in what anyone's models say anymore on climate except solar physicists.

I travelled extensively in several continents. I love mountaineering an every single Galcier that I visited had retreated extensively single 100 years ago. Several disappeared. The only one that didn't is Perito Moreno. All the others I visited them showing the real marks were the limits are and/or evident pictures of where they were 100+. solar cylces are 11 years usually. Not +100

 

[Wibble]

Are you a cabal of comics? I told you that character assassination does not work in open internet forums. Especially when it comes from sniveling, little, anonymouse posters. Yet you only know one trick. It's like watching bots in action. You only do one thing, even after you were warned it will not work.

Who among you has actually studied any climate science?

I have albeit mainly as it relates to my original field of marine ecology. Although I also have a large circle of friends and acquaintances who do work in this and other related fields and actually do research and publish peer reviewed articles in the primary literature, including Science and Nature. I also used to be a reviewer for some primary journals. So I think I can weigh up the evidence pretty well.

You do realise that the next Launder minimum will only mitigate further temperature increases by an average of 0.3 degrees C?

So possibly slightly helpful if we seriously try to mitigate anthropogenic change but far from a solution.

 

[Wibble]

I travelled extensively in several continents. I love mountaineering an every single Galcier that I visited had retreated extensively single 100 years ago. Several disappeared. The only one that didn't is Perito Moreno. All the others I visited them showing the real marks were the limits are and/or evident pictures of where they were 100+. solar cylces are 11 years usually. Not +100

I skied here in 1989 - now gone forever in human terms.
https://www.snow-forecast.com/whiteroom/chacaltaya-bolivia-worlds-highest-ski-resort/

The same year I dived the GBR for the first time - very far north so utterly pristine. Mainly a white bleached wasteland now

If you don't want to believe the science then believe the blatantly obvious visible symptoms that are everywhere. This is happening on a very short time scale that humans can observe, not the geological time scales over which climate naturally changes normally occur, barring huge meteor strikes.

 

[nickm]

Indeed. Let’s nevermind people who specialise in the effects of heating on weather systems, hydrology, embryology, and the general ridiculously complex interplay and symbiosis of life and life-sustaining forces on earth. All we need is people who are clued up about the physics of the sun.

The mind boggles...

It is the sheer arrogance I can’t understand. To be so sure of yourself on picking holes in the consensus science when you aren’t an expert.

It’s like arguing violently, tribally in favour of loop quantum gravity over string theory when you work in a post office.

 

[nickm]

No, it's not. Thames barrier only protects only Central and West London. None of the unprotected area suffered flooding since the barrier was built, but much of it like Lower Belevedere, Thamesmead is reclaimed salt-marsh, which is basically sea level.

Was the 1928 London flood caused by climate change? No. Has the Thames barrier stopped any floods? No. Because there hasn't been an incident like 1928, or 1953 since it was built.

And yet:

https://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/uk-storms/57290/infographic-how-often-has-thames-barrier-been-used

 

[nickm]

He isn't and he won't.

So far, you are right.

 

[Wibble]

On second thoughts, I think its most likely the cabal of carbon dioxide catastrophists, here, are journalists. Rather than, say, any other clear category of person, I alluded to before. Journalist: is now my favoured projection. Why?
* Many journalists enter the profession for wokish motives.
* They are very tribal, PC and Woke (I worked with them for a few years).
* They love to slyly assassinate the character of people they disagree with without actually going so far as libel. It's almost a sport in some places.
* Anyone replying to them is thrown in the waste bin. They are unused to dealing with critics. So they have no experience of criticism. Which explains why they quickly degenerate into character assassination.
* Journalists regard it their duty to censor the media and present the Carbon Dioxide catastrophe as fact (rather than the fiction it is).
* None of them are scientists. Scientists do not: 'argue from authority' and insult with 'ad hominem'. OK, when very busy, they sometimes do. Certainly not, in public forums like this.
* Some of them have some woke climate activism training. Probably from Starmer. For example. 'Books do not count as knowledge', is typical climate-wokism; I've only ever heard it from climate-wokes. No educated person will disparage books like that; not even bad books.

I would not be surprised if they are journalists or wannabees.

Just wow.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

I have albeit mainly as it relates to my original field of marine ecology. Although I also have a large circle of friends and acquaintances who do work in this and other related fields and actually do research and publish peer reviewed articles in the primary literature, including Science and Nature. I also used to be a reviewer for some primary journals. So I think I can weigh up the evidence pretty well.

You do realise that the next Launder minimum will only mitigate further temperature increases by an average of 0.3 degrees C?

So possibly slightly helpful if we seriously try to mitigate anthropogenic change but far from a solution.

You are a scientist of sorts. Are you aware that:
1. Runaway greenhouse gas effect on Venus is a myth? The measured down-welling solar radiation at the surface at 20 W/m². Only 20W/m2 makes it to the surface because the atmosphere is very thick an opaque to sunlight. A runaway GHGE would imply ~ 15,000 W/m² LWIR downwelling at the surface. How could that possibly happen? CO2 radiates photons isomorphically.
2. The radiative equilibrium temperature for CO2 = -77.8°C. Above that, CO2 radiates more than it absorbs! (so much for 'trapping heat'). CO2 can do that (radiate more than it absorbs) by stealing energy from O2, and N2 molecules. At the surface, each molecule collides with about 1 billion other molecules per second; so there are lot's of opportunities for molecules to exchange energy when they meet.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

You are a scientist of sorts. Are you aware that:
1. Runaway greenhouse gas effect on Venus is a myth? The measured down-welling solar radiation at the surface at 20 W/m². Only 20W/m2 makes it to the surface because the atmosphere is very thick an opaque to sunlight. A runaway GHGE would imply ~ 15,000 W/m² LWIR downwelling at the surface. How could that possibly happen? CO2 radiates photons isomorphically.
2. The radiative equilibrium temperature for CO2 = -77.8°C. Above that, CO2 radiates more than it absorbs! (so much for 'trapping heat'). CO2 can do that (radiate more than it absorbs) by stealing energy from O2, and N2 molecules. At the surface, each molecule collides with about 1 billion other molecules per second; so there are lot's of opportunities for molecules to exchange energy when they meet.

Just wow.

But can you make a useful contribution? Does you supposed concern for the planet translate into spending a few hours to study the climate system?

 

[sullydnl]

I'll happily admit to not knowing much about climate change.

I do know about putting forward arguments effectively though and in that respect one person has been thoroughly eviscerated in this thread.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

I skied here in 1989 - now gone forever in human terms.
https://www.snow-forecast.com/whiteroom/chacaltaya-bolivia-worlds-highest-ski-resort/

Mainly a white bleached wasteland now .

Your beloved Bolivian ski resort, on the equator, is no more - So we should wreck UK by scarring the country with windmills. Is that your best argument?

 

[Mark Pawelek]

I'll happily admit to not knowing much about climate change.

I do know about putting forward arguments effectively though and in that respect one person has been thoroughly eviscerated in this thread.

I've not been eviscerated in this thread. Everyone ignores all my arguments. Because most of you are all too lazy to study the climate system; so you echo media at me. You cannot eviscerate me unless you explicitly refute something I claim.

All you lot have is name-calling, bullying, and snide-remarks.

 

[nickm]

I've not been eviscerated in this thread. Everyone ignores all my arguments. Because most of you are all too lazy to study the climate system; so you echo media at me. You cannot eviscerate me unless you explicitly refute something I claim.

All you lot have is name-calling, bullying, and snide-remarks.

You don't actually understand your arguments.

If you are genuine you will answer my questions for starters - they are simple ones for someone with your towering intellect.

 

[nimic]

You cannot eviscerate me unless you explicitly refute something I claim.

Did you forget about the graph you so confidently read backwards? Or the studies you yourself cited, which turned out to explicitly contradict your own arguments? Or how about that time you claimed fish breathe water?

I also enjoyed you calling everyone out for being cowardly anonymous, at which point @NinjaFletch pointed out that you have a Twitter account under a different name, because of course you do; you seem clinically unable to be correct. If you really want to convince people AGW is false, you should try arguing in favour of it. That might finally change some minds.

 

[Wibble]

Your beloved Bolivian ski resort, on the equator, is no more - So we should wreck UK by scarring the country with windmills. Is that your best argument?

Even assuming windmills wreck anything, which I doubt they do, where does anything I said lead you to that response?

Non sequitur much?

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Everyone ignores all my arguments.

By this do you mean, "Everyone shows how I don't understand the papers and graphs I post and how they often disprove my argument rather than prove it"?

Because that's what's happening.

I get the feeling you do this style of arguing all the time on Twitter and the comments section of every article you can find about climate change. But whereas you usually probably either get echo chamber responses or argue against folks who get blown away by your bluster, here you've found a few individuals who science for a living. And they've quite effortlessly managed to show the shallowness of your knowledge on the topic. A very wide shallowness it seems, but shallow nonetheless.

 

[Wibble]

But can you make a useful contribution? Does you supposed concern for the planet translate into spending a few hours to study the climate system?

Did you read anything I posted?

The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring on a time scale that is utterly incompatible with anything other than anthropogenically caused change. If you could read and understand the primary literature then you couldn't come to any other conclusion. As you plainly are not a scientist and have little or no ability to critically assess the actual evidence it migh be best if you stop displaying your ignorance.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Mark reminds me of the incompetent Chernobyl engineer who kept yelling there's nothing wrong while everyone around him started throwing up blood from radiation poisoning.

See no evil, hear no evil everything's fine.

 

[sullydnl]

I've not been eviscerated in this thread. Everyone ignores all my arguments. Because most of you are all too lazy to study the climate system; so you echo media at me. You cannot eviscerate me unless you explicitly refute something I claim.

All you lot have is name-calling, bullying, and snide-remarks.

How many of the people you're debating with argued against their own sources or misunderstood the graphs that they themselves put forward?

You effectively refuted your own claims. You won't win many arguments if you do that.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I've not been eviscerated in this thread. Everyone ignores all my arguments. Because most of you are all too lazy to study the climate system; so you echo media at me. You cannot eviscerate me unless you explicitly refute something I claim.

All you lot have is name-calling, bullying, and snide-remarks.

Mark. Seriously. For your own health reflect properly on this matter.

You have continually and regularly used insulting, aggressive and snide language throughout this thread. You have used the syntax of the alt right including calling everyone in this thread either "woke" idiots so stupid that they believe the overwhelming scientific consensus in an "echo chamber" rather than spend a decade of their life training to become climate scientists or, genuinely, suggesting that this thread is populated by "journalists" who are for nefarious reasons propagating a lie about climate change in a truly bonkers post that has me questioning your mental health. You seem surprised that some people react with hostility to this or don't take you seriously. You are not being bullied so stop feeling sorry for yourself.

You have been, by several different people all of whom tried to calmly engage you in good faith initially until your pompous and combative posting style became too much for them, engaged in argument regarding the science. In response you have posted a series of posts that are often deliberately obfuscated (a common technique in my profession to hide a lack of true knowledge, although maybe you just have a naturally impenetrably poor communication style) and tangential. Worse, you have made numerous errors, which you fail to acknowledge, including basic factual inaccuracies, misreading your own posted graphs, getting chemicals mixed up and reading scales the wrong way round, showed a complete lack of knowledge of basic evolution and meteorology, posting articles that argue against your points that you have clearly misread or not read at all and questioned the credentials of actual scientists despite a lack of credentials of your own all whilst proclaiming a ludicrously broad knowledge of so many fields of science.

There are numerous examples above of your arguments being challenged and defeated. Generally by you yourself in fairness.You are eviscerating yourself. You are not as smart as you think you are (because no-one is) and you are arguing poorly. I hope you are a massive WUM because the alternative is tragic.

 

[That'sHernandez]

I've not been eviscerated in this thread. Everyone ignores all my arguments. Because most of you are all too lazy to study the climate system; so you echo media at me. You cannot eviscerate me unless you explicitly refute something I claim.

All you lot have is name-calling, bullying, and snide-remarks.

Every time anyone directly points out the fallacy in your arguments, you ignore them and move on to the next argument with unread (by yourself) supporting documentation that doesn’t actually support your argument.

 

[sun_tzu]

Mark. Seriously. For your own health reflect properly on this matter.

You have continually and regularly used insulting, aggressive and snide language throughout this thread. You have used the syntax of the alt right including calling everyone in this thread either "woke" idiots so stupid that they believe the overwhelming scientific consensus in an "echo chamber" rather than spend a decade of their life training to become climate scientists or, genuinely, suggesting that this thread is populated by "journalists" who are for nefarious reasons propagating a lie about climate change in a truly bonkers post that has me questioning your mental health. You seem surprised that some people react with hostility to this or don't take you seriously. You are not being bullied so stop feeling sorry for yourself.

You have been, by several different people all of whom tried to calmly engage you in good faith initially until your pompous and combative posting style became too much for them, engaged in argument regarding the science. In response you have posted a series of posts that are often deliberately obfuscated (a common technique in my profession to hide a lack of true knowledge, although maybe you just have a naturally impenetrably poor communication style) and tangential. Worse, you have made numerous errors, which you fail to acknowledge, including basic factual inaccuracies, misreading your own posted graphs, getting chemicals mixed up and reading scales the wrong way round, showed a complete lack of knowledge of basic evolution and meteorology, posting articles that argue against your points that you have clearly misread or not read at all and questioned the credentials of actual scientists despite a lack of credentials of your own all whilst proclaiming a ludicrously broad knowledge of so many fields of science.

There are numerous examples above of your arguments being challenged and defeated. Generally by you yourself in fairness.You are eviscerating yourself. You are not as smart as you think you are (because no-one is) and you are arguing poorly. I hope you are a massive WUM because the alternative is tragic.

@Mark Pawelek ... eviscerated?

 

[George Owen]

Some weeks ago, the Southern Patagonian ice-field (the world biggest ice mass outside of Antarctica and North Pole) splitted in two, leaving a huge patch of rock and land receiving light straight, speeding the heating process.

Also, few days ago we are having fecking tornados in the south of Chile!! Yep. fecking tornados.

We are prepared to deal with earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, but TORNADOS?? that shit is a new phenomena in this side of the world.



But hey, don't worry, global warming is FAKE NEWS!!!

 

[0le]

I guess I am the only one wondering wtf eviscerate means

 

[KirkDuyt]

I guess I am the only one wondering wtf eviscerate means

I think it means slashing someone into pieces or something. It's also a rogue finishing move in world of warcraft

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I guess I am the only one wondering wtf eviscerate means

Disembowel.

 

[Wibble]

You are a scientist of sorts.

No. I am a scientist. Not of sorts.

What has a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus got to do with anthropogenic climate change on earth?

Are you suggesting that because there is some debate about the runaway greenhouse on Venus, now and historically, that this means anthropogenic climate change isn't possible or actually happening?

Even if you are confusing rapid climate change with an actual runaway greenhouse effect - something most scientists think unlikely if not impossible on earth in human timeframes - I don't think this is evidence demonstrating what you think it does.

2. The radiative equilibrium temperature for CO2 = -77.8°C. Above that, CO2 radiates more than it absorbs! (so much for 'trapping heat'). CO2 can do that (radiate more than it absorbs) by stealing energy from O2, and N2 molecules. At the surface, each molecule collides with about 1 billion other molecules per second; so there are lot's of opportunities for molecules to exchange energy when they meet.

No idea what you are on about here. CO2 and other greenhouse gases allow light energy in which warms the earth and much of this energy is converted into infrared energy. Some of this shorter wavelength infrared energy is emitted into space and some is absorb by greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions.

This is why our planet isn't an icy ball at approx -18c rsther than the average of 15C we have (or had). 15C is about 55F FYI.

More greenhouse gas means more infrared is emitted back towards earth, upsetting the previously balanced heat budget of the earth. Which is why we are warming and it is also indisputable that the greenhouse gases that cause it are directly or indirectly a result of human activity.

It isn't controversial science. We have known how this works for a long long time. Indeed It is 60 years since scientists began to think harmful warming could occur, even if confirmation took a while, but we are well past that point now.

Arguing that anthropogenic global warming isn't a thing makes as much sense as flat earth "theory".

 

[Wibble]

But can you make a useful contribution? Does you supposed concern for the planet translate into spending a few hours to study the climate system?

Your understanding of the science is as poor as your ability to spot irony I suspect.

 

[Wibble]

Some statements by so-called climate scientists are crazy. For example: "methane is 30 times more powerful global warming gas than carbon dioxide" How am I expected to believe that one KirkDuyt? Do you, personally believe it?

The green CO2 absorption on the left is bigger, and at a more energetic frequency than the tiny orange CH4 (methane) absorption. Is methane, CH4 a 30×, some say: 100 times, more powerful global warming gas than CO2?

I don't need to believe anything. I understand things based on the evidence. Methane has a 20 year warming potential over 30 times that of CO2 because It can absorb and re-emit over 80 times as much heat per unit mass as CO2 but persists for a much shorter period - only 9/10 years I believe. All this, when combined with rising amount of atmospheric methane, means that it has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) in excess of 100 times that of CO2 over the next 20 years.

This is a combination of confirmed data and well supported modelling (that has produced accurate results in the past) so your belief, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. The evidence doesn't give a feck what you believe.

 

[Wibble]

Oh would you look at that, @Mark Pawelek realized that both of the graphs he posted directly contradicted the point he was making with such confidence. He didn't say "I think this is right", he said "they always show" them that way. And what happens when he realizes? Well, first he blames the makers of the graph he posted. And then he moves on without skipping a beat (well, after editing his post to hide his mistake). So what if he made a fundamental mistake, it's the IPCC which is lying.

You know Mark, for a second there I was really wondering whether you actually knew this stuff after all. I was almost prepared to ignore the fact that earlier in the thread you claimed that fish breathe water, and that climate change can't kill corals because weather doesn't. You spoke with such confidence.

And then it turns out you were reading the graph backwards.

Wait. What?

 

[Wibble]

Did you delete your reply to me? From a brief glance, you posted a graph with far IR labeled on the left and mid IR on the right and claimed that the higher frequencies were on the left. I can no longer see that post.

However, far IR is as the name suggests a higher wavelength, (farther away from visible), and hence lower frequency.

Yes. Or rather removed it from public view.