Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[turbobloke]

Back to the atolls growing piece, and its dopey dogma on coral.

After a trillion tons of CO2, the Great Barrier Reef hits record coral cover third year in a row in spite of predictions of climate doom from politicians and activists, who exaggerate threats (Hulme).

60% of all human emissions have occurred since 1985 but today corals such as the GBR are healthier than ever.in that period. This is not surprising as atmospheric CO2 levels are not the determinant of ocean pH nor of global temperature (Cannell 2024 as linked earlier in the thread).

https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion...

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

It is true. But each subsequent El Nino is getting warmer as acknowledged by Christy recently. Why?

What causes the natural oscillations? Do you have a hypothesis?

Personally I have not created a hypothesis. Sorry, however a few natural variations are.......

Day and night, orbit of the earth around the sun, position in milky way, solar flares, cloud cover, volcanic activity, angle of the earth's axis, meteor strikes are a few that are well known and researched, plus no doubt others exist.

However there is no research published (that has been presented on the thread or to my knowledge - fallible, I admit), why we are having the current warming other than CO2 concentrations increasing. It seems to be the only theory that stacks up.

Additionally, I acknowledge the understanding of El Nino is not fully understood, to answer your question more directly (a rare trait on this thread) . But the earth is still warming, in general, in spite of El Nino and with an increasing concentration of CO2.

I would willingly accept otherwise.

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

Perfectly possible.

But consensus at the moment, in case you had not noticed, is increasing CO2 emissions are driving the temps upwards.

No alternates have been presented for the current warming. And the warming was also predicted, which adds weight to the theory for me.

I would love if it was disproven and I was not taxed for petrol like I have been over the decades, I am on pistonheads after all. It has also probably influenced my car choices (negatively) because of tax classifications.....Smart Roadster anyone??

If proven wrong, I am sure the government would find another way to extract money from something else I enjoy

Posting bks like Tony Hellers video, really is like shooting the denial case in the foot. Posting a research paper which stands up to my individual scrutiny (it is me that needs convincing, after all) which shows another process influencing the warming trend would start me asking questions. But it does not exist....which takes me back to my starting point.

For me the biggest question is whether the models have the sensitivity correct? Which will only be proven or not over decades, by which time it quite possibly be a little late for some folk.

But denying overwhelming evidence and consensus despite individual scrutiny is not something I am willing to support.

Lastly, the evading of questions in this thread is frustrating, as it simply reinforces my current view. If a paper is fundamentally flawed, I would like some debate about it. Silence or misdirection from some claiming to be in academia on here is really galling despite them extolling how educated and esteemed they are. I try not to be a tt, but sometimes my frustration over runs

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one. It’s been weaponised as a tool to convince the gullible that MMGW is the truth, fact, and not merely a hypothesis.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one. It’s been weaponised as a tool to convince the gullible that MMGW is the truth, fact, and not merely a hypothesis.

You don't understand what a hypothesis is.......

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

[mike9009]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

Prepare to be ignored

It is too difficult to provide any papers supporting the converse argument. Partly because I don't think they exist.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one. It’s been weaponised as a tool to convince the gullible that MMGW is the truth, fact, and not merely a hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is not a political construct. A simple Google will prove you are spouting bks (again).

Prove otherwise.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause warming.

Other processes we don’t understand cause warming/cooling.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

Another graph is called for here I believe. Opps !!

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Post a link to what? To evidence that we don’t understand all factors influencing the climate? You already agreed that we don’t understand what drives El Niño, La Niña and the NAO.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause warming.

...at the rate we have observed, and so therefore can explain the warming trend. Quite an important factor you're choosing to ignore.

Kawasicki said:

Other processes we don’t understand cause warming/cooling.

Yeah you keep saying that but then fail to offer anything more so it's about as credible as saying God did it. Or aliens. Case closed.

Thankfully some people are more curious than you.

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

Post a link to what? To evidence that we don’t understand all factors influencing the climate? You already agreed that we don’t understand what drives El Niño, La Niña and the NAO.

You read what I put about being evasive? You understand it does not strengthen your position? You realise you shoot yourself in the foot? You realise you are not convincing me otherwise?

Read back and answer the question I asked. There is no alternate hypothesis proposed for the current warming trend.

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Being abusive really does not help your position either. A common tactic for someone unable to support a position, just call the other person stupid......

Guess what?

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause warming.

...at the rate we have observed, and so therefore can explain the warming trend. Quite an important factor you're choosing to ignore.

Kawasicki said:

Other processes we don’t understand cause warming/cooling.

Yeah you keep saying that but then fail to offer anything more so it's about as credible as saying God did it. Or aliens. Case closed.

Thankfully some people are more curious than you.

I’m not ignoring the current warming trend, you however are ignoring that it was warming before CO2 started to climb significantly. Was that also due to CO2 levels?

I don’t believe in gods, I do believe in the ignorance of experts. Do you?

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

Another graph is called for here I believe. Opps !!

That better not be an average of CO2 concentrations? Because you stated previously averages should not be used.....

What is your takeaway from that graph you have presented relating to the current situation?

Also if the data from 1880 is suspect, how reliable is this data? Is based on how many jumpers a diplodocus is wearing? Kidding.....

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause warming.

...at the rate we have observed, and so therefore can explain the warming trend. Quite an important factor you're choosing to ignore.

Kawasicki said:

Other processes we don’t understand cause warming/cooling.

Yeah you keep saying that but then fail to offer anything more so it's about as credible as saying God did it. Or aliens. Case closed.

Thankfully some people are more curious than you.

I’m not ignoring the current warming trend, you however are ignoring that it was warming before CO2 started to climb significantly. Was that also due to CO2 levels?

I don’t believe in gods, I do believe in the ignorance of experts. Do you?

https://www.britannica.com/science/Last-Glacial-Maximum

This is a useful article. There are theories but solar activity seems favourite but does not stack up. Interesting seeing the graph in contact of the current trends.

CO2 increases has always seemed to follow rising temps. Yet now we are forcing the CO2 upwards so the mechanism is inverse of what happens naturally. Be interesting to see what happens....

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause warming.

...at the rate we have observed, and so therefore can explain the warming trend. Quite an important factor you're choosing to ignore.

Kawasicki said:

Other processes we don’t understand cause warming/cooling.

Yeah you keep saying that but then fail to offer anything more so it's about as credible as saying God did it. Or aliens. Case closed.

Thankfully some people are more curious than you.

I’m not ignoring the current warming trend, you however are ignoring that it was warming before CO2 started to climb significantly. Was that also due to CO2 levels?

I don’t believe in gods, I do believe in the ignorance of experts. Do you?

https://www.britannica.com/science/Last-Glacial-Maximum

This is a useful article. There are theories but solar activity seems favourite but does not stack up. Interesting seeing the graph in contact of the current trends.

CO2 increases has always seemed to follow rising temps. Yet now we are forcing the CO2 upwards so the mechanism is inverse of what happens naturally. Be interesting to see what happens....

Great article.

You forgot to answer my questions.

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

I know you have zero interest in the answers because your posts here are always disingenuous, but if you want to play this game you might first want to explain why increasing the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere wouldn't cause warming, given the laws of physics tells us that is exactly what should happen.

You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause warming.

...at the rate we have observed, and so therefore can explain the warming trend. Quite an important factor you're choosing to ignore.

Kawasicki said:

Other processes we don’t understand cause warming/cooling.

Yeah you keep saying that but then fail to offer anything more so it's about as credible as saying God did it. Or aliens. Case closed.

Thankfully some people are more curious than you.

I’m not ignoring the current warming trend, you however are ignoring that it was warming before CO2 started to climb significantly. Was that also due to CO2 levels?

I don’t believe in gods, I do believe in the ignorance of experts. Do you?

https://www.britannica.com/science/Last-Glacial-Maximum

This is a useful article. There are theories but solar activity seems favourite but does not stack up. Interesting seeing the graph in contact of the current trends.

CO2 increases has always seemed to follow rising temps. Yet now we are forcing the CO2 upwards so the mechanism is inverse of what happens naturally. Be interesting to see what happens....

Great article.

You forgot to answer my questions.

Depends which experts and what ignorance? In general, 'no'. Can you back up your assertion, perhaps a specific example?

In the case of gods 'no'.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one. It’s been weaponised as a tool to convince the gullible that MMGW is the truth, fact, and not merely a hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is not a political construct. A simple Google will prove you are spouting bks (again).

Prove otherwise.

Oh ok. So let’s explore many of the greatest scientific advancements that involve a single scientist railing against orthodoxy (or indeed religion). Consensus is a political not a scientific construct. In science there are a number of ‘laws’, many theories and myriad hypotheses. Guess where MMGW exists on that spectrum?