« First thoughts | Main | Genesis »

Saturday, 16 August 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

PythonMagus

I acknowledge an apposite (though authorized) photo of Python. Very clever.

Paul

"Fukushima is a worry, but a localised problem [WRONG!! ITS ALREADY REACHED THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE US AND CANADA] and there is some action on it [LIKE WHAT?!]. Acidification is a worry and a global problem and no action is being taken".

PythonMagus

My obsession is not with Lord Monckton but with his ideas. He is trying to deceive others to believe there has been no global warming since 1997, and that another who says otherwise is a Nazi. When these laughable deceptions are put aside, he can be too. I can assure you that no legitimate scientist agrees with either of these points. (Legitimate does not mean agrees with me, legitimate means "gets their papers in peer reviewed journals".)

The Fox News story is odd for its obsession on the IPCC's irresponsibility on global economics. Forgive me for not checking the terms of reference, but I think the IPCC is only tasked with summarising scientific findings into a single document. The author can read weekly articles in several scientific journals if he so chose, and some of them cover economics.

Finally, where does acidification of the oceans come from? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification) The chemistry of the air and the chemistry of the oceans are linked via 2/3s of the earth's surface. Increasing concentrations of CO2 in the air results in much of the CO2 being transferred into the ocean where it becomes carbonic acid. In high enough concentrations, this acid stops sea life from creating calcium carbonate. Most at risk are diatoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom), which are microscopic plants at the base of the food chain. Also at risk are corals, which provide fish with nurseries.

Fukashima is a worry, but a localised problem and there is some action on it. Acidification is a worry and a global problem and no action is being taken.

Paul

The obsession with Lord Munckton is because you have run out of arguments. Remember, it was the IPCC itself that agrees with Munckton and confirmed its models were wrong and there has been no global warming for the last 17 years:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/20/un-climate-change-expert-reveals-bias-in-global-warming-report/

And where did acidification of the oceans come from? This at least encourages me, because taking one's head out of one's bottom and looking beyond global warming alarmism at other things is important. Perhaps now the terrible impact of Fukushima and the radiation of the Pacific will be noticed, a genuine and more urgent global problem deserving of world wide co-ordinated action.

PythonMagus

To clarify the impact of warming, anthropogenic climate change does involve warming overall. More heat enters the world as it is increasingly trapped by CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That heat excites the air molecules and conducts around the planet. Most is transferred into the ocean, and moved around in currents, often deep under water to re-emerge on the surface several years later. Other heat is transfer into ice and is "used" to break the chemical bonds of the ice.

If you could sum the air temperature all over the atmosphere, and water temperature all over the oceans and the size of the ice packs, you would see the expected monotonic increase. However, that is beyond our abilities right now.

However, the satellite data that Lord Monckton cherry picks to deceive the good people of the world, does show regular increases in surface temperatures, in the shape of a bumpy hockey stick.

While there is some fear that increasing temperatures will make some parts of the world uninhabitable, there is greater fear that:
1. rain patterns will change causing farm land to reduce in productivity
2. extreme weather will become more deadly and frequent. (This includes the cold snaps Sarah Palin holds to so dearly)
3. Small temperature variations will make essential organisms extinct
4. Acidification of the oceans will decimate plankton at the base of the food change.

"Nazi!" screams Lord Monkton. "You cannot predict everything hoping that one catastrophe here or there will prove your point". That is why we need to research that Lord Monckton is so vehemently opposed to. "But is it all biased towards a prejudice; a Nazi prejudice" he screeches. No so. Errors in IPCC reports are found all the time in peer reviewed research and are corrected in the subsequent IPCC reports - that is how science works and it is magnificent. "Then you are saying you do not know what will really happen and you do not know whether your efforts will achieve anything." Lork Monckton finally whines. True, and I defer to Dirty Harry on that one:

I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "did he fire six shots or only five?" Now to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow you head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

BTW, I am still waiting for my dear friend to comment on my brilliant space empires posts.
1. http://www.prestags.com/2014/07/space-empires-explore-x-x-x.html
2. http://www.prestags.com/2014/07/space-empires-explore-expand-x-x.html
3. http://www.prestags.com/2014/08/space-empires-explore-expand-exploit-x.html
4. http://www.prestags.com/2014/08/space-empires-explore-expand-exploit-exterminate.html

Paul

A long comment is not necessarily a good comment. Herein the fallacy: "The world is not a bath tub where adding more heat makes everything warmer. It is a complex system and it is being fed more energy, a lot more energy, and that is going to move existing weather patterns around a bit. There is already strong evidence that Global Warming is going to increase winter cold snaps in the USA and Russia by slowing down the northern jet stream". OK, if temperatures go up there is global warming. And if temperatures go down there is global warming. And this is supposed to be a scientific proof? So, having discarded global warming and climate change, are we now going to call it the increased energy crisis.

PythonMagus

The Climate Change sceptics have once more got into their tub of lies and are sloshing them about hoping to make waves, and these lies seem to be deceiving my dear friend. Certainly they have totally decided Maurice Newman, Tony Abbott's business advisor, who has chosen to re-broadcast the lies (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/15/fact-check-how-maurice-newman-misrepresents-science-to-claim-future-global-cooling). He was hoping no one would check the facts.

Sun spot activity is very interesting, and Professor Mike Lockwood is certainly an expert. Professor Lockwood has indeed reported that sun spots are in marked decline, and if they continue on their current trend, the could reduce global temperatures by between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees by 2100. If you discount the impact of carbon pollution's projected 4.0 degree increase, indeed you could get a mini ice age. Again, we see how a single fact is used to spice a soup of lies to serve up to those who do not feel the need to care for their fellow humans on the planet. As for Professor Lockwood, he was asked what he thought of this interpretation: "The wording in the quote you sent me is a very sly misrepresentation. As a scientist I try to write sentences that are unambiguous ... but this is deliberately ambiguous to make it look like I am saying something that I certainly am not."

Now the big lie about 17 years of no global warming. I think I really need to write a piece on Christopher Monckton, the third Viscount of Benchley. He thinks he is a member of the United Kingdom House of Lords and a scientist. He is actually neither. Here is a letter from the clerk of the House of Lords to the Viscount saying "cease and desist": http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2011/letter-to-viscount-monckton-20110715.pdf . Neither is he a scientist; he has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism. However, he is a beloved experted of the Homeland Institute, mostly for his predilection to call anyone who opposes his views a Nazi. He claims his correction of an IPCC paper earned him a Nobel prize. Although he later conceded this was a joke (http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-diary/nobleman-is-no-nobel-man-20100125-muky.html), the lie is still reprinted by those who want their eyes to stay shut. So how did this compulsive liar conclude their was no warming? Simple, he cherry picked the data to select those points that showed no warming and attributed the rest of the data to the Nazis.

So what about the growth of ice. No Climate Change sceptic will deny that until last Northern Winter, the Arctic ice sheet has been receding. They just didn't want to talk about that (because of the Nazis again, most probably). Now that we have had one winter where it has increased, it becomes their new favourite topic. It's their old strategy of one helpful fact to spice a soup of lies. The answer is far more complex than most people on the planet can understand (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/11/climate-change-antarctic-sea-ice-expedition). The world is not a bath tub where adding more heat makes everything warmer. It is a complex system and it is being fed more energy, a lot more energy, and that is going to move existing weather patterns around a bit. There is already strong evidence that Global Warming is going to increase winter cold snaps in the USA and Russia by slowing down the northern jet stream. However, the actual impacts are not understood yet.

So, what should we do when faced with a change of atmosphere that is not understood. Should we adopt jingoistic slogans to tar anyone who tries to understand this. Should we pass a law against anyone reporting on their investigations (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/north-carolina-sea-level-rises-desipte-senators/). Should we demand that the world be no more complex than a bath tub. Or should we put our best scientists in a world co-ordinated hunt for answers and try to ameliorate the changes while we wait. For me, I will vote for the party with the best approach to this problem. The fools of the liberal party will be thrown out when the rank and file demand a party of freedom, not blindness. At that time, we will see a reintroduction of cap-and-trade on carbon pollution.

I do not expect temperatures to monotonically increase in Sydney, nor has anyone (to my knowledge) made a prediction that they will. I just note that above average temperatures for the last few years is odd.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Deano
Deano
Handsome Budgie Aristo
Aristo
Banja 2 small
Banjo
Pip
Pip

August 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Walter Fringe
Python April
Thygo April

Categories

Paul's Great Reads