Jump to content

Temperatures to rise 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030-2052 without rapid steps - U.N. report


webfact

Recommended Posts

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 4:15 AM, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. First off, renewable energy is rapidly growing as an energy source. Already solar and wind easily beat the cost of coal and and are already beginning to beat natural gas.  Just in the last week, a new rechargeable zinc oxide battery was unveiled that is far mor efficient than the best current lithium batteries and far cheaper to producee.  addition by supplying applying electricityi from a power plant you're able to more efficiently process the fuel. ANd as a bonus, it's a much more effective in controlling pollution..

I regularly drove a 7 hour journey ( one way ). A refill was necessary along the way. If a battery can't do a 7 hour trip at max speed ( highway ) or recharge in the time it takes to fill my tank, am I interested in an electric car? Replies not required.

Am I supposed to travel by public transport instead, when the journey that way took twice as long, and when I get to destination, am I supposed to use rip off taxis?

Perhaps the <deleted> running this show don't realise that people actually live outside cities and travel long distances. Fuel cells would actually be almost as simple to use as petrol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 12:49 PM, bristolboy said:

Actually the ignorance on display here is yours. Clearly you haven't a clue about economics and and how GDP per capita affects the feasibility of restructuring. And of course huge majorities in the USA, for one, favor the rapid development of green energy.

Wanting a clean planet, where pollution isn't destroying everything does NOT mean that people also believe climate change was caused by humans, or that it can be changed by taxes or useless conferences that cost fortunes.

I'd happily give up my car if a decent public transport system existed, but it doesn't. I'd even travel international by sailing ship if the option existed at the same price as air travel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, there is no natural variability in temperature over time and there has never been wild temperature shifts or 'climate change' in the past.  Nope, it's all cow fart and car emission - and a whole lot of fear monger to boot.  :clap2:

 

681440034_Screenshotfrom2018-10-1611-07-24.png.72da0c32ed3d3792dd4466178487194c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Should gravity  be discussed in open debate by the gravity skeptics?

Evolution?

Electromagnetism?

Cigarettes cause cancer?

The germ theory of disease?

There is no debate among educated people as to gravity, electromagnetism, germs etc. There is no such consensus regarding cause of climate change as human activity.

 

17 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Stephen Jay Gould once commented that the Creationism debates were a shame.

The science was settled long ago,

The science may be settled, but what created matter in the first place? Did it just appear from nothing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, connda said:

Of course, there is no natural variability in temperature over time and there has never been wild temperature shifts or 'climate change' in the past.  Nope, it's all cow fart and car emission - and a whole lot of fear monger to boot.  :clap2:

 

681440034_Screenshotfrom2018-10-1611-07-24.png.72da0c32ed3d3792dd4466178487194c.png

Unfortunately this is about trading carbon credits, wherein the idea is to make a handful of wealthy individuals even more wealthy (Al Gore and associates) while allowing complicit governments the opportunity to collect yet another regressive 'tax' (CO2) and further strip wealth from those who can afford it the least.  At it's most ludicrous, it becomes "All plebes and 'little people' should walk and only the elite should drive and fly.'  "All plebes and 'little people' should eat soy and only the elite should eat meat."

But once the "climate change will destroy all humanity" crowd have drank the Kool-Aide, the cognitive dissonance only will make them unable to see though the charade.  This is a PT Barnum moment if I've ever seen one.  You have to give a hand to guys like Gore for orchestrating such an effective global scam.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Unable to remember the link I provided in post #133. Typical.

24 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Unable. Or unwilling.

 

The link I am referring to, as you're well aware, is to a book called "The Hockey Stick Illusion" which lays bare the shenanigans which went into the creation of the wretched hockey stick.

 

I can understand your reluctance to follow the link, the book is devastating.

The only link in post #133 is to junkscience.com

The only book referenced in post #133 is A Disgrace to the Profession

Clearly, you're not much of a mind reader. Perhaps you expect me to read yours and know what book you meant to be referring to? Do you ever get the facts straight?

 

As for the Hockey stick illusion, it's written by Steyn the fellow being sued by Mann. Zorita, one of the main climatologists Steyn cites, actually supports Mann's conclusions and says they are corroborated by other studies. He said he thought Mann oversimplified the case a bit, But you wouldn't know that from reading Steyn. Who indulges in massive cherry-picking in his compilation of scientists' work. Haven't time to check all Steyn's stuff. But since Zorita was the first climatologist cited on Steyn's home page, it seems significant.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, connda said:

You have to give a hand to guys like Gore for orchestrating such an effective global scam.

True. His latest movie provided no new science that I noticed, but probably added a significant amount of cash to his accounts. He needs it to pay for all that air travel he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The only link in post #133 is to junkscience.com

Wrong. There is a link to The Hockey Stick Illusion in the text, displayed in bright purple.

 

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As for the Hockey stick illusion, it's written by Steyn

Wrong. It is written by Andrew Montford.

 

You really are quite an extreme denier on this one, aren't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Wrong. There is a link to The Hockey Stick Illusion in the text, displayed in bright purple.

 

Wrong. It is written by Andrew Montford.

 

You really are quite an extreme denier on this one, aren't you?

Unlike you, I am quite willing to acknowledge my errors, as in this case.

As for the book itself. Montfort is qualified how?

Ad as you've repeatedly ignored, there is now plenty of independent research that supports Mann's research. 

You're beating a dead horse with a hockey stick.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You're beating a dead horse with a hockey stick

Well, the hockey stick is so rotten that the horse wouldn't notice even if it was alive.

 

And do look for links in posts before accusing people of not including them - it would save so much time.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Climate change is about to make your beer more expensive

Extreme weather events are expected to reduce global barley production"

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07015-7

 

OMG! I'm on board now.  Sign me up as a climate change advocate.  The Earth's population must be taxed in order to keep this, this...tragedy...from occurring. :shock1: 
But wait!  Beer has bubbles, bubbles are formed by CO2, beer drinking leads to man-made climate change???  OMG!!! Say it ain't so!!! :crying:

Edited by connda
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  •  
  15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Where's your evidence that Mann lost the case or that it's even been decided?

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Well, the hockey stick is so rotten that the horse wouldn't notice even if it was alive.

 

And do look for links in posts before accusing people of not including them - it would save so much time.

 

 

https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

 

A court decision dismissing Mann's case against National Review. But thanks for reminding me about the Tim Ball case, where Mann is caught in a similar cleft stick. He also has a lawsuit running against Mark Steyn, but keeps forgetting to turn up for the court cases.

 

It's a Catch-22 -- to defend himself against accusations of fraud, Mann will have to reveal his data and programs. The moment he does that, his detractors will be proved right.

 

The Hockey Stick scandal is based on a great deal more than an article in The Times -- books have been written about it, and even scientists on the warmist side of the argument have backed away from it.

 

By all means defend climate science, but using Mann as your exemplar is poor strategy. His science, and notably the Hockey Stick, have been well and truly busted.

 

Edit: An entire volume of criticism of Mann's work by other scientists has been published, titled "A Disgrace to the Profession." Available at Amazon, sounds like an entertaining read.

Edited 7 hours ago by RickBradford 
Added info

If the hockey stick is so rotten why have so many independent researchers confirmed it? I cited text and a link to all that. Despite which and you keep on ignoring it. I guess you've got nothing.

 

And for what it's worth, here is the post that you claimed had a link to the Hockey Stick Illusion

It's not even mentioned, much less is there a link.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

And for what it's worth, here is the post that you claimed had a link to the Hockey Stick Illusion

It's not even mentioned, much less is there a link.

Oh, come on, really. Do I have to teach Web 101?

 

Oh, well. In the 3rd paragraph, beginning "The Hockey Stick scandal is based ... ", the word 'books' is highlighted in purple. This is called an "Internet link". If you click on that, it takes you to the Wikipedia page of the Hockey Stick Illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Oh, come on, really. Do I have to teach Web 101?

 

Oh, well. In the 3rd paragraph, beginning "The Hockey Stick scandal is based ... ", the word 'books' is highlighted in purple. This is called an "Internet link". If you click on that, it takes you to the Wikipedia page of the Hockey Stick Illusion.

Still avoiding the actual issue about the Hockey stick, aren't you? Once again it has been independently confirmed  by researchers many times that the Hockey Stick is valid. And once again you avoid the issue to dwell on links and such. Why is the hockey stick rotten if it's been confirmed independently so many times?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

*Sigh*

 

Read the material in the link, for heaven's sake.

There are numerous climatological researchers who have independently confirmed Mann's conclusions using different data. Why should I read a book that is an attack on Michael Mann and his research only. It does not address the fact that numerous independent researchers have since supported Mann's data. It's a book by a person who's not even a climatologist but has a bachelors degree in chemistry and an advanced degree in accounting. Link to some climatological research that supports your claim. Good luck with that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Why should I read a book that is an attack on Michael Mann and his research only.

Because you might learn something. 

 

But I get the feeling that you are not really interested in that, your interest is climate ideology, not climate science.

 

Montford's book does not draw on his own expertise as a climatologist, but on the observations of qualified data analysts, statisticians and other scientists who show that Mann's methods would earn him a fail in a Grade 7 science project.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Because you might learn something. 

 

But I get the feeling that you are not really interested in that, your interest is climate ideology, not climate science.

 

Montford's book does not draw on his own expertise as a climatologist, but on the observations of qualified data analysts, statisticians and other scientists who show that Mann's methods would earn him a fail in a Grade 7 science project.

Again, even if there weren't a host of experts to dispute the assessment of Montfort et alii there are numerous independent climatologists whose research has supported Mann's conclusions. So why this obsession with Mann? For someone whose constant theme is complaining about personal attacks, you are awfully obsessed with just one person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either do the reading, or don't, I couldn't care less.

 

But don't pretend you are interested in climate science as opposed to climate ideology if you aren't prepared to examine both sides of the debate over perhaps the most influential science paper (MBH 99) that has yet been produced on climate change.

 

Even the IPCC gave it pride of place in their 2001 AR3 report, although sensibly they dumped it from the next version.

 

If you want to talk about climate science, fine; if you want to bicker about climate ideology, then do it on your own.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Either do the reading, or don't, I couldn't care less.

 

But don't pretend you are interested in climate science as opposed to climate ideology if you aren't prepared to examine both sides of the debate over perhaps the most influential science paper (MBH 99) that has yet been produced on climate change.

 

Even the IPCC gave it pride of place in their 2001 AR3 report, although sensibly they dumped it from the next version.

 

If you want to talk about climate science, fine; if you want to bicker about climate ideology, then do it on your own.

I am talking about the science. It's you who are obsessed with a person. Namely, Michael Mann. Independent research overwhelmingly backs his results. Over and over again. Nothing ideological about that.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

No, you're not. You're talking about one view of the science, and refusing to consider the other side.

 

That's ideology.

The book you keep referring to only is about Michael Mann. So even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Other scientists have done research that repeatedly backs his work. If Michael Mann never existed there would still be an abundance of research to support the hockey stick. Why the obsession with Michael Mann?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2018 at 1:02 PM, bristolboy said:

Actually, the report said that the 1.5 degree increase could be reached by 2030. Is that your idea of mid century? And the IPCC has consistently been too conservative in its projections. In every update the rate of increase is higher than projected in the previous reports.

In addition to which, as is usually the case wth ACG deniers, you take no account of rate. So it isn't like temperature has been increasing at a steady rate since 1850. In fact, 2/3 of the increase has taken place in the last 42 years. And the rate of change is accelerating.

you mean the fake rate of increase.. in 1989 they said there was no global warming in the last 100 years, then they changed the story after algore became vp:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm

 

the first ipcc assessment report showed a 1000 years ago to be warmer, much warmer than today, then they said 'oh that was just europe' europe had 1 climate and the rest of the world had another-they then claimed.. and ofcource all this extreme heat creates almost no sea level rise, just a few mm a year-after adjustments because the rise was not on the tide gauges.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

you mean the fake rate of increase.. in 1989 they said there was no global warming in the last 100 years, then they changed the story after algore became vp:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm

 

the first ipcc assessment report showed a 1000 years ago to be warmer, much warmer than today, then they said 'oh that was just europe' europe had 1 climate and the rest of the world had another-they then claimed.. and ofcource all this extreme heat creates almost no sea level rise, just a few mm a year-after adjustments because the rise was not on the tide gauges.

 

I hate to disillusion you (ok, that's a lie, actually i"m gonna love disillusioning you) but that article you cited from the NY Times say no such thing. The research only applied to the United States. And only to the 48 contiguous states.

"Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others. He said that his study, in which he was joined by George A. Maul and Thomas A. Karl, also of NOAA, looked at only the 48 contiguous states."

Now maybe you're one of those Americans who believe the USA is the world? 

As for the IPCC changing its reports, maybe that's due to science. There have been huge advances in computing power, new data and such. The IPCC didn't invent this. They compile research from climatologists around the globe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what, if there is no warming in the entire USA then there can't possibly be that much in the rest of the world- they keep saying there is this rapid rate of warming, then there should have at least been a little i the USA, btw the USA was one of the few places they had accurate measurements of..

 

and here's even the AGW crowds favorite science journal 'nature':

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1589  

 

Edited by pkspeaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

so what, if there is no warming in the entire USA then there can't possibly be that much in the rest of the world- they keep saying there is this rapid rate of warming, then there should have at least been a little i the USA, btw the USA was one of the few places they had accurate measurements of..

 

and here's even the AGW crowds favorite science journal 'nature':

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1589  

tree rings not from michael mann show the reality that it's not warmer now than it was a thousand years ago

"so what, if there is no warming in the entire USA then there can't possibly be that much in the rest of the world- they keep saying there is this rapid rate of warming, then there should have at least been a little i the USA, btw the USA was one of the few places they had accurate measurements of.."

laughable.

so all the other global data is a lie somehow coordinated by a climatological conspiracy and only the USA data is the truth? Or you got some other explanation of the divergence?

 

As for the Esper paper, once again you're confusing global with local. It was about Scandinavia, not about the entire globe. 

Of course, you're doing what anthropogenic global warming denialists make a habit of doing: Cherry picking a few studies, whether they actually support your case or only seem to do so, and disregarding the huge number of studies that stand in opposition.

anyway, here's a little tidbit for you to munch on concerning the Esper research. Among other things, it shows that other proxy studies don't support Esper's more speculative musings. The ones you apparently take as gospel

 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Either do the reading, or don't, I couldn't care less.

 

But don't pretend you are interested in climate science as opposed to climate ideology if you aren't prepared to examine both sides of the debate over perhaps the most influential science paper (MBH 99) that has yet been produced on climate change.

 

Even the IPCC gave it pride of place in their 2001 AR3 report, although sensibly they dumped it from the next version.

 

If you want to talk about climate science, fine; if you want to bicker about climate ideology, then do it on your own.

QED classic example of pot calling kettle black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 177

      Is Thailand Value for money

    2. 177

      Is Thailand Value for money

    3. 177

      Is Thailand Value for money

    4. 1

      Melania Trump Praises Donald Trump in Rare TV Interview With Fox

    5. 177

      Is Thailand Value for money

    6. 258

      V P Debate

    7. 5

      To retire "in comfort", fine. What about your children?

    8. 3,768

      Latest developments and discussion of recent events in the Ukraine War

    9. 1

      Melania Trump Praises Donald Trump in Rare TV Interview With Fox

    10. 0

      Met Police Officers Reinstated After Appeal Over Bianca Williams Stop and Search Incident

    11. 0

      Yazidi Woman Rescued from Gaza After Years of Captivity Following ISIS Kidnapping

    12. 0

      Moldova Accuses Russia of Voter Bribery to Block EU Integration

    13. 0

      China’s Military Expansion and America’s Defense Deficiency

    14. 0

      Bruce Springsteen's Call to Action: Endorsing Harris, Criticizing Trump

×
×
  • Create New...