France roasts in record heatwave, two die in Spain

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

I never said that, or anything like it.

 

I am not making a "case" for anything, merely pointing out some recent research which may be of interest to readers.

 

Stop making things up.

Sure you didn't.

"The paper is quite technical, and refers to an ancient event known as the last geomagnetic reversal, but it makes a welcome change from the kind of simplistic Hardy Boys "demon CO2" tripe trotted out by the activists."

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Sure you didn't.

"The paper is quite technical, and refers to an ancient event known as the last geomagnetic reversal, but it makes a welcome change from the kind of simplistic Hardy Boys "demon CO2" tripe trotted out by the activists."

Don't be so silly. You made up a lame line about me saying "the planet should have cooled" when I said nothing of the kind.

 

Just stop doing it.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

Don't be so silly. You made up a lame line about me saying "the planet should have cooled" when I said nothing of the kind.

 

Just stop doing it.

"This is especially interesting right now as we are entering a Solar Minimum, which increases the number of cosmic rays entering Earth's atmosphere, so potentially leading to global cooling."

 

By making that comment you are suggesting that cosmic rays may be a more powerful force in global temperature than rising CO2 levels. There is a huge amount of contrary evidence to show that this won't be the case. We already are in a era of profound solar minimums. Despite which the pace of global warming has increased.

[RickBradford]

Well, we'll have to see how it plays out, won't we?

 

I am not blessed with 20:20 foresight; that is the preserve of the activists who declare "climate emergencies" whenever a hot period of weather occurs anywhere in the world.

 

I would string along with Professor Hyodo, in that his calculations would be worthwhile for the IPCC to consider when making its next report.

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Well, we'll have to see how it plays out, won't we?

 

I am not blessed with 20:20 foresight; that is the preserve of the activists who declare "climate emergencies" whenever a hot period of weather occurs anywhere in the world.

 

I would string along with Professor Hyodo, in that his calculations would be worthwhile for the IPCC to consider when making its next report.

And apparently not blessed with being able to learn from the past either. The evidence is overwhelming that the influence of cosmic rays due to fluctuations in the solar cycle is very weak compared to the influence of increasing levels of CO2. And about this you continue to live in a state of denial. Wonder why that is?

[RickBradford]

Just now, bristolboy said:

And apparently not blessed with being able to learn from the past either. The evidence is overwhelming that the influence of cosmic rays due to fluctuations in the solar cycle is very weak compared to the influence of increasing levels of CO2. And about this you continue to live in a state of denial. Wonder why that is?

I note your contempt for properly peer-reviewed science, such as that of Professor Hyodo and his co-authors.

 

He suggests that it is worthwhile for the IPCC to consider his results; Nature magazine also seems to think his work is worthwhile. But you have already concluded that the effect is "very weak".

 

You present a textbook example of blind ideological activism.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I note your contempt for properly peer-reviewed science, such as that of Professor Hyodo and his co-authors.

 

He suggests that it is worthwhile for the IPCC to consider his results; Nature magazine also seems to think his work is worthwhile. But you have already concluded that the effect is "very weak".

 

You present a textbook example of blind ideological activism.

Stop making things up. I noted that the Professor had done fascinating research. It's clear that you don't understand what he was getting at. If his research is confirmed, as seems likely to be the case, then climatologists should including his data in their models. Before this all they knew was that there was a weak correlation between solar cycles and global temperatures. Hard to accurately model that without understanding the mechanism. Now it seems that knowledge exists.

Keep in mind that Hyodo's research was not about solar cycles but rather the relationship between magnetic reversals and cosmic rays which took place over thousands of years. Before the earth's magnetic field reverses, it opens up its climate to a lot more influence from cosmic rays than than do solar cycle variations. Don't try to conflate your apparent hail-mary-pass of a hope for solar minimums with the work of this scientist.

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Don't try to conflate your apparent hail-mary-pass of a hope for solar minimums with the work of this scientist.

And do stop trying to make strawman arguments out of things I haven't said, not even close.

 

I am not pinning any "hope" on solar minimums; you may see climate debates as a desperate Us v Them struggle, but I don't. And what a "hail-mary-pass" is, I can't even guess at.

 

It's a great pity that a piece of interesting research has to be punctuated by your incessant bickering. But I guess that is the activist ethos at work.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

And do stop trying to make strawman arguments out of things I haven't said, not even close.

 

I am not pinning any "hope" on solar minimums; you may see climate debates as a desperate Us v Them struggle, but I don't. And what a "hail-mary-pass" is, I can't even guess at.

 

It's a great pity that a piece of interesting research has to be punctuated by your incessant bickering. But I guess that is the activist ethos at work.

You mean like taking irrelevant potshots such as ""The paper is quite technical, and refers to an ancient event known as the last geomagnetic reversal, but it makes a welcome change from the kind of simplistic Hardy Boys "demon CO2" tripe trotted out by the activists."

Ya think Professor Hyodo would approve of using his research to caricature anonymous unnamed parties: "Hardy Boys "demon CO2" tripe trotted out by activists." How low can you go? 

 

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean like taking irrelevant potshots ...

No.

 

I mean like making things up which I haven't said, attributing them to me, and then trying to create arguments based on that.

 

You're the only person on this thread doing that, and it's very tiresome.

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by RickBradford
spelling

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

No.

 

I mean like making things up which I haven't said, attributing them to me, and then trying to create arguments based on that.

 

You're the only person on this thread doing that, and it's very tiresome.

 

I've quoted you to prove my points. And you damn yourself with your constant deflections invoking unnamed activists. Which I guess is your way of avoiding addressing the serious science and the accelerating trend of global warming despite increased average cosmic ray activity over at least the last 39 years. 

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

From millions to a million? Possibly. These estimates are just that.  

 

But the consensus remains that  anthropogenic CO₂  emissions are still vastly higher than volcanic. 

 

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/Archive/September-2011/Dragons-den-CO2-volcanic-or-anthropogenic

The article you've linked doesn't mention submarine volcanoes. That submarine volcanoes exist, is certain. It's the precise quantity that is uncertain. It's also certain than many submarine volcanoes are at great depths, several kilometres deep, that makes detection of their eruption difficult. 

 

Here's an interesting article on the discovery of a recent submarine eruption at great depth, after it had finished erupting of course.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/vast-plain-undersea-volcanic-glass-deepest-known-volcanic-eruption

 

"We know that most of the world's volcanic activity actually takes place in the ocean, but most of it goes undetected and unseen," said marine geologist Bill Chadwick of Oregon State University and NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory."

 

It should now be clear that any organization that makes blatant statements that man's emissions of CO2 are greater than the CO2 emitted from volcanoes, must be referring only land based volcanoes.

 

This is another little trick or deception used by the alarmist camp. Many people reading such articles are probably not even aware of the existence of submarine volcanoes.

 

A true scientist who gives priority to honesty rather than political effectiveness, would say, "We don't know whether the CO2 from human emissions is greater than that from volcanoes, because there could be many submarine volcanoes erupting at any point in time, at great depths in the oceans, that we are not aware of.

 

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Please, just because geologists can't predict the timing of earthquakes and volcanoes, doesn't mean that they can't predict anything. They can predict the course and timing of erosive forces. And they can also predict the fate of mountain ranges, where new ones will be formed and where old ones will die.. The can predict where the continents are heading. They can predict the effects that such human activities as coal mining will have on the environment.

Great! Please provide some examples of these past predictions from Geologists that have been confirmed in the present. Or do we have to wait a few thousand years before such predictions can be confirmed?

 

As for engineering being a science really? Building a house is science? It's an experiment? You mean if the experiment goes awry the house falls down? Experimentation was the sine qua non you invoked for something to be a hard science, wasn't it? Engineers are no more scientists than are physicians, They depend on information gained by scientists but insofar as they function as engineers or physicians, they are not.

 

Dear me! Have you been drinking too much again? I didn't write that engineers build houses. We all know that bricklayers and building contractors build houses. I used the example of an engineer designing a house to withstand the strongest hurricane that had ever been recorded in a particular location. In order to do that, the engineer has to apply science. Engineering is an 'applied science', distinct from 'theoretical science'.

 

Without applied science, there would be no purpose in science. Theoretical scientists do not design airplanes, motor cars, TV sets. iPhones, and all the products of science that contribute to our welfare and prosperity. It's engineers who do that, who are  trained in scientific disciplines, and who use or apply the science that they understand. Got it?

 

And what makes your comment irrelevant is that climate science has had extraordinary success in predicting the course of the climate. They predicted that the poles would experience more warming than other parts of the world.

 

Don't be silly. I'm beginning to wonder if you are really a climate change skeptic who is just provoking me to provide evidence to support your skepticism.

 

The IPCC  initially used the word 'forecast' in its early reports, but it's predictions were so inaccurate, they changed the wording to 'projection', with low, medium and high confidence.

 

In a warming climate one would expect at least some melting of glaciers and sea ice, which produces a degree of sea level rise. It's the exaggeration of this effect which is non-scientific and is used for political effect, as Stephen Schneider recommended.

 

Whilst some glaciers are melting, other are expanding. The net effect is less than the media scare tactics imply. Likewise, whilst the Arctic might be melting at a significant rate, a portion of the loss is usually offset by the gain in Ice in the Antarctic, which means that the net loss of ice, world wide, is less alarming than the media reports imply.

 

I presume you consider NASA to be a reliable source. Here's what they say.

 

"A satellite-based data record starting in late 1978 shows that indeed rapid changes have been occurring in the Arctic, where the ice coverage has been declining at a substantial rate. In contrast, in the Antarctic the sea ice coverage has been increasing although at a lesser rate than the decreases in the Arctic. "
https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

 

They predicted decreasing oceanic acidity.

 
If they predicted decreasing ocean acidity then they definitely got that wrong. ????  But I guess you'll admit that was your mistake.

 

Ocean acidity has very slightly increased during the past 200 years by a pH value of 0.1. In other words, the average pH of the ocean surfaces has fallen from 8.2 to 8.1. This is a logarithmic scale. Alarmists sometimes convert it into percentages to make it appear more significant. A fall in pH value from 8.2 to 8.1 can be represented as a 26% change in acidity, or reduction in alkalinity. A pH of 7 is neutral, and blow 7 is actually acidic.

 

However, what the alarmists fail to mention is that a fall in pH from 8.2 to 7.2, which is still very slightly alkaline, 7 being neutral, is represented as a 900% change in acidity. Refer attached image.

 

Another point which needs to be mentioned, is that this figure of 8.1 pH is a very approximate average of pH values that applies only to the ocean surfaces. The variations in pH levels depend on the location of the ocean, the season of the year, and the depth and location where measurements are taken. These variations are far greater than 0.1 pH. They're even greater than those error margins of around +/- 0.5 degrees C, shown in Michael Mann's revised Hockey Stick. ????

 

They predicted the increase in extreme weather events

. 

 

According to the latest IPCC report that's available, the AR5, their predictions on extreme weather events were mostly wrong. I have to give them kudos for at least admitting they were wrong. In the Working Group 1 report, dealing with the physical sciences, they expressed 'low confidence' that extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, storms and hurricanes, had increased in either frequency or severity during the previous 50 years, globally. Their reason was, lack of evidence.

 

However, they did express high confidence that the number of heat waves had increased and the amount of precipitation had increased. This is something that even I could predict using just common sense. Heat waves occur whether the global climate is warming or not. If the climate is warming, then one would expect heat waves to be worse, especially when adding in the Urban Heat Island effect, which is increasing because of increased urbanisation and increased population growth.

 

Also, one would expect a warmer climate to result in more evaporation which in turn results in more rain. Wow! We're so lucky! Increased CO2 which enhances crop growth and greens the planet, and more rain which further increases crop growth and further greens the planet. ????

 

quote]And your past assertions about the rise in carbon dioxide not contributing to global warming is just nuts. Over 150 years ago a very great physicist name John Tyndall proved that a miniscule quantity of a green house gas added to a non greenhouse gas would greatly increase heat retentivity. This is ancient settled science.[/quote]

 

Dear me! You really have been drinking too much.  I've never denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I made the point that water vapour, in total, is a far greater greenhouse gas. However, comparing molecule with molecule, the CO2 molecule is denser, absorbs different frequencies better, and is therefore a stronger greenhouse molecule than H2O. Methane is an even stronger greenhouse molecule than CO2, but the quantity of these molecules in the atmosphere is so tiny compared to the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. Therefore, the small increases from 0.028% to 0.04% of CO2 will have some effect, but no significant or alarming effect. That was my point.

 

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

The article you've linked doesn't mention submarine volcanoes. That submarine volcanoes exist, is certain. It's the precise quantity that is uncertain. It's also certain than many submarine volcanoes are at great depths, several kilometres deep, that makes detection of their eruption difficult. 

 

Here's an interesting article on the discovery of a recent submarine eruption at great depth, after it had finished erupting of course.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/vast-plain-undersea-volcanic-glass-deepest-known-volcanic-eruption

 

"We know that most of the world's volcanic activity actually takes place in the ocean, but most of it goes undetected and unseen," said marine geologist Bill Chadwick of Oregon State University and NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory."

 

It should now be clear that any organization that makes blatant statements that man's emissions of CO2 are greater than the CO2 emitted from volcanoes, must be referring only land based volcanoes.

  

This is another little trick or deception used by the alarmist camp. Many people reading such articles are probably not even aware of the existence of submarine volcanoes.

 

A true scientist who gives priority to honesty rather than political effectiveness, would say, "We don't know whether the CO2 from human emissions is greater than that from volcanoes, because there could be many submarine volcanoes erupting at any point in time, at great depths in the oceans, that we are not aware of.

 

The linked report indeed mentions and considers both sub-aerial and submarine volcanoes. The Geological Society is not in the habit of making or publishing "blatant statements".

[RickBradford]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I've quoted you to prove my points.

No, you've misquoted me to try to prove your points. You just make stuff up. It's very childish and tiresome. Stop it.

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, nauseus said:

The linked report indeed mentions and considers both sub-aerial and submarine volcanoes. The Geological Society is not in the habit of making or publishing "blatant statements".

Thanks. I missed that, possibly because I read the article too quickly, and possibly because I assumed that no reputable scientist would attempt to make any meaningful estimate of the quantity of CO2 emitted by volcanoes when the vast majority of volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are on the sea bed, unmonitored and unobserved, so I assumed the estimates would have referred only to subaerial volcanoes. But even subaerial volcanoes can emit CO2 constantly or erratically when not erupting, and not being monitored.

 

This is an excellent example of Geology at the extreme 'soft' end of the spectrum of the Soft/Hard sciences.

 

"Subaerial and submarine volcanoes are estimated to emit between 0.18 and 0.44 Gt CO2/year (1 Gigaton = 1 billion tonnes). The preferred average is 0.26 Gt CO2/year, which is dwarfed by the 35 Gt CO2/year now emitted by human activities.  Geoscientist 21.08 September 2011"

 

Ha! I can see why it is preferred. One doesn't want to undermine the scare about human emissions, does one!

 

Three Million Volcanoes “Can’t Be Wrong”. ????
 

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks. I missed that, possibly because I read the article too quickly, and possibly because I assumed that no reputable scientist would attempt to make any meaningful estimate of the quantity of CO2 emitted by volcanoes when the vast majority of volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are on the sea bed, unmonitored and unobserved, so I assumed the estimates would have referred only to subaerial volcanoes. But even subaerial volcanoes can emit CO2 constantly or erratically when not erupting, and not being monitored.

 

This is an excellent example of Geology at the extreme 'soft' end of the spectrum of the Soft/Hard sciences.

 

"Subaerial and submarine volcanoes are estimated to emit between 0.18 and 0.44 Gt CO2/year (1 Gigaton = 1 billion tonnes). The preferred average is 0.26 Gt CO2/year, which is dwarfed by the 35 Gt CO2/year now emitted by human activities.  Geoscientist 21.08 September 2011"

 

Ha! I can see why it is preferred. One doesn't want to undermine the scare about human emissions, does one!

 

Three Million Volcanoes “Can’t Be Wrong”. ????
 

The big factor that you are missing is that volcanic CO₂ emissions, although rising slowly in frequency since the end of the ice age, have still been relatively limited during the Holocene. These emissions have also been quite constant and this constancy is not evident in the rapid rise in levels of atmospheric and hydrospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution, and especially very recently. 

 

If you prefer to mock the consensus (preferred average) of a group of some of the most expert and highly respected geologists in the world that's up to you. But you obviously could never be part of this group.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 If you prefer to mock the consensus (preferred average) of a group of some of the most expert and highly respected geologists in the world that's up to you. But you obviously could never be part of this group.

Why would I want to be part of a group that is unable to admit it 'doesn't know'? Science is not about respecting authority. Science is about the search for truth.

 

The sad thing about climatology, is that those who disagree with the consensus opinion are often ignored, ostracised, or sacked from their positions. You might have heard of the recent case of Professor Peter Ridd who was head of the Physics department at James Cook University in Queensland Australia.

 

He questioned the claims that the Great Barrier Reef is facing imminent catastrophe from climate change. He expressed concern about the quality of the scientific research that had been published about the state of health of the Great Barrier Reef. He published a number of papers on the need for better quality assurance. In his opinion, the health of the Great Barrier Reef had been frequently misrepresented.

 

What do you think happened? He was sacked by the university administrators because he refused to retract his opinions and back down.

 

However, he took the university to court and eventually won his case earlier this year.

 

The Judge said the university has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom.

 

“Intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth.”

 

I couldn't agree more. What about you?

[nauseus]

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Why would I want to be part of a group that is unable to admit it 'doesn't know'? Science is not about respecting authority. Science is about the search for truth.

 

The sad thing about climatology, is that those who disagree with the consensus opinion are often ignored, ostracised, or sacked from their positions. You might have heard of the recent case of Professor Peter Ridd who was head of the Physics department at James Cook University in Queensland Australia.

 

He questioned the claims that the Great Barrier Reef is facing imminent catastrophe from climate change. He expressed concern about the quality of the scientific research that had been published about the state of health of the Great Barrier Reef. He published a number of papers on the need for better quality assurance. In his opinion, the health of the Great Barrier Reef had been frequently misrepresented.

 

What do you think happened? He was sacked by the university administrators because he refused to retract his opinions and back down.

 

However, he took the university to court and eventually won his case earlier this year.

 

The Judge said the university has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom.

 

“Intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth.”

 

I couldn't agree more. What about you?

No problem with intellectual freedom. But this is another topic.

[bristolboy]

On 7/3/2019 at 8:08 PM, RickBradford said:

The whole point is that, despite the very high temperatures in Europe last week, monthly temperatures were more than balanced by cold - sometimes record cold - in other parts of the world.

 

This is obviously a falsehood. Now that Nasa has also declared June to be the hottest one on record. 

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This is obviously a falsehood. Now that Nasa has also declared June to be the hottest one on record. 

NASA is not the only dataset in town. Look at some others.

 

Don't forget to call the sites "denialists" if they contradict what NASA says.

[bristolboy]

On 7/7/2019 at 6:57 PM, RickBradford said:

Ah, the great Michael "Piltdown" Mann, a real prize one.

 

As he was revealed to have written to his colleagues during the Climategate scandal: “As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”

 

Yet some ideologues still hold him up as an exemplar of fine science, which doesn't say much for their standards of either ethics or science.

You know, the people who first revealed the so-called "Climategate accusations" published their piece in the Sunday Times. Ultimately, the Times was forced to retract what they published. 

 

NEWSPAPERS RETRACT 'CLIMATEGATE' CLAIMS, BUT DAMAGE STILL DONE

 

"A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or "before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on," in Winston Churchill's version), and nowhere has that been more true than in "climategate." In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia's climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world's climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.

But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State clearedPSU climatologist Michael Mann of "falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information" in February.

https://www.newsweek.com/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-damage-still-done-214472

 

. As for that quote, you must have gotten it from a denialist website. An honest or less gullible person would have tried to find its context. You clearly didn't. Here's some context for you.

Climategate': A primer on the email scandal

"Mr. Mann was responding to an email from Mr. Jones noting their colleague Keith Briffa’s work was online and criticism of the work coming from Mr. McIntyre was exaggerated. Mr. Mann joined Mr. Jones in scoffing at the criticism.

 

Mr. Mann said his comment refers to Mr. Briffa’s tree-ring data used to study temperatures in the past. Climate-change skeptics were criticizing Mr. Briffa’s work and Mr. Mann said he was saying the criticism was not true and was more of a personal attack."

https://nationalpost.com/news/climategate-a-primer-on-the-email-scandal/wcm/5e76ab66-cba8-4e65-8026-a0a20644b786

In other words, not about Mann and other climatologists making "plausibly deniable accusations." But about responding to them. Did you even think of doing some research on this?

 

And of course, as the article notes, once a big lie is put out there, even if it's refuted, in the minds of denialist activists, it's still true. They just disregard the refutation.

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by bristolboy