Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'

[RickBradford]

35 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Political lobbying groups are not a good argument against science.

Good point.

 

Let's all ignore the self-indulgent twerps of Extinction Rebellion.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

nonsense

 

https://www.thegwpf.com/ipcc-report-extreme-weather-events-not-getting-worse/

 

First of all, you should learn to read carefully. 

There is a discrepancy between what the headline says and what the text says.

IPCC REPORT: EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS HAVE NOT INCREASED

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change’s (IPCC) newly-released climate report, once again, found little to no evidence global warming caused many types of extreme weather events to increase.

 

Do you see the difference?

 

You want an extreme weather prediction from the IPCC that's virtually certain? Here ya go:

"Models project substantial warming in temperature extremes by the end of the 21st century. It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur through the 21st century at the global scale."

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

page 112

 

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Good point.

 

Let's all ignore the self-indulgent twerps of Extinction Rebellion.

I haven't seen anybody cite Extinction rebellion as a source of information in this thread. But we've seen you citing dodgy websites. Well at least now that you have to reveal your sources.

[RickBradford]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I haven't seen anybody cite Extinction rebellion as a source of information in this thread. But we've seen you citing dodgy websites. Well at least now that you have to reveal your sources.

Fortunately, everyone on this thread seems to understand that Extinction Rebellion know nothing about climate science.

 

I wish somebody would tell that to the BBC.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Fortunately, everyone on this thread seems to understand that Extinction Rebellion know nothing about climate science.

 

I wish somebody would tell that to the BBC.

No one said that they knew nothing. But unlike you, I prefer to get information vetted by scientists - not lobbyists and other dubious sources like www.temperature.global

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No one said that they knew nothing.

Nobody had to; it's plain from their public statements that Extinction Rebellion knows nothing about climate matters.

 

Soon, if the BBC continues to take their advice on presenting climate issues, the BBC will know nothing as well, and their coverage will become even more absurd than before.  Not that they care much about that.

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Nobody had to; it's plain from their public statements that Extinction Rebellion knows nothing about climate matters.

 

Soon, if the BBC continues to take their advice on presenting climate issues, the BBC will know nothing as well, and their coverage will become even more absurd than before.  Not that they care much about that.

They pressed the BBC for more coverage of the issue of ACC. Not how to cover it. Telling porkies again?

[RickBradford]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They pressed the BBC for more coverage of the issue of ACC. Not how to cover it.

That's not correct. Extinction Rebellion are looking to shape the BBC's coverage as well.

 

As spokesman Daze Aghaji said: "I urge the BBC to keep young people and our future in their minds as they think about programming. We must show integrity in the face of the climate crisis, together we must tell the truth about this emergency now.”

 

That "truth about this emergency", according to Extinction Rebellion, is that: "We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making."

 

This is right out there with the wackos such as Prince Charles and Bob Geldof. A taxpayer-funded broadcaster should not be taking advice -- any advice -- from ideologically possessed know-nothings engaged in a frenzy of self-promotion.

 

"Time has almost entirely run out to address the ecological crisis which is upon us, including the 6th mass species extinction, global pollution, and abrupt, runaway climate change. Societal collapse and mass death are seen as inevitable by scientists and other credible voices, with human extinction also a possibility, if rapid action is not taken."

 

Outright lunacy coming to UK viewers on a TV set near you shortly, paid for by your tax money.

 

I'm sorry, but the idea that the BBC's Lord Hall invited Extinction Rebellion in for a high-level meeting so they could say nothing more than "Show more programs on ACC" is naive beyond belief.

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

That's not correct. Extinction Rebellion are looking to shape the BBC's coverage as well.

 

As spokesman Daze Aghaji said: "I urge the BBC to keep young people and our future in their minds as they think about programming. We must show integrity in the face of the climate crisis, together we must tell the truth about this emergency now.”

 

That "truth about this emergency", according to Extinction Rebellion, is that: "We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making."

 

This is right out there with the wackos such as Prince Charles and Bob Geldof. A taxpayer-funded broadcaster should not be taking advice -- any advice -- from ideologically possessed know-nothings engaged in a frenzy of self-promotion.

 

"Time has almost entirely run out to address the ecological crisis which is upon us, including the 6th mass species extinction, global pollution, and abrupt, runaway climate change. Societal collapse and mass death are seen as inevitable by scientists and other credible voices, with human extinction also a possibility, if rapid action is not taken."

 

Outright lunacy coming to UK viewers on a TV set near you shortly, paid for by your tax money.

 

I'm sorry, but the idea that the BBC's Lord Hall invited Extinction Rebellion in for a high-level meeting so they could say nothing more than "Show more programs on ACC" is naive beyond belief.

And to think that the BBC will be taking instructions from Rebellion Extinction on the basis of one meeting is paranoid beyond belief.

[RickBradford]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And to think that the BBC will be taking instructions from Rebellion Extinction on the basis of one meeting is paranoid beyond belief.

Perhaps.

 

But considering that the BBC has just run a long, fawning documentary hysterically titled  ‘Extinction Rebellion – Last Chance to Save the World?’, I think some concern is warranted.

 

Especially as BBC reporter Ben Zand was embedded with Extinction Rebellion for no less than 4 months during the making of the documentary. Most war correspondents don't get that level of access.

 

We'll have to see if the BBC's coverage gets more absurdly alarmist than before, in itself a high bar to cross, but I am willing to bet we will be seeing more hyperbolic and nonsensical comment from Extinction Rebellion appearing on what was supposed to be a balanced and neutral channel.
 

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Perhaps.

 

But considering that the BBC has just run a long, fawning documentary hysterically titled  ‘Extinction Rebellion – Last Chance to Save the World?’, I think some concern is warranted.

 

Especially as BBC reporter Ben Zand was embedded with Extinction Rebellion for no less than 4 months during the making of the documentary. Most war correspondents don't get that level of access.

 

We'll have to see if the BBC's coverage gets more absurdly alarmist than before, in itself a high bar to cross, but I am willing to bet we will be seeing more hyperbolic and nonsensical comment from Extinction Rebellion appearing on what was supposed to be a balanced and neutral channel.
 

Your idea of what is absurdly alarmist and climatologists' idea of what is absurdly alarm differ slightly. Doubt that they would find much to agree with in the sources you cite.

[WeekendRaider]

we sure can sure make huge generalizations about groups of people.  example, take the Extinction Rebellion movement, there are many different views of every aspect of this obviously.  on aviation sometimes for me they are not serious enough on it.  they are ignoring that any solution for long haul travel would involve many decades to work at scale and also the political aspect that every other sector of the economy, as well as most people, will balk at any real sacrifice as long as even one person is still emitting 285 grams of carbon for every one kilometer flown.  things like renewable energy can make money, but they are not solutions to scale.  at all.  until we go way beyond what even the Extinction Rebellion has been suggesting we do, we still won't tackle the problem to scale or in time.   

Trump has a handle on this.  a better border wall.  it would work and it is a good idea.  for the rainfall thing.  drought projections for upper So America and most of Mexico over the next few decades.

another comment is I rarely see any of these posts on Thaivisa cite anything.  for northern Thailand for instance I don't understand at all how anyone cannot be quite alarmed, and not want to readily discuss recent papers such as Fruend et al, May 6, 2019, in Nat Geo Science that shows Central Pacific ENSO have doubled in the last few decades (i.e. 1997 and 2015-2016) versus the last 400 years.  that one is directly apropro to Chiangmai. 

 

lesser so but really huge is Rosenfeld et. al. in January 2019, in Science, that we have underestimated the aerosol effect which means.... we have underestimated just about everything.

[SteveStevens]

9 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It is.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#1044b7666184

 

I think you should be rather cautious about accusing people of lying; it's a very disagreeable thing to do and reflects badly on you.

You've just won the title of chief propagandist on TV.  The Spark of Freedom Foundation is a right wing propaganda mill, funded by Exxon to peddle, as I said, misinformation about climate change.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, SteveStevens said:

You've just won the title of chief propagandist on TV.  The Spark of Freedom Foundation is a right wing propaganda mill, funded by Exxon to peddle, as I said, misinformation about climate change.

I'm not sure about who is funding  James Taylor now but he  is or was connected to the Heartland Institute, a favorite of the Koch Brothers and Exxon.

https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

[VincentRJ]

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another example of relying on semantics for an argument. 

 

ie. Is or is not CO2 a pollutant?

Here's an observation, it doesn't matter whether CO2 is called a pollutant of not, it absolutely is a greenhouse gas. T

 

Apart from an apparent need to be 'Contrary'  I'm not seeing any convincing arguments from you. 

 

Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are essential for all life on our planet. We absolutely need them. The most significant greenhouse gas by far, is water vapour. Is water vapour therefore a pollutant because it's a greenhouse gas?

 

Science requires a precise definition of the terminology used. If you don't know the difference between pure water, which is not a pollutant, and polluted water, which is a pollutant, you're in deep trouble.

 

Likewise, if you don't know the difference between pure CO2, essential for all life, and contaminated or polluted CO2 which is mixed with toxic gases such as Carbon Monoxide, various Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide and various Volatile Organic Compounds which cause health problems, then you are also in deep trouble.

 

Of course, the alarmists will try to wriggle out of such false and unscientific terminology, without admitting they are wrong. They've been claiming for decades that these minuscule increases in CO2 levels, from 0.0286% to currently 0.04%, during the past 170 years, are the main cause or driver of the current warming and that the increased water vapour resulting from the CO2-caused warming will result in yet more warming, which will cause yet more evaporation causing yet more warming which will eventually lead to a runaway warming effect with catastrophic consequences.

 

This is known as the 'positive feedback loop'. However, for many years, other reputable scientists whose opinions are usually sidelined or rejected, have made the point that more water vapour in the atmosphere results in more clouds. More clouds have a cooling effect, preventing much of the heat from the sun reaching the Earth's surface. This is known as the 'albedo' effect. It can be described as a 'negative feedback loop' which counteracts the 'positive feedback loop' and will likely prevent the claimed runaway warming.

 

It seems that 'Mother Nature' is not as stupid as the alarmists seem to think. Now the big question is, why has the IPCC and other alarmist organisations failed to include such 'negative feedback' in their models, and usually not even mentioned the existence of such balancing factors?

 

The reason would appear to be that the amount of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is so variable, and constantly changing from day to day in most regions, it's impossible to accurately quantify the effect. The IPCC have therefore excluded such factors from their models, at least in the past.

 

In case you alarmists just assume that what I've written is misinformation from the so-called denialists, I'll include the latest information from NOAA, dated July 2019, plus a two-sentence quote.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

 

"The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
 

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up)."
 

Is this argument sufficiently convincing for you? ????

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are essential for all life on our planet. We absolutely need them. The most significant greenhouse gas by far, is water vapour. Is water vapour therefore a pollutant because it's a greenhouse gas?

 

Science requires a precise definition of the terminology used. If you don't know the difference between pure water, which is not a pollutant, and polluted water, which is a pollutant, you're in deep trouble.

 

Likewise, if you don't know the difference between pure CO2, essential for all life, and contaminated or polluted CO2 which is mixed with toxic gases such as Carbon Monoxide, various Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide and various Volatile Organic Compounds which cause health problems, then you are also in deep trouble.

 

Of course, the alarmists will try to wriggle out of such false and unscientific terminology, without admitting they are wrong. They've been claiming for decades that these minuscule increases in CO2 levels, from 0.0286% to currently 0.04%, during the past 170 years, are the main cause or driver of the current warming and that the increased water vapour resulting from the CO2-caused warming will result in yet more warming, which will cause yet more evaporation causing yet more warming which will eventually lead to a runaway warming effect with catastrophic consequences.

 

This is known as the 'positive feedback loop'. However, for many years, other reputable scientists whose opinions are usually sidelined or rejected, have made the point that more water vapour in the atmosphere results in more clouds. More clouds have a cooling effect, preventing much of the heat from the sun reaching the Earth's surface. This is known as the 'albedo' effect. It can be described as a 'negative feedback loop' which counteracts the 'positive feedback loop' and will likely prevent the claimed runaway warming.

 

It seems that 'Mother Nature' is not as stupid as the alarmists seem to think. Now the big question is, why has the IPCC and other alarmist organisations failed to include such 'negative feedback' in their models, and usually not even mentioned the existence of such balancing factors?

 

The reason would appear to be that the amount of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is so variable, and constantly changing from day to day in most regions, it's impossible to accurately quantify the effect. The IPCC have therefore excluded such factors from their models, at least in the past.

 

In case you alarmists just assume that what I've written is misinformation from the so-called denialists, I'll include the latest information from NOAA, dated July 2019, plus a two-sentence quote.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

 

"The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
 

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up)."
 

Is this argument sufficiently convincing for you? ????

The amount of water vapour in the air is a function of the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere, refer physics of the water evaporation condensation cycle.

 

While CO2 does appear within other pollutants/greenhouse gases, this does not detract from

it being a greenhouse gas or its impact on the amount of heat energy captured and retained in the atmosphere.

 

You mention the ‘positive feedback loop’ but fail to mention the part increased CO2 levels play in that loop.

 

None of what you say challenges the scientific consensus or the laws of physics.

 

I’m not even bothering to engage in you sophistry wrt to CO2 being or not being ‘a pollutant’, it is irrelevant to CO2 being a greenhouse gas, the physics of the energy within the atmosphere and the part CO2 plays in climate change. (Refer the scientific consensus).

 

  

[bristolboy]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are essential for all life on our planet. We absolutely need them. The most significant greenhouse gas by far, is water vapour. Is water vapour therefore a pollutant because it's a greenhouse gas?

 

Science requires a precise definition of the terminology used. If you don't know the difference between pure water, which is not a pollutant, and polluted water, which is a pollutant, you're in deep trouble.

 

Likewise, if you don't know the difference between pure CO2, essential for all life, and contaminated or polluted CO2 which is mixed with toxic gases such as Carbon Monoxide, various Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxide and various Volatile Organic Compounds which cause health problems, then you are also in deep trouble.

 

Of course, the alarmists will try to wriggle out of such false and unscientific terminology, without admitting they are wrong. They've been claiming for decades that these minuscule increases in CO2 levels, from 0.0286% to currently 0.04%, during the past 170 years, are the main cause or driver of the current warming and that the increased water vapour resulting from the CO2-caused warming will result in yet more warming, which will cause yet more evaporation causing yet more warming which will eventually lead to a runaway warming effect with catastrophic consequences.

 

This is known as the 'positive feedback loop'. However, for many years, other reputable scientists whose opinions are usually sidelined or rejected, have made the point that more water vapour in the atmosphere results in more clouds. More clouds have a cooling effect, preventing much of the heat from the sun reaching the Earth's surface. This is known as the 'albedo' effect. It can be described as a 'negative feedback loop' which counteracts the 'positive feedback loop' and will likely prevent the claimed runaway warming.

 

It seems that 'Mother Nature' is not as stupid as the alarmists seem to think. Now the big question is, why has the IPCC and other alarmist organisations failed to include such 'negative feedback' in their models, and usually not even mentioned the existence of such balancing factors?

 

The reason would appear to be that the amount of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is so variable, and constantly changing from day to day in most regions, it's impossible to accurately quantify the effect. The IPCC have therefore excluded such factors from their models, at least in the past.

 

In case you alarmists just assume that what I've written is misinformation from the so-called denialists, I'll include the latest information from NOAA, dated July 2019, plus a two-sentence quote.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

 

"The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
 

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up)."
 

Is this argument sufficiently convincing for you? ????

I'm on a mobile now but you conveniently omit that the IPCC has a high degree of confidence that excess CO2 is lowering the PH of the oceans to the lowest levels experinced for the last 65 million years.

[Guitarzan]

On 7/15/2019 at 5:26 PM, bristolboy said:

Once again attacking motives. But I guess when the facts are against you:

Earth just had its hottest June on record, on track for warmest July

Boosted by a historic heat wave in Europe and unusually warm conditions across the Arctic and Eurasia, the average temperature of the planet soared to its highest level ever recorded in June.

According to data released Monday by NASA, the global average temperature was 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.93 Celsius) above the June norm (based on a 1951-to-1980 baseline), easily breaking the previous June record of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.82 Celsius), set in 2016, above the average.

The month was punctuated by a severe heat wave that struck Western Europe in particular during the last week, with numerous all-time-hottest-temperature records falling in countries with centuries-old data sets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/07/15/earth-just-had-its-hottest-june-record-track-warmest-july/?utm_term=.d37faad146a4

I prefer the statistics before they placed thermometers in cities full of blacktop, and on airport tarmacs. 

 

The last 3 winters have set records for cold. I believe this last winter was the coldest on record. 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Guitarzan said:

I prefer the statistics before they placed thermometers in cities full of blacktop, and on airport tarmacs. 

 

The last 3 winters have set records for cold. I believe this last winter was the coldest on record. 

 

 

A common refrain from denialists. In fact denialist commissioned an eminent physicist, Richard Mueller. to address that argument. He put together a team of highly qualified scientists to examine the temperature records from thousand of stations around the world. The result: it confirmed exactly what climatologists had been saying all along. That they took note of the heat island effect and compensated for it.

"Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

[Guitarzan]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I'm on a mobile now but you conveniently omit that the IPCC has a high degree of confidence that excess CO2 is lowering the PH of the oceans to the lowest levels experinced for the last 65 million years.

The IPCC only studies alleged anthropogenic causes of warming. They do not study natural causes. 

 

It was 2 degrees warmer in the Medieval warm period then a mini ice age struck and since the end of it around 1700’s the earth has been steadily warming. The oceans have been steadily rising since man has started taking measurements. A .7 degree rise in temperature is well within historical variance. 

 

We are 2.6 million years into the present ice age with glaciation happening 44 times. The last ice age lasted for 100 million years. We are presently experiencing one of the most stable enter glacial warm periods ever.... so enjoy it while it lasts. 

[nauseus]

17 minutes ago, Guitarzan said:

The IPCC only studies alleged anthropogenic causes of warming. They do not study natural causes. 

 

It was 2 degrees warmer in the Medieval warm period then a mini ice age struck and since the end of it around 1700’s the earth has been steadily warming. The oceans have been steadily rising since man has started taking measurements. A .7 degree rise in temperature is well within historical variance. 

 

We are 2.6 million years into the present ice age with glaciation happening 44 times. cWe are presently experiencing one of the most stable enter glacial warm periods ever.... so enjoy it while it lasts. 

The last ice age lasted for 100 million years.

 

Where (on earth) do you get your info? 

[bristolboy]

31 minutes ago, Guitarzan said:

The IPCC only studies alleged anthropogenic causes of warming. They do not study natural causes. 

 

It was 2 degrees warmer in the Medieval warm period then a mini ice age struck and since the end of it around 1700’s the earth has been steadily warming. The oceans have been steadily rising since man has started taking measurements. A .7 degree rise in temperature is well within historical variance. 

 

We are 2.6 million years into the present ice age with glaciation happening 44 times. The last ice age lasted for 100 million years. We are presently experiencing one of the most stable enter glacial warm periods ever.... so enjoy it while it lasts. 

First off nice to see you've abandoned the heat island criticism.

And it's clear you don't have clue about what climatologists study if you contend that they don't search for other effects on climate beside anthropogenic ones.

They recognize that solar cycles have an effect on climate. The higher the solar activity the higher the global temperature average. We are now in a solar cycle that is the least active since 1906. Yet the average global temperature is rising.

Climatologists have also studied the Medieval warm period and have come up with a good explanation of why it occurred and why it ended. Nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.

And even if the last few thousand years were a period of consistent warming, which it's not, nothing comes close to matching the rate in the last 30 years. It's all about the rate. And if you think rate isn't important, tell me if you had to choose between a savings account that paid 2 percent and one that paid 10, would you think it didn't matter because both will increase over time?

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I'm on a mobile now but you conveniently omit that the IPCC has a high degree of confidence that excess CO2 is lowering the PH of the oceans to the lowest levels experienced for the last 65 million years.

Wow! The IPCC has 'low confidence' that the extreme weather events of cyclones, floods and droughts have been increasing since 1950, despite the proliferation of modern measuring devices, but has high confidence that the current pH of the oceans is the lowest it has been in the past 65 million years. What magic! ????

[bristolboy]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

Wow! The IPCC has 'low confidence' that the extreme weather events of cyclones, floods and droughts have been increasing since 1950, despite the proliferation of modern measuring devices, but has high confidence that the current pH of the oceans is the lowest it has been in the past 65 million years. What magic! ????

On the one hand you resort to the IPCC when it backs up, (or you think it backs up) what you're claiming. When it doesn't, you dismiss it as magic.

Doublethink much?

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You mention the ‘positive feedback loop’ but fail to mention the part increased CO2 levels play in that loop.

 

Not true. You should improve your reading skills. I'll repeat what I wrote and will highlight a few points in bold so you don't miss them again.

 

"They've been claiming for decades that these minuscule increases in CO2 levels, from 0.0286% to currently 0.04%, during the past 170 years, are the main cause or driver of the current warming and that the increased water vapour resulting from the CO2-caused warming will result in yet more warming, which will cause yet more evaporation causing yet more warming which will eventually lead to a runaway warming effect with catastrophic consequences. This is known as the 'positive feedback loop'."

 

None of what you say challenges the scientific consensus or the laws of physics.

 

Physics was my favourite subject at school. It's one of the 'hard' sciences which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, with consistent results, and many attempts at falsification before an hypothesis can be confirmed as true.

 

I've never claimed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. My claim is that rises in very small quantities of CO2, from 0.0286% to 0.04%, are not alarming and it is not reasonable to presume that such small increases will be harmful to the environment when increased levels of CO2 are much appreciated by most plants, including most food crops and forests.

 

If it were possible to quickly funnel this additional, human produced CO2 to outer space and bring the levels down to the pre-industrial 0.028%, there really would be a catastrophe. Food production would slump significantly and there would be a significant increase in the number of starving people, perhaps resulting in yet more wars and conflicts.

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! The IPCC has 'low confidence' that the extreme weather events of cyclones, floods and droughts have been increasing since 1950, despite the proliferation of modern measuring devices, but has high confidence that the current pH of the oceans is the lowest it has been in the past 65 million years. What magic! ????

Back to your misrepresentation of mathematical ‘confidence’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Not true. You should improve your reading skills. I'll repeat what I wrote and will highlight a few points in bold so you don't miss them again.

 

"They've been claiming for decades that these minuscule increases in CO2 levels, from 0.0286% to currently 0.04%, during the past 170 years, are the main cause or driver of the current warming and that the increased water vapour resulting from the CO2-caused warming will result in yet more warming, which will cause yet more evaporation causing yet more warming which will eventually lead to a runaway warming effect with catastrophic consequences. This is known as the 'positive feedback loop'."

 

 

 

 

Physics was my favourite subject at school. It's one of the 'hard' sciences which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, with consistent results, and many attempts at falsification before an hypothesis can be confirmed as true.

 

I've never claimed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. My claim is that rises in very small quantities of CO2, from 0.0286% to 0.04%, are not alarming and it is not reasonable to presume that such small increases will be harmful to the environment when increased levels of CO2 are much appreciated by most plants, including most food crops and forests.

 

If it were possible to quickly funnel this additional, human produced CO2 to outer space and bring the levels down to the pre-industrial 0.028%, there really would be a catastrophe. Food production would slump significantly and there would be a significant increase in the number of starving people, perhaps resulting in yet more wars and conflicts.

Your claim if what is not reasonable is an opinion, for which you give us no supporting evidence.

 

You studied physics at school, most of us did, but you don’t tell us what your highest academic qualification in science or mathematics is.

 

You don’t get to lecture people on their reading skill without your own abilities being questioned.

 

So beyond school physics, what else do you have?

[VincentRJ]

52 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

On the one hand you resort to the IPCC when it backs up, (or you think it backs up) what you're claiming. When it doesn't, you dismiss it as magic.

Doublethink much?

Of course I do. That's the process of science. A scientist worth his salt doesn't automatically accept whatever an authority claims to be true. He accepts it if it makes sense to him and is supported by reliable evidence, and rejects it, or at least becomes skeptical, if it doesn't makes sense to him and/or is not fully supported by sufficient evidence. Didn't you know that?

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course I do. That's the process of science. A scientist worth his salt doesn't automatically accept whatever an authority claims to be true. He accepts it if it makes sense to him and is supported by reliable evidence, and rejects it, or at least becomes skeptical, if it doesn't makes sense to him and/or is not fully supported by sufficient evidence. Didn't you know that?

Yes if you're a climatologist, sure. But if not, not.

[BritManToo]

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course I do. That's the process of science. A scientist worth his salt doesn't automatically accept whatever an authority claims to be true. He accepts it if it makes sense to him and is supported by reliable evidence, and rejects it, or at least becomes skeptical, if it doesn't makes sense to him and/or is not fully supported by sufficient evidence. Didn't you know that?

Most scientists will prove whatever the people paying their wage wants them to prove.