NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[isladogs]

Doc

I watched the You Tube video till the end thinking that perhaps there might be some value in it.
After all you said it speaks for itself. Unfortunately not.
I really did not

need to see this (fake) 'news' article

The few 'factual statements' it contained were almost all incorrect:
1. The earth's climate is cooling - the exact opposite is true
2. Arctic ice is increasing - the exact opposite is true
3. Solar activity is currently low and close to a minimum - that is almost certainly true
4. A mini ice age is on the way - there is no evidence for that being true

Because 3 is probably correct, points 1 & 2 should also be true. They aren't.
Even though solar activity is currently low that doesn't imply a mini ice age is imminent
Antarctic SEA ice is increasing but for different reasons covered earlier in this excessively long and increasingly pointless thread

Of course there are businesses and individuals trying to make money out of issues related to climate change.
Some will be doing it because they believe in the cause. Others purely for profit.
But you can say exactly the same for any other field of human activity.
Trying to make a profit out of climate related issues is no more or less reprehensible (if that's the appropriate word) than any other activity designed to make a profit

One of the few areas that we both agree on is that we are atheists.
In an earlier reply you stated that

...for some people, AGW is almost like a cult / religion...

I would agree with that point. But equally your endlessly repeated comments seem to be your 'religion'

I have to say that I concur with the first part of Galaxiom's response (though not the latter part)

You are a skeptic because you are a skeptic

If you (and others) are going to keep posting videos or articles on this subject, it would be appreciated if these actually contained valid content backed up by evidence from climate scientists. Yes - even those like Lindzen that disagree with the consensus would have some validity. (Good to know he's found a new home at Cato).

If your scepticism was based on detailed factual evidence it would possibly have some chance of changing opinions.

Climate modelling is an inexact science but it is evidence based. The precision of the models is I believe improving as further evidence accumulates.
Although I do believe that global warming is a reality with man made activity being a significant factor, I have said repeatedly that some evidence is stronger than other parts.
In other words, I am not a slavish follower of every new story that fits with my views.

I was intending to stay out of this thread as it seems to be getting nowhere and just causing a lot of anger on 'both sides'.
I may regret coming back in again. Someone (Mark_?) recently suggested closing the thread.
I think it might well be a good idea if only to provide a respite from the repeated arguments and mud slinging - and I fully accept that I'm not innocent in that respect either

 

[Mark_]

I may regret coming back in again. Someone (Mark_?) recently suggested closing the thread.

I had, not because the topic itself is bad, just some participants are making this very... personal.

 

[isladogs]

That was effectively also my point in my final sentence.

 

[AccessBlaster]

George W.Bush and WMD's had very heated and contentious arguments on this forum.
Rich, Colin and Brian were relentless in their opinions

I remember being called "thin skinned", I disliked the constant attacks aimed at the US. Some how the forum survived without censorship.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

True that, Tony. What a dilemma.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, just to freshen the air a bit...

While I am a skeptic regarding climate issues, I am NOT a skeptic (and never have claimed otherwise) that what we pump into the air is not always good for us. I refer, of course, to health issues, which is my own bete noir.

So last week, wifey and I took a step to reduce carbon footprints INDIRECTLY. We had our old fluorescent light fixtures replaced with LED fixtures in three rooms. When the house was built, such things were in vogue, but today a better solution is available.

This has benefits to the environment in that:

1. LED fixtures put out more light on a lot less power, which reduces power consumption demand, which means the power company burns a little bit less carbon fuel on our behalf. Which lowers our electric bill as the tangible proof of "less fuel consumed" to power our home.

2. LED fixtures last a LOT longer, which means less frequent replacement, which means the LED makers don't have to make fixtures quite as much, so potentially reduces their carbon footprint by a little. Reduced demand due to longevity WILL allow them to get by on lesser supply, after all.

3. LED fixtures don't overheat like fluorescents do, so less risk of ballast transformers catching fire and REALLY increasing my carbon footprint by burning down the house. And yes, we got lucky once when a ballast transform "smoked." We were home and detected the odor before it got hot enough to ignite the wood frame of the house.

4. Disposal is a bit easier because there is no mercury as can be found in some fluorescent products including CFC bulbs and some fluorescent tubes.

5. Not a footprint thing, but fluorescent bulbs require higher energy to ionize that tube of otherwise inert gases, and high voltage means higher radio frequency emissions. LEDs are electrically quieter.

So despite what some people may think of me, I actually DO take steps to reduce consumption. Reducing industrial emissions IS a valid goal. I just have different reasons.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This video dares to identify all of its data sources. It comes to the conclusion that the IPCC statement of correlation between CO2 and global warming is "unlikely." But it does so in a quantifiable way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk4MuaeQi14

I expect someone to shoot THIS down, too, but the point is made that these folks have identified their data and the answers they get are clear. The claimed correlation just ain't there.

I would appreciate it very much if you would focus on the problem and avoid the personalities. I am NOT a member of a denier cult. I don't go to the meetings of this hypothetical cult wearing fanatic robes. I am not in the employ of any oil companies. I look at data and see anomalies vs. things claimed by others. That's IT. And remember, it IS possible for people of good intention to disagree on interpretation of complex data.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk4MuaeQi14

Have you read the comments on that video? Fascinating! It appears that the idea that CO2 absorbs solar radiation has never been investigated properly? And again the maths shown in the video comments, fascinating, I just wish I had the time to study the math and verify it. I'm sure the answer is there.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Carbon Dioxide Cannot be the Cause of Global Warming

See the video at time index:- 12:22 where Lord Bernard Russell said:-

The whole problem with the World is that Fools and Fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt...

You are very wise Richard!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Carbon Dioxide Cannot be the Cause of Global Warming

See the video at time index:- 12:22 where Lord Bernard Russell said:-

The whole problem with the World is that Fools and Fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt...

You are very wise Richard!

Dunno if the science is correct but, I do like the graphic.

 

[isladogs]

Here's another programme but this time stating the evidence that climate change is indeed both real and accelerating
Climate change - the facts
Its a BBC documentary narrated by David Attenborough and aimed at the general public.
No new evidence (at least for those who follow the science) but a well presented summary of the various reasons for the changes that are occurring

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you, Colin, for making a non-attacking post. I appreciate it.

My whole point is that there are many claims out there that make sense and use reasonable logic in the process - but come to diametrically opposed conclusions. I am simply not convinced precisely because I can see the logic on both sides. In particular I can see the data being presented in the "CO2 cannot be the cause..." video and the trend lines that were presented seem reasonable. The fact that temperature and CO2 concentration behave apparently independently (low or negative correlation) is a strong argument.

 

[NauticalGent]

The whole problem with the World is that Fools and Fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt...

I might make this my new signature. Back in the early 90’s, Billy Joel released a new album: “The River of Dreams”. I consider it his best one ever, but pop culture disagrees with me. One of his tracks titled “Shades of Grey” has some very profound lyrics, my personal favorite:

Now with the wisdom of years I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

...and just in case anyone wants to have a listen...
https://youtu.be/CopYqp0HZkY

 

[isladogs]

Thank you, Colin, for making a non-attacking post. I appreciate it.

I have always tried to argue without attacking. Occasionally, frustration at some of the responses has made that more difficult.

The whole problem with the World is that Fools and Fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubt...

Yes I agree completely but as a result come to exactly the opposite conclusions to the sceptics.

Whilst some of the evidence related to global climate change is stronger than other parts, the overall weight of evidence accumulated over several decades is, in my view, irrefutable. If you look at my previous answers, you will see that I have always accepted that there are flaws in some of the scientific evidence and consequently in some of the climate models.

However, having watched several of the climate change denier videos, the common trend is that they accept none of the evidence. The 'facts' supplied are selective and often inaccurate or incorrect. In several cases, deliberately incorrect statements are made so these can be 'refuted'. This is then incorrectly cited as 'evidence' that climate change isn't occurring.

Making use of the quote attributed to Bertrand Russell, to my mind those who deny the climate is changing despite all the accumulated evidence are the 'fools and fanatics who are so certain of themselves'.

Over the course of this thread, I have posted links to research and modelling by several sources e.g. UK Met Office that is I believe both unbiased and rigorous. For example, see the links in post 119

I've not heard anyone here (or elsewhere) refute any of the evidence provided in those links. Instead that evidence has it appears simply been ignored by those contributors denying climate change

I do hope some of you will watch the BBC documentary with an open mind. It is not original research and nor does it claim to be. As already stated, it is aimed at the general public who may not be aware of the original research findings. I don't know if its available to those outside the UK. I do hope so

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Hey guys listen to Bill Gates! He's got something to say about climate change, and he's hit the nail on the head, as you'd expect really!

https://youtu.be/raAkFKm9afg?t=218

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Another contrary view to climate change...

the guy mentions the terminology has changed from global warming to climate change. He suggests this is because the figures aren't as bad as first predicted, is that correct?

https://youtu.be/MSkNIpNWX0k

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

This makes some very interesting reading! Bjørn Lomborg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg it appears that some climate change scientists, banded together and tried to take down Bjørn Lomborg... The Australian government allocated 4 million pounds for further research and again it was undermined by climate change scientists and activists. Re:- "The Australian Youth Climate Coalition" Seems to me there's not much science in this climate change science debacle. It looks to me more like a lot of politics! So again I urge you to switch your brains on, think about it! And don't be led by the nose.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Some interesting information from Dr Jordan B Peterson, this is a man who I can absolutely guarantee speaks the truth.

Jordan Peterson Brilliantly EDUCATES A Woman On Climate Change


JDP thinks that the dangers of carbon dioxide are somewhat overstated. I tend to agree. He indicates that some of the vitriol against fossil fuels, it's basically another attack on capitalists. He said "The state of the planet is far less dismal than the doomsayers would have you believe" ... This is after 3 years of research on Economic sustainability...

 

[Galaxiom]

Some interesting information from Dr Jordan B Peterson, this is a man who I can absolutely guarantee speaks the truth.

Peterson has zero qualifications in climate science. He sounds like a self serving jerk to me.

How exactly can you "guarantee" he speaks the truth?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

He sounds like a self serving jerk to me.

Based on the start of that video I agree with you! However I actually posted a link to a time indexed position in the video, which doesn't work on this forum for some reason...

So I will repost the link in the hope that it will take you to the correct spot:-

https://youtu.be/T7pwFxQqOxQ?t=671

I think that was around 10 or 11 minutes into the video.


Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk