COP24 - Global catastrophe - climate change

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    for the record:
    Video of the opening.

    Comments by David Attenborough

    "I am always cautious about crying wolf. I think conservationists have to be careful in saying things are catastrophic when, in fact, they are less than catastrophic," he told The Independent in 2006. "Also, I'm not a chemist or a climatologist or a meteorologist; it isn't for me to suddenly stand up and say I have decided the climate is changing. That's not my expertise."
    "Now I do not have any doubt at all," Attenborough said two years after that lecture. "One of the things I don't want to do is to look at my grandchildren and hear them say: 'Grandfather, you knew it was happening — and you did nothing.'"
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    cop 24
    How nice that all of these people can get together----(having expended hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel---and added thousands of tons of carbon to the atmosphere) to share their confirmation bias.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Just found this letter dated 14-06-2018 that, in some ways supports sculptor position.

    signed by 43 current and former members of the Geographical Society and posted as an open letter to the Geographical Society.

    It is worth noting that the letter was dated 14-6-2018 5 months ahead of the COP24 but may still be relevant to the discussion.

    Perhaps the COP24 have been overly influenced by extraordinary climate events before and since then?

    It is worth noting also that the geographical society currently has approx. 16500 members and only 43 have signed the letter.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
    sculptor likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Would it be better to leave the fuel in the ground and sleepwalk into disaster? That seems like false economy.
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Current news:
    Tornado outbreak Illinois a record setter.

    With 27 confirmed tornados on December 1, 2018, the state of Illinois experienced its largest tornado outbreak during the month of December ever. NWS said additional storm surveys will be done on December 4, so this number is subject to change.

    The December 1, 2018 severe weather event sets the record for largest tornado outbreak during the month of December in Illinois history with 27 tornadoes, NWS said. The previous record was 21 tornadoes on December 18-19, 1957.

    This tornado outbreak will also rank as the 3rd largest tornado outbreak in Illinois during any month of the year. The largest outbreak was on April 19, 1996 with 39 tornadoes, followed by February 4, 2006 with 36 tornadoes.


    ...and the records just keep on tumblin'.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That letter, like everything that "supports Sculptor's position" of confirmation bias, is argued from dubious premises and errors of fact. It also repeats propaganda memes and disingenuous phrases common to fossil fuel industry and US Republican Party media operations, their lavishly funded "think tank" outputs, and other overtly political sources.

    It is, in other words, bullshit: propaganda, not a serious intellectual effort. Any actual scientist who signed that stank should be ashamed of themselves.

    The letter's dubious premise of greatest significance is that the IPCC presents one-sided, radical, or extreme positions on climate change, and does that exhaustively (which is to say, includes all the reasonable ones). That premise lies behind the entire letter, one way or another.
    (The IPCC emphasizes, reports in the forefront, only compromised and "conservative" positions, and deliberately excludes or downplays some politically sensational findings even when supported by research, analysis, and scientific consensus. There are many sober, well-considered, well-supported, research backed positions regarding climate change that are considerably more dramatic and sensational than the IPCC reports, but completely suitable for Geographical Society adoption: the letter pretends otherwise.)

    As far as the errors of fact, a sample:
    (The significant anthropogenic rise of CO2 predates 1943, the fraction of warming is not "almost half", and the differences there are critical to other arguments in the letter)
    (The Hockey Stick is not social media nonsense. It is peer reviewed, journal published, thoroughly analyzed, and critically unrefuted, research reporting.)
    (That is simply false, of course. The pause never existed, and if it had it would have suggested no such thing.)

    As far as disingenuous phrases or arguments, outright dishonest propaganda memes, etc, one could quote almost the entire letter. A smatter of highlights:
    = = = = = =
    - As this letter makes clear, it is not true that 97% of scientists unreservedly accept that AGW theory is fixed, or that carbon and CO2 are ‘pollutants’ and their production should be penalised; how can the primary nutrient in photosynthesis be a pollutant?
    - - - -
    Topics for such a dialogue could examine the evidence that
    1. CO2 alone as the principle driver of temperature, or climate.
    2. Climate Change is largely real, natural, and mostly beyond our control.
    3. Manipulation of climate data has been used to support ‘global warming’.[ii]
    4. Most climate alarms are little more than scaremongering.
    5. CO2 is mainly beneficial, NOT dangerous but blanket decarbonisation is.
    6. Industrial effluents and plastics, deforestation and overfishing are dangerous– and are being side-lined by the focus on CO2 emissions.
    - - - - -
    • The current hiatus or pause in warming.
    • Why the 285 ppm of atmospheric CO2 estimated for the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is in any way, a desirable benchmark. It coincides with the Victorian Little Ice Age, a period of starvation and population decline, which cannot possibly be a desirable target, unless you want to depopulate the earth.
    • Climate models always predict higher temperatures than actually occur
    • The absence of the predicted tropospheric hotspot – the ‘fingerprint of AGW’.
    • CO2 and temperature were higher than today during the previous 50 million years plus, with no CAGW effects, why not?
    • The natural warming of 8°C and ~100ppm increase in CO2 during the Holocene up to the 1800s, and the subsequent 125 ppm increase in CO2 after 1950, accompanied by a miserly ~1°C temperature rise.
    • The Holocene enigma of generally falling but fluctuating temperatures from ~3,000BP, accompanied by rising CO2 that predates industrial CO2 emissions.
    • How AGW theory relies on radiative transfer only to heat the planet, and seemingly ignores insolation, enthalpy and water vapour.
    • The inability of the science of AGW to sharpen the range of estimates of climate sensitivity (currently between 1.5 oC and 6.4°C according to GSL) despite over 30 years of hugely funded effort; surely the science has failed?
    • Earth System Sensitivity concept introduced by GSL, which ‘could be twice’ climate sensitivity’ noted above (2013 Addendum, page 4)
    Such rational failures have to be of concern to the GSL as they demonstrate that CO2 alone does not, nay cannot drive global warming, so how can it drive climate change?
    In other words, a tour of the Fox News treatment of AGW, missing only the accusation of scientists falsifying data to get grant money from the Globalists. That would have been a bit too far, apparently.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I agree...
    I presented the letter to provide an alternative view to the COP24 summits findings.
    • To show an example of what is holding back our world leaders from taking definitive action.
    • The link to the letter was provided by a friend to counter my posting of the COP24 video to Facebook.
    • The friend in question is a highly regarded ex CEO and well educated, critical thinker.
    • The friend failed to apply critical assessment before posting the link.

    The question for me is not so much about the findings of COP24 or even the counter arguments that people use to avoid the reality of climate change, but to explore the notion that any significant change in political attitudes is virtually impossible due to the fear that the citizenry is not prepared to make the enormous sacrifices necessary to follow their lead. That being said, the only way forward is from the bottom up and not from the top down. People must be able to demonstrate a willingness to make those sacrifices before politicians can act decisively.
    If it were me and I had a magic wand I would force all CO2 production to cease immediately. Regardless of social/economic consequences. Immediate, as in right now and not tomorrow. Leaving only emergency vehicles and other essential services still active. There should not be a plane in the sky, a car on the road or a coal powered power station running.

    Of course this will not happen, and so we wait until nature makes it so.

    World leaders are in a terrible situation, vexatious and extremely fraught.

    They can not ask their constituents to live with out electricity, or their motor vehicles or cancel any air travel plans etc. To do so would remove any politician from power. ( some exceptions and grades of course)
    The people have to demonstrate clearly and voluntarily that they are prepared to sacrifice their standard of living and do so urgently before the politicians can act with the support of it's constituency.

    The state of riots in France, that will most likely ultimately spread all over Europe bringing the chaos and instability with it, is intolerable to any government.
    Unless people provide support by way of voluntary demonstration of preparedness to sacrifice life style and quality of life the leadership is impotent.
    A paradoxical conundrum exists.

    So all this leaves us with one possible outcome; preparing for the inevitable deaths of over an estimated 6 billion people (75%) and taking steps to secure the remaining 25% as a matter of urgency. ( and all the collateral loss associated - food production - animals - insects and so on)
    The climate scientist talk of positive feedback, runaway climate change as if it is yet to happen.
    IMO it has always been present, simply because once the worlds oceans have gained heat even if only small (0.5degC), water vapor induced climate positive feedback is ongoing and accelerating daily.
    The important thing to remember at all times is that all of these problems swing around the universal constancy of the physics of water H2O. ( especially 0.0deg C) and any change in global temperatures is going to have significant impact.

    There is no solution to the problem once started.
    IMO. It is not a question of IF it is only a question of WHEN and given current trends it is a hell of lot faster than even the COP24 is prepared to admit.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    How many attended, and who spoke at cop24?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    aside from the politicians
    who spoke at cop24?
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Businessmen and governmental officials. Many more of them than politicians.

    That ok?
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Are you suggesting that climate science is lucrative field of work, like hedge fund managing or oil executive? Because that's absurd.
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    It would not be ok if I had taken the thing seriously to begin with.

    Do you have a list?
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I always get a kick out of that claim. Climate change deniers would have us believe that rich, fatcat grad students spend their time laughing at the people they have duped, drinking champagne and lighting their cigars with $100 bills. Meanwhile, the poor, honest Exxon executives are just struggling to feed their families.
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You described it as a collective manifestation of confirmation bias - which seems to have been absent from that gathering of officials and interested corporation reps, if climate change is the topic.

    So what was being confirmed in biased fashion, there?
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Hell dad, I was hoping that you would know.
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    News today- 06/12/2018:
    refers to letter in "Nature" dated: 6-12-2018

    And in June, research published in Nature pointed to a tripling of the rate of melting of the Antarctic ice sheet over the last five years.
    Now, new research published in Nature today has confirmed a similar trend is occurring in the Greenland ice sheet.
    Researchers used ice cores to create a 350 year continuous analysis of the melting rate of ice in central west Greenland.
    They found that over the last 20 years, the rate of melting has been as much as five times as high as pre-industrial melt rates, and that the rate of melting is increasing, according to researcher Luke Trusel from Rowan University in the United States.
    Over 7 metres of sea-level rise locked in Greenland ice sheet

    Significantly, they've confirmed that the increasing melting rate is following an exponential trajectory, caused by positive feedbacks like the albedo effect, according to Dr Trusel.

    The albedo effect describes the phenomenon where dark surfaces absorb more heat than reflective white surfaces like ice and snow.

    As ice melts, the darker ground beneath absorbs more energy from the sun, which causes even more melting — creating a feedback loop.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    My understanding:
    If you take an ice cube and subject it to >0 degree C temperature it is not only the outer surface that heats up.
    The whole ice cube is absorbing heat leading to an exponential rate of melt as time progresses.
    The Green Land ice sheet is the same as the ice cube. The whole sheet is heating up thus as time progresses the melt rate MUST be exponential. I wrong in my lay understanding?
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    uhm.... David Attenborough isn't a politician.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's your claim, I can't help you with it.
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member


    Ice heats up in a linear fashion. Add X calories of heat to a mass of Y tons and it will warm by Z degrees.
    However, something very nonlinear happens when you start melting. To melt ice takes a lot of energy; the phase change absorbs energy without a change in temperature. (Which is why ice works better than, say, plastic cubes to keep things cool.) Thus you hit a plateau of 0 degrees C for a long time, until all the ice has melted. Then you go back to a linear relationship.

    So it's actually the opposite of what you're thinking. You get warming until you hit the melting point of ice, then you have a slowdown in warming as the ice melts. This effect is usually barely noticeable because different part of an ice sheet melt at different rates, so at any given time you are seeing mostly solid ice and water with a little melting going on.

Share This Page