Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
OK, So is gravity questionable, or real?

What about F = ma? Is that in question?

Laws of Thermodynamics? Shall we throw those out and go back to shamanism?

Apples and oranges. You're making an argument from authority about a complex collection of systems and backstopping it with simple science.

Science is a way to understand things, not the final destination.

There are still many, many things we are learning about gravity, Newton's laws of motion, thermodynamics and the rest of it.

People questions science all the time, because that's good science.

And yes, questionable. It was in fact questioned, even though "the science was settled" and we were brought to a new and deeper understanding of gravity and Newton's laws of motion by Einstein and Relativity.

Newton's Second law (that you quoted there) is an approximation and increasingly fails at higher relativistic speeds, for example.

Any good scientist would say that the laws of thermodynamics have served us well -- so far ... and yet remain open-minded to investigating claims that they've been falsified. Like, the Third Law and black holes.

Falsifiability -- that's science. Claiming that you can't argue, investigate or even question something is not science, it's dogma.

Oh, snap.

Right. Didn't claim any such thing. Didn't claim anything was settled. Just that the weight of evidence points largely to anthropogenic causes.

So, you question the mainstream science, but can you please provide ANY compelling evidence that the current warming trend is largely natural, as Paradox claims?

If you can't provide any evidence, well I guess you're not discussing science but perhaps ideology or philosophy.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

ANY compelling evidence that the current warming trend is largely natural, as Paradox claims?

Where did Paradox claim that? Doesn't seem to fit in with Paradox's line of reasoning.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
OK, So is gravity questionable, or real?

What about F = ma? Is that in question?

Laws of Thermodynamics? Shall we throw those out and go back to shamanism?

Apples and oranges. You're making an argument from authority about a complex collection of systems and backstopping it with simple science.

Science is a way to understand things, not the final destination.

There are still many, many things we are learning about gravity, Newton's laws of motion, thermodynamics and the rest of it.

People questions science all the time, because that's good science.

And yes, questionable. It was in fact questioned, even though "the science was settled" and we were brought to a new and deeper understanding of gravity and Newton's laws of motion by Einstein and Relativity.

Newton's Second law (that you quoted there) is an approximation and increasingly fails at higher relativistic speeds, for example.

Any good scientist would say that the laws of thermodynamics have served us well -- so far ... and yet remain open-minded to investigating claims that they've been falsified. Like, the Third Law and black holes.

Falsifiability -- that's science. Claiming that you can't argue, investigate or even question something is not science, it's dogma.

Oh, snap.

Right. Didn't claim any such thing. Didn't claim anything was settled. Just that the weight of evidence points largely to anthropogenic causes.

So, you question the mainstream science, but can you please provide ANY compelling evidence that the current warming trend is largely natural, as Paradox claims?

If you can't provide any evidence, well I guess you're not discussing science but perhaps ideology or philosophy.

I'm not even addressing anything about AGW.

Your claim that you can't question "science", I am indeed questioning, and calling, IIRC, utter and complete twaddle.

And I am specifically pointing out that the three examples you gave of what you believe are immutable unquestionable laws of physics ... have indeed been questioned, investigated, falsified, refined and improved.

If you're going to make ridiculous claims that you then have to back-pedal away from at relativistic speeds, perhaps you should frame your claims more carefully

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..Where did Paradox claim that? Doesn't seem to fit in with Paradox's line of reasoning

holy guacamole said..ANY compelling evidence that the current warming trend is largely natural, as Paradox claims?

Many times. Paradox doesn't reason - he twists the truth.

He's claimed recently that anthropogenic factors do not contribute more than 50% or so to the warming, that this is a quote "bald faced lie" unquote and that quote;

"As for those expouting gov agencies that I am supposedly saying are saying differently, you need to go read those sites. few if any state outright that humans are the predominant cause of observed warming. Many use language to make it sound like that but don't actually say it. Words like "likely" "probably" or vague terminology are used. That is not scientific language."

He also lies about the IPCC documentation. For instance, paradox claims that the IPCC's summaries and conclusions demonstrate loose language about AGW and a level of uncertainty, whereas the reality is that the IPCC have calculated that GHG's are quote "extremely likely to be the dominant cause for the observed warming...".

From the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report:

"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Ian K said..Where did Paradox claim that? Doesn't seem to fit in with Paradox's line of reasoning

holy guacamole said..ANY compelling evidence that the current warming trend is largely natural, as Paradox claims?

Many times. Paradox doesn't reason - he twists the truth.

He's claimed recently that anthropogenic factors do not contribute more than 50% or so to the warming, that this is a quote "bald faced lie" unquote and that quote;

"As for those expouting gov agencies that I am supposedly saying are saying differently, you need to go read those sites. few if any state outright that humans are the predominant cause of observed warming. Many use language to make it sound like that but don't actually say it. Words like "likely" "probably" or vague terminology are used. That is not scientific language."

He also lies about the IPCC documentation. For instance, paradox claims that the IPCC's summaries and conclusions demonstrate loose language about AGW and a level of uncertainty, whereas the reality is that the IPCC have calculated that GHG's are quote "extremely likely to be the dominant cause for the observed warming...".

From the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report:

"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "

I don't get it. Are you attempting to assert that alarmists/scientists don't use terms like probably or likely by posting a quote that says extremely likely

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Can you explain the error bars on this chart you've posted please HG.

Greenhouse gasses +0.9 degrees +_ 0.4 degrees. Other anthropogenic forcings -0.2 +- 0.3 degrees. But when they add them up they get
0.7 +- 0.1. degrees
When I add them up I get
0.7 +- 0.7 degrees

which I interpret as it being somewhere between 0 and 1.4 degrees of warming due to us. (Isn't that what Paradox is saying?)

I know stats isn't linear. Still it's not that non-linear. Surely?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

holy guacamole said..

ANY compelling evidence that the current warming trend is largely natural, as Paradox claims?

Where did Paradox claim that? Doesn't seem to fit in with Paradox's line of reasoning.

Thank you, I am glad someone can read what I say without twisting it..

And no, I have never claimed that current warming is predominantly natural, only that it can't be exluded as a possibility on the data we have. Exactly the same as we can't claim the current warming is predominantly human driven on the data we have (although plenty do). Both are possibilities and neither can be discounted.

This paper even though it is 12 years old tends to explain it well and is still relevent. faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/Lupo.pdf

And yes, he is by definition a skeptic, but his qualifications and background make him definately qualified to have an informed opinion.

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
The question I think everyone should ask of themselves is would I rather argue about the cause of the problem or do something to fix it so my children or there children don't face extinction.

Thats the thing though. If we are uncertain that we are the cause of the problem or even if there is a problem, what exactly are you trying to fix?

I'm not saying ignore it, but good luck convincing the emerging economies to stop using cheap power when you dont really have anything concrete to convince them staying in poverty is a desirable thing.

The fact that you are talking about extinction shows you are listening to extreme views and not scientists. Even the IPCC struggles to find to many bad things that might happen. Try reading some of the reports they put out. Start with the papers themsleves rather than the summaries. You will struggle to find doomsday scenarios in them.

Exactly. Some animal or plant species might not survive a big change, but people almost certainly will. I mean, people talk about colonising Mars, but we can't survive a 2 or 3deg change here on Earth where we've evolved to survive?

Russia or other Tundra places might benefit.

In the end, we're going to burn most of the economic oil, gas and coal because most people are too poor to do otherwise. If we get near the end of it the price will go up and we'll find some other alternative. Or poor people will starve.

Select to expand quote

KiteWindnSurf said..
Exactly. Some animal or plant species might not survive a big change, but people almost certainly will. I mean, people talk about colonising Mars, but we can't survive a 2 or 3deg change here on Earth where we've evolved to survive?

Russia or other Tundra places might benefit.

In the end, we're going to burn most of the economic oil, gas and coal because most people are too poor to do otherwise. If we get near the end of it the price will go up and we'll find some other alternative. Or poor people will starve.

Hang on, are you guys struggling to accept that it is a bad thing if people starve? That is the sort of thing that should be avoided if possible.

Select to expand quote

PrfctChaos said..

Hang on, are you guys struggling to accept that it is a bad thing if people starve? That is the sort of thing that should be avoided if possible.

I'm sorry, in which scenario are more people starving than now?

It's well documented that large amounts of people die from energy poverty. 7% of deaths in Australia are related to it.

The current rate of global warming is accelerating & the longer it goes on the faster it accelerates.
Im not subscribing to any alarmist view points it's just simple logic that there will become a point we're life will be unsustainable.
Yes it's great to be able to say let's colonise mars but we're not going to be able to move our entire population there& we won't be able to even start a colony there if it's a battle for survival on this planet .
The longer people argue the harder & more expensive the solution will become & like everything it will be the poor who pay the price

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

PrfctChaos said..

Hang on, are you guys struggling to accept that it is a bad thing if people starve? That is the sort of thing that should be avoided if possible.

I'm sorry, in which scenario are more people starving than now?

It's well documented that large amounts of people die from energy poverty. 7% of deaths in Australia are related to it.

So climate change is going to mean more food for struggling nations? Thats great news!

Select to expand quote

PrfctChaos said..

Paradox said..

PrfctChaos said..

Hang on, are you guys struggling to accept that it is a bad thing if people starve? That is the sort of thing that should be avoided if possible.

I'm sorry, in which scenario are more people starving than now?

It's well documented that large amounts of people die from energy poverty. 7% of deaths in Australia are related to it.

So climate change is going to mean more food for struggling nations? Thats great news!

Correct, the planet is greening, food production is increasing.

Plants love co2 and warmth

Good times

Select to expand quote

PrfctChaos said..

So climate change is going to mean more food for struggling nations? Thats great news!

Indications so far is that yes, that is the case. Overall higher rainfall and year after year of global record crop production seems to be accompanying the warmer weather and higher CO2 levels.

Were you told something else? If so that is the issue that Schellingberger is raising. People are being misled.

Natural disasters and frequency of extreme weather is falling and the planet is safest to live on now than it has ever been.

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
The current rate of global warming is accelerating & the longer it goes on the faster it accelerates.

The longer people argue the harder & more expensive the solution will become & like everything it will be the poor who pay the price

I would challenge both those comments.

There is no evidence the warming trend is accellerating, the temp anomly graphs are linear and the science clearly tells us that CO2 greenhouse effect logarithmically decreases with concentration.

As I have mentioned the currently proposed solution (stopping emerging countries from utilising cheap carbon sources of power) will have a significantly greater effect on the poor and vulnerable right now through energy poverty.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

PrfctChaos said..

So climate change is going to mean more food for struggling nations? Thats great news!

Indications so far is that yes, that is the case. Overall higher rainfall and year after year of global record crop production seems to be accompanying the warmer weather and higher CO2 levels.

Were you told something else? If so that is the issue that Schellingberger is raising. People are being misled.

Natural disasters and frequency of extreme weather is falling and the planet is safest to live on now than it has ever been.

Will let you know in 20 years whether they are having a good time or not mate.

The anti-science movement is so popular these days, that it seems the world is destined to be a full scale science experiment. The smart people are no longer trusted, so now the dumb people run the show, no more looking ahead to figure out a path forward, only reacting on a short term day-by-day basis.

Select to expand quote

PrfctChaos said..

Paradox said..

PrfctChaos said..

So climate change is going to mean more food for struggling nations? Thats great news!

Indications so far is that yes, that is the case. Overall higher rainfall and year after year of global record crop production seems to be accompanying the warmer weather and higher CO2 levels.

Were you told something else? If so that is the issue that Schellingberger is raising. People are being misled.

Natural disasters and frequency of extreme weather is falling and the planet is safest to live on now than it has ever been.

Will let you know in 20 years whether they are having a good time or not mate.

The anti-science movement is so popular these days, that it seems the world is destined to be a full scale science experiment. The smart people are no longer trusted, so now the dumb people run the show, no more looking ahead to figure out a path forward, only reacting on a short term day-by-day basis.

Whatever are you saying - that paradox is anti-science? Gosh no.

We have his word (and that is all) that the scientists are spreading "bald-faced lies".

Select to expand quote

PrfctChaos said..

Will let you know in 20 years whether they are having a good time or not mate.

The anti-science movement is so popular these days, that it seems the world is destined to be a full scale science experiment. The smart people are no longer trusted, so now the dumb people run the show, no more looking ahead to figure out a path forward, only reacting on a short term day-by-day basis.

I don't disagree with you on the anti science movement. The foundation of the scientific process is testing of hypothesis through constant challenging of the promoted facts and theory's through logical debate. The shutdown of that process we are seeing through censorship and silencening of those challenging the narrative is alarming.

Schellingberger has raised some very good points that are solidly backed by established scientific facts, many of which come straight from the IPCC reports. Yet he (like many others) is being censored and removed from platforms and is being shouted down rather than his points challenged on thier merits.

That should alarm everyone.

climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/

Don't think this was posted before.

Select to expand quote

HangOver said..
climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-shellenberger-mixes-accurate-and-inaccurate-claims-in-support-of-a-misleading-and-overly-simplistic-argumentation-about-climate-change/

Don't think this was posted before.

Good work. Just a another "scientist" caught up in the populist puff-piece propaganda perpetrated by the anti-science and pro-nuclear movements.

This is the point I've been making all along, that people like paradox mix half-truths with lies and throw in a few deceptions to create doubt about the science.

It's really quite shameless and transparent.

From the article: "Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT: In his article, Michael Shellenberger claims that "climate change is not making natural disasters worse". This begs the question of what exactly is meant by "natural disasters", but no matter how one defines them, this statement is patently false."

To cap it off, surprise surprise Shellenberger then goes on to promote nuclear power as a solution to something he claims is not really a Big problem!

So really, crying wolf about crying wolf.

Sounds like a double paradox to me.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
From the article: "Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT: In his article, Michael Shellenberger claims that "climate change is not making natural disasters worse". This begs the question of what exactly is meant by "natural disasters", but no matter how one defines them, this statement is patently false."

To cap it off, surprise surprise Shellenberger then goes on to promote nuclear power as a solution to something he claims is not really a Big problem!

So what your'e saying is, if there is a single data point that fails, the whole thing must be thrown out?

We all know you don't understand nuclear -- especially where and when it's suitable -- but even without CO2 being considered, energy needs certainly are a big problem.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

We all know you don't understand nuclear -- especially where and when it's suitable -- but even without CO2 being considered, energy needs certainly are a big problem.

When we all start scooting around in electric vehicles we're going to have to revisit nuclear to charge up all those batteries. The average 3kW solar roof generates 13.2 kWhr a day, sufficient for the average household that doesn't have a Tesla in the garage. The Tesla EV has a 100 kWhr battery for a range of 500 km. 20kWhr per 100 km. This system and its 13.2 kWhr will only get you about 50km a day. That's not a watt left over to kick over the coffee machine.

Dear Ian,

You should know that any system is sized to suit it's performance requirement. Most rooftop solar is arguably undersized anyway. Systems are becoming cheaper every week.

Defining the "average" system in terms of it's ability to charge electric car batteries is as silly as complaining about a candle not providing enough light for surgery.

You're argument for nuclear power is ridiculous. There are better arguments for it.

Yes HG that is a valid point. The aim of having all homes mostly solar powered is however somewhat at odds with the need to moderate the expansion of our cities and improve urban greening.

The house above for example, adequate size for a typical family, just about has its northern roof full of panels. Maybe squeeze in an extra kilowatt or two. It desperately needs a shady tree in the front yard. Forget that.

The other option to cope with rising population is to extend the suburbs even further and build bigger houses on smaller blocks with no room for trees. You'll need more than 50km a day out of the Tesla to survive out there - Back to square 1 and the nuclear option before you know it.

Ah the Nuclear option . . but WHICH option

Have a read of the Wikipedia article on Thorium reactors . . . . lost opportunities . . lost as a Thorium reactor does not produce weapons grade fuel and the military won out.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..Dear Ian, You're argument for nuclear power is ridiculous. There are better arguments for it.

Here's a good argument for nuclear made by George Monbiot - probably the UK's best known environmentalist.
Is he wrong?



By George Monbiot, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall. Published in the Guardian 18th September 2015

Our conversion to the cause of nuclear power was painful and disorienting. All of us carried a cost in changing our position, antagonising friends and alienating colleagues.
But we believe that shutting down - or failing to replace - our primary source of low carbon energy during a climate emergency is a refined form of madness.

Because atomic energy provides a steady baseload of electricity, it has great potential to balance the output from renewables, aiding the total decarbonisation of the power supply.
The dangers associated with nuclear power have been wildly exaggerated, all too often with the help of junk science.
Climate breakdown presents a far greater hazard to human life.
The same goes for the air pollution caused by burning coal.


www.monbiot.com/2015/09/21/power-failure/

A 6kw solar system is around $3,000 nowdays. So they should pay for themselves in a few years.

Western Power looking into community batteries to stabilise the base load supply.

Obviously base loads need attention

AGW arguments do my head in. So much unsubstantiated assertion.

Renewables and storage (batteries and pumped) just about a no brainer going forward for Au, based on levelised user costs:

""Wind and solar - with battery storage - are not cheaper than coal, assuming no risk premium is applied to the financing of coal.
Wind, backed up by pumped hydro, remains slightly cheaper than black coal with no risk premium applied. Solar, backed up by pumped hydro, is marginally more expensive.However, as discussed, it is realistic to assume coal-fired power stations would be more costly to finance. If a risk premium is applied, wind and solar plus back-up remains unambiguously cheaper than coal as a source of energy.The cost of new generation by energy type.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, is estimated to be well over double the cost of coal, wind or solar, regardless of risk premiums or backup.The CSIRO and the Finkel review both predicted the cost of solar and wind energy would continue to fall into the future, while the cost of coal-fired power would remain relatively static.""

from

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-12/is-renewable-power-cheaper-than-coal-nuclear-malcolm-turnbull/11495558

Installing 3kW or 6kW solar system is a no brainer. Looking for about a 5yr simple payback on a 10 year plus life (for a good install). You then ultimately get 20% on your investment - hard to beat that in today's low interest environment. Batteries still not quite cost effective though at the individual level.