Reply to: Human role in warming 'more certain' - UN climate chief

[pjclarke]

Drivel.

When I see some conclusive facts then I will be convinced,

The scientific facts can be summed up in a paragraph. We know there is a greenhouse effect, we know that human emissions and deforestation have increased the amount of greenhouse gases, mainly but not exclusively CO2 (CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 also up) in the atmosphere. We know how long they will remain and we know how these cause a radiative imbalance ( a difference in the incoming and outgoing radiation) or 'forcing' and we have a good estimate (around +-10% uncertainty) of the size of this imbalance. It amounts to about an 'extra' 2.5 Watts per square metre, offset to some extent by manmade aerosols and natural negative forcings, giving a net change of around 1.6 Watts/m2. May not sound like much but multiply it by the surface area of the globe and that is a lot of extra energy in the system. None of the above 'drivel' is remotely controversial.

Thermodynamics tells us that an object in radiative imbalance will increase in temperature until the imbalance is removed. The question is what other effects will be triggered by the warming and whether these will have a positive or negative feedback - how 'sensitive' the planet is to the increased energy. This is less certain, however the paleoclimatic evidence indicates that feedbacks are overwhelmingly positive, leading to a best estimate of around 3C for the equivalent of a doubling in CO2.

Increasing the planetary temperature by 2-3C will have significant humanitarian and economic consequences for billions of people. And the best science tells us that we have already whooshed past the point at which we could have avoided it.

HTH.

[Old Hack]

actually you didn't my apologies.

Ooooh, got that wrong too.

Fook him

[Troll]

No science is certain, that was my point.

Scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method:

1. That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers
2. That this objective reality is governed by natural laws
3. That these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation

"Climate scientists" (sic) conveniently ignore point 3 and rely on conjecture and the connivance of useful idiots not to question the underlying observations or seek empirical proof


HTH

[vetran]

I didn't. HTH.

actually you didn't my apologies.

[Old Hack]

When I see some conclusive facts then I will be convinced, currently the only thing I see is politicians taxing while the earth might burn one day.

Thanks for yet another concise, lucid, focused post that sheds some light on the matter.

You did

[Old Hack]

No science is certain, that was my point.

You tit, that was Vetran's point; whilst it's still not fact based, he'll continue to show it the kind of attention it deserves

[sasguru]

so why highlight the word might in my post, it is entirely relevant?

.

I didn't. HTH.

[vetran]

No science is certain, that was my point.

so why highlight the word might in my post, it is entirely relevant?


The only thing that is certain is that the Politicians are taxing based on AGW/AGC/GCC/ "something might be wrong with the climate but we can't prove it " Yet they are doing nothing about solving it.

[BrilloPad]

No science is certain, that was my point.

Nothing is certain in this life. Expect perhaps the cretinity of your posts.

[sasguru]

Well to quote the original article :




nothing like a bit of certainty then eh Ass?

No science is certain, that was my point.

[vetran]

Well to quote the original article :

The panel is due to deliver its latest report on the state of the climate later this week in Stockholm, Sweden.

Its last report was criticised after an error on glaciers unveiled other flaws, but Prof Pachauri said procedures had been reformed and strengthened.

He also dismissed suggestions of a slowdown in global warming.

"There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,” he told me.

"I don't think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase). I would like to draw your attention to the World Meteorological Organization which clearly stated on the basis of observations that the first decade of this century has been the warmest in recorded history.

nothing like a bit of certainty then eh Ass?

[Old Hack]

Thanks for yet another concise, lucid, focused post that sheds some light on the matter.

I think it made perfect sense.

[sasguru]

Well the evidence you might be a Cretin is more certain, the continuing decline of your intellect is probable and the asinine nature of your posts suggest that Global Morons are real.

There you go to make you comfortable I treated you to some of your own debating style.

The whole point of the Global warming debate on both sides seems to be misrepresenting scientific fact as clear evidence that black is white. Its like trying to nail a rabid cougar to a jellyfish.

When I see some conclusive facts then I will be convinced, currently the only thing I see is politicians taxing while the earth might burn one day.

Thanks for yet another concise, lucid, focused post that sheds some light on the matter.

[pjclarke]

Indeed, 'the science is settled' is not something a scientist would say, as it implies two categories of science, settled and unsettled, which is a nonsense.

But if you do confine yourself to the science, rather than the politics, the debate in the scientific community has moved on from quantifying the A part of AGW and onto how bad it will get and what we can do about it.

[vetran]

To have an opinion on climate change you ought to be evidence based - there's too much BS on both sides. Entrenched interests against the idea who are funding a rear-guard disinformation campaign (in a similar manner to tobacco interests did) and on the other side of the fence non-scientists who argue that the "science is fixed", a ridiculous idea if you understand the basics of what science is.

Well the evidence you might be a Cretin is more certain, the continuing decline of your intellect is probable and the asinine nature of your posts suggest that Global Morons are real.

There you go to make you comfortable I treated you to some of your own debating style.

The whole point of the Global warming debate on both sides seems to be misrepresenting scientific fact as clear evidence that black is white. Its like trying to nail a rabid cougar to a jellyfish.

When I see some conclusive facts then I will be convinced, currently the only thing I see is politicians taxing while the earth might burn one day.