|
jshell wrote: Honestly that just reads like you've picked up on everything the IPCC have said as an absolute given.
As we've established, I'm no climatologist. So I am reliant on those who are. and when almost everyone with relevant extertise in a wide range of fields, oceanographers to meteorologists to food biologists, is saying the same thing and the evidence against what they say unravels easily, I'm inclined to listen.
jshell wrote: It has been caught with it's pants down circumventing the PEER REVIEW process. The climategate emails gave everyone a taste of it.
Your talent for overstatement rolls onward. That wasn't the IPCC. It was one scientist saying they'd get a paper excluded. Which they then made sure was included.
jshell wrote: Here's a cutting from his site:
"CO2 as a greenhouse gas: There is physical evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, able to trap heat. There is also physical evidence that this ability has a logarithmic function and that we are already at the cusp of saturation. There is no physical evidence that more CO2 will, or can, influence further warming. Only models are able to produce a temperature rise with CO2"
Oh good grief, can you not see the holes in what he says?
Of course only models can show what happens when we put higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not having a spare earth in a laboratory to test on, it's all models.
His next sentence says - "plants grow faster when warm, as do most cold-blooded animals. We can think all we want that CO2 is evil, but in reality plants are starved for it after millions of years of converting it into coal and oil."
The implications he's giving are laughable. The implication is that because plants need CO2 therefore it cannot be a problem no matter what the concentrations, and that the plants will just grow faster for it.
Certainly, forests are growing faster with higher CO2 concentrations, and oceans are absorbing more and more CO2. These capacities are not infinite, and there will come a point when their ability to absorb so much of what we emit tails off. Then the effects of atmospheric CO2 will intensify. Then we get forests becoming carbon sources rather than sinks. Meanwhile, the oceans are acitifying, and much more of that will prevent the ability of shell-life to form shells properly, hacking great length out of the food chain.
jshell wrote: Is he a fringe loony looking for attention?
My guess; yes.
jshell wrote:
It involves technical stuff I don't know about. However, I have to wonder why you take the unreviewed perspective of a mushroom and yeast biologist so seriously, yet discount the hundreds of papers - real papers, published and reviewed by those with expertise in the field.
Again, I wonder why you ignore the thousands of peer-reviewed papers that support the established view on climate change.
This is the thing that I find most tedious about arguing this subject with deniers like yourself. The repetition of their unsubtantiated position even after refutations, and when asked questions the habit of going 'look over there!' at something else.
Your reply basically ignored my post. You made a number of assertions and I challenged them. Can you respond to these?
Firstly: Do you agree that we are warming faster than at any time for many millennia, that the global average temperature is higher than at any point for many millennia, and that this rise is exactly in line with what we'd expect given the consensus about the effect of greenhouse gases and the addition of them to the atmosphere, mostly from burning fossil fuels.
Secondly: Do you agree that there is a vast swathe of reliable science out there - stuff that's been peer-reviewed, subjected to the scrutiny of those whose work reinforces or challenges it - and it all points one way. Thousands of published papers. Show me one that says anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. Just one.
Thirdly: Do you agree that we can readily distinguish CO2, which is why you can buy it in canisters, and why we're able to give readings of its presence down to a single part per million.
Fourthly: Do you agree that we're already seeing changes, such as rainfall patterns changing in eastern Africa or flood frequency increasing in Bangladesh, that are exactly in line with what was predicted.
fifthly: How do you propose we 'adapt' to crop failures across the globe and drastic falls in food prioduction?
Sixthly: Where have the IPCC tried to cover over and remove from the records the fact of the Medieval Warming period?
Seventhly: Where's the peer-reviewed papers that say MWP was warmer than today?
Eighthly: Are you really saying that less polar ice - replacing vast areas of white area with dark - won't affect the earth's reflective ability?
Ninthly: Are you really saying that heating permafrost peat bogs won't - as is already being observed - make them melt then dry? And that drying won't make them decay, releasing their carbon? (Again, ditto, with a lump of peat).
Tenthly: Do you understand that, of the wide range of temperatures that the earth can survive under, humans can only prosper in a very small part of the spectrum? Are you happy if 'achieving equilibrium' means mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian period?
|
