Mixer 85
-
Posts
178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Mixer 85
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:
I get the impression that 'junk' and 'nonsense' are your forte, Mixer?
Hahahah, I’m guessing what you meant to say was that the ability to recognise junk and nonsense are my forte.
-
1
-
-
On 01/09/2022 at 20:03, The Future said:
This:
Greenland ice losses set to raise global sea levels by nearly a foot, new research shows
EDITION.CNN.COMWidespread ice losses from Greenland have locked in nearly a foot of global sea level rise in the near future -- and new research suggests there is no way to stop it, even if...Vs
I’m confused,
Yet another example of climate model derived scare nonsense. The fact they give no timeline for this apparently impending flood is proof enough that it’s junk.
Timing of the article is quite remarkable too as it coincides with record gains….or perhaps it’s zombie ice that will roam the earth suddenly melting, causing an abrupt apocalyptic rise in sea levels
-
1 minute ago, Earthshine said:
I think a lot of it comes down to climate change "sceptics" feel special going against decades of research pointing towards a conclusion. I assume you are involved in climate research? I think all we are asking is for the peer-reviewed research showing that human induced climate change isn't real. I don't think that's too much to ask for, do you? Or are we getting the tinfoil hats out for this one?
Personally I don’t feel special. At times I feel alienated and put down by the moral high-grounders. I’m not involved in climate research, I’ve just spent a very long time following the subject closely. When I was younger I was deeply concerned about climate change and the more I looked into the subject, the more doubtful I became.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind clarifying precisely what you mean by climate change. Are you simply referring to the consensus that the climate has warmed approx 1deg since pre industrial times with little discernible difference on the ground, or, that the planet will continue to warm at an ever increasing rate leading to a catastrophic existential threat that can only be avoided if we reduce CO2.
It’s important that we’re clear on our definition of climate change because different people have different views. Some of us agree with Greta and some of us agree with Lindzen.
Your reference to tinfoil hats is a weak attempt to portray me as a conspiracy theorist wacko. One shouldn’t be labelled a conspiracy theorist for questioning the science that’s driving expensive government policy and transforming the way we live.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:
Well, perhaps it's time for some of these 'sceptics' to offer up their own 'science' for consideration, then. As, so far, they have come up with precisely nothing. . . Apart from constant klyping from the sidelines: What if this, what if that, But. . . ? Come on guys, where's your science? Show us that man-made CO2 somehow behaves differently from the 'natural' kind?
The floor is yours!
Thanks Pete, you’ve just proven my point….grandstanding at its finest.
If you are of the belief that I think CO2 doesn’t contribute to global warming then you are wrong.
What exactly would you like me to prove? Would you like me to prove that CO2 isn’t melting the icecaps, prove that it doesn’t cause flooding, wildfires, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, heatwaves, fire & brimstone, cats and dogs living together…mass hysteria!!
I would like you to prove that it does.The debate has always been about how much warming is attributed to CO2 and the future effects of said warming.
I’m labelled as a narrow minded ignoramus for simply having an inquisitive mind and not blindly accepting every alarming utterance by MSM and political organisations who are trying to drum up public support for environmental policies that are costing trillions, costing lives and destroying environments. I fear that a once prestigious scientific field of study has now become a cesspit of greedy politicians and bureaucrats who fear not one bit about the climate or the environment.
-
3
-
-
The BBC are most certainly biased and the article is also most certainly biased.
It is clearly aimed at skeptics and only serves to further deepen the divide between alarmists and skeptics. The language used suggests that skeptics are narrow minded, ignorant, and set in their ways with old school ideas. Further to that, how they recommend one changes the minds of skeptical individuals is more akin to how you might manipulate a child.
Perhaps the real idea behind this article is to reinforce the beliefs of the reader, the true believer. To reinforce their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. Net result….more ridged beliefs and grandstanding in the face of those ignorant narrow minded heretics.-
3
-
-
42 minutes ago, Earthshine said:
What possible mechanism could there be for an increase in greenhouse gases to not result in an increase in atmospheric temperatures? The answer is there is none. Mars also does have a greenhouse effect, however its surface pressure is around 0.6% that of Earth's and also generally receives around 40% the solar intensity that earth does. We observe global temperatures increasing as CO2 concentrations increase. More CO2 also means more water vapour (which is the principal greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere).
I agree with you entirely regarding increasing greenhouse gases will increase temperature. Skeptics don’t tend to deny that.
Mainstream consensus science attributes most of the warming, if not all, since the beginning of the industrial revolution to human emitted greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. I disagree with that.
-
2
-
-
48 minutes ago, Earthshine said:
Climate "skepticism" is the denial of the basic laws of physics as we understand them. If you pump more greenhouse gases (gases that interact strongly with infrared radiation) into the atmosphere you will cause a net warming to occur as the atmosphere re-equilibrates at higher equilibrium temperature (essentially energy in = energy out).
Burning fossil fuels emits CO2, that CO2 doesn't just disappear! Much of it is absorbed into the oceans but a lot also finds its way into the atmosphere. If you think that pumping more CO2 doesn't cause global warming, just take a look at Venus.
This is relatively straightforward stuff that you'd encounter at GCSE level.
As a skeptic I do not deny the greenhouse affect or the laws of physics.
Atmospheric physics is vastly more complex than the simple addition of CO2 = higher temperatures. Yes the above is strictly correct but we’re not dealing with a plastic box in a laboratory.
Also I’m not seeing the comparison between Earth .04% carbon dioxide and Venus which is 95% carbon dioxide. Mars is also 95% carbon dioxide and has an average temperature of -80deg F.
-
1
-
-
Are there actually many “deniers” out there? Or is this just a woefully insulting broad brush term to describe skeptics?
I would describe myself as a skeptic of the mainstream narrative, and after spending many years studying and following the subject closely I’m even more resolute in my skepticism.-
4
-
-
Personally I agree to a large extent with what @Muckais saying RE climate change and how it’s portrayed by the media. It is not elitist for him to have those views, it’s simply critical analysis of a subject he’s passionate about and well versed in.
I don’t think there’s many of us on here with our interests and knowledge in weather/climate who could believe or even remotely take seriously the level of hyperbolic garbage that’s dished out to the masses by the MSM regarding climate change. Thing is though, it’s not aimed at us. It’s aimed at the vast majority of people whom have little to no interest in the subject. Most people will read the headlines and take it at face value. They won’t question the sources or delve deeper to establish its plausibility.
Question is….why try terrify the masses with this rubbish. Is it to sell more newspapers?…or is it to sell faulty policies that funnel public money into lucrative businesses?…perhaps it is to further the WEF globalist agenda. I’m not going to weigh in on that personally because I simply don’t know. All I do know is that the hyperbole has gotten to fever pitch over the past couple of years, meanwhile the climate hasn’t changed all that much.
I know many here accept the CO2 hypothesis but personally I’m not buying it. The science isn’t settled. If the narrative is accepted there is no shortage of material to support that claim but the same is equally true if one decides not to accept it. There is no shortage of material to contradict the narrative.
Also worth noting is that the IPCC is a political organisation. They hire the scientists but ultimately they have the final say on what’s published, how it’s worded and what the press release says. “Code Red” is a political statement, not a scientific statement. The only alarming scenarios presented by the most recent assessment are derived from computer models that poorly represent reality.
I’ll leave this for giggles….have you ever wondered how everywhere is warming faster than everywhere else???
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Beanz said:
You’re aware that the global warming is destroying species habitat in the tropics, right?
Sorry I wasn’t aware of that. Can you provide an example please?
I am aware that species are being destroyed due to loss of habitat and human interference, that has no connection to climate change whatsoever.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Beanz said:
I’m not sure that’s true, in fact I’m struggling to think of a single species on the planet that would prefer the climate to be warmer.
The fact that 80% of earth’s species live in the tropics should be proof enough that life prefers warmth. Humans evolved in tropical regions and slowly spread northward. Our densest populations exist in tropical regions, the rest of us gravitate towards warmer regions for holidays. Life is well adapted to heat, not so much for cold.
-
I don’t think there are many out there denying global warming. Temperatures have risen by 1degree since the industrial revolution. It’s impossible to dispute that. Also suffice to say, a warmer globe will lead to new high temperature records.
Interestingly though, there has also been a vast amount of low temperature records too. One only has to look at the following thread to appreciate how many
Similar case currently in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire continent of Australia have been well below average, similar story in New Zealand. Large parts of South America are running well below the multidecadal average.
Antartica has also been intensely cold for 18 months now with a rare -80 recently recorded there. Greenlands SMB is well above the multidecadal average. Global average temperature for June were 0.06C above the 1980/2010 average.All of the above contradicts the catastrophic CO2 global warming narrative and begs the question of how much natural variation is at play? Sadly this gets little discussion as those who question the so called consensus are labelled and ridiculed. Even sadder still is that most people are of the belief that we are facing a climate emergency, so many children are terrified that the planet is burning and they are going to die from climate change. People are gluing themselves to roads, setting themselves on fire and the reality is that there is no evidence that we are facing a catastrophe. These catastrophic claims are rarely coming from scientists but from political organisations and environmental groups.
One only has to scratch beneath the surface to find the real truths. Sea levels have been rising consistently since the last ice age and are not accelerating. Droughts are not increasing in frequency or duration. Floods are no worse than in the past. Hurricanes have decreased in numbers and intensity in recent years, as well as tornadoes. Wildfires are not increasing globally. Climate related deaths have plummeted almost 100% in the last 100yrs. Most climate related deaths are due to cold not warmth. A warmer climate is a more comfortable and hospitable climate for all who roam the earth. It would be nice to perhaps appreciate this rather than get carried away with the mass hysteria of catastrophic global warming. If natural variation does turn out to be the main climate driver and Mother Nature decides to turn down the thermostat then we’ll have a completely different foe on our hands.
-
2
-
-
Personally I think geo-engineering is a ridiculous idea. Actively meddling with the climate system in ways that are vastly misunderstood. Can anyone guarantee that we’ll get the desired outcome without any undesirable side effects?
Would the organisations conducting such experiments be willing to cough up the potential billions in compensation to countries that suffer ill effects of such meddling….drought, famine, floods. I’m aware the above are happening now, but they don’t appear to be worsening or happening in places where they haven’t happened before.
Another thing worth considering is that past warm climate phases are all described as “…..climate optimums” with the current one being the Holocene Optimum. These optimums brought about great abundance and comfortable living conditions for humanity whilst cooler conditions brought about death, disease and famine.-
1
-
-
Thanks for all your great posts and keeping us so well informed on what’s been happening around the globe. I check in regularly for updates.
I’m guessing you’ve been keeping an eye on things for quite some time and I’m curious as to how this past winter stacks up against previous winters? Has this past winter been unusually colder and broken a lot more records than previous winters?
I’m aware every year records are broken somewhere but winter 21/22 really seems to have cranked the cold knob up a few notches. Sadly not around these parts though.TIA Micheal
-
On 23/11/2021 at 18:10, Nick B said:
166bn tonnes. i.e. well over 2 million Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers in mass. Or 500,000 Empire State Buildings. Or to compare it with a more relatively similar mass, it's about 1/6 of the weight of all man-made structures on the planet combined (about 1.1 trillion tonnes, which itself is now more than the weight of all the earth's biomass combined too). In one year.
Or to put it into a more useful, less alarming perspective, Greenland lost about 0.0058% of its total mass. At that rate it could disappear in just over 17,000years.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Surprisingly, nuclear is apparently safer than renewables…..
-
1
-
-
How Boris Johnson's pledge to end forest destruction ignores 25m trees Britain is burning for biomass
WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UKDrax's 'green fuel', which is made from wood pellets, produces more carbon than coal, scientists warn
Paywalled
PM to laud green credentials of firm behind ‘UK’s largest CO2 emitter’
WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UKExclusive: Drax’s Yorkshire power plant has emissions roughly equal to that of Ghana, analysis claimsFree older article to give the gist
It’s a bit difficult to swallow the narrative of “we should all do our bit” when you see this hypocrisy…
After all, isn’t it a “code red” for the climate right now? How long will it take for the saplings to re-uptake all the carbon released by the mature trees they’re replacing?…..assuming they’re genuinely being replaced. How much of the Amazon is going up in smoke in the UK….
-
10 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:
Nuclear power plants are way more efficient than any other forms of power generation...also nuclear power plants work at full capacity 92% of the time. For comparison, consider the operating times for other energy-generating sources: coal plants (54%), natural gas plants (55%), wind generators (37%) and solar plants (27%).
Modern thorium reactors can also run on recycled spent waste from older reactors. The entire US electricity grid could be powered for 100 years on current stocks of spent waste. I believe it also neutralises the waste.
-
1
-
-
A worrying aspect of the net zero persuit is it’s involvement and implementation by greedy politicians, big business and lobbyists. The vast levels of public investment will have this lot locking their lips. Blue hydrogen appears to be a major scam when you look into the bones of it.
I’m not at all opposed to the idea of net zero but by the time the greedy vultures are finished there’ll be a fortune of public money spent and probably not a lot to show for it. As the saying goes….follow the money.A reasonable place to start would probably be nuclear. It’s pricey, but you know what you’re getting in terms of reliability and output. Large scale offshore wind farms, perhaps for green hydrogen production. This could make a big difference in the short to medium term whilst battery technology for the transport industry improves.
-
3
-
-
Thanks again @knocker. I find what you’ve quoted above to be quite palatable and quite aligned with my own views. Perhaps I’m more agnostic than sceptic but ultimately I believe there is still much to learn regarding feedbacks, natural cycles, albedo, ocean currents etc.
Regarding the topic at hand, is net zero really achievable? It’s a plan that’s entirely dependent on technologies that don’t yet exist. In addition to investment in technological advancement, would it be wise to set up a mitigation fund to pay for protective infrastructures like flood defences. If we’re wrong about many of the worst effects of cc then there’s a pile of money in the bank or if things continue on the predicted trajectories then there’s funds to pay for defences.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, knocker said:
Regarding the highlighted comment
Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
Thanks very much for the linked material Knocker, and also your contribution to the site as a whole over the years. Your commentary has always been accurate and well balanced…I highly respect that.
I’ve always been under the impression that in past climatology CO2 increases lagged behind temperature increases. I will delve into this further.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the response @Quicksilver1989 I appreciate you discussing each point and I’m very much open to such.
A few points if you don’t mind.
Are Milankovitch cycles not more on a millennial scale? My understanding is that they happen very slowly over thousands of years, hence why we’re currently in a glacial phase, albeit a warm period within a glacial phase.
Re CO2, @400 ppm is it really that exceptionally high given that there’s been past periods 10 times as high with no apparent tipping points or runaway warming? These high levels of CO2 have been shown to follow after warming as warmer oceans released vast amounts of stored CO2.
Re consensus, I still believe in debate and my main gripe is that the 97% consensus (now 99.9 apparently) is being used to strong man and silence the opposition. It’s an all too often used counter argument. It’s origins (97%) are questionable too.
Re global temperature record, ice core data showing warmer periods in the past, mwp, etc. No anthropogenic input there. What makes us so certain we’re the dominant cause of current warming?
Re solar cycles, there’s loads of studies that cast doubt on AGW due to solar variation. Here’s 3 from your favorite website Please don’t discredit because they’re linked from a sceptical website. By all means discredit based on a scientific approach.
2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions – Watts Up With That?
WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COMThree new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the...I agree with most that WUWT is overly right wing and pro fossil fuels but I go there because it links to material rarely seen on MSM.
I agree scientific consensus is based on decades of hard work but in the case of climate science, is it possible that some scientists approach their work with core underlying beliefs in AGW? Does the consensus itself become part of a doctrine that’s accepted and doesn’t need to be disputed or disproved?
Am I correct in thinking that future predictions are based on computer models that many argue don’t have a complete picture and aren’t quite up to the task. Based on the amount of times you see “might happen/could” within climate studies, does this not highlight uncertainty and invite opposition. The theory might be correct hence passing peer review but in the vastly complex real world it could be way off the mark.
I’m by no means a genius in this field, I’m just highlighting some of the questions mulling around in my sceptical brain. I welcome alternative views and I’m not closed off to the notion of AGW, just sceptical of the extent and regularly peeved off by the extreme ott portrayals peddled by main stream media. If anything MSM pushes me further in the opposite direction.
-
1
-
-
Yes there is a consensus that the Earth is warming, a consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of that warming. This is undeniable and not where the argument lies.
The question that’s still in hot debate is how much warming is attributed to CO2 outside of the natural range of variation. There is no consensus on this as far as I can see as there’s still numerous studies published attributing much of the warming to things like solar, cosmic rays, clouds, etc. As far as I’m concerned ‘the consensus’ is a strong man argument that’s spun out to shout down anyone who wanders beyond the bounds of the CO2 narrative.
Science should encourage challenge and speculation. I’d also like to add, I’ve no vested interests in fossil fuels. I agree with exploring other energy sources, nuclear being my personal favourite. I lead a very green lifestyle. My wife and I organically grow much of what we eat. I’ve invested a lot of time and money into designing and building a solar passively heated greenhouse that should provide almost year round (tip of the hat to you Ed) We give away excess fruit and veg to family and friends. We buy locally where possible and avoid buying rubbish we don’t need. We built our house over 10yrs ago, it’s heated with kerosene and a wood burning stove. I don’t feel guilty about that when I come home to a warm house after a 13hr day working and commuting.
-
If you can’t trust the MSM, who can you trust. Didn’t Sky News just last week post an article showing Buckingham Palace under 5 meters of water? If I recall correctly…3 times the IPCC’s worst case scenario predictions. They clearly know something we don’t know.
Greenland - What Do We Know, What Is The Long Term Future And Is There Any Evidence Of A Melt Out?
in Climate Change
Posted
Seems Iceland has fared similarly to Greenland this summer.
Also Arctic sea ice having a good season.