I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Peter Bernard Ladkin: 
 

 

but it will not change the likelihood that the Earth is probably entering one of its 10,000 year climate change cycles. 

What is that likelihood? What is your reasoning?

There is a by-now measureable anthropogenic contribution to phenomena which make the biosphere warmer. Even supposing the biosphere is in a warming cycle (as I take it you suppose), which may well affect humanity in various deleterious ways, is there any argument for continuing to contribute to making it worse?

 

 

‘What is that likelihood? What is your reasoning?’

Inter-glacial warmings are known to be cyclical, usually 10000 to 15000 years, Ours is 11000 years, so we can expect cooling at any time from now. This knowledge is gained form Antarctica Ice Core samples.

An argument to stop the Green agenda, maybe that if we persist with all out Net Zero then economies will fail with unforeseen consequences for the poorest people on the planet.

Simon Barker: 
 

Something I realised a while back is that attempting to persuade somebody that they are wrong on something that matters to them is utterly futile.  

I have spent a large part of the half-century of my professional life “attempting to persuade” other professionals that they are wrong on something which matters to us. When I have been right, I have often succeeded. When I have been wrong, they often eventually succeeded. (Then there are all the other cases …. :-) ). 

Thankfully, we are in a professional forum, not a social-media echo-chamber. My brief experience has been that people here largely (not exceptionlessly, but largely) think before and as they post. As indeed one would expect from the IET Rules of Conduct. I started in forums with usenet groups in the mid-1980's.  Five years later, I quit, and migrated to closed professional mailing lists (one of which I still run myself). 

Post Office Limited has in recent years been persuaded that the arguments it used for many years to persuade courts that subpostmasters were committing fraud were in fact facile and largely wrong. And now it has been told that by the Court of Appeal in 2021 in no uncertain terms. And accepted that judgement. It has taken a decade. Sometimes people and organisations do take that long to change their minds.

Ten years ago, I took part in a year-long international research group at the Uni Bielefeld on distasters, the social phenomena they engender, and communications. We watched a film about a group of Pacific islands whose fishing way of life had been drastically altered over the course of about a decade, forming a serious emergency. A developed-world activist told them - persuaded them - that the changes were due to anthropogenic climate change, largely caused by the behaviour of the developed world. One of the islanders turned into a UN envoy who inter alia went around the world explaining their plight and campaigning for sensitivity to the problem and countermeasures. I argued at the time that that could not be right. As far as I could tell, anthropogenic climate change was a secondary effect that would manifest over the time scale of many decades, and that short-term effects such as the loss of this island nation's fishing resources likely had another cause. Now (you will appreciate) I think I was very wrong about that. 

Those are just two examples from my immediate experience.

 

So I think it's time I abandoned this whole thread.

For what it's worth, I don't, and would encourage you to continue.

 

Inter-glacial warmings are known to be cyclical, usually 10000 to 15000 years, Ours is 11000 years, so we can expect cooling at any time from now. This knowledge is gained form Antarctica Ice Core samples.

Have any of those core samples shown evidence of a 3° rise in 200 years or less?

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
"I'm glad you agree that global warming is real and some of it is likely to be anthropogenic. What do you propose to do about it?"

Considering that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate change is rather small, I would trust the recommendation of many climate scientists, among them MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: have the courage to do nothing about CO2 emissions in particular. Energy efficiency is another matter, this should be pursued everywhere.

I do not think we can solve the climate issues here; I would rather suggest listening to scientific debates on the topic, although there are only a few these days. I can recommend a debate on EconTalk in May 2021 between climate optimist John Christy (University of Alabama, Huntsville) and climate pessimist Kerry Emanuel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); they found agreement that climate science is far from settled.

www.aier.org/.../

I hope that in addition to Dr. Hayden's presentation I mentioned in an earlier posting, the above answered most questions. Regarding Mauna Loa CO2 data analysis: I only compared monthly changes to similar changes in previous years and found no striking differences. 

Aivar Usk: 

I would recommend to let dr. Howard Cork Hayden, professor emeritus of physics at University of Connecticut explain to you what the problem is. It would be interesting to hear if anyone could point out where he is wrong in this 54 minute presentation:

Having a nominally-impressiveacademic title does not necessarily mean much. As you yourself surely understand - it hasn't hindered you from telling me where I might be wrong. (All to the good, I might say.)

As a rhetorical measure, inviting people to watch a one-hour video and criticise it is not very persuasive. Why don't you summarise the arguments for us in, say, a five-minute read?

 

 I was not intending any ad-hominem when suggesting that most of the activists are not knowledgeable about climate science; 

If you are talking about people, and (I take it) criticising them for not being knowledgeable, then that is a prima facie case of an ad hominem argument. (It doesn't get much clearer than that.)

People don't have to be individually knowledgeable about matters of science in order to hold and support beliefs about such science. If you say to climate activist A “you don't know much climate science”, A might reply “that may be right, but I talk regularly with and listen to people who do.”  And that is an appropriate response (if it is true).

For example, I don't know half as much meteorology as a professional meteorologist, but I do know some stuff about the “rain dome” that formed over the Eiffel in July 2021, which is inter alia why I'll be talking in February on that flooding catastrophe. The other reason is that the conference organisers know I'll do my best to talk to people who really do know, although I admit to having huge difficulties getting anyone to respond (there seem to be political and legal issues which inhibit communication). Weirdly enough, all the data disappeared from the meteo WWW sites within days (if anyone can find the surface and 500mb charts from July 12-17 2021 over northern-continental Europe I'd be very glad of a pointer).

When Joe Blow installs roof insulation and says it will save him 25% on his heating requirements, Joe is not saying so because he is “knowledgeable” about heating science, but because the heating consultant who calculated it is licensed and registered and conforms with a professional code of conduct, and Joe has every reason to think that what the consultant told him is very probably true. 

Ms. Thunberg might be a teenager, but the people she consults with are highly knowledgeable and she is - obviously from what she says - a discerning intellect who is capable of making and presenting simple and powerful arguments which most people are not so capable of doing. That is why people listen to her. Not everyone gets to be invited to the WEF. Whatever you might think of it, the WEF is full of intellectually very impatient people whose attention you can't keep for long unless you have something worthwhile to say and can put it briefly.

Personally, I am really glad she is around. Just as I am concerning that other spectacular once-young talent Malala Yousafzai.

 climate science is far from settled.

We certainly agree on that.

www.aier.org/.../

Ah, yes. The people who organised the Great Barrington Declaration.

There is a parallel.

“There really isn't a problem. If you think there is, and that we as a society need to change our behaviour in some way, here are a bunch of impressively-titled people to tell you there really isn't and we really don't.”

In the case of Great Barrington, it was people claiming some kind of “herd immunity” which manifestly was present nowhere on earth. I take it that the suggestion here is that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to global warming is negligible? If there are arguments for that, why don't you give them? 

BTW, the argument for engaging in countermeasures to global warming does not solely depend on whether or not anthropogenic CO2 is helping warm the biosphere or not. 

Peter Bernard Ladkin: 
 

 

Inter-glacial warmings are known to be cyclical, usually 10000 to 15000 years, Ours is 11000 years, so we can expect cooling at any time from now. This knowledge is gained form Antarctica Ice Core samples.

Have any of those core samples shown evidence of a 3° rise in 200 years or less?

Personally No, but the facts presented by Parker 1992; CO2: Boden 2016 show that warming began 200 years before man made any significant contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere. Warming being about 1.5 degrees since 1650

[PBL] Have any of those core samples shown evidence of a 3° rise in 200 years or les

[JS] Personally No, but the facts presented by Parker 1992; CO2: Boden 2016 show that warming began 200 years before man made any significant contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere. Warming being about 1.5 degrees since 1650

I take it Parker 1992 is the Central England Temperature (CET) study, CET being as far as I know the longest recorded surface temperature series, from 1659. Various further studies from Stott seem to show that CET actually shows an anthropogenic rise since about 1950. The studies use a global-climate model to estimate the natural variability. https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl.136

This paper is open-access. Parker 1992 is not.

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
"As a rhetorical measure, inviting people to watch a one-hour video and criticise it is not very persuasive. Why don't you summarise the arguments for us in, say, a five-minute read?"

Thank you for that kind offer, but I doubt whether such extensive summary coming from me would make a difference among the believers; the best way for educated people is to listen to the arguments and have them processed within own brain to decide whether they are convincing or not. I can provide some of the key statements of Dr. Hayden's presentation, though:

Doubling of atmospheric CO2 will add to GHG radiative forcing about 3.5 W/m2 =  2.2% increase, just a nudge! Surface will radiate 401.5 W/m2 instead of the current 398 W/m2, causing additional warming of 0.75 degC or 0.6 degC according to Stefan-Boltzmann law. 4x positive-feedback amplification (heat causing heat) is not plausible, "tipping points" have not occurred. It is widely accepted that Milankovitch cycles have caused temperature changes in recent 400kY timeframe before humans entered the stage, but there are no explanations anywhere about how do they influence atmospheric CO2 (/brains: on)?  

"If you are talking about people, and (I take it) criticising them for not being knowledgeable, then that is a prima facie case of an ad hominem argument. (It doesn't get much clearer than that.)"

I would humbly recommend to check the argumentum ad hominem definition. A friendly observation: in the context of this thread, one might suggest that bringing in certain Great Barrington Declaration is a classic example of an ad hominem argument - guilt by association.

"I take it that the suggestion here is that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to global warming is negligible? If there are arguments for that, why don't you give them? "

I had no intention to start debating the basics within this thread. Since I am not a scientist researching relevant topics, I can point you to the sources for such information - for instance, here one can find pointers to climate research and media articles form both the "realist" and "orthodox" lairs, summarized on the weekly basis:

sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

The only "weekend research" I performed myself was checking the atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement data from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa to see whether the COVID-19 related significant reduction in output of anthropogenic CO2 in early 2020 shows up on monthly changes. Nothing remarkable in comparison with earlier years; graph of 2016-2020 monthly changes is attached, giving a picture of how fast seasonal fluctuations are registered. Note the oulier 2016 - that was a strong El Nino year that boosted global temperature.

I would also remind the ClimateGate - these revelations had only short-lived positive effect on cleaning up the climate science but should not be forgotten:

www.forbes.com/.../ 
 

I see that the CET series is being mentioned.  

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

It shows some quite interesting things. 

Between 1700 and 1730 there is a rise of at least 1.5°C, was that due to manmade emissions?

From around 1950 to 1970 the temperature falls around 0.5°C. This produced the global cooling ‘crisis’. The CIA was sufficiently concerned to generate a report on the likely risks to global stability.

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

From around 1975-80 to 2000 there is a rise of around 1°C which launched the global warming crisis. After that the temperatures have remained fairly stable.

For more global look at the recent temperatures the GISSTEMP v4 shows a slow rise from 1995 up to 2015 followed by a slow drop.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

None of this looks like the infamous ‘Hockey stick’ of Dr Michael Mann or the temperature graph given in IPCC AR6.

It is interesting that the 1st IPCC report was quite happy with the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. They were later ‘homogenised’ out of existence because they didn’t agree with the models.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07-1.pdf

Now we just have scare mongering based on unvalidated computer models and extreme scenarios like RPC8.5.