Climate Change (was Bit of a lift on?)

[Spike]

Significant factors in climate change are:

The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity.

The change of the angle Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s
orbital plane, known as obliquity.

The change in the direction Earth’s axis of rotation, known as precession.

Milankovitch theorised that these cycles combined to control the glacial
cycles, and according to NASA this theory is widely accepted in the
scientific community.[1]

Apsidal precession, the rotation of the Earth’s elliptical orbit, is
another factor affecting climate change.

The Cosmic Ray flux affects the level of cloud cover, which in turn affects
insolation and therefore the climate.

The overall effect of changes in concentration of trace amounts of gasses
in the Earth’s atmosphere is negligible when compared to those of the
celestial forces mentioned.

[1] From
<https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/>

QUOTE

Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of
Milankovitch’s work, including research using data from ice cores in
Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch
cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his
work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences.

UNQUOTE

[Bob Latham]

The shape of Earth‘s orbit, known as eccentricity.
The change of the angle Earth‘s axis is tilted with respect to
Earth‘s orbital plane, known as obliquity.
The change in the direction Earth‘s axis of rotation, known as
precession.
Milankovitch theorised that these cycles combined to control the
glacial cycles, and according to NASA this theory is widely
accepted in the scientific community.[1]
Apsidal precession, the rotation of the Earth‘s elliptical orbit,
is another factor affecting climate change.
The Cosmic Ray flux affects the level of cloud cover, which in turn
affects insolation and therefore the climate.
The overall effect of changes in concentration of trace amounts of
gasses in the Earth‘s atmosphere is negligible when compared to
those of the celestial forces mentioned.
[1] From
<https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/>
QUOTE
Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of
Milankovitch‘s work, including research using data from ice cores
in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of
Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years.
In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research
Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
UNQUOTE

100% rational, provable and correct, science as it should be.

Nobel Prize winner for Physics John Clauser summarized it as - the
effect of CO2 is trivial compared to clouds and climate science is
appalling.

The only places CO2 driven climate change has *ever* existed is in
wrong assumption computer models and the minds of activists.

There is a huge amount of data from the USA that shows temperatures
prior to 1940 were far hotter than they are now and in Australia all
their top temperature records were before 1910. Not just peak
temperature either, heat wave durations were longer too. Corrupt
authorities trying to hide these facts.

Two small points to add.

1. Urban heat island effects lead to incorrect temperature data which
is ignored by the guilty wherever possible for obvious reasons.

2. The Climate Scam pushers keep talking about Venus as an example of
runaway green house heating. Pure propaganda, nonsense and fear porn
again!
Venus is very hot around 900F hot. Nothing what so ever to do with
it's 97% CO2 atmosphere and not much to do with being closer to the
sun either. Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere yet it is very cold.

Mars Earth Venus
CO2 95% 0.04% 97%
Temp -80F 60F 900F
Pres 0.007A 1A 92A


The Reason it is so hot on Venus is v. high Pressure !
The reason it is so cold on Mars is v. low Pressure !
The reason Jupiter's lower atmosphere is nearly as hot as the sun and
yet it is so far from the sun is ....... Pressure.

The greenhouse model doesn't apply to Venus because it is covered in
very dense thick clouds. The sun doesn't warm the ground and rise up
and no cooling at night as in the GHG model, it doesn't get that far.
It is always extremely hot on Venus.

You doubt me? Why is Death Valley (282ft below sea level) largely
considered to be the hottest place on Earth and it's not on the
equator ?
Pressure !


Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Spike
Milankovitch theorised that these cycles combined to control the
glacial cycles, and according to NASA this theory is widely accepted
in the scientific community.[1]

100% rational, provable and correct, science as it should be.

Dealt with in the book I keep suggesting you real.

Post by Bob Latham
2. The Climate Scam pushers keep talking about Venus as an example of
runaway green house heating. Pure propaganda, nonsense and fear porn
again! Venus is very hot around 900F hot. Nothing what so ever to do
with it's 97% CO2 atmosphere and not much to do with being closer to the
sun either. Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere yet it is very cold.
Mars Earth Venus CO2 95% 0.04% 97% Temp
-80F 60F 900F Pres 0.007A 1A 92A

Ah! The magic "Two Point paper" again.

Did you not understand how that data was cherry-picked to fit the line? Or
is your memory fading these days?

I chose Saturn and Titan as further data points. *Neither* fit the above
straight-line fit.

Oddly, for some reason the author of the above paper ignored them. I can
understand him being cautious about Uranus and Neptune, though, as our data
for them was a bit iffy at the time. May be better now, not checked. One
inconvenient fact shot down your pet theory. Two just was 'double tap'. 8-]

So your faith is still founded on sand rather than vapour. :-)

The paper was published in a 'journal' (sic) that simply prints whatever
the author pays to have published. The only 'merit' it has for the
publisher is the payment for putting up a web page.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
2. The Climate Scam pushers keep talking about Venus as an
example of runaway green house heating. Pure propaganda, nonsense
and fear porn again! Venus is very hot around 900F hot. Nothing
what so ever to do with it's 97% CO2 atmosphere and not much to
do with being closer to the sun either. Mars has a 95% CO2
atmosphere yet it is very cold.
Mars Earth Venus
CO2 95% 0.04% 97%
Temp -80F 60F 900F
Pres 0.007A 1A 92A

Ah! The magic "Two Point paper" again.

Is it, sorry I really had no idea that's what your were referring to.

Post by Jim Lesurf
Did you not understand how that data was cherry-picked to fit the
line? Or is your memory fading these days?

Don't know, don't care.

It's hot on Venus because of the pressure not CO2 that's a fact.


Bob.

[Bob Latham]

In article <***@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <***@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:


Let Tony teach you some basic science. Why it's hot on Venus. It's an
old video but still correct.

Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham
Let Tony teach you some basic science. Why it's hot on Venus. It's an
old video but still correct.
http://youtu.be/0WcVGXA6Lr8
Bob.

TBH I don't tend to use YT.[1] But IIUC it isn't a refereed science journal
and anyone can post anything they fancy, perhaps to make money from
eyeballs. And as PTB said: "One Born Every Minute". :-)

If keen to learn the 'basic science' I can suggest a book. :-)

Jim

[1] OK, I did use it a few year ago to get copies of a load of "V-Discs"
which contain some great jazz, etc. Good stuff. And the RVW Soc have put
up some nice music videos, etc, I'd recommend if you like that sort od
music. I'd particularly recommend the ones of RVW's works transcribed for a
Brass Band.

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
Let Tony teach you some basic science. Why it's hot on Venus. It's an
old video but still correct.
http://youtu.be/0WcVGXA6Lr8
Bob.

TBH I don't tend to use YT.[1] But IIUC it isn't a refereed science
journal and anyone can post anything they fancy, perhaps to make
money from eyeballs. And as PTB said: "One Born Every Minute". :-)

Right so I have to read a boor but you can't watch a 5 minute video.
Pot, kettle hypocrite Jim? Never.


Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Jim Lesurf
TBH I don't tend to use YT.[1] But IIUC it isn't a refereed science
journal and anyone can post anything they fancy, perhaps to make money
from eyeballs. And as PTB said: "One Born Every Minute". :-)

Right so I have to read a boor but you can't watch a 5 minute video.
Pot, kettle hypocrite Jim? Never.

Erm, I don't use YT, Twerper, etc.[1]

I *do* read books on science and technology, though. Also various journals
that can be regarded as relable. e.g. I'm a 'lifer' with the IEEEE. Some of
the articles and papers they publish bear on these issues. (And I think
non-members can read some of the overviews that appear in 'Spectrum' the
IEEE's general journal.)

I can't say I've ever read a boor. But I have read the book you are
terrified of reading, along with various others. And do tend to read the
dribble you post here.

As an aside I can also perhaps add a comment:

I did tend as a working scientist/injuneer to focus on Metrology. (Not
Meteorology!) And thus my 'speciality' was in being able to make improved
measurements and improving scientific knowledge via that fundamental means.
Found that background useful when looking at papers, etc, which may be
relevant to climate research.

Part of that meant being sometimes able to spot when a claimed measurement
was suspect, and thus meant an author's conclusions might be shaky.It isn't
unusual for the content of an individual report/anaysls to be flawed.
That's why others check them and duly point out when something is
dodgy... like Bob's famed two-pointer. Cherry-picked and simplistic.
only needed one or two more data points to show it was unsound as
'support' for Bob's Beliefs.

Jim

[1] OK, I did use a YT downloader to get a lot of (audio) V-Discs and
some test files for the RVW Soc. But otherwise have not bothered with
it.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
2. The Climate Scam pushers keep talking about Venus as an
example of runaway green house heating. Pure propaganda, nonsense
and fear porn again! Venus is very hot around 900F hot. Nothing
what so ever to do with it's 97% CO2 atmosphere and not much to
do with being closer to the sun either. Mars has a 95% CO2
atmosphere yet it is very cold.
Mars Earth Venus
CO2 95% 0.04% 97%
Temp -80F 60F 900F
Pres 0.007A 1A 92A

Ah! The magic "Two Point paper" again.

Is it, sorry I really had no idea that's what your were referring to.

Post by Jim Lesurf
Did you not understand how that data was cherry-picked to fit the
line? Or is your memory fading these days?

Don't know, don't care.

Sadly, that last line sums up neatly your approach to the actual science
and what it indicates.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
2. The Climate Scam pushers keep talking about Venus as an
example of runaway green house heating. Pure propaganda, nonsense
and fear porn again! Venus is very hot around 900F hot. Nothing
what so ever to do with it's 97% CO2 atmosphere and not much to
do with being closer to the sun either. Mars has a 95% CO2
atmosphere yet it is very cold.
Mars Earth Venus
CO2 95% 0.04% 97%
Temp -80F 60F 900F
Pres 0.007A 1A 92A

Ah! The magic "Two Point paper" again.

Is it, sorry I really had no idea that's what your were referring to.

Post by Jim Lesurf
Did you not understand how that data was cherry-picked to fit
the line? Or is your memory fading these days?

Don't know, don't care.

Sadly, that last line sums up neatly your approach to the actual
science and what it indicates.

:-)
<smile>

Why is it very hot on Venus Jim?

Are you indoctrinated enough, moronic enough to think it's CO2?
Or nearly as mad, proximity to the sun?

Or do you still have some common sense and rationality left and you
understand it's the pressure.?


Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham
:-)
<smile>
Why is it very hot on Venus Jim?
Are you indoctrinated enough, moronic enough to think it's CO2? Or
nearly as mad, proximity to the sun?
Or do you still have some common sense and rationality left and you
understand it's the pressure.?

Pressure is *one* factor/variable. *There are others*. (plural.) This
is why your two-point-paper falls down as soon as you start adding other
examples from measurements on other planets/moons.

The author of the paper 'cherry picked' a few data points that fit his
thesis. I just did what a standard 'referee' would do. i.e. an academic
astrophyscist would look up the equivelent data for a few other 'planetary
bodies' to see if they confirmed or conflicted with the claim made in
the paper... However, they conflict. Thus the paper cherry picks data to
fit what they want to 'discover'. It's a crock.

FWIW I worked for years on developing observational receivers, data
analysis, etc, for Astrophysicists. Atmospheric dynamics are far more
complex than the sour cherry pretends.

BTW people may find "Alien Earths" by Lisa Kaltenegger worth a read.

It is in large part an auto-biog which people may not be interested in.
But it gives an overview of modern developments that are letting us observe
hundreds - if not thousands, or evenetually millions! - of planets. IIRC
There was also something on this in 'New Scientist' a short time ago.

More data points to mess up the 'two point paper's simplistic clames...
8-]

Maybe you *could* read that book, Bob. No hard sums. :-) But far less
variety of evidence and analysis and references than is provided by the
book on CC I recommend.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
:-)
<smile>
Why is it very hot on Venus Jim?
Are you indoctrinated enough, moronic enough to think it's CO2?
Or nearly as mad, proximity to the sun?
Or do you still have some common sense and rationality left and
you understand it's the pressure.?

Pressure is *one* factor/variable. *There are others*. (plural.)
This is why your two-point-paper falls down as soon as you start
adding other examples from measurements on other planets/moons.
The author of the paper 'cherry picked' a few data points that fit
his thesis.

It is blindingly obvious that for planets from Venus out to Jupiter
in the goldilocks zone that the ONLY factor that gives any indication
of surface or lower atmosphere temperatures is pressure.

It is also clear that knowing the gases in the planet's atmosphere is
of no use what-so-ever for predicting temperature.

Shame you can't admit this.

As for your hatred of a man who writes a paper killing your CO2
crisis scam, it looks to me that he's done a good job and I bet he's
very near the mark on a formula for planetary temperatures.

Pressure, TSI, clouds. The rest is not significant.
Sorry to state again the bleedin' obvious.

Cheers,

Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

It is blindingly obvious that for planets from Venus out to Jupiter in
the goldilocks zone that the ONLY factor that gives any indication of
surface or lower atmosphere temperatures is pressure.

Your assertion simply shows your wilful ignorance. :-)

Two examples.

1) "Planetary bodies" doesn't simply mean "planets", nor, indeed these days
only the ones going around the same star as The Earth!

The data for at least one of the other planetary bodies in the Solar System
does NOT fit the claims made in paper - which seems to be the only one
you've ever even read - although clearly, not understood!

Your repeated tries as waving this 'paper' as being evidence for your rigid
faith simply shows the failings of what you are determined to believe.

Working scientists would have taken a different course to yours. They would
have looked for data that *conflicts* with its claims and methods... and
found them in this case.

The outcome for you is that your repetitive attempts keep exposing your
wilful ignorance.

As does you flat refusal to read the book I suggested which contains
literally *hundreds* of references to *all* aspects of processes that
affect climate, and others cross-checking them, data, etc. Plus giving the
overall context of how knowleged has developed and new results are obtained
from other sources, etc. As that happens, the details change but the basic
process remains clear. Our activity is changing the planet's atmosphere and
causing warming, etc.

Wiriting this mostly for others who may be willing to consider it, and
avoid falling for your magical faith in your sour cherry 'paper' in a
journal that publishes if you pay, regardless of if the content is dribble.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

It is blindingly obvious that for planets from Venus out to Jupiter in
the goldilocks zone that the ONLY factor that gives any indication of
surface or lower atmosphere temperatures is pressure.

Your assertion simply shows your wilful ignorance. :-)
Two examples.
1) "Planetary bodies" doesn't simply mean "planets", nor, indeed
these days only the ones going around the same star as The Earth!
The data for at least one of the other planetary bodies in the
Solar System does NOT fit the claims made in paper - which seems to
be the only one you've ever even read - although clearly, not
understood!
Your repeated tries as waving this 'paper' as being evidence for
your rigid faith simply shows the failings of what you are
determined to believe.
Working scientists would have taken a different course to yours.
They would have looked for data that *conflicts* with its claims
and methods... and found them in this case.
The outcome for you is that your repetitive attempts keep exposing
your wilful ignorance.
As does you flat refusal to read the book I suggested which
contains literally *hundreds* of references to *all* aspects of
processes that affect climate, and others cross-checking them,
data, etc. Plus giving the overall context of how knowleged has
developed and new results are obtained from other sources, etc. As
that happens, the details change but the basic process remains
clear. Our activity is changing the planet's atmosphere and causing
warming, etc.
Wiriting this mostly for others who may be willing to consider it,
and avoid falling for your magical faith in your sour cherry
'paper' in a journal that publishes if you pay, regardless of if
the content is dribble.

So basically, you can't argue with the common sense that Venus is hot
because of the pressure so you'll attack the messenger with calls to
authority, snobery and personal attack.

But you know why it's hot on Venus and you know that it's got nothing
to do with CO2 assuming that is that you're not a full on idiot.

I'm not particularly waving the paper, what I think is that it makes
obvious sense, far more that the absurd notion that the atmospheric
gases have anything more that a trivial effect.

Bob.

[Vir Campestris]

On 30/08/2024 11:45, Bob Latham wrote:
<snip>

Post by Bob Latham
It is blindingly obvious that for planets from Venus out to Jupiter
in the goldilocks zone that the ONLY factor that gives any indication
of surface or lower atmosphere temperatures is pressure.

</snip>

What do you regard as being the surface of Jupiter?

Andy

[Bob Latham]

Post by Vir Campestris
<snip>

Post by Bob Latham
It is blindingly obvious that for planets from Venus out to
Jupiter in the goldilocks zone that the ONLY factor that gives
any indication of surface or lower atmosphere temperatures is
pressure.

</snip>
What do you regard as being the surface of Jupiter?

You've actually quoted my answer above.

surface or lower atmosphere temperatures.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That exactly why those words are included.

Jupiter is by far the furthest away from the sun of the group and the
Lower atmosphere temperatures are similar to the surface of the sun.

NOT the so called green house effect, it's pressure.

Bob.

[Spike]

[…]

Post by Bob Latham
2. The Climate Scam pushers keep talking about Venus as an example of
runaway green house heating. Pure propaganda, nonsense and fear porn
again!
Venus is very hot around 900F hot. Nothing what so ever to do with
it's 97% CO2 atmosphere and not much to do with being closer to the
sun either. Mars has a 95% CO2 atmosphere yet it is very cold.

[…]

Perhaps those who believe in CO2-led global warming and who use the planet
Venus as an example, might demonstrate why the planet is just as hot on its
night side as the the day side - because this does not conform to NASA’s
description of the greenhouse effect.

The point being that something else is the cause of the temperature on
Venus, that might negate the use of the planet as an exemplar of CO2-led
planetary warming.

I can think of one possible contributor, but would like to get the
scientific view from a warmist.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Spike
Perhaps those who believe in CO2-led global warming and who use the
planet Venus as an example, might demonstrate why the planet is just as
hot on its night side as the the day side - because this does not
conform to NASA's description of the greenhouse effect.
The point being that something else is the cause of the temperature on
Venus, that might negate the use of the planet as an exemplar of CO2-led
planetary warming.
I can think of one possible contributor, but would like to get the
scientific view from a warmist.

The 'science' is to the effect that there are many variables when you go
from one planet to another. This is one of the reasons that Bob's "two
point paper" is dribble.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf
The 'science' is to the effect that there are many variables when
you go from one planet to another. This is one of the reasons that
Bob's "two point paper" is dribble.

And yet atmospheric pressure is by far the most useful predictor of
surface or low atmosphere temperatures.

Bob.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Jim Lesurf
The 'science' is to the effect that there are many variables when you
go from one planet to another. This is one of the reasons that Bob's
"two point paper" is dribble.

And yet atmospheric pressure is by far the most useful predictor of
surface or low atmosphere temperatures.

But not of the real process of climate change.

Yes, a car needs tyres, but changing other aspects of its design or use may
affect peformance.

To get a better understanding you'd need to read the book I recommend.

Jim

[Bob Latham]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Bob Latham
And yet atmospheric pressure is by far the most useful predictor
of surface or low atmosphere temperatures.

But not of the real process of climate change.

Nice attempt at deflection but the truth remains. Atmospheric gasses
and the ridiculous named 'green house effect' are trivial at most and
may have no effect at all.

Pressure, TSI and clouds on the other hand.

But that truth doesn't help with political ideology and goals though
does it. After all, we're not going to go world communist to lower
atmospheric pressure.

Green houses work by restricting air movement.


Bob.

[charles]

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Jim Lesurf
The 'science' is to the effect that there are many variables when
you go from one planet to another. This is one of the reasons that
Bob's "two point paper" is dribble.

And yet atmospheric pressure is by far the most useful predictor of
surface or low atmosphere temperatures.
Bob.

On THIS planet

[Bob Latham]

Post by charles

Post by Bob Latham

Post by Jim Lesurf
The 'science' is to the effect that there are many variables
when you go from one planet to another. This is one of the
reasons that Bob's "two point paper" is dribble.

And yet atmospheric pressure is by far the most useful predictor
of surface or low atmosphere temperatures.
Bob.

On THIS planet

Yes, this planet, Venus, Mars and Jupiter. Atmospheric pressure is
the only indicator that's of any use. Not distance from the sun and
certainly not atmosphere gases.

Bob.

[Clive Page]

Post by Spike
[1] From
<https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/>

Thanks for that reference. At the bottom it has another link entitled
"Further Reading: Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming"

Enough said.

[Spike]

Post by Clive Page

Post by Spike
[1] From
<https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/>

Thanks for that reference. At the bottom it has another link entitled
"Further Reading: Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming"
Enough said.

All you need to do now is note NASA’s careful choice of words in that
‘Earth’s current warming’ does not necessarily equal Climate Change.

Indeed, the Further Reading you mention includes this:

QUOTE
[Milankovitch Cycles] cannot account for the current period of rapid
warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period
between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th century.
UNQUOTE

…which shows very clearly that NASA is talking about two different things,
which are a) the occurrence of glaciation cycles, which Milankovitch
explains, and b) the alleged current warming phase (which is in dispute).

You appear to have fallen into the trap of confusing the two, which was
doubtless NASA’s intention.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Clive Page

Post by Spike
[1] From
<https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/>

Thanks for that reference. At the bottom it has another link entitled
"Further Reading: Why Milankovitch Cycles Can't Explain Earth's
Current Warming"
Enough said.

All you need to do now is note NASA's careful choice of words in that
'Earth's current warming' does not necessarily equal Climate Change.
QUOTE [Milankovitch Cycles] cannot account for the current period of
rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the
period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th
century. UNQUOTE

Anyone interested in this general topic really should find and read a copy
of

The Human Planet by Lewis and Maslin
Pelican Paperback

It outlines and explains, with the relevant data and source references, how
different ideas have been investigated, along with their various effects,
timescales, etc. That then enables the reader to spot when something has
been misunderstood, taken out of context, or its impact on the reality of
human climate change misrepresented.

Things like the above included, along with references to data, etc.

If you want to have a reliable 'opinion' on this topic, you need to know
what it says to get the full basis of current science.

Jim

[Spike]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Clive Page

Post by Spike
[1] From
<https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/>

Thanks for that reference. At the bottom it has another link entitled
"Further Reading: Why Milankovitch Cycles Can't Explain Earth's
Current Warming"
Enough said.

All you need to do now is note NASA's careful choice of words in that
'Earth's current warming' does not necessarily equal Climate Change.
QUOTE [Milankovitch Cycles] cannot account for the current period of
rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the
period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th
century. UNQUOTE

[…]
Anyone interested in this general topic really should find and read a copy
of
The Human Planet by Lewis and Maslin
Pelican Paperback
It outlines and explains, with the relevant data and source references, how
different ideas have been investigated, along with their various effects,
timescales, etc. That then enables the reader to spot when something has
been misunderstood, taken out of context, or its impact on the reality of
human climate change misrepresented.
Things like the above included, along with references to data, etc.
If you want to have a reliable 'opinion' on this topic, you need to know
what it says to get the full basis of current science.
Jim

Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately I have three other books to read (not
on global warming) in the queue so can only add this to the list.

However, I have glanced over the reviews. I found a comprehensive one by
Niki Jaakkola to be readable. Permit me to quote a short passage from this
particular review:

QUOTE The debate over the Anthropocene is, ultimately, a political decision
-- an attempt to influence current political debates -- and about putting a
veneer of scientific respectability on this attempt. Sadly, even this
veneer cracks when the authors turn to their analysis of the economics of
global change. To be brief, they paint an extremely broad-brush synthesis
of the evolution of human societies, from hunter-gatherer societies, via
farming, mercantile capitalism and the like, to the current stage which
they call 'consumer capitalism'. The reader wonders, when this last stage
and its associated acceleration of environmental problems is discussed, how
the authors square their analysis with the fact that communist countries
had, if anything, even greater harmful impacts on the environment than
their counterparts in the West. This is clarified in an endnote, in which
the authors argue -- without a hint of irony or self-awareness -- that they
actually classify communism as part of 'consumer capitalism'. The veil has
fallen off: surely 'capitalism', as used by Lewis and Maslin, has lost any
meaning at all. The authors are so desperate to stick to a Marxist economic
analysis, in which societal defects can be pinned on something called
'capitalism', that they have to contort the meaning of the term beyond
recognition for the conceptual framework to agree with empirical reality.
UNQUOTE

I had expected to encounter shades of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, as with
much of the ‘correct’ warming narrative, to lie behind the book’s
raison-d’être, and this review seems to support that view.

I would need a little persuading of the presence of some other
characteristic of the book that would make it a ‘must read’. A question
posed by Jaakkola is interesting: “…how did we get from the Cambrian
explosion half a billion years ago to half-baked arguments for universal
basic income?”.

This author (AcuVox) seems to be arguing for the normalisation of poverty:
“The reality is that concentration of wealth is unsustainable - all
bottlenecks and tollbooths that enable excess income lead to planetary
destruction and near or complete human extinction”.

I can recall seeing London in ruins, going shopping daily with ration
books, and living in what is now fashionably termed ‘15 minute cities’,
while bicycling everywhere, and being bl**dy cold in winter. I don’t want
to see that style of living return for my successors, on the basis that
there was some unexplained bucolic period in the human past to which we
should be forced to return.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Spike

Post by Jim Lesurf
Anyone interested in this general topic really should find and read a
copy of
The Human Planet by Lewis and Maslin Pelican Paperback

Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately I have three other books to read
(not on global warming) in the queue so can only add this to the list.
However, I have glanced over the reviews. I found a comprehensive one by
Niki Jaakkola to be readable. Permit me to quote a short passage from
QUOTE The debate over the Anthropocene is, ultimately, a political
decision -- an attempt to influence current political debates -- and
about putting a veneer of scientific respectability on this attempt.

Odd use of "veneer" if the "review" is meant to be about the science.

Post by Spike
Sadly, even this veneer cracks when the authors turn to their analysis
of the economics of global change. To be brief, they paint an extremely
broad-brush synthesis of the evolution of human societies, from
hunter-gatherer societies, via farming, mercantile capitalism and the
like, to the current stage which they call 'consumer capitalism'.

In addition the give *hundreds* of references to the data, etc, that is the
basis of what they explain.

Post by Spike
The
reader wonders, when this last stage and its associated acceleration of
environmental problems is discussed, how the authors square their
analysis with the fact that communist countries had, if anything, even
greater harmful impacts on the environment than their counterparts in
the West. This is clarified in an endnote, in which the authors argue --
without a hint of irony or self-awareness -- that they actually classify
surely 'capitalism', as used by Lewis and Maslin, has lost any meaning
at all. The authors are so desperate to stick to a Marxist economic
analysis, in which societal defects can be pinned on something called
'capitalism', that they have to contort the meaning of the term beyond
recognition for the conceptual framework to agree with empirical
reality. UNQUOTE

That's really an argument about sociology, not about the evidence on
climate change. Politics, not science.

Post by Spike
I can recall seeing London in ruins, going shopping daily with ration
books, and living in what is now fashionably termed '15 minute cities',
while bicycling everywhere, and being bl**dy cold in winter. I don't
want to see that style of living return for my successors, on the basis
that there was some unexplained bucolic period in the human past to
which we should be forced to return.

I also recall such times. e.g. waking up one morning at home and seeing
snow *inside* my bedroom window where it had blown in though the gaps
overnight.

I also recall once looking across our living room and seeing the air in the
room was tinted yellow. This was during the 'smogs' we had in London.

However beyond the smog being pollition, neither has much relevance to the
reality of the climate changes we are causing. Although if you want to
argue politics I''d agree that;

1) Putin's regeme (and the Chinese, and some 'developing' countries) areg
generating a lot of CO2 as well as seeing the effects of climate change.

2) Thus this isn't really about what kind of left/right labels you stick on
a given country's 'politics'. It is about what they do in terms of
affecting climate.

Indeed, the contrary view can be that the ultra-wealthy who make their
wealth from fossil fules have a strong 'political' interest encouraging
causes of climate change... once you understand what it does - which stems
from the science. So I fear your 'reviewer' is a bit muddled about that, or
perhaps has his own non-scientific axe to grind.

IIUC from a brief check he seems to be an "ass. prof" in Economics, but
I've not yet seen any info about his background in science.

Given that conventional economics is dribble, that is interesting. I
wonder what he makes of Steve Keen or Mazzucatto, or Ha-Noon Chang's
work on economics which shoot holes into the 'established' (sic)
neo-liberal economics...


Jim

[Spike]

Anyone interested in this general topic really should find and read a copy of
The Human Planet by Lewis and Maslin
Pelican Paperback
It outlines and explains, with the relevant data and source references, how
different ideas have been investigated, along with their various effects,
timescales, etc. That then enables the reader to spot when something has
been misunderstood, taken out of context, or its impact on the reality of
human climate change misrepresented.
If you want to have a reliable 'opinion' on this topic, you need to know
what it says to get the full basis of current science.

Simon Lewis is a plant ecologist by training.

Mark Maslin BSc, PhD, FRGS, FRSA, is a Professor of Earth System Science at
UCL and the Natura History Museum of Denmark. He is also a Strategy Advisor
to Lansons, Net Zero Now, Sheep Inc. and a CSR Board member of Sopra
Steria.

So one author studied plants, and the other advises on ‘net zero’.

I get the strong impression that these two have jumped on Fogwill’s
‘anthropocene’ bandwagon, for reasons one can only guess. And, in the
manner that the single Yamal bristlecone pine begat the discredited hockey
stick, data from a single tree was used to form the start of the apparent
new geological era.

From a personal viewpoint, not people I would turn to regarding the
science that supports the climate change narrative.

[Jim Lesurf]

Post by Spike

Anyone interested in this general topic really should find and read a copy of
The Human Planet by Lewis and Maslin Pelican Paperback
It outlines and explains, with the relevant data and source
references, how different ideas have been investigated, along with
their various effects, timescales, etc. That then enables the reader
to spot when something has been misunderstood, taken out of context,
or its impact on the reality of human climate change misrepresented.
If you want to have a reliable 'opinion' on this topic, you need to
know what it says to get the full basis of current science.

Simon Lewis is a plant ecologist by training.
Mark Maslin BSc, PhD, FRGS, FRSA, is a Professor of Earth System Science
at UCL and the Natura History Museum of Denmark. He is also a Strategy
Advisor to Lansons, Net Zero Now, Sheep Inc. and a CSR Board member of
Sopra Steria.
So one author studied plants, and the other advises on 'net zero'.

Given that you dismiss their abilities so swiftly, maybe you could give
some details of your own background in relevant sciences?

Post by Spike
I get the strong impression that these two have jumped on Fogwill's
'anthropocene' bandwagon, for reasons one can only guess. And, in the
manner that the single Yamal bristlecone pine begat the discredited
hockey stick, data from a single tree was used to form the start of the
apparent new geological era.
From a personal viewpoint, not people I would turn to regarding the
science that supports the climate change narrative.

However to help decide if your "impression" is true you'd need to read the
book and follow up the references it provides. Not just "get a strong
impression" based on a personal view one person, and then refuse to read
the book, or investigate the work given via the many primary papers it
references. What matters is the science, not views on an individual.
Without that, what you write is just "go for the man, not the ball".

Jim

[Spike]

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Spike

Post by Jim Lesurf
Anyone interested in this general topic really should find and read a
copy of The Human Planet by Lewis and Maslin Pelican Paperback
It outlines and explains, with the relevant data and source references,
how different ideas have been investigated, along with their various
effects, timescales, etc. That then enables the reader to spot when
something has been misunderstood, taken out of context, or its impact
on the reality of human climate change misrepresented.
If you want to have a reliable 'opinion' on this topic, you need to
know what it says to get the full basis of current science.

Simon Lewis is a plant ecologist by training.
Mark Maslin BSc, PhD, FRGS, FRSA, is a Professor of Earth System Science
at UCL and the Natura History Museum of Denmark. He is also a Strategy
Advisor to Lansons, Net Zero Now, Sheep Inc. and a CSR Board member of Sopra Steria.
So one author studied plants, and the other advises on 'net zero'.

Given that you dismiss their abilities so swiftly, maybe you could give
some details of your own background in relevant sciences?

I’m sorry to have to say that your response appears to be predicated on the
usual dismissal offered by the ‘climate change’ lobby to anyone who
challenges their narrative: “But (he or she) isn’t a climate scientist!” is
the standard refrain, while totally ignoring those (perhaps 97%, a famous
number in climate-scientist circles) so-called climate scientists who
aren’t climate scientists either, but have merely jumped on the well-paid
gravy train.

Post by Jim Lesurf

Post by Spike
I get the strong impression that these two have jumped on Fogwill's
'anthropocene' bandwagon, for reasons one can only guess at. And, in the
manner that the single Yamal bristlecone pine begat the discredited
hockey stick, data from a single tree was used to form the start of the
apparent new geological era.
From a personal viewpoint, not people I would turn to regarding the
science that supports the climate change narrative.

However to help decide if your "impression" is true you'd need to read
the book and follow up the references it provides. Not just "get a strong
impression" based on a personal view one person…

For the sake of accuracy, I mentioned two reviewers, not just one, and it
doesn’t take much of a leap of the imagination to guess that I read others
as well.

Post by Jim Lesurf
…and then refuse to read the book, or investigate the work given via the
many primary papers it references. What matters is the science, not views on an individual.

If what matters is ‘the science’, why is so much of the book political and
speculative in nature? Why did not these two authors just keep to the
science? Whatever has a Universal Income got to do with the science?

Post by Jim Lesurf
Without that, what you write is just "go for the man, not the ball".

Actually, I’m going for the claptrap. And I dismiss the authors on exactly
the same grounds that climate believers dismiss those scientists that speak
against the warmist narrative. And it’s clear the former don’t like it up
‘em.

The fact that a significant part of the book is founded on a political
narrative itself resting on the results from a single tree - just like
happened in the infamous and discredited hockey-stick era! - is enough to
dismiss the book. Science is science, politics is politics, and the gravy
train is irresistible to some.

I’m afraid there is nothing that you have mentioned that would encourage me
to spend many hours “…read[ing] the book and follow[ing] up the references
it provides”. It’s essentially a political narrative, and apparently a poor
one at that.

[JMB99]

Post by Spike
I’m sorry to have to say that your response appears to be predicated on the
usual dismissal offered by the ‘climate change’ lobby to anyone who
challenges their narrative: “But (he or she) isn’t a climate scientist!” is
the standard refrain, while totally ignoring those (perhaps 97%, a famous
number in climate-scientist circles) so-called climate scientists who
aren’t climate scientists either, but have merely jumped on the well-paid
gravy train.

Many are not even scientists, always worth looking up the background of
the 'experts' who appear regularly on TV, you often find they are
unqualified - bit the 'medical' experts asking questions at the COVID
press conferences.