Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
krunchkin said:
It just gets more and more insane. Everyone's going to be taking their summer beach holidays in Finland because the Med is going to be on fire apparently...
http://gu.com/p/4bemc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
This article is the biggest load of bhttp://gu.com/p/4bemc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
ks I've read in ages and funded by guess who, the European Commission. Time for out.
HtH
rolando said:
krunchkin said:
It just gets more and more insane. Everyone's going to be taking their summer beach holidays in Finland because the Med is going to be on fire apparently...
http://gu.com/p/4bemc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
This article is the biggest load of bhttp://gu.com/p/4bemc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
ks I've read in ages and funded by guess who, the European Commission. Time for out.plunker said:
You're going for SIZE (ooh the sun is very BIG and very HOT) but it's a bit wrong-headed. The satellite era has shown the 'solar constant' to be even more constant than previously conjectured so the 'brute force' angle is a dead duck. These days solar-climate hypotheses that rely on low-energy solar variables having large effects on the earth's temperature via secondary mechanisms (eg cloud formation) are the only game in town (so careful when implying small things can't have large effects in the case of CO2 
). Hope that helps with your 'conceptualizing'.
Of course - the sun has no effect that's why they are re-calibrating all the sun spot counts. ). Hope that helps with your 'conceptualizing'.Now I understand.
As I've said from day 1 - I refuse to admit that miniscule changes in CO2 levels has any impact on global temps.
It's only in the picture because it was put into the early models and then some bright spark figured out you could tax it.
That's my religion and I'm sticking to it
plunker said:
You're going for SIZE (ooh the sun is very BIG and very HOT) but it's a bit wrong-headed. The satellite era has shown the 'solar constant' to be even more constant than previously conjectured so the 'brute force' angle is a dead duck. These days solar-climate hypotheses that rely on low-energy solar variables having large effects on the earth's temperature via secondary mechanisms (eg cloud formation) are the only game in town (so careful when implying small things can't have large effects in the case of CO2 wink ). Hope that helps with your 'conceptualizing'.
Pure spin. There's nothing low energy about solar forcing. A small percentage of a very large quantity is still significant. All that without a mention of sunspot number
The above spin looks solely at what are held to be small changes in the large magnitude variable known as solar irradiance. NASA puts it well, with my emphasis.
NASA said:
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the Sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources"
Then there's the matter of detail in terms of components in solar radiation and the way they get hidden by talk of TSI (total solar irradiance):There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the Sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources"
NASA also said:
Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum.
At these high energy wavelengths the Sun’s output varies not by 0.1% but by 1000% and above. This variation in high energy radiation has pronounced effects on the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere. The above comment from NASA was the start (2013) of NASA's consideration of so-called Top Down effects, though PH considerations took place 2 years earlier, and before that in posts that are more difficult to find these days. The same persons in the contemporaneous past discussions of sunspot number were, amazingly, involved also in the 2011 PH solar UV exchanges. It's like déja vu all over again.
The above post from plumker with a commonly seen misdirection on solar irradiance also fails completely to take into account the solar eruptivity variable, which is also large, with a significant impact on climate. The eruptivity Svensmark and Bucha forcing mechanisms were also discussed in 2011 and earlier on PH. Rather than launch another attrition loop this sums up what's been going oon over time with regard to the two solar eruptivity forcings.
In 2011 and before then I said:
These have been posted on here for years and we're still waiting for the best scientists money can buy to wake up and catch up.
Immediately prior to Paris they're peddling backwards for The Cause.Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 13th August 17:51
What's next? It's no less pertinent this afternoon as Paris tick-tocks ever closer.
Attempts to erase data may or may not have been successful in the basic sense but it hasn't helped The Cause. The same Fail applies in other instances.
Attempt to erase global MWP & LIA - fail.
Attempt to hide the decline - fail.
Attempt to erase The Pause - fail.
Attempt to erase solar forcing - fail.
Attempt to erase...?
Is there anything remotely feasible left for political scientists to go for?
as Paris tick-tocks ever closer.Attempts to erase data may or may not have been successful in the basic sense but it hasn't helped The Cause. The same Fail applies in other instances.
Attempt to erase global MWP & LIA - fail.
Attempt to hide the decline - fail.
Attempt to erase The Pause - fail.
Attempt to erase solar forcing - fail.
Attempt to erase...?
Is there anything remotely feasible left for political scientists to go for?
Terminator X said:
turbobloke said:
Seemingly vanilla but immensely stupid - this last one comes with no prizes for guessing the mystic source.
"We no longer have a stationary climate"
Shirley you jest, the planet has remained un-changed climate wise over the last 4.5bn years has it not?"We no longer have a stationary climate"
TX.
Predictions from the faithful also included New York City being underwater by 2015. Ooops.
We're still expected to take these buffoons seriously.
Here's another belter. BBQs at the ready folks.
“It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers."
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007
Having the Met Office and the BBC together like that is sweet.
Then there's the spectacular Vinerism quote which needs no repetition.
“It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers."
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007
Having the Met Office and the BBC together like that is sweet.
Then there's the spectacular Vinerism quote which needs no repetition.
robinessex said:
TurboBloke, I recently e-mailed Private Eye re climate change becoming the biggest con and scandal ever. I think they need your help!
Beati Dogu said:
You wont get anywhere with them. They should have been eviscerating the scam since the beginning, but Ian Hislop is a bit of a believer I understand.
That's about the size of it. It would be futile unfortunately. For example:Christopher Booker said:
In conversationn one day with Ian Hislop I remarked casually how flimsy it seemed was much of the evidence behind the global warming scare, only to receive an almighty put-down to the effect that George Monbiot of The Guardian knew a great deal more about the subject than I did and that I should think twice before daring to challenge such an expert authority.
George Mouthbore isn't an expert. He just regurgitates what climate clowns proclaim, and publishes it. I've e-mailed him tons of stuff that throws the whole subject up in the air, and he ignores it. I admire Private Eye immensely, but I'm afraid on this subject, old Hislop is going to end up like one of his 'victims', of not having an objective, sceptical, open minded take on all. I'll then be able to tell him 'I told you so.' Pity he's picked the biggest scandal of them all to fall flat on his face.
http://www.winterhighland.info/general/
Winterhighland said:
Perhaps not that surprising there's even more snow left than last year given Meteorological Summer arrived with new snow lying to below 2000ft and more significant accumulations and fresh drifting at higher elevations with the first day of June delivering high level blizzards. Indeed snow fell for several days at the start of the month, and even on Thursday 18th there was snow showers at the top of Meall a' Bhuiridh.
cf VinerThe Obama administration has awarded an $8m grsnt to stufy the impact of climate change on indoor air quality. EPA defends the move. Money well spent
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-administration-spe...
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-administration-spe...
Trenberth aka Sore Paws aka Heidi Hiatus (weekends) says ‘Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends’ as we reach The Pause excuse number thirty- ... forty- ... in all the excitement it's not easy to recall just what number we're up to at the moment.
This is an excuse like all the rest and designed to get a headline that may placate the less thoughtful believer, but given that manmade effects are - as Trenberth says - invisibly small, the only visible features will be natural. Whatever happened to carbon dioxide's clear dominance? Don't ask.
Watts spotted something was amiss as outlined above after taking a break from Leif Lauding: "This typical climate lame-o press release (where getting the PR is more important than the paper itself) gives an incomplete citation..."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excu...
This is an excuse like all the rest and designed to get a headline that may placate the less thoughtful believer, but given that manmade effects are - as Trenberth says - invisibly small, the only visible features will be natural. Whatever happened to carbon dioxide's clear dominance? Don't ask.
Watts spotted something was amiss as outlined above after taking a break from Leif Lauding: "This typical climate lame-o press release (where getting the PR is more important than the paper itself) gives an incomplete citation..."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/13/another-excu...
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
TurboBloke, I recently e-mailed Private Eye re climate change becoming the biggest con and scandal ever. I think they need your help!
Beati Dogu said:
You wont get anywhere with them. They should have been eviscerating the scam since the beginning, but Ian Hislop is a bit of a believer I understand.
That's about the size of it. It would be futile unfortunately. For example:Christopher Booker said:
In conversationn one day with Ian Hislop I remarked casually how flimsy it seemed was much of the evidence behind the global warming scare, only to receive an almighty put-down to the effect that George Monbiot of The Guardian knew a great deal more about the subject than I did and that I should think twice before daring to challenge such an expert authority.
This morning's Guess Who fun quiz.
Who said this: “Because the bottom line is, no matter who you are, where you live or what you care about, climate change is affecting you and your family today. We are way past any further discussion or debate. Scientists are as sure that humans are causing climate change as they are that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Unless you want to debate that point, don’t debate climate change any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act. That responsibility, right now, is crystal clear.”
A Lord Lawson, GWPF
B Marc Morano, CFACT
C Gina McCarthy, EPA
D Peter Lilley, HoC
No prizes...
Who said this: “Because the bottom line is, no matter who you are, where you live or what you care about, climate change is affecting you and your family today. We are way past any further discussion or debate. Scientists are as sure that humans are causing climate change as they are that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Unless you want to debate that point, don’t debate climate change any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act. That responsibility, right now, is crystal clear.”
A Lord Lawson, GWPF
B Marc Morano, CFACT
C Gina McCarthy, EPA
D Peter Lilley, HoC
No prizes...
turbobloke said:
The Obama administration has awarded an $8m grsnt to stufy the impact of climate change on indoor air quality. EPA defends the move. Money well spent
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-administration-spe...
Freudian slip noted http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-administration-spe...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff