Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

But lets not forget the Tax angle in all of this. I for one am absolutely aghast at the additional tax burden I've had to endure due to all of this alarmist anger.

Rather than acting as an echo chamber with sarc to go, it might just be more convincing if you addressed the lack of causality on all relevant timescales. Not easy, as there's no credible evidence to assist you. Allow me to remind you of something in a post from this morning which you may not have read for understanding.

Not long ago I said:

Carbon dioxide correlates weakly with temperature on all timescales, there are episodes in the past where the planet was entering an ice age with carbon dioxide levels 10 times higher than now and rising. Correlation, even weak, needs to be taken further of course.

When the order of events is examined, in the case of historical data we find that carbon dioxide changes lag temperature (Monnin et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al, Caillon et al, Fischer et al).

When contemporary data is examined, the same wrong order of events is found. Humlum et al looked at the lags and leads between a number of variables including (a) surface air temperature from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre, (b) surface air temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, (c) surface air temperature data from the US National Climatic Data Center, (d) sea surface temperature data from the Hadley Centre, (e) lower troposphere air temperature data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville, (f) globally-averaged marine CO2 data, and (g) data on anthropogenic releases of CO2 from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center.

While global warming so-called theory requires carbon dioxide changes to lead air temperature rises, it doesn’t.

Humlum et al said:

Changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lag behind corresponding changes in air temperature.

The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.

This demonstrable lack of causality rules out carbon dioxide as a cause of temperature shifts. A binary situatuion that no amount of hand-waving can fudge away.

It also explains why there is any correlation at all in the modern era between CO2 and temperature, in that there is a time lag of months (albeit the wrong way round) so in decadal plots the curves of carbon dioxide and temperature are going to appear almost in step on occasions, but this weaker correlation is misleading as the time lag is the wrong way round.

As you can imagine, the faithful didn't take kindly to Prof Humlum's heresy against doctrine. This is, after all, the Svalbard scientist who blew the whistle on a greenwash PR stunt involving glaciers, so there's previous involved.

The objections were designed to give the BBC and Guardian easy headline rebuttals but have no substance at all once the veneer is scratched off, in which journos these days have little or no interest.

These objections addressed side-issues and left causality alone, which is odd as such a tactic can't succceed. One asked how the oceans are acidifying if Humlum is correct. Firstly the oceans aren't acidifying. This is scary spin for remaining alkaline for as long as you like (one buffer solution that won't be exhausted is...) but becoming slightly more neutral.

What you fail to point out in your narrative is that the big 'bombshell' claim of the Humlum Et Al paper is that the change in CO2 isn't from humans burning fossil fuels, but is coming out of the oceans instead.

That wasn't the point in the paper that I was using, but I did refer to it. Firstly, you can re-read above that I pointed out how the objections were designed to appeal to BBC and Guardian headline writers but had no substance. Then later on, in a part of my post you snipped out, I indicated that compared to the ocean marginal neutralisation point, the other objections were equally specious. You just identified one of them. Nothing to do with the order of events and causality.

plunker said:

That's why asking, if Humlum is correct, how are the oceans acidifying (or 'neutralizing' if you prefer), isn't a 'side issue' as you put it - it's a quite pertinent question in the 'does not fit with observations' category.

That has nothing to do with the lags, and at a time of ocean outgassing I already pointed out the Andersson result that coral reefs acidify the oceans in which they sit when growing.

plunker said:

Rasmus Benestad examined the Humlum paper... here and, as you can see, he doesn't deny the lag they've identified...

That was my point as made above and basically ignored by you as you headed off into diversionary aspects I had already mentioned or alluded to, having read the responses to Humlum et al some time ago. The entire basis for quoting Humlum et al was the order of events temp-to-carbon dioxide, and the resulting lack of causality, which rules out carbon dioxide as a cause of contemporary temperature changes just as the Monnin, Caillon, Fischer, Petit, Jouzel authorships demonstrated the same lack of causality in historical data.

The narrative here is that the lack of causality on all relevant timescales remains. This was (very clearly) my point, and I can see why you would want to divert onto other non-points as per the invitation to BBC and Guardian headline writers that I spoke of.

[cb31]

lionelf said:

Nothing, why would I?

Bernie Ecclestone (say) has a 747 as do many Middle Eastern Potentates - why ask insignificant little me to make adjustments to my lifestyle first? What would my adjustment do when it can be nullified by Bernie buying a bigger BBQ for his garden?

I'll stand in-line on this one, the line that's headed by those most wasteful and await my turn to contribute.

Maybe the UK should stand in-line behind China, the USA and India? Once they've sorted themselves out we can start going green.

[Pesty]

Time running out for after market tuners/ maps etc?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harley-davidson-sto...

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

What you fail to point out in your narrative is that the big 'bombshell' claim of the Humlum Et Al paper is that the change in CO2 isn't from humans burning fossil fuels, but is coming out of the oceans instead.

That wasn't the point in the paper that I was using, but I did refer to it. Firstly, you can re-read above that I pointed out how the objections were designed to appeal to BBC and Guardian headline writers but had no substance. Then later on, in a part of my post you snipped out, I indicated that compared to the ocean marginal neutralisation point, the other objections were equally specious. You just identified one of them. Nothing to do with the order of events and causality.

plunker said:

That's why asking, if Humlum is correct, how are the oceans acidifying (or 'neutralizing' if you prefer), isn't a 'side issue' as you put it - it's a quite pertinent question in the 'does not fit with observations' category.

That has nothing to do with the lags, and at a time of ocean outgassing I already pointed out the Andersson result that coral reefs acidify the oceans in which they sit when growing.

plunker said:

Rasmus Benestad examined the Humlum paper... here and, as you can see, he doesn't deny the lag they've identified...

That was my point as made above and basically ignored by you as you headed off into diversionary aspects I had already mentioned or alluded to, having read the responses to Humlum et al some time ago. The entire basis for quoting Humlum et al was the order of events temp-to-carbon dioxide, and the resulting lack of causality, which rules out carbon dioxide as a cause of contemporary temperature changes just as the Monnin, Caillon, Fischer, Petit, Jouzel authorships demonstrated the same lack of causality in historical data.

The narrative here is that the lack of causality on all relevant timescales remains. This was (very clearly) my point, and I can see why you would want to divert onto other non-points as per the invitation to BBC and Guardian headline writers that I spoke of.

No, the Humlum paper doesn't rule out carbon dioxide in contemporary temperature change - that's just another claim they make along with the main claim that the CO2 isn't ours, and another logic fail. They have merely 'discovered' a small short term CO2 relationship with sea temperature variation that was already well known and doesn't speak to the longer term 'cause and effect' of increasing CO2 on temperature due to the greenhouse effect.

Honestly, you really think the end is going to come from someone applying some statistical wang to straightforward CO2 and temperature data which 'presto' demonstrates that the CO2 isn't ours and AGW is false? There it was - under everyone's noses the whole time! Optimistic but not very sceptical.

I daresay the other papers you've roped into the argument haven't established anything like you claim either - I'm sure Monnin doesn't.

Edited by plunker on Friday 19th August 00:35

[LongQ]

Have you been away at boot camp re-training as a climate expert and statistician plunker?

Any chance you have some new previously unidentified data to share with people?

It seems to me that most "new" papers, other than satellite inputs, are simply recycling old stuff without fixing any "issues" that may have been identified during earlier utilisation.

Churn to keep the cash machines vending.

You have got something new haven't you?

The ultimate proof of the Hypothesis?

You're not just playing "party" politics are you?

Actually, if you are you are in the right place I suppose. Just not really keen on seeing the politics presented as "science" when there is a perfectly good thread available for that.

[grumbledoak]

It's been a busy week on this thread; I've just had to play catch up. It looks more than anything like another round of astro-turfing by the usual suspects. Are they burying some bad news that I missed, or is this a big push on the back of Brian Cox coming out on the side of his TV career?

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

No, the Humlum paper doesn't rule out carbon dioxide in contemporary temperature change - that's just another claim they make along with the main claim that the CO2 isn't ours, and another logic fail.

The data demonstrates a lack of causality, your claim doesn't hold up, as already pointed out the acidification and other specious comments are irrelevant to causality.

What was found experimentally is summarised in the Humlum et al Abstract, as cited earier, the results showed "changes in carbon dioxide always lagging changes in temperature" and as you yourself pointed out earlier with no denial irony at all, the reference you gave doesn't "deny" the lag at all.

Regarding your 'short-term' remark, the reason I also cited Monnin et al, Caillon et al (etc etc) is that those papers cover the longer-term relationship and still find lag, all timescales are covered and the order of events remains the wrong way round for causality to be present. Temperature always changes first, then carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide cannot therefore be causing those temperature changes.

[turbobloke]

The so-called dominance of a mere 5% human perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide against the 95% from nature was also raised, putting aside the 'missing sink' issues. Note that composition changes alone are not confirmation of a human signal in climate data, which within the over-extended radiative forcing approach in AGW, need to be energy or temperature. An increase in carbon dioxide levels alone is not the missing causal signal in global climate data, it must be shown to be causing the claimed energy / temperature effects, which due to the order of events being the wrong way round on all timescales, isn't happening.

As Essenhigh (2009) put it from a data-based study not modelling: "the long-term (?100 year) rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature".

The supposed 'anthropogenic signal of carbon dioxide' (not of global warming) is the carbon isotope ratio (C13/C12) as adduced by one of Humlum et al's respondents. As posted n times previously this is not the case, the detractors of Essenhigh and Humlum fail to look closely enough at what the full implications are.

Spencer, as also linked n times previously, did just that some time ago here where as pointed out above he speaks of an anthropogenic signal in carbon dioxide levels, which not the non-existent causal signal of manmade warming in global climate data.

It's both amusing and frustrating to note contributions in the comments, as per some on PH, that are innocently (hopefully) ignorant i.e. disregarding the radiogenic <=> stable nature of isotopes of carbon (12, 13 stable / 14 radiogenic). Nice one, EvanJones...while Gary Gulrud gets it right and his memory of 14-C half-life is close enough to make the point but not exactly on the button. Fortunately the discussion becomes interesting with Engelbeen prompting Spencer to improve his analysis.

[lionelf]

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

The reason I'm taking you to task...

Sure you are.

turbobloke said:

one of them being a co-author (with me)

Of course you were.

[turbobloke]

lionelf said:

Of course you were.

Aye. I was

As to you taking anyone to task on here, you lack ammunition.

With your liking for off-topic personal angles, you may already appreciate that there have been mirror images in your likeness popping up in these threads every year or two for the last 14 years, adding nothing new, even the insults are banal and repetetive, zero on offer, here today gone tomorrow.

It's an open forum and everyone's welcome but do make an effort to bring something new to the table.

[turbobloke]

grumbledoak said:

It's been a busy week on this thread; I've just had to play catch up. It looks more than anything like another round of astro-turfing by the usual suspects. Are they burying some bad news that I missed, or is this a big push on the back of Brian Cox coming out on the side of his TV career?

It does look like something inspired by Cox.

The next pointless carbon chomping climate beanfeast is too far off.

[Jinx]

Randy Winkman said:

I don't know what your questions are but my answer is that on balance, most self appointed experts seem to think there's a problem. That doesn't mean I "know" there's a problem, but it's good enough for me. I'm guessing that lots of other feel the same. Plus I don't generally buy into conspiracy theories.

EFA

I think you need to re-read some of the UEA emails to find out how "expert" some of these "experts" really are.

I wonder if Phil Jones ever got that basic excel training he really needed

[lionelf]

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

Of course you were.

Aye. I was

As to you taking anyone to task on here, you lack ammunition.

With your liking for off-topic personal angles, you may already appreciate that there have been mirror images in your likeness popping up in these threads every year or two for the last 14 years, adding nothing new, even the insults are banal and repetetive, zero on offer, here today gone tomorrow.

It's an open forum and everyone's welcome but do make an effort to bring something new to the table.

This is the political thread, yes?

Claims of respected people and institutions engaged in 'corruption, agendas, falsifying of results' etc yes?

Well from my seat it very often the accusers who have the most to hide in these cases

In fact I'm about the first one in a while to actually bring 'politics' to the 'politics' thread by trying to get a handle on the background of somebody instrumental in orchestrating these accusations.

I freely admit to having a low knowledge base regarding the science of MMGW but that's a secondary interest on the 'Politics' thread. So far from bringing nothing to the politics thread it's actually you bringing science to the wrong thread that's the problem.

Now, that publication of yours, can we perhaps have a peek and see how that was received.

Don't worry Turbo, I don't expect you to acquiesce.

[Jinx]

lionelf said:

I freely admit to having a low knowledge base regarding the science of MMGW but that's a secondary interest on the 'Politics' thread.

And hence why you are an AGW fanatic QED

[turbobloke]

lionelf said:

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

Of course you were.

Aye. I was

As to you taking anyone to task on here, you lack ammunition.

With your liking for off-topic personal angles, you may already appreciate that there have been mirror images in your likeness popping up in these threads every year or two for the last 14 years, adding nothing new, even the insults are banal and repetetive, zero on offer, here today gone tomorrow.

It's an open forum and everyone's welcome but do make an effort to bring something new to the table.

This is the political thread, yes?


. . .


Now, that publication of yours, can we perhaps have a peek and see how that was received.

Don't worry Turbo, I don't expect you to acquiesce.

Asking for something new on the table from you was clearly too much

I already sent creds and pubs to independent PHers on one memorable occasion and one less memorable, both long ago. Your enquiry is repetetive and insufficiently important for a repeat, as you were in effect advised earlier in the thread.

This isn't about me, it isn't even about you, it's about the lack of a visible causal human signal in global climate data.

In terms of this invisible signal, where was it when you saw it?

[lionelf]

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

turbobloke said:

lionelf said:

Of course you were.

Aye. I was

As to you taking anyone to task on here, you lack ammunition.

With your liking for off-topic personal angles, you may already appreciate that there have been mirror images in your likeness popping up in these threads every year or two for the last 14 years, adding nothing new, even the insults are banal and repetetive, zero on offer, here today gone tomorrow.

It's an open forum and everyone's welcome but do make an effort to bring something new to the table.

This is the political thread, yes?


. . .


Now, that publication of yours, can we perhaps have a peek and see how that was received.

Don't worry Turbo, I don't expect you to acquiesce.

Asking for something new on the table from you was clearly too much

I already sent creds and pubs to independent PHers on one memorable occasion and one less memorable, both long ago. Your enquiry is repetetive and insufficiently important for a repeat, as you were in effect advised earlier in the thread.

This isn't about me, it isn't even about you, it's about the lack of a visible causal human signal in global climate data.

In terms of this invisible signal, where was it when you saw it?

Maybe you did send 'creds & pubs' to somebody but that was before my time and I'd guess they were sent to deniers anyway. Anyway, if it was such a "memorable occasion" perhaps you can recall it now and point me to it. After all, the other day you were apparently looking back at threads/posts from 2008.

As for 'the signal', that's science no? Guess what? Of course you like to swing it back around to science even when I'm told there's a separate thread for that. Just tell me what you've published and where I can get a look at it and I'll be chipper. What's the issue?

[turbobloke]

These are shaky times for climate alarmists in the USA.

Just as Gore and other uninformed but loud types select a higher gear while blaming manmadeup warming for the (tragedy of) California fires, a serial arsonist is apprehended.

Then when the same howlers about manmadeup warming start howling about the (tragedy of) recent floods, they can hardly get out of first gear before being corrected.

Albert Gore said:

These kinds of record downpours — that’s one of the manifestations of the climate crisis.

Gore now has the benefit of education, if he can be botehred (unlikely) to avail himself of it, with Michaels and Knappenberger pointing him to studies which falsify Gore's alarmist propaganda.

Mallakpour and Villarini demonstrate that the stronger category of storms are not getting stronger, but cannot be attributed to man-made warming, given the natural climate variability of both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans which has not been exceeded.

Van der Wie et al remind Gore that no evidence is found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record.

Albert will be sure to take note, as soon as he recalls that the temperature at the core of the Earth is not millions of degrees as he previously claimed. C;early there's more than one political climate animal with a severely lacking grip on the underlying fundamentals, many more in fact.

[lionelf]

You soooooo have an agenda

[chris watton]

Jinx said:

lionelf said:

I freely admit to having a low knowledge base regarding the science of MMGW but that's a secondary interest on the 'Politics' thread.

And hence why you are an AGW fanatic QED

Yeah, but by their own admission, they do absolutely nothing to help mitigate the 'problem'. According to him/her, it's up to others to make an example first, not lionelf.

[turbobloke]

lionelf said:

Maybe you did send 'creds & pubs' to somebody but that was before my time and I'd guess they were sent to deniers anyway.

You were informed that they were sent to independent PHers, neither on the warm side nor the realist side. That was the whole point. PHers at the time, on both sides, would have immediately noted if this wasn't the case.

The other point is that your query is repetetive and insufficiently important or relevant to merit a third response.

Having answered your question, again, now you can have a go at answering mine for the first time - and the reasonable questions from Jasandjules while you're at it.

Mine is: when you saw the invisible causal human signal in global climate data, where was it?

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 19th August 09:19