Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Helen Briggs at the BBC once again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3113...
A nice "Look and Learn" style piccy at the top of the report (for those with long memories) but what in earth is she reporting thereafter?
My take from the write up is that the academic paper claims that temp and CO2 rise and fall together but there are no obvious signs of catastrophic feedback inputs to be concerned about.
This is presented as "support current prediction on Climate Change".
I can't make up my mind about what seems to be going on here. Is it proper back and forth Science of some sort or some king of political construct created to make noise ahead of the Paris boondoggle later in the year?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3113...
A nice "Look and Learn" style piccy at the top of the report (for those with long memories) but what in earth is she reporting thereafter?
My take from the write up is that the academic paper claims that temp and CO2 rise and fall together but there are no obvious signs of catastrophic feedback inputs to be concerned about.
This is presented as "support current prediction on Climate Change".
I can't make up my mind about what seems to be going on here. Is it proper back and forth Science of some sort or some king of political construct created to make noise ahead of the Paris boondoggle later in the year?
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 5th February 10:31
LongQ said:
Thanks for that, I looked at her Twitter link; she's retweeted a photo that proves climate change:https://twitter.com/Energydesk/status/562727980376...
Well, actually it's just a photo of someone pointing at a fire, on a Twitter account run by a well known extreme eco-activist lobbying group. But it must be true, right?
Gaia still isn't playing ball with believers, it's either not enough tax, cheap oil or too many heat pixies being eaten by polar bears.
ENSO diagnostic received today said:
Equatorial sea surface temperatures remained above average in the western and central Pacific during January 2015 and cooled across the eastern Pacific. Accordingly, the latest weekly Niño indices were +0.5°C in the Niño-3.4 region and +0.9°C in the Niño-4 region, and closer to zero in the Niño-3 and Niño-1+2 regions. Subsurface temperature anomalies across the eastern half of the equatorial Pacific also averaged near zero during the month. However, an extensive area of positive subsurface anomalies persisted near the Date Line, while negative anomalies were prevalent closer to the surface east of 110°W. During the last couple of weeks of January, several aspects of the tropical Pacific atmosphere showed some movement towards El Niño. However, for the month as a whole, the equatorial low-level winds were mostly near average across the Pacific, while upper-level easterly anomalies continued in the east-central Pacific. Also, convection remained below average near the Date Line and enhanced in the western equatorial Pacific. While the tropical Pacific Ocean is at the borderline of El Niño, the overall atmosphere-ocean system remains ENSO-neutral.
Jacobyte said:
LongQ said:
Thanks for that, I looked at her Twitter link; she's retweeted a photo that proves climate change:https://twitter.com/Energydesk/status/562727980376...
Well, actually it's just a photo of someone pointing at a fire, on a Twitter account run by a well known extreme eco-activist lobbying group. But it must be true, right?
I point my finger and barbecue happen...
Oh no! It's the volcanos wot dunnit. Maybe. Or not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-294...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-294...
Without doubt your 'or not' option is the winner.
Having discussed underwater oceanic eruptions on PH - and whether or not they're worse than previously thought - the conclusion is that while they may have an impact on carbon dioxide levels, there's no impact on climate because carbon dioxide levels don't drive climate, they follow it (temperature).
The wedding between carbon dioxide and climate needs a quickie divorce, and if 'the pause' continues fpor much longer with carbon dioxide levels rising throughout then the msm and its propagandised readers may finally get the message. There's less hope for politicians, they'll be worried about egg on their faces more than the climate faeces they believe in.
Having discussed underwater oceanic eruptions on PH - and whether or not they're worse than previously thought - the conclusion is that while they may have an impact on carbon dioxide levels, there's no impact on climate because carbon dioxide levels don't drive climate, they follow it (temperature).
The wedding between carbon dioxide and climate needs a quickie divorce, and if 'the pause' continues fpor much longer with carbon dioxide levels rising throughout then the msm and its propagandised readers may finally get the message. There's less hope for politicians, they'll be worried about egg on their faces more than the climate faeces they believe in.
By Jove I think you've got it: That man made global warming; he is personally culpable for this whole mess. The taxes, obfuscations and sanctimonious drivel can now end. Phew, MBH, you've just saved the planet.
The pointless immense cost of green follies in Europe, €600 billion, excluding grid connections and upgrades.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/05/renewab...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/05/renewab...
Mr GrimNasty said:
The pointless immense cost of green follies in Europe, €600 billion, excluding grid connections and upgrades.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/05/renewab...
So add to that for the UK alone the £10bn connection cost and the £1.2bn per year subsidies and the green blob bail-in is costing an absolute fortune - to cure a problem we didn't cause that doesn't exist by a method that can't work.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/05/renewab...
Pure genius
LongQ said:
It seems that statistical analysis has shown that all the climate models are absolutely fine in their predictions. No systematic errors at all.
Apparent anomalies are simply down to:
"Climate is subject to chance and chaos - which makes life difficult for climate researchers. No wonder that these two unpredictable climate factors lie at the root of a mystery that has baffled scientists since the start of the 21st century. Since then, the temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by only around 0.06 degrees Celsius - much less than had been predicted by all 114 model simulations considered in the climate report by the IPCC. Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster have now explained the warming pause in terms of random fluctuations arising from chaotic processes in the climate system. Even more importantly for the two researchers and their colleagues around the world: they did not find any conceptual errors in the models. Most notably, the models do not generally react too sensitively to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-slowdown-syste...
The Read More Link is the official link provided by the journal.
So there you go. Unpredictable chance and chaos all works one way the researchers predict.
From WUWTApparent anomalies are simply down to:
"Climate is subject to chance and chaos - which makes life difficult for climate researchers. No wonder that these two unpredictable climate factors lie at the root of a mystery that has baffled scientists since the start of the 21st century. Since then, the temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by only around 0.06 degrees Celsius - much less than had been predicted by all 114 model simulations considered in the climate report by the IPCC. Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster have now explained the warming pause in terms of random fluctuations arising from chaotic processes in the climate system. Even more importantly for the two researchers and their colleagues around the world: they did not find any conceptual errors in the models. Most notably, the models do not generally react too sensitively to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-slowdown-syste...
The Read More Link is the official link provided by the journal.
So there you go. Unpredictable chance and chaos all works one way the researchers predict.
“The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.” ‘
Ouch Ouch Ouch……………………..and Ouch again!
s2art said:
LongQ said:
It seems that statistical analysis has shown that all the climate models are absolutely fine in their predictions. No systematic errors at all.
Apparent anomalies are simply down to:
"Climate is subject to chance and chaos - which makes life difficult for climate researchers. No wonder that these two unpredictable climate factors lie at the root of a mystery that has baffled scientists since the start of the 21st century. Since then, the temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by only around 0.06 degrees Celsius - much less than had been predicted by all 114 model simulations considered in the climate report by the IPCC. Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster have now explained the warming pause in terms of random fluctuations arising from chaotic processes in the climate system. Even more importantly for the two researchers and their colleagues around the world: they did not find any conceptual errors in the models. Most notably, the models do not generally react too sensitively to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-slowdown-syste...
The Read More Link is the official link provided by the journal.
So there you go. Unpredictable chance and chaos all works one way the researchers predict.
From WUWTApparent anomalies are simply down to:
"Climate is subject to chance and chaos - which makes life difficult for climate researchers. No wonder that these two unpredictable climate factors lie at the root of a mystery that has baffled scientists since the start of the 21st century. Since then, the temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by only around 0.06 degrees Celsius - much less than had been predicted by all 114 model simulations considered in the climate report by the IPCC. Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster have now explained the warming pause in terms of random fluctuations arising from chaotic processes in the climate system. Even more importantly for the two researchers and their colleagues around the world: they did not find any conceptual errors in the models. Most notably, the models do not generally react too sensitively to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-slowdown-syste...
The Read More Link is the official link provided by the journal.
So there you go. Unpredictable chance and chaos all works one way the researchers predict.
“The statistical methods used in the paper are so bad as to merit use in a class on how not to do applied statistics. All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.” ‘
Ouch Ouch Ouch……………………..and Ouch again!
Mr GrimNasty said:
The pointless immense cost of green follies in Europe, €600 billion, excluding grid connections and upgrades.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/05/renewab...
That will buy 20 full fat nuclear power stations even at the ridiculous price Areva are charging, netting 60GW of capacity at 85-90% duty cycle; at the projected costs of AP1000 it would buy double that. How much power has our green eurofolly bought? I can't read that article.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/05/renewab...
I don't know what the article is costing as 'green' exactly, but obviously at night in still conditions you get a bit far 0 from wind and sun.
This report pretty much covers EU renewables as of 2013, so there is more capacity installed (and more cost to add) than the cost implied above which was up to 2012.
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/public...
Page 7 bottom graph specifically.
This report pretty much covers EU renewables as of 2013, so there is more capacity installed (and more cost to add) than the cost implied above which was up to 2012.
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/public...
Page 7 bottom graph specifically.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Saturday 7th February 18:33
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
AreOut said:
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
Now approaching 22,000 comments on that article - a record at the Torygraph?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...
Meanwhile this unseasonably seasonal weather continues...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff