Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Jasandjules]

Gandahar said:

Get off your arses and instead of posting here a perpetual series of posts that serves no purpose apart from perpetuating your hobby, go and do something to change the scientific dogma

You understand that anything that does not agree with their form of religion is censored right?

[Gandahar]

jshell said:

Gandahar said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/02/a-full-ca...


"Terrifying" headline

Then you read on and find "some one made a model...."

And its the Antarctic which i though, had record amount of Ice of late?

The Antarctic had records amount of sea ice of late, a slight difference. However that had now gone back to lower than normal.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea...

It will be interesting to sea how it increases over the winter compared to last few years.

Bearing in mind that the part of the Antarctic that loses most ice has been shown to have an active volcano under it... No, really!

That's the equivalent of saying Arctic ice loss is due to icebreaking ships! Another rubbish claim. The Icelandic Vatnajokull region has a volcano under it that has been very active the last year

http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earth...

there has been run off but this smaller glacier is still there.

So no Antarctic volcano is causing any significant ice loss.

Clutching at straws?

Having said that I don't believe you can tie in AGW with Arctic and Antarctic ice so far.

[turbobloke]

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

Gandahar said:

don4l said:

turbobloke said:

don4l said:

If the climate models predict that the jet streams should increase in speed, and we do not observe an increase, then the models are wrong.

And if those models previously predicted a decrease in speed which has mysteriously evolved into an increase...

Dear God, you are right!

As recently as last March the Guardian was wailing about the jet streams weakening.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con...

A little more Googling reveals that Matt McGrath has previously warned about weakening jet streams. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2293...

So, Matt McGrath knows that one of his stories must be wrong, and yet he shamelessly propogates both.

If they are so wrong why do people on Pistonheads climate threads not group together and prove they are wrong with a paper that shows it?

We don't need to

No, you do and yes you are complaining. Don't you realise this?

No, we don't and no, we're not. Lots of pointless words can't change anything except the pixel employment rate.

We're indicating the existence of contradictory gobbledigook to others who can yet so mysteriously see an invisible causal human signal in global climate data.

As posted earlier...

Report on first steaming pile of model gigo said:

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution determined that over a 23-year span from 1979 to 2001 the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened. These changes fit the predictions of global warming models.

Report on second steaming pile of model gigo said:

Global warming is likely to speed up the jet stream say researchers, and slow down airplanes heading for the US. While eastbound flights from the US will be quicker, roundtrip journeys will "significantly lengthen". The University of Reading scientists believe the changes will increase carbon emissions and fuel consumption and potentially raise ticket prices.

There you have it, one group (Carnegie) falsifying the other (Reading) or vice versa if you wish.

Next there's a rich supply of self0-contradiction to tap into here, please do post another.

[nelly1]

Gandahar said:

It will be interesting to sea how it increases over the winter compared to last few years.

[Gandahar]

nelly1 said:

Gandahar said:

It will be interesting to sea how it increases over the winter compared to last few years.

I should have said " It will be interesting to see how it progresses from Winter to Summer this year"

Not sure why the bird has to make an appearance, perhaps an albatross or a tern would have been more appropriate?

[turbobloke]

Gandahar said:

nelly1 said:

Gandahar said:

It will be interesting to sea how it increases over the winter compared to last few years.

I should have said " It will be interesting to see how it progresses from Winter to Summer this year"

Not sure why the bird has to make an appearance, perhaps an albatross or a tern would have been more appropriate?

Where global warming modelling gigo is involved the only choice is the Oozlum Bird.

[Gandahar]

turbobloke said:

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

Gandahar said:

don4l said:

turbobloke said:

don4l said:

If the climate models predict that the jet streams should increase in speed, and we do not observe an increase, then the models are wrong.

And if those models previously predicted a decrease in speed which has mysteriously evolved into an increase...

Dear God, you are right!

As recently as last March the Guardian was wailing about the jet streams weakening.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con...

A little more Googling reveals that Matt McGrath has previously warned about weakening jet streams. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2293...

So, Matt McGrath knows that one of his stories must be wrong, and yet he shamelessly propogates both.

If they are so wrong why do people on Pistonheads climate threads not group together and prove they are wrong with a paper that shows it?

We don't need to

No, you do and yes you are complaining. Don't you realise this?

No, we don't and no, we're not. Lots of pointless words can't change anything except the pixel employment rate.

We're indicating the existence of contradictory gobbledigook to others who can yet so mysteriously see an invisible causal human signal in global climate data.

As posted earlier...

Report on first steaming pile of model gigo said:

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution determined that over a 23-year span from 1979 to 2001 the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened. These changes fit the predictions of global warming models.

Report on second steaming pile of model gigo said:

Global warming is likely to speed up the jet stream say researchers, and slow down airplanes heading for the US. While eastbound flights from the US will be quicker, roundtrip journeys will "significantly lengthen". The University of Reading scientists believe the changes will increase carbon emissions and fuel consumption and potentially raise ticket prices.

There you have it, one group (Carnegie) falsifying the other (Reading) or vice versa if you wish.

Next there's a rich supply of self0-contradiction to tap into here, please do post another.

Sorry Turbo bloke, but you are complaining and doing nothing about it, if that's not as plain as the nose on your face I don't know what is.

You're enjoying doing it, and that's what matters though.

[turbobloke]

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

Gandahar said:

turbobloke said:

Gandahar said:

don4l said:

turbobloke said:

don4l said:

If the climate models predict that the jet streams should increase in speed, and we do not observe an increase, then the models are wrong.

And if those models previously predicted a decrease in speed which has mysteriously evolved into an increase...

Dear God, you are right!

As recently as last March the Guardian was wailing about the jet streams weakening.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-con...

A little more Googling reveals that Matt McGrath has previously warned about weakening jet streams. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2293...

So, Matt McGrath knows that one of his stories must be wrong, and yet he shamelessly propogates both.

If they are so wrong why do people on Pistonheads climate threads not group together and prove they are wrong with a paper that shows it?

We don't need to

No, you do and yes you are complaining. Don't you realise this?

No, we don't and no, we're not. Lots of pointless words can't change anything except the pixel employment rate.

We're indicating the existence of contradictory gobbledigook to others who can yet so mysteriously see an invisible causal human signal in global climate data.

As posted earlier...

Report on first steaming pile of model gigo said:

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution determined that over a 23-year span from 1979 to 2001 the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened. These changes fit the predictions of global warming models.

Report on second steaming pile of model gigo said:

Global warming is likely to speed up the jet stream say researchers, and slow down airplanes heading for the US. While eastbound flights from the US will be quicker, roundtrip journeys will "significantly lengthen". The University of Reading scientists believe the changes will increase carbon emissions and fuel consumption and potentially raise ticket prices.

There you have it, one group (Carnegie) falsifying the other (Reading) or vice versa if you wish.

Next there's a rich supply of self0-contradiction to tap into here, please do post another.

Sorry Turbo bloke, but you are complaining and doing nothing about it, if that's not as plain as the nose on your face I don't know what is.

If the mirror shows an invisible causal human signal in any global climate data, send it over to the IPCC asap!

I'm indicating the contradictory gigo from global warming models and the junkscience behind them, neither of the above gigo examples is down to anyone on PH, as for those of us involved on the climate realism side, we don't complain we just point it out and laugh at it.

[wc98]

don4l said:

How on Earth could any self respecting journal publish such dross is beyond me.

If the climate models predict that the jet streams should increase in speed, and we do not observe an increase, then the models are wrong.

It isn't complicated. The BBC and journals that propogate this nonsense shoud be openly mocked.

what i want to know is who give the clowns that created that nonsense a job in the first place . tax payers money is paying for this ste, arghhhh !

[br d]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thank you Captain insight.

[turbobloke]

br d said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thank you Captain insight.

Like the insight into conspiracy which is only proposed by people like you two, who then argue against your own strawman before running away?

Some insight

Cut the failed wisecracks and simply post up, or link to, any visible causal human signal in global climate data.

To help you...it doesn't exist.

Anyway, welcome back to the thread and many happy returns.

[robinessex]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well instead of 'dipping from time to time' I suggest you READ IT FROM START TO FINISH. Then answer the question.

[Scuffers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

and I am sure you feel right at home...

[robinessex]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Please supply a link to the evidence we don't believe.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Two points I'd like to follow up on, and both are totally mistaken as also previously pointed out in this and other threads so in all honesty you need to read more closely, for understanding.

There's a visible causal signal in global climate data from the Milankovitch Cycles, from volcanism, and from solar eruptivity, solar irradiance matters too but the eruptivity effect is greater.

In each of these instances there's a signal visible above and beyond the range of typical variability (not with tax gas), a very strong correlation over all relevant timescales as well >0.9 (absent for tax gas), the order of events is correct for causality (the opposite applies for tax gas) and there's sound science underpinning a mechanism (not so for tax gas in climate models, from both theoretical and observational standpoints).

Anyone with an independent line of thought would be clear that for so-called anthropogenic global warming, none of the above criteria are met.

It's not a get out of anything card, I'm more than willing and more than able to discuss data and science, but global warming is a political phenomenon and this thread is where it's at.

[jshell]

Gandahar said:

jshell said:

Gandahar said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/02/a-full-ca...


"Terrifying" headline

Then you read on and find "some one made a model...."

And its the Antarctic which i though, had record amount of Ice of late?

The Antarctic had records amount of sea ice of late, a slight difference. However that had now gone back to lower than normal.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea...

It will be interesting to sea how it increases over the winter compared to last few years.

Bearing in mind that the part of the Antarctic that loses most ice has been shown to have an active volcano under it... No, really!

That's the equivalent of saying Arctic ice loss is due to icebreaking ships! Another rubbish claim. The Icelandic Vatnajokull region has a volcano under it that has been very active the last year

http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earth...

there has been run off but this smaller glacier is still there.

So no Antarctic volcano is causing any significant ice loss.

Clutching at straws?

Having said that I don't believe you can tie in AGW with Arctic and Antarctic ice so far.

I haven't looked at Iceland, but here's Antarctica: http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-an...

[deeps]

turbobloke said:

Report on first steaming pile of model gigo said:

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution determined that over a 23-year span from 1979 to 2001 the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened. These changes fit the predictions of global warming models.

Report on second steaming pile of model gigo said:

Global warming is likely to speed up the jet stream say researchers, and slow down airplanes heading for the US. While eastbound flights from the US will be quicker, roundtrip journeys will "significantly lengthen". The University of Reading scientists believe the changes will increase carbon emissions and fuel consumption and potentially raise ticket prices.

There you have it, one group (Carnegie) falsifying the other (Reading) or vice versa if you wish.

Just saw this presented as news on the BBC, I actually did burst out laughing, the combination of the seriousness of the presenter's face and the lunacy of the story was quite something! John Cleese would have been proud.

Stories like this are not only funny though, but also have the opposite effect of their intentions by bolstering the beliefs of 90% of the public that MMGWT is based around a farcical gravy train of vested interests.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Gandahar said:

It's pitiful. And I enjoy watching it ...

Keep going,

Well done.

Which proves that you are just here to disrupt the thread.

Saying people should publish a paper is as asinine as saying people should get elected as an MP, it's a realistic impossibility.

People can however point out the obvious contradictions between published papers.

And it is in published literature that parts of Antarctica are being warmed from volcanic (or similar) heat from the crust.

The imminent collapse of Antarctic ice sheets has been predicted for years, it is one of the regular scare stories that does the rounds, of course credible scientists in the old days knew it was a natural process.

[turbobloke]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Gandahar said:

It's pitiful. And I enjoy watching it ...

Keep going,

Well done.

Which proves that you (Gandahar) are just here to disrupt the thread.

Some things never change.

Mr GrimNasty said:

Saying people should publish a paper is as asinine as saying people should get elected as an MP, it's a realistic impossibility.

It's entirely possible but unnecessary. When others have gone down that route and succeeded, because the peer review process is far less under the control of The Team than pre-Climategate, it's still not good enough and different diversionary chaff appears. Monckton has done it, Watts has as well, so have other climate realists more often associated with high quality open-opinion blogs.

There's nothing that special about publishing a paper, perhaps those yacking on about it have never done so and/or think that The Team is still capable of widespread gatekeeping.

Mr GrimNasty said:

People can however point out the obvious contradictions between published papers.

Precisely.

And as you say there is no imminent collapse of ice sheets and whatever ice mass change is observed has no causality to humans. Same old bull.

[mybrainhurts]

Otispunkmeyer said:

LongQ said:

mybrainhurts said:

Andy Zarse said:

turbobloke said:

Imogen is on the way. Naming rain and wind was already a farce now it's getting tedious.

OMG radioactive death storm coming! We will all be murdered in our beds tomorrow morning by Storm Ibuprofen!! OMG!!!!

If you think that's bad, just wait until Storm Ipecac rears her ugly head...

You'll have to wait for the next alphabetic cycle then.

25 to go ...

So it should come around about the end of April?

I dunno, theres some clouds in the sky today.... I feel they are readying "Jocelyn" or "Josephine" or perhaps they'll go for a more ambiguous "Jamie".

I feel a bit of mischief coming on.

How do we get the PC Brigade to come down like a ton of bricks on Mystic Met for omitting names like A'ishah, Ablah, Afifa, Ajeebah, Waynetta and so on?

The Met Office has openly declared a policy of following the US hurricane naming convention. The Yanks would get a bit iffy with them if they went all inclusive and diverse.

I predict endless fun....