Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

Jacobyte said:

I can see what you mean, but that wouldn't work. The article specifically says it's for 2016: i.e. 0.2 degrees of 2016's average temperature was contributed by El Nino.

Yes, the annual average for last year was 0.77 degrees above the long term average and of that 0.77 degrees 0.2 resulted from the El Nino the remainder is down to human factors plus any other natural forcing that may be in play. Regardless, what's in a year when the top 15 recorded global average temps have happened in the last 16 years.

Hold the front page, again!

What on a cooling earth is that phrase "the remainder is down to human factors" doing on either the BBC site or PH?

There is no established causality to humans in any global climate data, there is no visible causal signal to justify such a claim - which is erroneous. It warrants filing under 'fantasy fiction'.

Any temperature (and a temperature datum isn't a point it's a value somewhere within a spread defined by the error bars) at any real, rather than imaginary, record level lacks causality of itself.

It's pure hype within sloppy reporting but desperate times call for desperate measures which lack error bars.

[Lotus 50]

Cooling earth?

I thought that even Judith Curry, Nigel Lawson, etc were in agreement that the earth was getting warmer and that the discussion was around what was causing it... and FWIW the Met Office do give error bars (+/-0.1 degree)

[plunker]

Jacobyte said:

It’s official: 2016 was the hottest ever. From here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3865...

Spot the deliberate error

Exhibit A:

article said:

Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were around 0.07 degree Celsius above the 2015 mark

Exhibit B:

article said:

The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists, but the main factor was human emissions of CO2

Exhibit C:

article said:

El Niño… contributed about 0.2C to the annual average for 2016.

By my maths, if the main factor was human emissions and El Nino contributed 0.2 degrees of the 0.07 degree surplus, then El Nino is responsible for cooling of about -0.13 degrees.

2015 temps were also boosted by El Nino.

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

Jacobyte said:

It’s official: 2016 was the hottest ever. From here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3865...

Spot the deliberate error

Exhibit A:

article said:

Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were around 0.07 degree Celsius above the 2015 mark

Hold the evidence at that point! Exhibit A will do.

The error bars make 2016 indistinguishable from 2015, so not the hottest year 'ever' and not hotter than either the Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm Period from available information.

Naturally the BBC is spinning the result beyond its significance and they'll get away with it as their typical public sector audience has bought the myth already and knows little of significance with regard to data.

By the same token your claim that 2016 was not the hottest year ever is as unsound as the beebs claim that it was, and you must be 'spinning the result beyond it's significance' because you think the PH private sector audience is too dumb to notice.

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

By the same token your claim that 2016 was not the hottest year ever is as unsound as the beebs claim that it was, and you must be 'spinning the result beyond it's significance' because you think the PH private sector audience is too dumb to notice

so much pain for no gain.

I have claimed that the BBC and other claimants are making false claims. I pointed out that 2015 and 2016 are indistinguishable statistically and factually. If the BBC says that 2016 was the hottest year ever and it wasn't because a) we can't say and b) the record is too short by far, then it's permissible to say what I said - without spin and without troubling the belief system of public sector beebophiles. The private sector will be too busy working rather than pulling excess sickies or going on strike to notice that the beeb is broadcasting and publishing dreck as usual, and if they did notice it wouldn't fool them to anywhere the same degree as it does council 'climate change managers' et al

Meanwhile...

Faithful disciples getting hot and bothered about nothing might like to read Briggs handing Mann his arris on a plate over the junk that was published (how?!) under “The Likelihood of Recent Record Warmth”. Stats howlers aplenty from Upside Down Mann, and lack of causality whacks the lot into touch.

http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/

AGW = fail.

[robinessex]

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

Jacobyte said:

It’s official: 2016 was the hottest ever. From here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3865...

Spot the deliberate error

Exhibit A:

article said:

Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were around 0.07 degree Celsius above the 2015 mark

Hold the evidence at that point! Exhibit A will do.

The error bars make 2016 indistinguishable from 2015, so not the hottest year 'ever' and not hotter than either the Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm Period from available information.

Naturally the BBC is spinning the result beyond its significance and they'll get away with it as their typical public sector audience has bought the myth already and knows little of significance with regard to data.

By the same token your claim that 2016 was not the hottest year ever is as unsound as the beebs claim that it was, and you must be 'spinning the result beyond it's significance' because you think the PH private sector audience is too dumb to notice.

I suggest you pop back a few postings, where it was told that the temperature measurement of the planet was, er bks. Mostly due to the sparsity of the measuring instruments, and other factors. 0.07 degree difference is just a ridiculous difference to consider as an indicator that the planet is warming to Armageddon.

[Jacobyte]

plunker said:

2015 temps were also boosted by El Nino.

Careful, or you'll be reprimanded for not adding "but not as much as human CO2 emissions".

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

2015 temps were also boosted by El Nino.

So were 2016 temps, El Nino dissipated in June 2016 after maintaining a presence for half the year.

That was quite an omission on your part, accidental surely.

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

By the same token your claim that 2016 was not the hottest year ever is as unsound as the beebs claim that it was, and you must be 'spinning the result beyond it's significance' because you think the PH private sector audience is too dumb to notice

so much pain for no gain.

I have claimed that the BBC and other claimants are making false claims. I pointed out that 2015 and 2016 are indistinguishable statistically and factually.

So does the BBC article third sentence in - "Although the Met Office increase was within the margin of error"

[plunker]

robinessex said:

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

Jacobyte said:

It’s official: 2016 was the hottest ever. From here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3865...

Spot the deliberate error

Exhibit A:

article said:

Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were around 0.07 degree Celsius above the 2015 mark

Hold the evidence at that point! Exhibit A will do.

The error bars make 2016 indistinguishable from 2015, so not the hottest year 'ever' and not hotter than either the Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm Period from available information.

Naturally the BBC is spinning the result beyond its significance and they'll get away with it as their typical public sector audience has bought the myth already and knows little of significance with regard to data.

By the same token your claim that 2016 was not the hottest year ever is as unsound as the beebs claim that it was, and you must be 'spinning the result beyond it's significance' because you think the PH private sector audience is too dumb to notice.

I suggest you pop back a few postings, where it was told that the temperature measurement of the planet was, er bks. Mostly due to the sparsity of the measuring instruments, and other factors. 0.07 degree difference is just a ridiculous difference to consider as an indicator that the planet is warming to Armageddon.

Indeed the UK met office's 2016 data is likely biased cool due to lack of coverage in the arctic which was very warm for most of the year.

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

2015 temps were also boosted by El Nino.

So were 2016 temps, El Nino dissipated in June 2016 after maintaining a presence for half the year.

That was quite an omission on your part, accidental surely.

So what? I don't see your point there.

[TheExcession]

robinessex said:

Obama administration gives $500m to UN climate change fund

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38661259

The US government has given half a billion dollars to the UN's Green Climate Fund, just three days before Donald Trump takes office.
Barack Obama's outgoing administration announced the contribution of $500m (£406m; €468m) on Tuesday, bringing the total funds to date to $1bn.

Now, that is what I call Politics !!!

Yeah, it beggars belief doesn't it. Obama is a dhead. Don't forget he's also banned drilling off the coast of Alaska.

Only a few more days to go before the 'see you bye'

I'm disappointed with Obama, when he was elected I naively thought he would make a difference, he's been utterly useless and the only reason I can find that he is so 'popular' is because he hasn't actually done anything.

But it is Politics !!! 'see you bye'

[LongQ]

From a political point of view the issue of temperature control is not being presented as a need for a reduction but as a need for not exceeding a "agreed" limit although one might argue that the limit envisioned has been plucked form some very thin air.

We have, apparently, only about 1.5 degrees C available before Armageddon strikes home.

If one assumes that the increase is directly proportional to CO2 output and that such output might show quite a linear increase in the next couple of decades (not withstanding a non-linear effect on any possible temperature increasing result) that means the notional target would need to be achieved by 2040 or thereabouts.

2040 fits quite well with the sort of forward projections that global energy consumption watching organisations, including fuel producers, tend to work with.

So here is an article that compares the projections of a well established group of forward projectors and considers how their projections correspond with the only current "climate fight agreement" in town - the Paris COP20 boondoggle "Treaty" on the basis of which the outgoing POTUS has just splashed $500 million of US Tax payer largesse into the pot as a departing gift.

http://euanmearns.com/the-gulf-between-the-paris-c...


In summary it seems that no energy usage watcher thinks there is a snowball in hell's chance of holding to the sort term targets that the COP20 "treaty" calls for as offered by the signatories in full vanity project mode.

Fortunately for most of them, 20 years will be long enough to see them through their careers or re-write history to protect their reputation for being right all of the time.

None of it is likely to make any measurable and attributable difference to temperature in a way that would satisfy the demands associated with the climate model projections, even if they are toned down from their most strident predictions of doom and catastrophe.

So in effect the political movement is wilfully following a course that will fail despite huge expenditure with the result that they know full well they will need to dip into more pockets and ever deeper to then afford mitigation actions at some future point.

In effect they have backed themselves into a political corner speaking from which few of them dare suggest that the forecast may be wrong or that the best option for minimising possible downsides should the prediction come true has no clear place n their strategy.


Such is the nature of modern globalised politics.

[wc98]

TheExcession said:

I'm disappointed with Obama, when he was elected I naively thought he would make a difference, he's been utterly useless and the only reason I can find that he is so 'popular' is because he hasn't actually done anything.

But it is Politics !!! 'see you bye'

i have to say leading politicians of the last 20 years had just about hammered every bit of optimism (bad) and naivety (probably good) clean out of me. various scientific debacles including agw have certainly added to the general feeling of whitthefukkery i experience from time to time these days.

[mybrainhurts]

TheExcession said:

robinessex said:

Obama administration gives $500m to UN climate change fund

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38661259

The US government has given half a billion dollars to the UN's Green Climate Fund, just three days before Donald Trump takes office.
Barack Obama's outgoing administration announced the contribution of $500m (£406m; €468m) on Tuesday, bringing the total funds to date to $1bn.

Now, that is what I call Politics !!!

Yeah, it beggars belief doesn't it. Obama is a dhead. Don't forget he's also banned drilling off the coast of Alaska.

Only a few more days to go before the 'see you bye'

I'm disappointed with Obama, when he was elected I naively thought he would make a difference, he's been utterly useless and the only reason I can find that he is so 'popular' is because he hasn't actually done anything.

But it is Politics !!! 'see you bye'

My money's on Al Gore feeding him funny tea...

[LongQ]

If this isn't politics in all its gory (not a typo) then it's hard to imagine what is.

The proposed Swansea Tidal Lagoon.


http://euanmearns.com/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon-and...

It's well worth taking the time to read the comments - pretty much all of them as of up to the time I am posting this.

Makes Hinckley Point look like an absolute bargain whether the chosen reactor design ever works or not.

However one can assume that the tidal flow of government funding will regularly top up the trough from the which the experts take their sustenance.

[robinessex]

The Beeb today:-

Climate change: Data shows 2016 likely to be warmest year yet

Temperature data for 2016 shows it is likely to have edged ahead of 2015 as the world's warmest year.
Data from Nasa and the UK Met Office shows temperatures were about 0.07 degrees Celsius above the 2015 mark.
Although the Met Office increase was within the margin of error, Nasa says that 2016 was the third year in a row to break the record.
The El Niño weather phenomenon played a role, say scientists, but the main factor was human emissions of CO2.
The latest conclusions won't come as a much of a shock to observers, as the likely outcome was trailed heavily towards the end of last year.

Usual verbal garbage. Non story really, and why is Climate Change in the headline? Weather isn't climate.

[768]

Because it suits the agenda.

Same reason the snow in Spain isn't on the BBC. Until everyone else has covered it, then maybe it'll get a small online article or a mention on a radio programme.

[turbobloke]

Likewise with the unusually cold weather in several parts of Thailand from the autumn last year through into 2017.

[Insanity Magnet]

768 said:

Because it suits the agenda.

Same reason the snow in Spain isn't on the BBC. Until everyone else has covered it, then maybe it'll get a small online article or a mention on a radio programme.

Sorta...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38666752