Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
johnfm said:
durbster said:
But studies into how the sun affects our temperature have not been able to account for the amount of global warming observed in the last century.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Your not a scientist, are you. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
kurt535 said:
robinessex said:
kurt535 said:
Stumbled into this thread by chance. Only thing I can add is:
Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
Any PROOF of that other than briefing !!!Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
And todays Beeb CC puff piece:-
New mercury threat to oceans from climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Rising temperatures could boost mercury levels in fish by up to seven times the current rates, say Swedish researchers.
They've discovered a new way in which warming increases levels of the toxin in sea creatures.
In experiments, they found that extra rainfall drives up the amount of organic material flowing into the seas.
This alters the food chain, adding another layer of complex organisms which boosts the concentrations of mercury up the line.
The study has been published in the journal, Science Advances. Continues.................."
The third word in is 'could'. Then a few words later we have "by up to". Settled then, isn't it ?
New mercury threat to oceans from climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Rising temperatures could boost mercury levels in fish by up to seven times the current rates, say Swedish researchers.
They've discovered a new way in which warming increases levels of the toxin in sea creatures.
In experiments, they found that extra rainfall drives up the amount of organic material flowing into the seas.
This alters the food chain, adding another layer of complex organisms which boosts the concentrations of mercury up the line.
The study has been published in the journal, Science Advances. Continues.................."
The third word in is 'could'. Then a few words later we have "by up to". Settled then, isn't it ?
Jazzy Jag said:
johnfm said:
durbster said:
But studies into how the sun affects our temperature have not been able to account for the amount of global warming observed in the last century.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Your not a scientist, are you. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
What durbster does like, is to conveniently forget posts that have been on this thread and others for every attrition loop where some believer says:
"studies into how the sun affects our temperature have not been able to account for the amount of global warming observed in the last century"
This must be on fakeclimate or gristt'mill or fog'n'smog or skepticalbeliever or some other advocacy site where the faithful go for soundbites at ten a penny (free even). Putting aside the fact that the near-surface database is corrupt and unfit for purpose as a measure of warming, we can still look at the far superior satellite data and note the modest natural warming trend in the first and second decimal places per decade, +0.11 deg C/decade or thereabouts.
The first type of reply in this particular attrition loop is this: there are studies such as Newell et al which show that total solar forcing alone has influenced trends in temperature during the second half of the 19th century and most of the 20th century more than any other factor. Newell et al at Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysed data from 1856 to 1986. Obviously with no inadequate modelling involved, this will fall short of the levels of fiction to which believers have become accustomed.
Newell at al have been raised in most PH attrition loops of the type found in durbster's post, loops which make simplistic one-liner false claims about solar forcing that require more detail by way of refutation than they do to type out (same old). Here's a small selection which features durbster in the last one. Memories are made of this...
2009
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
2011
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
2014
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
2015
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The second type of reply in this particular attrition loop is this: there are many forcings that the political advocacy group IPCC and their gigo climate models exclude, with a selective preference for those radiative effects that they do include, and any notion that all solar factors are accounted for is wrong and the idea that any remaining warming must be due to tax gas is simply false. That was mentioned in this tread very recently, with a post of mine referring to AMPLIFIED solar irradiance forcing (Shaviv), CR-LLC-albedo solar eruptivity forcing (Svensmark et al) and the auroral oval solar eruptivity forcing (Bucha). These solar forcings are supported by data, are present in the peer-reviewed literature, but remain omitted from IPCC considerations - so to claim that solar effects are insufficient, when a number of powerful effects seen in data are omitted, is fibbing.
Here's a couple or three attrition loops featuring the omitted solar forcings:
2010
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
2012
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
2012 again
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The third type of reply in this particular attrition loop refers to the point that there are visible causal signals in global climate data from solar effects (and volcanism, and ENSO, and longer-term Milankovitch, all natural forcings) but not from anthropogenic carbon dioxide even in diddled data. Carbon dioxide levels rise after, not before, temperature rises, including in those charts misrepresented in Gore's quackumentary.
There are so many of this third type that I didn't consider it worthwhile to find a sample, it would be easy enough for anyone wishing to do so as there are rich pickings arising from believer forgetfulness and lack of grip on causality.
I'd suggest no more attrition loops of this type but I know it'd be pointless
kurt535 said:
Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
As it happens, they didn't.Firstly, with this 1 in 100 years and 1 in 10 years thing, it's absolutely normal to have 2 1 in 100 year events in the spave of 10 years, for two reasons.
The first is that each event statement will refer to a specific location, not just anywhere convenient that somebody wants to use for the purpose of misleading others. Secondly, two 1 in 100 year events can happen in ten years, because it's a stats thing, and it's an average, so in 1000 years there will probably be ten 1 in 100 year events but not necessarily distributed evenly over time.
The reason for flooding has not been shown to be due to global warming, quite the opposite in fact.
From a previous attrition loop on floods:
Attrition loop back in 2014 said:
A new scientific study of the wet summer of 2007 confirms that the floods were a very singular event and does not support the idea that the exceptional river flooding was linked to climate change. This conclusion is contained within a comprehensive hydrological appraisal of the summer 2007 floods carried out by scientists from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1364747&i=20More recent floods in 2013-14 were due to a chaotic shift in the jet stream. This shift was in the opposite sense to that predicted by global warming modelling, which predict that the jet streams will weaken and move towards the poles, whereas the more recent floods were caused by a chaotic shift away from the poles involving a strengthening northern jet stream.
This was covered in an attrition loop from as recently as 2016.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Flooding in 2015 was also NOT due to non-existent man-made warming.
Response to false political claims which I posted in PH previously said:
Scientists have contradicted a minister’s claim that last weekend’s flooding in Cumbria was unprecedented and linked to climate change.
They say that there have been 34 extreme floods there in the past 300 years and that lives had been put at risk by “grossly underestimating” the risk of floods and failing to consider evidence from records.
Liz Truss, the environment secretary, told MPs on Monday that Cumbria had experienced an “unprecedented weather event” that was “consistent with climate change trends”.
Dr Tom Spencer, a reader in coastal ecology and geomorphology at the University of Cambridge, said that analysis of deposits left by floods in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries showed they were the “biggest events”. These floods happened long before the rise in manmade emissions, undermining the claim that last weekend’s floods were linked to climate change. He said that the government relied too heavily on records dating back only 40 years.
CBA to find a loopy link.They say that there have been 34 extreme floods there in the past 300 years and that lives had been put at risk by “grossly underestimating” the risk of floods and failing to consider evidence from records.
Liz Truss, the environment secretary, told MPs on Monday that Cumbria had experienced an “unprecedented weather event” that was “consistent with climate change trends”.
Dr Tom Spencer, a reader in coastal ecology and geomorphology at the University of Cambridge, said that analysis of deposits left by floods in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries showed they were the “biggest events”. These floods happened long before the rise in manmade emissions, undermining the claim that last weekend’s floods were linked to climate change. He said that the government relied too heavily on records dating back only 40 years.
In summary there is nothing in any UK flooding that can be attributed to so-called global warming.
Nor in EU flooding for that matter. Barredo's paper titled "Normalized Flood Losses in Europe: 1970-2006" in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences looked at a climatically relevant period, 37 years, and after assessing normalised flood losses in 31 European countries, results showed no detectable sign of human-induced climate change in normalised flood losses across 31 countries in Europe.
Two relavant attrition loop mentions:
2009
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
2014
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Must dash. It won't be long before the next loop.
robinessex said:
And todays Beeb CC puff piece:-
New mercury threat to oceans from climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Rising temperatures could boost mercury levels in fish by up to seven times the current rates, say Swedish researchers.
They've discovered a new way in which warming increases levels of the toxin in sea creatures.
In experiments, they found that extra rainfall drives up the amount of organic material flowing into the seas.
This alters the food chain, adding another layer of complex organisms which boosts the concentrations of mercury up the line.
The study has been published in the journal, Science Advances. Continues.................."
The third word in is 'could'. Then a few words later we have "by up to". Settled then, isn't it ?
just as well levels of rainfall are not increasing then !New mercury threat to oceans from climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Rising temperatures could boost mercury levels in fish by up to seven times the current rates, say Swedish researchers.
They've discovered a new way in which warming increases levels of the toxin in sea creatures.
In experiments, they found that extra rainfall drives up the amount of organic material flowing into the seas.
This alters the food chain, adding another layer of complex organisms which boosts the concentrations of mercury up the line.
The study has been published in the journal, Science Advances. Continues.................."
The third word in is 'could'. Then a few words later we have "by up to". Settled then, isn't it ?
wc98 said:
robinessex said:
And todays Beeb CC puff piece:-
New mercury threat to oceans from climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Rising temperatures could boost mercury levels in fish by up to seven times the current rates, say Swedish researchers.
They've discovered a new way in which warming increases levels of the toxin in sea creatures.
In experiments, they found that extra rainfall drives up the amount of organic material flowing into the seas.
This alters the food chain, adding another layer of complex organisms which boosts the concentrations of mercury up the line.
The study has been published in the journal, Science Advances. Continues.................."
The third word in is 'could'. Then a few words later we have "by up to". Settled then, isn't it ?
just as well levels of rainfall are not increasing then !New mercury threat to oceans from climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3876...
"Rising temperatures could boost mercury levels in fish by up to seven times the current rates, say Swedish researchers.
They've discovered a new way in which warming increases levels of the toxin in sea creatures.
In experiments, they found that extra rainfall drives up the amount of organic material flowing into the seas.
This alters the food chain, adding another layer of complex organisms which boosts the concentrations of mercury up the line.
The study has been published in the journal, Science Advances. Continues.................."
The third word in is 'could'. Then a few words later we have "by up to". Settled then, isn't it ?
Next in this series: the diameter of a magpie's orifice could decrease by up to 7 microns due to global warming.
durbster said:
Ah, OK. It's impossible to keep up with all the crazy claims that get spouted in this thread.
What nefarious deeds did you think happened?
i believe you think there was some sort of investigation into the actual science as a result of climategate and as those involved were "cleared" as a result of this "investigation" then the science is sound ?What nefarious deeds did you think happened?
the fact of the matter is there was no investigation into any of the "science" at all and the cru scientists were severely rebuked for their actions . how anyone can can call that cleared by investigation i will never know.
i can appreciate a government that has spent billions of taxpayers money on agw (mainly by transferring wealth from the taxpayer to those that could afford to get in on the solar subsidies early when payment tariffs were high and useless wind projects . the latest one where all the landed gentry are installing biomass plants on their estates ,again paid for by the taxpayer is being kept a bit quieter i notice) may not want to make a finding that the entire premise is based on nothing more than conjecture and supposition.
note this piece from the guardian, the most cru friendly media to this day for obvious reasons.
"Their minds will not be changed by yesterday's findings. Doubters will point to the fact that the report did not pass judgment on the scientific value of the CRU's work – only on the process exposed by the more than 1,000 emails leaked to the media shortly before last year's Copenhagen summit." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul...
and another, note what was actually "investigated" in comparison to what you think was "investigated"
"enerally honest but frequently secretive; rigorous in their dealings with fellow scientists but often "unhelpful and defensive", and sometimes downright "misleading", when explaining themselves to the wider world. That was the verdict of Sir Muir Russell and his fellow committee members in their inquiry into the role of scientists at the University of East Anglia in the "climategate" affair.
Many will find the report indulgent of reprehensible behaviour, particularly in peer review, where CRU researchers have been accused of misusing their seniority in climate science to block criticism. Brutal exchanges in which researchers boasted of "going to town" to prevent publication of papers critical of their work, and in which they conspired to blacklist journals that published hostile papers, were dismissed by Russell as "robust" and "typical of the debate that can go on in peer review".
In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review. And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism. On the issue of peer review and the IPCC, it found that "the allegations cannot be upheld", but made clear this was partly because the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was "team responsibility".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/...
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Ah, OK. It's impossible to keep up with all the crazy claims that get spouted in this thread.
What nefarious deeds did you think happened?
i believe you think there was some sort of investigation into the actual science as a result of climategate and as those involved were "cleared" as a result of this "investigation" then the science is sound ?What nefarious deeds did you think happened?
the fact of the matter is there was no investigation into any of the "science" at all and the cru scientists were severely rebuked for their actions . how anyone can can call that cleared by investigation i will never know.
i can appreciate a government that has spent billions of taxpayers money on agw (mainly by transferring wealth from the taxpayer to those that could afford to get in on the solar subsidies early when payment tariffs were high and useless wind projects . the latest one where all the landed gentry are installing biomass plants on their estates ,again paid for by the taxpayer is being kept a bit quieter i notice) may not want to make a finding that the entire premise is based on nothing more than conjecture and supposition.
note this piece from the guardian, the most cru friendly media to this day for obvious reasons.
"Their minds will not be changed by yesterday's findings. Doubters will point to the fact that the report did not pass judgment on the scientific value of the CRU's work – only on the process exposed by the more than 1,000 emails leaked to the media shortly before last year's Copenhagen summit." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul...
and another, note what was actually "investigated" in comparison to what you think was "investigated"
"enerally honest but frequently secretive; rigorous in their dealings with fellow scientists but often "unhelpful and defensive", and sometimes downright "misleading", when explaining themselves to the wider world. That was the verdict of Sir Muir Russell and his fellow committee members in their inquiry into the role of scientists at the University of East Anglia in the "climategate" affair.
Many will find the report indulgent of reprehensible behaviour, particularly in peer review, where CRU researchers have been accused of misusing their seniority in climate science to block criticism. Brutal exchanges in which researchers boasted of "going to town" to prevent publication of papers critical of their work, and in which they conspired to blacklist journals that published hostile papers, were dismissed by Russell as "robust" and "typical of the debate that can go on in peer review".
In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review. And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism. On the issue of peer review and the IPCC, it found that "the allegations cannot be upheld", but made clear this was partly because the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was "team responsibility".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/...
robinessex said:
kurt535 said:
robinessex said:
kurt535 said:
Stumbled into this thread by chance. Only thing I can add is:
Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
Any PROOF of that other than briefing !!!Via a previous role I undertook, we were briefed (2010?) what were once seen as 1:100+ naturally occurring flood events were likely to become as low as 1:10.
Volume of water getting sucked up in atmosphere which then got dumped on us due to global warming was cited as main issue. Seems they called it right with the flooding that happened in the last few years.
In a similar trend we saw last year that a lot of people whose names we sort of recognised, passed away.
A few of them were quite broadly well known. Others a little more niche.
Unnervingly the Obituaries so far this year are also populated, in the main, by people with somewhat known names at or verging on "celebrity" status.
Clearly there is some increasing risk of death amongst the celebrity category groups. We should be told the truth and advised by the authorities on how best to avoid the risks of infection for those of us who are not celebrities whilst this spate of "once in a thousand years" notable persons death is urgently researched by top boffins, lessons are learned and action plans are put in place to avoid widespread contagion.
Maybe we could start by reducing the numbers of individuals at risk of association with the problem category?
Re flooding (and increases in frequency) - CEH have done some more work on this and there are trends towards increased flood frequency in the UK, and possible links to climate change.
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...
...and in the palaeo-flood records in the north west as well
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU...
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...
...and in the palaeo-flood records in the north west as well
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU...
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 28th January 17:41
Lotus 50 said:
Re flooding (and increases in frequency) - CEH have done some more work on this and there are trends towards increased flood frequency in the UK, and possible links to climate change.
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...
...and in the palaeo-flood records in the north west as well
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU...
possible linkshttp://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...
...and in the palaeo-flood records in the north west as well
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU...
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 28th January 17:41
No. of pirates
Bushiness of men's beards
Olympic gold medals (inversely)
all show strong correlation.
And they dont mention the increase in buildings on flood plains and the really poor control of upstream deforestation and hedge removal.
Its never as simple as they'd like it to be.
mondeoman said:
possible links
No. of pirates
Bushiness of men's beards
Olympic gold medals (inversely)
all show strong correlation.
And they dont mention the increase in buildings on flood plains and the really poor control of upstream deforestation and hedge removal.
Its never as simple as they'd like it to be.
The biggest problem is that there are people who think that you can reduce flooding by allowing rivers to silt up, so long as you plant some bushes on a nearby hill.No. of pirates
Bushiness of men's beards
Olympic gold medals (inversely)
all show strong correlation.
And they dont mention the increase in buildings on flood plains and the really poor control of upstream deforestation and hedge removal.
Its never as simple as they'd like it to be.
Unfortunately, these people are in charge of flood prevention.
Lotus 50 said:
Re flooding (and increases in frequency) - CEH have done some more work on this and there are trends towards increased flood frequency in the UK, and possible links to climate change.
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...
...and in the palaeo-flood records in the north west as well
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU...
Nothing to do with farmers not dredging drainage ditches on their land, then?http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2015-2016...
...and in the palaeo-flood records in the north west as well
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2016/EGU...
Edited by Lotus 50 on Saturday 28th January 17:41
Nothing to do with the EU Habitats directive protecting the homes of newts and vowel's over the livelihood, lives and homes of humans?
Nothing to do with the silt dredged from the banks and bottom of drainage ditches being considered and contaminated waste and requiring expensive disposal rather than just being piled on the bank as it was for 1000s of years in the past?
No, must be man made, right?
Jazzy Jag said:
What ever happened to Ludo and Kerplunk?
If I recall they used to have a shift change and take over from each other.
Is Durbster the latest incarnation?
Durbster, and Plunker? I sometimes get the impression that one will post for a while, and if they get a lot of awkward questions, then they will go quiet and the other will appear and start a noisy complicated conversation about something else.If I recall they used to have a shift change and take over from each other.
Is Durbster the latest incarnation?
I am sure I am imagining it though - They most likely don't have any connection to each other at all.
Silver Smudger said:
Durbster, and Plunker? I sometimes get the impression that one will post for a while, and if they get a lot of awkward questions, then they will go quiet and the other will appear and start a noisy complicated conversation about something else.
.
or start a previous argument all over again, or call for back-up from their alter ego..
Silver Smudger said:
Jazzy Jag said:
What ever happened to Ludo and Kerplunk?
If I recall they used to have a shift change and take over from each other.
Is Durbster the latest incarnation?
Durbster, and Plunker? I sometimes get the impression that one will post for a while, and if they get a lot of awkward questions, then they will go quiet and the other will appear and start a noisy complicated conversation about something else.If I recall they used to have a shift change and take over from each other.
Is Durbster the latest incarnation?
I am sure I am imagining it though - They most likely don't have any connection to each other at all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff