Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

Is MMGW the most pathetic‘Existential’ Crisis in human history?

Climate related deaths have declined precipitously because richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal.

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Is MMGW the most pathetic‘Existential’ Crisis in human history?

Climate related deaths have declined precipitously because richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal.

How can a man made climate signal that hasn't been found be "swamped"

[mko9]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Is MMGW the most pathetic‘Existential’ Crisis in human history?

Climate related deaths have declined precipitously because richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal.

How can a man made climate signal that hasn't been found be "swamped"

I am idly curious what happened from a climate persepctive from the mid-70s to the mid-80s to cause numbers to go up? Or is that data point that is higher actually the average of the 80s? I am a little confused by the description at the bottom. Seems like a bit of a weird way to present the data.

[turbobloke]

mko9 said:

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Is MMGW the most pathetic‘Existential’ Crisis in human history?

Climate related deaths have declined precipitously because richer and more resilient societies reduce disaster deaths and swamp any potential climate signal.

How can a man made climate signal that hasn't been found be "swamped"

I am idly curious what happened from a climate persepctive from the mid-70s to the mid-80s to cause numbers to go up? Or is that data point that is higher actually the average of the 80s? I am a little confused by the description at the bottom. Seems like a bit of a weird way to present the data.

Good point about a not-found signal being swamped when being swamped (by natural variation) is why such a signal is not visible in the data, given the error bars of available measurements. It's visible via belief/faith of course. The effect is not big enough to be dangerous or a crisis, whereas natural weather within normal variation can be and is lethal.

Purely coincidentally there was that annoying period of cooling in the 70s which The Team continue to try to erase for The Cause.

Also coicidentally, the most basic climate science shows that extreme weather is associated with climate cooling, not warming.

It may otherwise be normal statistical variation within expected limits.

[Kawasicki]

Climate change is also linked to plagues...

"The Roman Empire’s Worst Plagues Were Linked to Climate Change"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rom...

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

Climate change is also linked to plagues...

"The Roman Empire’s Worst Plagues Were Linked to Climate Change"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rom...

Good old SA.

Chariots emitted CO2?! Horse whoopsies and methane? If only either gas was causal to temperature in the data, as opposed to the dreams of activists.

It's one way to squirrelise the Roman Warm Period as bad, which The Team would otherwise like to erase for The Cause. 2 deg C warmer than now only a couple of thousand years ago is inconvenient enough to be in Gore's next quackumentary.

See 'climate optima'.

[robinessex]

How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-580...

Climate change is the most likely explanation for why Dubai has been experiencing increasingly heavy rainfall events, a new study says.

Here are four ways that climate change is linked to extreme weather.

I ran out of patience counting the guessing words in this article.

[turbobloke]

BBC, where else. If only IPCC agreed, the dead ducks would be in a row.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

BBC, where else.

Where else? Here's Fox News saying the same thing.

Fox News said:

Meteorologists and climate scientists said the extreme rainfall is akin to what the world expects with human-caused climate change...

ETA: I can't find a single news organisation that says otherwise. Can you?

Edited by durbster on Thursday 25th April 17:42

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

... If only IPCC agreed, the dead ducks would be in a row.

Good news then, here's a page from the IPCC that very clear states they do agree: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter...

[Diderot]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

BBC, where else.

Where else? Here's Fox News saying the same thing.

Fox News said:

Meteorologists and climate scientists said the extreme rainfall is akin to what the world expects with human-caused climate change...

As above, the IPCC disagrees.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

BBC, where else. If only IPCC agreed, the dead ducks would be in a row.

Talking of dead ducks and conspiracy theories ....

Why is the empirical data not agreeing with your point of view?

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

BBC, where else. If only IPCC agreed, the dead ducks would be in a row.

Talking of dead ducks and conspiracy theories ....

Why is the empirical data not agreeing with your point of view?

It does agree, which is how my point of view arises, and there's no conspiracy which in your post is a strawman (I for one didn't and don't agree with such doggerel) and in mentioning 'not agreeing' you're in the realm of climate model claptrap which is not worth a policy shift. At this point you're trolling.

Empirical data shows no climate crisis and no increase in extreme weather in the manner claimed...if there has been, then more extreme weather is the cause of far fewer global fatalities involving extreme weather than 100 years ago (empirical data posted by another PHer recently). Bring on extreme weather, which is associated with climate cooling not warming. In terms of the same lack of any grip on causality, the increasing carbon dioxide level is the cause of fewer wildfires, as per empirical data linked to by me not long ago. And so on. As above, you're trolling with slogans and possibly a hidden motive due to some bunk being held back for dramatic revelation as a hat rabbit. Either way, trolling via empty slogans, Schneider suggested making bold dramatic statements with hints of a skewed balance between trying to be effective and being honest.

The models generate outputs not data or evidence, and have no role in setting political policy as they're inadequate.

McKitrick and Christy 2018 shows that model outputs fail the key test https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EA000401
"The p value of the test of equivalence between the GCM ensemble (models) average trend and that of the observational average is 0.013 (restricted case) and 0.0003 (general case), clearly rejecting the null hypothesis of trend equivalence.

Numerous other recent papers use data to draw related conclusions as shown in each précis below, showing the UK and western climate policy in general to be expensive folly. This selection will be familiar to those lacking selective and/or convenient memories.

Kato and Rose 2024 (absorbed shortwave has gone up since 2000 at +0.68 W/m² per decade which explains the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance (increase) as well as the surface imbalance)
Ollila 2023 (results mean there is no climate crisis)
Dagsvik and Moen 2023 (the effect of manmade CO2 emissions is not sufficient to cause systematic temperature fluctuations)
Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023 (observed increase in atmospheric CO2 over ~100 years 300ppmv to 400ppmv has produced no discernible alteration to the greenhouse effect)
Bartolomé et al 2023 (solar and volcanism are the two main drivers of climate, the latter part of the Roman Warm Period was 2 deg C warmer than today}
Fleming 2018 (there is no propensity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect)
Fleming 2018 (results point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, but no role in any significant climate change)

[turbobloke]

The activity stateside puts our hapless, docile and gullible politicians to shame. Here are the first two paras, as a short excerpt, of a six page open letter (so there are no copyright issues). and a link (pdf) to the full letter follows at the secondary source NALOPKT.



https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-c...

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

It does agree, which is how my point of view arises, and there's no conspiracy which in your post is a strawman (I for one didn't and don't agree with such doggerel) and in mentioning 'not agreeing' you're in the realm of climate model claptrap which is not worth a policy shift. At this point you're trolling.

Empirical data shows no climate crisis and no increase in extreme weather in the manner claimed...if there has been, then more extreme weather is the cause of far fewer global fatalities involving extreme weather than 100 years ago (empirical data posted by another PHer recently). Bring on extreme weather, which is associated with climate cooling not warming. In terms of the same lack of any grip on causality, the increasing carbon dioxide level is the cause of fewer wildfires, as per empirical data linked to by me not long ago. And so on. As above, you're trolling with slogans and possibly a hidden motive due to some bunk being held back for dramatic revelation as a hat rabbit. Either way, trolling via empty slogans, Schneider suggested making bold dramatic statements with hints of a skewed balance between trying to be effective and being honest.

The models generate outputs not data or evidence, and have no role in setting political policy as they're inadequate.

McKitrick and Christy 2018 shows that model outputs fail the key test https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EA000401
"The p value of the test of equivalence between the GCM ensemble (models) average trend and that of the observational average is 0.013 (restricted case) and 0.0003 (general case), clearly rejecting the null hypothesis of trend equivalence.

Numerous other recent papers use data to draw related conclusions as shown in each précis below, showing the UK and western climate policy in general to be expensive folly. This selection will be familiar to those lacking selective and/or convenient memories.

Kato and Rose 2024 (absorbed shortwave has gone up since 2000 at +0.68 W/m² per decade which explains the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance (increase) as well as the surface imbalance)
Ollila 2023 (results mean there is no climate crisis)
Dagsvik and Moen 2023 (the effect of manmade CO2 emissions is not sufficient to cause systematic temperature fluctuations)
Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023 (observed increase in atmospheric CO2 over ~100 years 300ppmv to 400ppmv has produced no discernible alteration to the greenhouse effect)
Bartolomé et al 2023 (solar and volcanism are the two main drivers of climate, the latter part of the Roman Warm Period was 2 deg C warmer than today}
Fleming 2018 (there is no propensity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect)
Fleming 2018 (results point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, but no role in any significant climate change)

Mctricky and Charity's paper is fundamentally wrong. Using 60 years worth of data to create a straight line graph for temperature rise, when the fundamental hypothesis is about CO2 which has not risen in a linear manner. Co2 levels have not risen in the linear manner since 1958. Instead of blindly quoting this paper why not respond to my critique about why it is flawed. Essentially the paper is bks.

Quoting loads of other papers is not evidence. It is a one sided, biased view, which ignores what is actually going on in the world.

Empirical data show the temperature is rising globally. You knew what I meant but dodged again.

Eventually I will take a look at the other stuff you are blindly referencing.


Did you know it was once 13 degrees hotter than today and not one human died?

[wc98]

mike9009 said:

Mctricky and Charity's paper is fundamentally wrong. Using 60 years worth of data to create a straight line graph for temperature rise, when the fundamental hypothesis is about CO2 which has not risen in a linear manner. Co2 levels have not risen in the linear manner since 1958. Instead of blindly quoting this paper why not respond to my critique about why it is flawed. Essentially the paper is bks.

Quoting loads of other papers is not evidence. It is a one sided, biased view, which ignores what is actually going on in the world.

Empirical data show the temperature is rising globally. You knew what I meant but dodged again.

Eventually I will take a look at the other stuff you are blindly referencing.


Did you know it was once 13 degrees hotter than today and not one human died?

I wish it was 13 degrees warmer today, bloody freezing (literally an hour ago) here in Fife. Put diluted screenwash in the car last week and first time i used it on the way to work on Wednesday it froze. It's been yet another long cloudy spring so despite it being a mild winter sea temps will be playing catch up to get to usual early summer temps.

Last two years my shower heating control has been two notches higher at this time of year in comparison to the previous decade, due to water temps in local reservoir where it comes from being lower than for a long time. Also a big change in the amount of winds blowing from Nor West through to East ,both winter and summer in the same period, for me due to Atlantic regime moving into the cool phase. Aye i know, two years doesn't constitute anything of significance but we will see.

[Xenoous]

robinessex said:

How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-580...

Climate change is the most likely explanation for why Dubai has been experiencing increasingly heavy rainfall events, a new study says.

Here are four ways that climate change is linked to extreme weather.

I ran out of patience counting the guessing words in this article.

So absolutely nothing to do with cloud seeding then. These days I just ignore the BBC as one big agenda setting fictitious news site.

[durbster]

Xenoous said:

robinessex said:

How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-580...

Climate change is the most likely explanation for why Dubai has been experiencing increasingly heavy rainfall events, a new study says.

Here are four ways that climate change is linked to extreme weather.

I ran out of patience counting the guessing words in this article.

So absolutely nothing to do with cloud seeding then. These days I just ignore the BBC as one big agenda setting fictitious news site.

Correct, it was nothing to do with cloud seeding.

Is Fox News in the United States part of the BBC's "agenda" then?

Fox News article said:

With cloud seeding, it may rain, but it doesn't really pour or flood — at least nothing like what drenched the United Arab Emirates and paralyzed Dubai, meteorologists said.

...Meteorologists and climate scientists said the extreme rainfall is akin to what the world expects with human-caused climate change, and one way to know for certain that it was not caused by tinkering with clouds is that it was forecast days in advance.

...Many of the people pointing to cloud seeding are also climate change deniers who are trying to divert attention from what's really happening...

Source: Fox News

[mko9]

durbster said:

Xenoous said:

robinessex said:

How climate change worsens heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-580...

Climate change is the most likely explanation for why Dubai has been experiencing increasingly heavy rainfall events, a new study says.

Here are four ways that climate change is linked to extreme weather.

I ran out of patience counting the guessing words in this article.

So absolutely nothing to do with cloud seeding then. These days I just ignore the BBC as one big agenda setting fictitious news site.

Correct, it was nothing to do with cloud seeding.

Is Fox News in the United States part of the BBC's "agenda" then?

Fox News article said:

With cloud seeding, it may rain, but it doesn't really pour or flood — at least nothing like what drenched the United Arab Emirates and paralyzed Dubai, meteorologists said.

...Meteorologists and climate scientists said the extreme rainfall is akin to what the world expects with human-caused climate change, and one way to know for certain that it was not caused by tinkering with clouds is that it was forecast days in advance.

...Many of the people pointing to cloud seeding are also climate change deniers who are trying to divert attention from what's really happening...

Source: Fox News

Was it warmer, or more humid, or windier, or whatever than it has ever been in the region? If not, then this rainfall is not climate change related. First off, it was a weather event, not climate. Second, weather conditions have been similar to this any number of times over the years and there were not catastrophic floods. What this event really shows is the chaotic nature of climate and weather, and that we really have very little understanding of how it all works.

Edited by mko9 on Friday 26th April 16:01

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

Talking of dead ducks and conspiracy theories ....

Why is the empirical data not agreeing with your point of view?

It does agree, which is how my point of view arises

Hmm. Does the data agree or is turbobloke lying? Time to check in on how the turboscience is faring against observations.



That's right, the blue line is definitely following the yellow one and if you think otherwise then it's an ad-hom logical fallacy shoot the messenger because McCitrick Christy 1999 paper Prof Hulme hey look at that squirrel on the BBC.