Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[turbobloke]

In full context the grey shaded area is essentially meaningless (meaning may be attributed) and is presumably there to try to divert attention from the divergence between gigo and reality.

[BliarOut]

turbobloke said:

The grey shaded area is essentially meaningless and is presumably there to try to divert attention from the divergence between gigo and reality.

Looks like scary smoke to me.

They've gotta be worried posting misleading specially crafted crap like that...

[turbobloke]

'An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere.'

Remember this: In a warmer and therefore wetter world...and while there are issues over percentages and absolute values, climate models show positive feedback and rising specific humidity with warming in the upper troposphere, but the data shows falling specific humidity and negative feedback.

More over on WUWT.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 6th March 19:44

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau

No there are not KP:



That plateau can't be due to natural forces - can you see the IPCC data above?
Maybe the wind subsidy farms are cooling the planet down?

I can see it. It appears to be the sum-total of forcings to date, so for instance for the CO2 figure that would be since the start of the industrial revolution.

That's not much help for quantifying the affects of the small 11yr variations in solar TSI vs. the very small increases in CO2 forcing per year on short-term temperature trends. ENSO is bigger than both of them of course (short-term!) and since 2006 we've had 36 months of La Nina vs just 15 months of El Nino (ONI index).

[mybrainhurts]

Effects...

HTH...

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

The context was the models and the period of the low-side deviation derived from model comparisons with obs like this un by Gavin Schmidt:

Ah - the Mann trick of comparing sea+land models with land observations.

Hadcrut is sea + land globs. Mann was comparing to Hansens 1988 projections I believe which were land-only so he kept to the same apples.

[Globs]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

The context was the models and the period of the low-side deviation derived from model comparisons with obs like this un by Gavin Schmidt:

Ah - the Mann trick of comparing sea+land models with land observations.

Hadcrut is sea + land globs. Mann was comparing to Hansens 1988 projections I believe which were land-only so he kept to the same apples.

Sorry - it's not Manns trick, well done for not using that, I see it's actually showing temperatures levelling off, despite the CO2 based models saying it should be rising.

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau

No there are not KP:



That plateau can't be due to natural forces - can you see the IPCC data above?
Maybe the wind subsidy farms are cooling the planet down?

I can see it. It appears to be the sum-total of forcings to date

Oh - I thought it was in Watts per square metre. are they not the units at the top?

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

Oh - I thought it was in Watts per square metre. are they not the units at the top?

Yes the forcing is in Watts per square metre. Not sure why you ask about the units, but the size of the forcing for CO2 (1.66) tells me it represents all of the added CO2 forcing since pre-industrial (double CO2 = 3.7).

[Globs]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

Oh - I thought it was in Watts per square metre. are they not the units at the top?

Yes the forcing is in Watts per square metre. Not sure why you ask about the units, but the size of the forcing for CO2 (1.66) tells me it represents all of the added CO2 forcing since pre-industrial (double CO2 = 3.7).

I see, you mean that the extra 110ppm is supposed to create that amount of forcing? They can't be saying that surely - can they?
I thought it was total CO2 or something. 110ppm is virtually nothing after all, not much warming there - certainly less than a degree even in activist maths.

[AnonSpoilsport]

kerplunk said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

kerplunk said:

More generally, it's really quite simple - I've got in the habit of challenging the crude denialism that exists here on PH. AGW IS real and the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs.

Prove it. Demonstrate it. Quantify it. risk assess it. You won't. You can't. You waste text like our leaders waste tax promoting and perpetrating this exaggerated 'fact'.

The radiative forcing from GHGs is well established science and it's been quantified. The ball is in the court of those who say it ain't so. But of course people who say it ain't so are thin on the ground in the science community - they're mainly blowhards on internet fora at the extreme end of AGW-denial who have had zero impact on the current level of scientific understanding.

Really. So why did you write this: "the only real controversy is the planet's sensitivity to the well understood forcing from increasing GHGs"? Rather significant isn't it? If it's so well understood and so well quantified how come there is any mystery about sensitivity - i.e the actual (well, supposed, but others at least will take the point) effect the GHGs have? If there is doubt and you (well, your authors) can't put a figure to this then it really is a case of finger stabbing, in a very dark murk.

You are so limited that you don't even know, as some here have sussed all too readily, that you are so much less clever than you assume.

As they say, "you can't fix stupid."

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

Oh - I thought it was in Watts per square metre. are they not the units at the top?

Yes the forcing is in Watts per square metre. Not sure why you ask about the units, but the size of the forcing for CO2 (1.66) tells me it represents all of the added CO2 forcing since pre-industrial (double CO2 = 3.7).

I see, you mean that the extra 110ppm is supposed to create that amount of forcing? They can't be saying that surely - can they?

I thought it was total CO2 or something. 110ppm is virtually nothing after all, not much warming there - certainly less than a degree even in activist maths.

Yes these are the numbers that fall out of doing the radiative transfer equations etc that lead to 2 x CO2 = 3.7W^2m = +1.1C with everthing else held equal (no feedbacks).

[Otispunkmeyer]

AGW or not, I can't see the point in pouring billions into fighting the so called problem when countries like Russia, china, India and brazil and the other developing nations refuse to do anything at all.

For such a small country in the grand scheme of things we are spending way over our heads on it. Especially when those countries above will more than cover any of our reductions and then some.

Utterly pointless. And that's before you start looking at the questionable science that started it all.

[Globs]

kerplunk said:

Yes these are the numbers that fall out of doing the radiative transfer equations etc that lead to 2 x CO2 = 3.7W^2m = +1.1C with everthing else held equal (no feedbacks).

2xCO2 ?

CO2 has only increased 39%. Those (rather invalid, but bear with me) equations would yield significantly less than 1C with 39%.
What's all the fuss about less than 1C?
Would anyone notice?

[mybrainhurts]

Otispunkmeyer said:

I can't see the point in pouring billions into fighting the so called problem ....For such a small country in the grand scheme of things we are spending way over our heads on it.

This is way beyond madness, this must be nudging the boundary of treason...

[vodkalolly]

mybrainhurts said:

This is way beyond madness, this must be nudging the boundary of treason...

The punishment for which is really quite nasty IIRC

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Yes these are the numbers that fall out of doing the radiative transfer equations etc that lead to 2 x CO2 = 3.7W^2m = +1.1C with everthing else held equal (no feedbacks).

2xCO2 ?

CO2 has only increased 39%. Those (rather invalid, but bear with me) equations would yield significantly less than 1C with 39%.
What's all the fuss about less than 1C?
Would anyone notice?

Increasing though isn't it - that's what the fuss is about.

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Yes these are the numbers that fall out of doing the radiative transfer equations etc that lead to 2 x CO2 = 3.7W^2m = +1.1C with everthing else held equal (no feedbacks).

2xCO2 ?

CO2 has only increased 39%. Those (rather invalid, but bear with me) equations would yield significantly less than 1C with 39%.
What's all the fuss about less than 1C?
Would anyone notice?

Increasing though isn't it - that's what the fuss is about.

What, the fuss that it hasn't warmed? The fuss that the models were wrong? The fuss that we've wasted fking billions and old people are living out their dotage in freezing conditions?

[chris watton]

mybrainhurts said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

I can't see the point in pouring billions into fighting the so called problem ....For such a small country in the grand scheme of things we are spending way over our heads on it.

This is way beyond madness, this must be nudging the boundary of treason...

I guess that when you think about it, it easy to see why. The richest get the most profit (from the poorest) from this green gravy train - I guess this filters down to people in the MSM (who have direct links to quangos and (well-funded – publicly of course) self-interest lobby groups) and the way some news items are reported and some supressed/ignored. For example, look at the way the 1200 NHS deaths have been (relatively) played down - we know this is a national scandal - but not much is happening - while stuff about 'green initiatives' or yet another ‘worse than previously thought – think of the fluffy animal’, no doubt written by a drone from one of the countless and ever richer lobby groups article gets more column inches that things that actually happening and effecting tens of thousands here, back on planet earth!

It is quite embarrassing and shameful living though these times, seeing and hearing such rubbish every day, while real crimes against humanity get brushed under the carpet with meaningless sound bites and waffle – and right now, the West seems to be on life support and has only hollow sentiments and empty/meaningless words left to reassure its ever poorer citizens – I cannot help but think that we are moving willingly to a new Dark Age – and it’s soul destroying watching this unfold.

[Globs]

BliarOut said:

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Yes these are the numbers that fall out of doing the radiative transfer equations etc that lead to 2 x CO2 = 3.7W^2m = +1.1C with everthing else held equal (no feedbacks).

2xCO2 ?

CO2 has only increased 39%. Those (rather invalid, but bear with me) equations would yield significantly less than 1C with 39%.
What's all the fuss about less than 1C?
Would anyone notice?

Increasing though isn't it - that's what the fuss is about.

What, the fuss that it hasn't warmed? The fuss that the models were wrong? The fuss that we've wasted fking billions and old people are living out their dotage in freezing conditions?

Yes, is the fuss justified at 0.1C? or 0.9C? Or only at 3C?
KP - what part of the sub degree rise worries you the most?

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

BliarOut said:

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Yes these are the numbers that fall out of doing the radiative transfer equations etc that lead to 2 x CO2 = 3.7W^2m = +1.1C with everthing else held equal (no feedbacks).

2xCO2 ?

CO2 has only increased 39%. Those (rather invalid, but bear with me) equations would yield significantly less than 1C with 39%.
What's all the fuss about less than 1C?
Would anyone notice?

Increasing though isn't it - that's what the fuss is about.

What, the fuss that it hasn't warmed? The fuss that the models were wrong? The fuss that we've wasted fking billions and old people are living out their dotage in freezing conditions?

Yes, is the fuss justified at 0.1C? or 0.9C? Or only at 3C?
KP - what part of the sub degree rise worries you the most?

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is what concerns most folk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#E...