Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[BliarOut]

kerplunk said:

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...

Nope, most folk don't believe or give a fk about MMGW, they just want to keep warm.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/991...

Keep up at the back.

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

Blib said:

kerplunk said:

No I can't agree to that, sorry. There might be no need to worry but that's not established by the current temp plateau (yet).

Think about what you're saying - there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau so how does that show there's nothing to worry about when those natural factors may only be temporary?

Ooh! "Plateau" a new word in your lexicon. I look forward to you using that word in the years to come.
The fact is that a theory was posited and it seems to be a busted flush. The data does not match ANY of the models.

Sixteen years and counting.

[b]You say game over.

I say time will tell.

Fair enough.[/b]

You could, of course, invert this and it would remain valid.

Yet time is not being allowed to tell us in a political sense.

Why not?

Having bought the ball back onto the political match pitch is there any chance we could kick it around within bouds for a while?

Time will tell us about "the science" and all that hangs from it - though what it tells us may not empower us much.

Politics is "now" stuff - it happens with out the influence of time but affects the outcomes over extended periods (extended in the sense of realtive to the human 'feeling' for time scales which seems to be a long way out of sync with geological or scientific time in this context).

At some point a few generations down the orbital path humanity will most likely disappear. Problem solved really at that point.

Between now and then st will happen either naturally or through political interference. Historically, in a supposedly "free" society conceptual approach I would have thought the "naturally", as in resulting from the way things happen to develop, would be more amenable that politically led diect interference. The latter has never, to my current knowledge, been show to produce a regularly good result. I'm being generous when I say that. Never produced a good result might be more apt if one was to honestly analyse the events of history.

Interference on a grand scale is to be avoided unless one wishes for unpredictable outcomes and destabilising events in very short time scales - much shorter and more difficult to adapt to than anything climatic is likely to achieve whichever way things go.

IMO.

[kerplunk]

AnonSpoilsport said:

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."

oh dear now I'm LESS clever - yesterday you thought I was TOO clever (and must be getting help) so this is a 180 flip

[mybrainhurts]

kerplunk said:

oh dear now I'm LESS clever - yesterday you thought I was TOO clever (and must be getting help) so this is a 180 flip

Oh Ho Ho...

Tell me, Mr Kerplunk...when you and Ludo have a baby, are you going to call it Tiddly Winks..?

[AnonSpoilsport]

kerplunk said:

AnonSpoilsport said:

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."

oh dear now I'm LESS clever - yesterday you thought I was TOO clever (and must be getting help) so this is a 180 flip

As long as you don't try to "hide the decline"...

[Bacardi]

kerplunk said:

oh dear now I'm LESS clever - yesterday you thought I was TOO clever (and must be getting help) so this is a 180 flip

I have visions of you jumping around, masturbating, trussed up with telecommunications cables, in a gimp suit, enjoying yanking everybody's chain, just for the sake of it.... what a troll.

Still, if you get your jollies brown nosing the grant funded, lying, corrupt, sweaty arse cracks of a select group of so called scientists, fill your boots, whatever turns you on. Never mind data or facts.

Now your never ending excuse to it all the gumpf is 'time will tell'?

What a cop out, pathetic.

[deeps]

Lots of heavy snowfalls around the globe this year, some of which even get a 5 second mention on the BBC, unlike floods which get saturation coverage as they're more suitable viewing.

[Silver Smudger]

Bacardi said:

I have visions of you jumping around...

OK, that was a little uncalled for - Can we keep it civil in here?

[The Don of Croy]

chris watton said:

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.

I'd agree with that. When in 15 - 20 years I get to discuss the happenings of this period with my adult children, I'll somehow have to explain just how societies across the Western world wilfully undertook actions that were self-harming, not just once but repeatedly, not in the face of actual head-on threat (like WW2 or the Cold War scenario) but some theoretical preaching from a new religion.

Last night BBC South East at 18:45 gave us a 3 minute piece on a talk to farmers in Kent, from a prof at U of Greenwich, on how to adapt to the forecast +2.5degC increase by 2050, with increased rainfall in both summer and winter, with some colder winters too. It's coming, they told us so.

[Jasandjules]

deeps said:

Lots of heavy snowfalls around the globe this year, some of which even get a 5 second mention on the BBC, unlike floods which get saturation coverage as they're more suitable viewing.

Not to worry, you see they long ago predicted (but very quietly and right behind the "snow is a thing of the past") that Global Warming meant more snow and colder winters................ Well, that is what they are claiming now at least, though I must confess I haven't seen any evidence of this new retro-prediction....

[kerplunk]

Bacardi said:

kerplunk said:

oh dear now I'm LESS clever - yesterday you thought I was TOO clever (and must be getting help) so this is a 180 flip

I have visions of you jumping around, masturbating, trussed up with telecommunications cables, in a gimp suit, enjoying yanking everybody's chain, just for the sake of it.... what a troll.

Still, if you get your jollies brown nosing the grant funded, lying, corrupt, sweaty arse cracks of a select group of so called scientists, fill your boots, whatever turns you on. Never mind data or facts.

Now your never ending excuse to it all the gumpf is 'time will tell'?

What a cop out, pathetic.

Have you been snooping around in my cellar?

[LongQ]

deeps said:

Lots of heavy snowfalls around the globe this year, some of which even get a 5 second mention on the BBC, unlike floods which get saturation coverage as they're more suitable viewing.

Well, floods would, wouldn't they.

That was intentional wasn't it?

[turbobloke]

Bob Ward loses the plot, this being the umpteenth plot that got lost.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/07/warmist-bob-...

[turbobloke]

For anyone desperate to see the latest CPC NCEP ENSO update:

During February 2013, ENSO-neutral continued although SSTs remained below average across the eastern half of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The Niño 3.4 index remained near -0.5°C, while the Niño 3 index became less negative as the month progressed. The oceanic heat content (average temperature in the upper 300m of the ocean) similarly increased during the month, largely due to the eastward push of above average temperatures at depth. The Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) again contributed to increased atmospheric variability over the tropical Pacific during February. Anomalous low-level winds were primarily easterly over the west-central equatorial Pacific, while upper-level winds remained near average, but with some intra-monthly variability. Over Indonesia, anomalous convection remained enhanced north of the equator and suppressed south of the equator. Due to the lack of persistent atmosphere-ocean coupling, the tropical Pacific continues to reflect ENSO-neutral.

[nelly1]

More on-message Model-based scaremongering from the Beeb... here...

[Diderot]

nelly1 said:

More on-message Model-based scaremongering from the Beeb... here...

"The glaciers of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago will undergo a dramatic retreat this century if warming projections hold true."

They're fking nuts. Insane. If it were not for the fact that we are paying for this utter tripe, it would be amusing. s of the first rank.

[kji7]

The Ministry of Truth BBC has been in propaganda overdrive even more so than usual. The cuddly wuddly polar bears have been getting the usual treatment. Got to admire this blatant misleading line (among many) in this article.

Ministry of Truth said:

There are about 25,000 polar bears left in the world

Not, "polar bears numbers are higher than ever recorded and increasing".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2168...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2170...

[Globs]

kji7 said:

The Ministry of Truth BBC has been in propaganda overdrive even more so than usual. The cuddly wuddly polar bears have been getting the usual treatment. Got to admire this blatant misleading line (among many) in this article.

Ministry of Truth said:

There are about 25,000 polar bears left in the world

Not, "polar bears numbers are higher than ever recorded and increasing".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2168...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2170...

At some point in the future there will be more polar bears than suckers who believe in Global Warming

[hidetheelephants]

Heavy Viner falls on the east coast of Scotland; hallelujah for that warming, it will surely save us from our exponentially expanding heating bills.

[turbobloke]

Planet Zorg WaPo blogger blames nature for inadequate computer model performance after widespread vinerism

Joel Achenbach in the Washington Post: "Still, I blame the storm more than I blame the computer models. The models are pretty good. It’s Nature that messed this up."



Click