Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[wc98]

durbster said:

You talk about data but what you do is link to advocacy blogs and tabloid newspapers.

If you want to talk data that's no problem. There's a constant flow of climate data coming through all the time these days, and most of it is publicly accessible.

For example, here's what sea surface temperatures are doing at the moment which was not expected:



Source

How are you spinning that? All those runways on the coast maybe?

Can't see anything in the data that supports that global cooling that you predicted would start 12 years ago though. Since you keep referencing some data that supposedly supports your position, perhaps you can point to it?

That's more an indicator of clouds, or lack of them in the areas showing high anomalies. Sea surface temp measured by satellite is measuring somewhere between a millimetre and sub micron layer of water with all the atmospheric interactions that layer has going on. Just a bawhair (scottish scientific term for not a lot) deeper i guarantee you it isn't 21 degrees. I wonder if they have a map of night time surface temps ? Certainly nothing much different going on in the North Sea and the cloudy winter we have had will see spring temps on the low side.
https://www.bsh.de/EN/DATA/Climate-and-Sea/Sea_tem...

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

You talk about data but what you do is link to advocacy blogs and tabloid newspapers.

Incorrect, in that I cite papers as links aren't always possible given that not all papers are open access. Linking to an absract - based on experience - causes just as many complaints for exclusion of other content. Copyright rules exist in the wider world as well as in PH posting rules. I have access via a university library for many journals and you presumably don't have the same access.

A climate politics thread is legitimately a bases for linking to political blogs like Climate Depot. IPCC is a political advocacy group.

durbster said:

If you want to talk data that's no problem. There's a constant flow of climate data coming through all the time these days, and most of it is publicly accessible.

Unlike some journals.

durbster said:

For example, here's what sea surface temperatures are doing at the moment which was not expected:

Not expected by inadequate climate models.

durbster said:

How are you spinning that? All those runways on the coast maybe?

Your sarc is misplaced. Tax gas doesn't do short-term sporadic shifts of that nature and the features are regional not global. Climatologists and oceanographers have proposed similar explanations of regional SST hotspots to the rationale below. Part of it involves lower levels of sea surface agitation preventing the warmer insolated surface layer from mixing, while calmer conditions will also reduce evaporation so less latent heat will be lost.

Dr Dan Smale as Senior Research Fellow at the Marine Biological Association said:

An extreme marine heatwave is developing in the northeast Atlantic, leading to pockets of extremely warm water around parts of the UK. The drivers of this phenomenon are complex but likely to include weaker trade winds leading to lower evaporation and more uptake of solar radiation. The warming events occur naturally and are part of the complex ocean climate system. However, when they occur now they are superimposed onto 100 years of significant ocean warming, so the starting point is much higher (around 1 deg C on average in the N Atlantic).

There wasn't enough tax gas that long ago, so no cigar overall.

durbster said:

Can't see anything in the data that supports that global cooling that you predicted would start 12 years ago though. Since you keep referencing some data that supposedly supports your position, perhaps you can point to it?

I have made no predictions personally. I have said that the data-based predictions published in peer-reviewed papers by Landscheidt (2030) and Abdusamatov (2050) are more credible that the output from inadequate climate models running too hot on assumptions and tuned parameterisations.

More inaccuracy due to a focus on playing the man not the ball, as usual. Still encouraging and flattering but still inaccurate.

wc98 said:

Sea surface temp measured by satellite is measuring somewhere between a millimetre and sub micron layer of water with all the atmospheric interactions that layer has going on. Just a bawhair (scottish scientific term for not a lot) deeper i guarantee you it isn't 21 degrees.

Sure. The lack of mixing is keeping the thin surface skin hotter, and by not tranferring heat to lower layers as effectively, the lower layers won't reflect the shock horror temperatures which are not long-lasting.

[turbobloke]

Some very recent peer-reviewed paper references, supporting Prof Hulme's acknowledgement that the politically supported climate crisis is a lie...again, not for the first or last time as durbster and others keep missing / forgetting them.

https://thumbsnap.com/sc/ejj6LjLi.jpg

https://thumbsnap.com/sc/LjVEfTd6.jpg

Modest and pedestrian recent climate change is almost wholly a natural phenomenon like the short-term regional SST are natural. The human influence is lost in natural variation and not dangerous (Prof Hulme's exaggerationists are at work... no crisis).

Edited to correct a typo, others remain in the other post; still 'at work' wfh and busy so typing afap in a short break.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 12th March 20:09

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Dr Dan Smale as Senior Research Fellow at the Marine Biological Association said:

An extreme marine heatwave is developing in the northeast Atlantic, leading to pockets of extremely warm water around parts of the UK. The drivers of this phenomenon are complex but likely to include weaker trade winds leading to lower evaporation and more uptake of solar radiation. The warming events occur naturally and are part of the complex ocean climate system. However, when they occur now they are superimposed onto 100 years of significant ocean warming, so the starting point is much higher (around 1 deg C on average in the N Atlantic).

There wasn't enough tax gas that long ago, so no cigar overall.

It is always interesting to see the selection (misrepresentation?) of quotes when reading the full article published.

For the full story read this link.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction...

And this is why it is useful to see the full article linked rather than a selected quote to give the full picture. It is not a very good tactic and undermines the posters position (again)

Obviously I don't expect a response. (again)
Sorry for interrupting (again) .....

Edited by mike9009 on Tuesday 12th March 22:22

[turbobloke]

A question on the SST claims, which may be (should be) of interest to crisis supporters in thrall to tax gas on holiday.

The heat capacity of water is greater than that of dry soil, aka land. Therefore water will absorb heat from a given source more slowly than land other things being equal. If hot SST is due to the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect and downwelling radiation, how come the coast (land) isn't as warm the nearby seawater, after basking under the same heat source over the same time? Clearly something unusual occasionally happens involving the thin surface skin of some areas of seawater at some times, which isn't persistent.

Of course, people 'thinking of the damage' will offer opinion that points to human influence, based on assumptions within the dangerous agw paradigm, with vague handwaving to go. Onside msm journalists will lap it up. However as per my earlier reply, there are recognised natural physical changes with mechanisms that are well-known which explain SST regional short-term changes big and small without any need to appeal to tax gas effects.

Any particular high T or low T including any claimed record T (land or SST) comes with no established causality to humans, this is simply assumed and included in some statements which are pushed out to feed and sustain the indoctrinated while furthering The Cause. Climate politics.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

A question on the SST claims, which may be (should be) of interest to crisis supporters in thrall to tax gas on holiday.

The heat capacity of water is greater than that of dry soil, aka land. Therefore water will absorb heat from a given source more slowly than land other things being equal. If hot SST is due to the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect and downwelling radiation, how come the coast (land) isn't as warm the nearby seawater, after basking under the same heat source over the same time? Clearly something unusual occasionally happens involving the thin surface skin of some areas of seawater at some times, which isn't persistent.

Of course, people 'thinking of the damage' will offer opinion that points to human influence, based on assumptions within the dangerous agw paradigm, with vague handwaving to go. Onside msm journalists will lap it up. However as per my earlier reply, there are recognised natural physical changes with mechanisms that are well-known which explain SST regional short-term changes big and small without any need to appeal to tax gas effects.

Any particular high T or low T including any claimed record T (land or SST) comes with no established causality to humans, this is simply assumed and included in some statements which are pushed out to feed and sustain the indoctrinated while furthering The Cause. Climate politics.

All in your opinion.

But the article I linked to, gives a different consensus to that you mentioned a few posts before. Misrepresentation again.

[turbobloke]

Of course, what somebody could do given the motivation, is to address the 'things being equal' for the land aspect and surround / criss-cross some soil and grass with airport tarmac, embed lots of concrete and brickwork via buildings, and have engines (vehicles, aircraft) operating almost 24 7. Then take measurements with a temperature sensor placed near tarmac and concrete - don't ask about its accuracy - to record a temperature margin above an old 'record' similarly obtained, of fractions of a degree which persisted for only a few minutes maybe 6 minutes or so, and claim a new record with msm on speed dial. Finally, with no established causality to humans beyond those responsible for the construction and development aspect, just assume it and blame humans via tax gas. Who could possibly fall for that?! Climate politics.

[turbobloke]

Then for fun, substitute the airport temperature for remote rural areas with no sensor, and spread the love heat, if pushed and working in developing countries, such that the airport reading and its substituted clones can be virtually the entire temperature data for the region. Too far fetched, no, it's climate politics. See Steve McIntyre, Prof Christy and CRUTAR(mac).

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

My question is, on what basis do you keep ignoring / rejecting the data, science and related conclusions in these peer-reviewed papers below?

https://thumbsnap.com/sc/ejj6LjLi.jpg
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/LjVEfTd6.jpg

Poor referencing perhaps



I can figure out the Fleming paper but no luck with a 'Mao et al' containing those words

And you've openly said in the past you're deliberately obscure with references as a strategy - cos people like me would then go and read advocacy blogs about it.

Shades of Phil Jones; why should I give you the data when your intention is to find something wrong with it?

I've tracked down "Mao et al" and I recognise it as a paper we've discussed before

The paper doesn't contain the sentence "Humans do not exert fundamental control over the earth's climate" but in a very 'that figures' type way it's quite similar to what Kenneth Richards of Notrickzone wrote in his description of the paper:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/21/new-paper-mode...

Also no surprise that it's a pattern seeking number wang paper - employing a technique that the authors say is used for predicting stock market swings:

"The K-line diagram technique was developed in the 18th century and is widely used in the stock market to avoid random noise. This method provides a tool that investors can use to extract signals that occur before a sudden change in the price of a stock. Based on the extracted signals,investors purchase a stock at a low price and the sell stock at a high price,thereby earning a large amount of money."

After successfully fitting curves to data the authors inform us that...

"In science, if a function fits all the observed data quite well,we can use it to predict it in future"

And here's their prediction - cooling from the early 2010s to 2127

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th March 03:04

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

A question on the SST claims, which may be (should be) of interest to crisis supporters in thrall to tax gas on holiday.

The heat capacity of water is greater than that of dry soil, aka land. Therefore water will absorb heat from a given source more slowly than land other things being equal. If hot SST is due to the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect and downwelling radiation, how come the coast (land) isn't as warm the nearby seawater, after basking under the same heat source over the same time? Clearly something unusual occasionally happens involving the thin surface skin of some areas of seawater at some times, which isn't persistent.

Strange comments

What makes you say "how come the coast (land) isn't as warm the nearby seawater"? Isn't it?

What makes you think it's [claimed to be] all due to enhanced GHE?

Of course there are natural factors involved. There's an El Nino in play. It's the end of summer in the southern hemisphere where most of the ocean is - global mean SST usually peaks around now. There are no single cause answers. El Nino conditions in the pacific don't explain record warm north atlantic temps. That was happening before El Nino had formed last year. The oceans have been getting warmer over decades (etc)

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

What makes you say "how come the coast (land) isn't as warm the nearby seawater"? Isn't it?

If it was, where's the hype? It's a sea surface (skin) thing.

kerplunk said:

What makes you think it's [claimed to be] all due to enhanced GHE?

I wasn't responding to anything other than a post on PH which lacked basic analysis.

kerplunk said:

Of course there are natural factors involved. There's an El Nino in play. It's the end of summer in the southern hemisphere where most of the ocean is - global mean SST usually peaks around now. There are no single cause answers. El Nino conditions in the pacific don't explain record warm north atlantic temps. That was happening before El Nino had formed last year. The oceans have been getting warmer over decades (etc)

A signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena, note the last entry in the list below. Moreover the emergence of a (human) climate change signal in marine heatwaves is not expected even under the extreme RCP8.5 scenario by 2100 -with the same applying to all other entries in the list (IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 12 Table 12.12).

River floods
Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
Landslides
Drought (all types)
Severe wind storms
Tropical cyclones
Sand and dust storms
Heavy snowfall and ice storms
Hail
Snow avalanche
Coastal flooding
Marine heat waves

This sea skin balone is pure climate politics. Oceans have been getting warmer for decades with no causality to humans ^ natural warming over decades is what it is. Assuming causality to humans is happening all over the place when there's no established causality just belief in the msm and activists that it exists.

This particular phenomenon involves the water surface skin and is well-known, it happens when sea conditions allow, as it requires significantly lower surface agitation and much less mixing than usual. This even managed to get into the popular press last summer when Sea Skin Temperatures in some areas around the UK were causing false alarm.

At the time I posted on PH about one article which noted that the effect "is strongest in the northern North Sea, northwest of Ireland, and the Celtic Sea between Cornwall and southern Ireland. However, in other areas, such as the southern North Sea, the English Channel and the southern Irish Sea, the surface temperatures are only a degree or so above normal. The two regions are verry different in oceanographic terms. The latter areas tend to be shallower (30-40 metres) with stronger tidal currents and so the water remains well mixeod" thus the question arises as to how tax gas effects or indeed El Nino effects can be so closely selective for some nearby sea skin locations while ignoring others very close by around the coast. It's not a global climate phenomonon, it's related to the nature of the particular locations involved and the prevailing conditions around them.

The article correctly attributes the source of heat as follows "in these seasonally stratifying regions the heat from the sun only warms the relatively shallow surface layer, while in the mixed regions the sun’s impact is diluted as its heat is mixed..." which isn't bad at all for msm, we can't expect more these days. Bending the knee eventually, as must happen at some point to keep the climate inquisition at bay, the article goes on to note that "the sea surface is up to 5C warmer than normal two months before we’d expect to see the maximum temperatures" and once again the implication left hanging in the air to feed assumptions held by indoctrinated readers is that this is abnormal, so think humans. Seasons aren't fixed, phenomena can be late or early, and are, our pathetically short instrumental record is inadequate and can't show more than a snapshot in climate terms.

No human element whatseover is needed to account for Sea Skin Temperature as noted. Piggybacking a temperature on assumptions of agw effects is commonplace. El Nino effects aren't ocean-atmosphere coupling any more, the usual suspects assume it's a mix of natural ocean atmosphere coupling with some agw thrown iin - there's no causal basis, as ever, just an assumption which goes unchallenged, as ever. Articles including some BBC offerings are fond of saying that this is El Nino or whatever but with human climate change on top. Talking of which...

BBC article on 07 March this year said:

Temperatures are still being boosted by the Pacific's El Niño weather event, but human-caused climate change is by far the main driver of the warmth.

Which puts IPCC in its place and surely contributes to the lack of independent analysis mentioned above, there's no established causality to humans in marine heatwaves, the IPCC would claim it given half a chance, faith fails so obviously that no attempt at baseless hyperboie is made (see AR6 as referenced above),

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

You talk about data but what you do is link to advocacy blogs and tabloid newspapers.

Incorrect, in that I cite papers as links aren't always possible given that not all papers are open access. Linking to an absract - based on experience - causes just as many complaints for exclusion of other content. Copyright rules exist in the wider world as well as in PH posting rules. I have access via a university library for many journals and you presumably don't have the same access.

"yeah I definitely have a girlfriend but you won't know her because she goes to another school"

Obviously this is bks. We provide the sources you've hidden and the papers you're misrepresenting all the time. How could we prove how you're misrepresenting otherwise?

Also, your obfuscation of sources has changed over time. You didn't used to do it when people trusted you, then when people started questioning what you were saying you started not providing the sources, and that's evolved to your current solution of posting screenshots of unsourced quotes. Obviously the kind of trouble somebody would go to if they had nothing to hide.

turbobloke said:

A climate politics thread is legitimately a bases for linking to political blogs like Climate Depot. IPCC is a political advocacy group.

Contradicting yourself again. You constantly decry the use advocacy blogs even though you're pretty much the only person here who relies on them. It's one of your many projections.

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

Can't see anything in the data that supports that global cooling that you predicted would start 12 years ago though. Since you keep referencing some data that supposedly supports your position, perhaps you can point to it?

I have made no predictions personally.

An outright lie, as proven.

turbobloke said:

I have said that the data-based predictions published in peer-reviewed papers by Landscheidt (2030) and Abdusamatov (2050) are more credible that the output from inadequate climate models running too hot on assumptions and tuned parameterisations.

More inaccuracy due to a focus on playing the man not the ball, as usual. Still encouraging and flattering but still inaccurate.

Desperate gaslighting. I'm clearly playing the ball here - I'm commenting only on the things you have said.

• Landscheidt and Abdusamatov said global warming would peak around 2012, and cooling would begin.
• You said repeatedly that cooling would begin in 2012.
• Abdusamatov said we would see cooling from 2015.
• Then you said in 2015 that it would be seen by the mid-2020s and that this was "testable".

We are well past 2012, 2015 and we are now in the mid-2020s. You can't hide behind the future any more, you've run out of road to kick your can down. By the criteria Landscheidt, Abdusamatov and you set, we can test these theories.

So to test them, why don't you show the Landscheidt and Abdusamatov projections overload with the observed temperatures from the last 15 years. Let's see how they fared against the "inadequate" climate models.

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

My question is, on what basis do you keep ignoring / rejecting the data, science and related conclusions in these peer-reviewed papers below?

https://thumbsnap.com/sc/ejj6LjLi.jpg
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/LjVEfTd6.jpg

Poor referencing perhaps



I can figure out the Fleming paper but no luck with a 'Mao et al' containing those words

And you've openly said in the past you're deliberately obscure with references as a strategy - cos people like me would then go and read advocacy blogs about it.

Shades of Phil Jones; why should I give you the data when your intention is to find something wrong with it?

I've tracked down "Mao et al" and I recognise it as a paper we've discussed before

The paper doesn't contain the sentence "Humans do not exert fundamental control over the earth's climate" but in a very 'that figures' type way it's quite similar to what Kenneth Richards of Notrickzone wrote in his description of the paper:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/21/new-paper-mode...

Also no surprise that it's a pattern seeking number wang paper - employing a technique that the authors say is used for predicting stock market swings:

"The K-line diagram technique was developed in the 18th century and is widely used in the stock market to avoid random noise. This method provides a tool that investors can use to extract signals that occur before a sudden change in the price of a stock. Based on the extracted signals,investors purchase a stock at a low price and the sell stock at a high price,thereby earning a large amount of money."

After successfully fitting curves to data the authors inform us that...

"In science, if a function fits all the observed data quite well,we can use it to predict it in future"

And here's their prediction - cooling from the early 2010s to 2127

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th March 03:04

The conclusion being it is impossible to predict the future state of a highly complex and chaotic system, particularly given we don't fully understand that system. All the predictions about 50 or 100 years down the road are horsest. Or was there a different conclusion I was suposed to reach?

[durbster]

mko9 said:

The conclusion being it is impossible to predict the future state of a highly complex and chaotic system, particularly given we don't fully understand that system. All the predictions about 50 or 100 years down the road are horsest. Or was there a different conclusion I was suposed to reach?

Except the predictions climate scientists made 50 years ago were not horsest because they were correct. They said increasing the greenhouse gases would cause rapid warming and it did. That is an indisputable fact.

You can predict that the world will adhere to the laws of physics, and climate science is driven by the laws of physics.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

What makes you say "how come the coast (land) isn't as warm the nearby seawater"? Isn't it?

If it was, where's the hype? It's a sea surface (skin) thing.

The current 'hype' you're referring to is about global mean SST in recent days being the warmest ever recorded at any time of year in the ERA5 reanalysis data. I already pointed out global mean SST peaks at this time of year because most of the ocean is in the SH where it's the end of summer. That should've prompted you to consider where most of the land is, and how likely it is that global mean land temps would be setting a similar record at this time of year.

Monthly land temp records however have neen falling like leaves since the middle of last year. For example Berkeley Earth reports January broke the record for that month in 56 countries.

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

The conclusion being it is impossible to predict the future state of a highly complex and chaotic system, particularly given we don't fully understand that system. All the predictions about 50 or 100 years down the road are horsest. Or was there a different conclusion I was suposed to reach?

Well the context according to turbobloke is 'papers that show man isn't the cause of the warming'

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

It's a sea surface (skin) thing.

Are we sure about this?

From the Copernicus FAQ:

What is sea surface temperature?

The sea surface temperature (SST) corresponds to the temperature of the water at a depth of about 10m, known as foundation temperature . In ERA5, the SST data is not produced by the model but is rather based on external global SST products. Daily SST data from the Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Ice Analysis (OSTIA) produced by the UK Met Office is used from September 2007 onward. SST data from the HadISST2.1.0.0 dataset produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre is used before September 2007. Further details can be found in the Hersbach et al. (2020) paper. Although SST data is available for the full ERA5 dataset (1940 to present), only data from January 1979 onward is used for Climate Pulse: this is the period for which the data is more reliable due to the availability of satellite observations.

[turbobloke]

No human climate change signal is in marine heat data, AR6, and it's not expected before 2100 even under the IPCC's unlikely scenarios...the rest is armwaving waffle, climate politics for The Cause. British Broadcasting Climatists are taking the manure.

Ref
IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 12 Table 12.12 p1856
PDF
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/repor...

Talking of manure, the climate crisis lie has been out of the donkey for years (as per data and per Prof Christy, Dr Curry, Prof Hulme and others) it may be ignored but it's not going back in the donkey. Waffle on, activism.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

They said increasing the greenhouse gases would cause rapid warming and it did. That is an indisputable fact.

It's still so what

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

No human climate change signal is in marine heat data, AR6, and it's not expected before 2100 even under the IPCC's unlikely scenarios...the rest is armwaving waffle, climate politics for The Cause. British Broadcasting Climatists are taking the manure.

Ref
IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 12 Table 12.12 p1856
PDF
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/repor...

It would be incorrect to infer from that that any marine heatwave occurring now doesn't have an AGW component