Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[ChevronB19]

TB. I realise I’m cherry picking here, but you are doing the same in terms of that report. The authors acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. There is clearly a discussion as to just how much anthropogenically induced climate change contributes to overall natural climate change.

What are your thoughts about this, from the paper you quoted?



Your previous post said (in essence) ‘nothing before 2100’. What you suggest as evidence to contradict this says differently. Are you actually leaning towards an acknowledgement that AGW is real?

Edited by ChevronB19 on Wednesday 13th March 12:19

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

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'

You might also consider the fact that paper is published in a pay-to-publish predatory journal with remarkably fast 'peer review'

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th March 12:35

[Diderot]

ChevronB19 said:

TB. I realise I’m cherry picking here, but you are doing the same in terms of that report. The authors acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. There is clearly a discussion as to just how much anthropogenically induced climate change contributes to overall natural climate change.

What are your thoughts about this, from the paper you quoted?



Your previous post said (in essence) ‘nothing before 2100’. What you suggest as evidence to contradict this says differently. Are you actually leaning towards an acknowledgement that AGW is real?

Edited by ChevronB19 on Wednesday 13th March 12:19

It's RCP 8.5, so can be ignored.

[turbobloke]

Net Zero's beloved EVs won't be enough even if the entire fleet is electric.
Anti-car extremism will take any convenient cause it can get.

True colours showing once again.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/cmCiYZcB.jpg

Net Zero won't be enough either, though as it lacks a sound basis and its arrival has got less than a Vinerist snowball in hell's chance, it doesn't matter.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/zeUgGVTA.jpg

Governments are getting in reverse on climate, including ESG. Paris is a dodo not least due to China and India.
https://www.esgtoday.com/eu-council-fails-to-appro...

[deeps]

Came across this earlier...

'Scientists tell us we have a 10-year window — if even that — before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable and irreversible.

The threat is real, and time is not on our side. Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things.

Here are a few you need to know: Atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have risen 38% in the industrial era, from 280 to 385 parts per million (ppm). Scientists have warned that anything above 450 ppm — a warming of 2 degrees Celsius — will result in an unacceptable risk of catastrophic climate change.

The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.'

2009 John Kerry

I guess as it's now been 'irreversible' for the last 5 years, we should all just chill and enjoy the beautiful warm (global boiling) summer that lies ahead

[hairykrishna]

kerplunk said:

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

It's a hilariously st paper in a predatory journal. I'm sure our resident crew of sceptics will be all over it's many flaws any minute now.

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

[Lotus 50]

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.

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),

You seem to have picked up Kawasicki's mis-information, or at least you haven't read the preceding chapters of the report (or even the whole chapter 12). The table you've referenced is referring to the emergence of climate impacts at the global scale. It doesn't mean that the IPCC or others haven't identified emerging signals at a more local scale. So, for example, the table you've referred to might say there is low confidence that there is a global signal for increases in river flooding, however that doesn't mean that a signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability. In more detail...

At the global scale Chapter 12 of the IPCC report identifies low confidence in the emergence of AGW related increases in flooding as follows: 'There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions (Chapters 8 and Chapter 11, and across Section 12.4). In climate projections, the emergence of increase in heavy precipitation strongly depends on the scale of aggregation (Kirchmeier-Young et al., 2019), with, in general, no emergence before a 1.5°C or 2°C warming level, and before the middle of the century (medium confidence), but results depend on the method used for the calculation of the ToE (Maraun, 2013; King et al., 2015; Kusunoki et al., 2020). Emergent increases in heavy precipitation are found in several regions when aggregated at a regional scale in Northern Europe, Northern Asia and East Asia, at latest by the end of the century in SRES A1B or RCP8.5 scenarios or when considering the decadal variability as a reference (medium confidence) (Maraun, 2013; W. Li et al., 2018, 2021; Kusunoki et al., 2020). There have been few emergence studies for streamflow and flooding, although one study showed emergence of different hydrological regimes at different times during the 21st century across the USA (Leng et al., 2016). Variability in extreme streamflows from year to year can be high relative to a trend (Zhuan et al., 2018). Given the heterogeneity of methods and results, there is only low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and flood signals in any region when considering the S/N ratio.

However, Chapter 11 looks at climate impacts from extreme events at a more detailed spatial scale. In particular for flooding (Ch 11.5.4) it says: 'There are very few studies focused on the attribution of long-term changes in floods, but there are studies on changes in flood events. Most of the studies focus on flash floods and urban floods, which are closely related to intense precipitation events (Hannaford, 2015). In other cases, event attribution focused on runoff using hydrological models, and examples include river basins in the UK (Section 11.4.4; Schaller et al., 2016; Kay et al., 2018), the Okavango River in Africa (Wolski et al., 2014), and the Brahmaputra River in Bangladesh (Philip et al., 2019). Findings about anthropogenic influences vary between different regions and basins. For some flood events, the probability of high floods in the current climate is lower than in a climate without an anthropogenic influence (Wolski et al., 2014), while in other cases anthropogenic influence leads to more intense floods (Cho et al., 2016; Pall et al., 2017; van der Wiel et al., 2017; Philip et al., 2018a; Teufel et al., 2019). Factors such as land-cover change and river management can also increase the probability of high floods (Ji et al., 2020). These, along with model uncertainties and the lack of studies overall, suggest a low confidence in general statements to attribute changes in flood events to anthropogenic climate change. A few individual regions have been well studied, which allows for high confidence in the attribution of increased flooding in these cases. For example, flooding in the UK following increased winter precipitation (Schaller et al., 2016; Kay et al., 2018) can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Schaller et al., 2016; Vautard et al., 2016; Yiou et al., 2017; Otto et al., 2018b).'

So as I've said before it's not true to assert that the IPCC have not identified the influence of AGW on flooding. They've said there is low confidence that AGW has caused increases globally, and there are sound reasons for this (eg some areas AGW may decrease flooding vs increases in others). There's more confidence on a regional basis and high confidence in more specific areas such as the UK.

Similarly with Ocean heatwaves, there may be low confidence at a global scale but more locally the IPCC have already identified signals - eg 'Ocean temperatures from satellite observations noted a moderate increase of 1–4 annual marine heat wave (MHW) events between 1982–1988 and 2000–2016 over some areas in the Indian Ocean, subtropical parts of the North and South Atlantic, and central and western parts of the North and South Pacific, but
a decrease in frequency (two annual events) over the eastern Pacific Ocean (Box 9.2; Oliver et al., 2018). The intensity of MHWs has also increased between 0.2°C and 0.5°C over the equatorial portions of the North Atlantic and the South Pacific. Over the eastern tropical Pacific, the decrease in intensity and duration of MHW is between 0.5°C and 1.0°C and between 30 and 75 days, respectively (Box 9.2; Oliver et al., 2018).

[Diderot]

deeps said:

Came across this earlier...

'Scientists tell us we have a 10-year window — if even that — before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable and irreversible.

The threat is real, and time is not on our side. Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things.

Here are a few you need to know: Atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have risen 38% in the industrial era, from 280 to 385 parts per million (ppm). Scientists have warned that anything above 450 ppm — a warming of 2 degrees Celsius — will result in an unacceptable risk of catastrophic climate change.

The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.'

2009 John Kerry

I guess as it's now been 'irreversible' for the last 5 years, we should all just chill and enjoy the beautiful warm (global boiling) summer that lies ahead

Typical arsewipery from a politician.

Now it seems there's no consensus about when the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer - the latest guesses range from 2030 to 2050. You couldn't make it up, although they have.

Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 13th March 18:08

Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 13th March 18:09

[Diderot]

Lotus 50 said:

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.

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),

You seem to have picked up Kawasicki's mis-information, or at least you haven't read the preceding chapters of the report (or even the whole chapter 12). The table you've referenced is referring to the emergence of climate impacts at the global scale. It doesn't mean that the IPCC or others haven't identified emerging signals at a more local scale. So, for example, the table you've referred to might say there is low confidence that there is a global signal for increases in river flooding, however that doesn't mean that a signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability. In more detail...

At the global scale Chapter 12 of the IPCC report identifies low confidence in the emergence of AGW related increases in flooding as follows: 'There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions (Chapters 8 and Chapter 11, and across Section 12.4). In climate projections, the emergence of increase in heavy precipitation strongly depends on the scale of aggregation (Kirchmeier-Young et al., 2019), with, in general, no emergence before a 1.5°C or 2°C warming level, and before the middle of the century (medium confidence), but results depend on the method used for the calculation of the ToE (Maraun, 2013; King et al., 2015; Kusunoki et al., 2020). Emergent increases in heavy precipitation are found in several regions when aggregated at a regional scale in Northern Europe, Northern Asia and East Asia, at latest by the end of the century in SRES A1B or RCP8.5 scenarios or when considering the decadal variability as a reference (medium confidence) (Maraun, 2013; W. Li et al., 2018, 2021; Kusunoki et al., 2020). There have been few emergence studies for streamflow and flooding, although one study showed emergence of different hydrological regimes at different times during the 21st century across the USA (Leng et al., 2016). Variability in extreme streamflows from year to year can be high relative to a trend (Zhuan et al., 2018). Given the heterogeneity of methods and results, there is only low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and flood signals in any region when considering the S/N ratio.

However, Chapter 11 looks at climate impacts from extreme events at a more detailed spatial scale. In particular for flooding (Ch 11.5.4) it says: 'There are very few studies focused on the attribution of long-term changes in floods, but there are studies on changes in flood events. Most of the studies focus on flash floods and urban floods, which are closely related to intense precipitation events (Hannaford, 2015). In other cases, event attribution focused on runoff using hydrological models, and examples include river basins in the UK (Section 11.4.4; Schaller et al., 2016; Kay et al., 2018), the Okavango River in Africa (Wolski et al., 2014), and the Brahmaputra River in Bangladesh (Philip et al., 2019). Findings about anthropogenic influences vary between different regions and basins. For some flood events, the probability of high floods in the current climate is lower than in a climate without an anthropogenic influence (Wolski et al., 2014), while in other cases anthropogenic influence leads to more intense floods (Cho et al., 2016; Pall et al., 2017; van der Wiel et al., 2017; Philip et al., 2018a; Teufel et al., 2019). Factors such as land-cover change and river management can also increase the probability of high floods (Ji et al., 2020). These, along with model uncertainties and the lack of studies overall, suggest a low confidence in general statements to attribute changes in flood events to anthropogenic climate change. A few individual regions have been well studied, which allows for high confidence in the attribution of increased flooding in these cases. For example, flooding in the UK following increased winter precipitation (Schaller et al., 2016; Kay et al., 2018) can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Schaller et al., 2016; Vautard et al., 2016; Yiou et al., 2017; Otto et al., 2018b).'

So as I've said before it's not true to assert that the IPCC have not identified the influence of AGW on flooding. They've said there is low confidence that AGW has caused increases globally, and there are sound reasons for this (eg some areas AGW may decrease flooding vs increases in others). There's more confidence on a regional basis and high confidence in more specific areas such as the UK.

Similarly with Ocean heatwaves, there may be low confidence at a global scale but more locally the IPCC have already identified signals - eg 'Ocean temperatures from satellite observations noted a moderate increase of 1–4 annual marine heat wave (MHW) events between 1982–1988 and 2000–2016 over some areas in the Indian Ocean, subtropical parts of the North and South Atlantic, and central and western parts of the North and South Pacific, but
a decrease in frequency (two annual events) over the eastern Pacific Ocean (Box 9.2; Oliver et al., 2018). The intensity of MHWs has also increased between 0.2°C and 0.5°C over the equatorial portions of the North Atlantic and the South Pacific. Over the eastern tropical Pacific, the decrease in intensity and duration of MHW is between 0.5°C and 1.0°C and between 30 and 75 days, respectively (Box 9.2; Oliver et al., 2018).

My emphases. We see RCP 8.5 at work once again. We see modelling, projections, lack of studies, low confidence, and precious little data.

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

My emphases. We see RCP 8.5 at work once again. We see modelling, projections, lack of studies, low confidence, and precious little data.

Exactly.

When any entity states X and available empirical data says X, the position X is rational and credible.
When any entity states Y and available empirical data says Z, the position Y is only tenable via faith, and data must be sidelined or denied.

IPCC Folland - the data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.
IPCC Trenberth - there should be even more warming but the data are surely wrong

It doesn't matter what or who the entity is, IPCC or Kerry, and what leads UN IPCC to mix Z with Y is politics. They get it right in terms of following the data with some things, usually where even their brass neck would snap to deny obvious data, but they need to keep the faith with mean global temperature and related hype such as the global boiling idiocy as that's the headline msm wants and IPCC politicians own the scare. Such propaganda has been working away for years and made an impact on western political policy, unfortunately.

Now that the nonsense of that faith position and the completely unaffordable nature of related political policy are becoming more widely known, those invested in the climate crisis lie for whatever reason are sensing change ahead and clinging on any way they can, not always edifying. Meaningful change is still some way off.

[kerplunk]

PH turbobloke - I base my recommendations on mining data for patterns which tell us the future and means we can safely ignore that physics and thermodynamics based stuff

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 08:50

[turbobloke]

A decent slice of how our modelling-based climate policy persists, a folly to the nation's detriment...the Pygmalion Effect.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-love-of-a-model-...

The result is yet to play out fully. 'Dr Constable’s film is a powerful warning that, because our current energy policies are wrong at a fundamental, physical level, they can never be economic. Indeed they are an urgent threat to our society.' This (below) is less than 15 mins, less still when the annoying ads are skipped. A side benefit is yet another opportunity for shoot-the-messenger ad hom nothingburgers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYlWiunJo4

[Lotus 50]

Diderot said:

My emphases. We see RCP 8.5 at work once again. We see modelling, projections, lack of studies, low confidence, and precious little data.

Picking up on your points and bold text:

The bits you've highlighted my second paragraph show why the IPCC only have low confidence that there's any signal of AGW at the global scale, so I'm sure you'll join me in congratulating them in being so transparent and making conservative statements that properly reflect the state of play in setting out the the impacts of AGW at a global scale.

In the 3rd paragraph, on CH 11 looking regionally, yep there's a lack of data but in some areas where there are sufficient data to discern the signal locally it is already apparent - so TB's statement that "A signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability' is wrong. But again, good to see you're championing the need to get more data to get a clearer picture. A couple of things though - do you understand what most hydrological modelling consists of? If you've got an issue with that, why don't you have an issue with the papers that TB references?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 09:24

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 10:06

[kerplunk]

hairykrishna said:

kerplunk said:

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

It's a hilariously st paper in a predatory journal. I'm sure our resident crew of sceptics will be all over it's many flaws any minute now.

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

And this is the type of stuff that tubobloke holds up as superior - because it's 'data based'

[kerplunk]

Lotus 50 said:

Diderot said:

My emphases. We see RCP 8.5 at work once again. We see modelling, projections, lack of studies, low confidence, and precious little data.

Picking up on your points and bold text:

The bits you've highlighted my second paragraph show why the IPCC only have low confidence that there's any signal of AGW at the global scale, so I'm sure you'll join me in congratulating them in being so transparent and making conservative statements that properly reflect the state of play in setting out the the impacts of AGW at a global scale.

In the 3rd paragraph, on CH 11 looking regionally, yep there's a lack of data but in some areas where there are sufficient data to discern the signal locally it is already apparent - so TB's statement that "A signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability' is wrong. But again, good to see you're championing the need to get more data to get a clearer picture. A couple of things though - do you understand what most hydrological modelling consists of? If you've got an issue with that, why don't you have an issue with the papers that TB references?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 09:24

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 10:06

From CH9 Executive Summary

Marine heatwaves – sustained periods of anomalously high near-surface temperatures that can lead to severe and persistent impacts on marine ecosystems – have become more frequent over the 20th century (high confidence). Since the 1980s, they have approximately doubled in frequency (high confidence) and have become more intense and longer (medium confidence). This trend will continue, with marine heatwaves at global scale becoming four times [2 to 9, likely range] more frequent in 2081–2100 compared to 1995–2014 under SSP1-2.6, and eight times [3 to 15, likely range] more frequent under SSP5-8.5. The largest changes will occur in the tropical ocean and the Arctic (medium confidence).

[Diderot]

Lotus 50 said:

Diderot said:

My emphases. We see RCP 8.5 at work once again. We see modelling, projections, lack of studies, low confidence, and precious little data.

Picking up on your points and bold text:

The bits you've highlighted my second paragraph show why the IPCC only have low confidence that there's any signal of AGW at the global scale, so I'm sure you'll join me in congratulating them in being so transparent and making conservative statements that properly reflect the state of play in setting out the the impacts of AGW at a global scale.

In the 3rd paragraph, on CH 11 looking regionally, yep there's a lack of data but in some areas where there are sufficient data to discern the signal locally it is already apparent - so TB's statement that "A signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability' is wrong. But again, good to see you're championing the need to get more data to get a clearer picture. A couple of things though - do you understand what most hydrological modelling consists of? If you've got an issue with that, why don't you have an issue with the papers that TB references?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 09:24

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 10:06

The main issue is RCP 8.5 which ain’t happening so all else is moot,

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

TB's statement that "A signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability' is wrong

That multiple falsehood warrants a separate response,

First off, that's not what I said, you snipped 'the' statement in my post,which was:
A signal of (human) climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena'

The point about the lack of a visible human signal in these phenomena is made by IPCC in AR6 so it's not even 'my' statement. I linked to the page in the report, how much more hand holding is needed?

Finally it's not wrong. The data available supports what the IPCC summarises in the relevant table of Ch12. That's the context of what I said.

Pathetic post content, trolling spawned by desperation in support of The Cause which is in deep trouble but can survive on political intertia and the lack of sifficient egg in the world for all the faces that now deserve it, including yours after that codswallop.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 14th March 13:09

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

The main issue is RCP 8.5 which ain’t happening so all else is moot,

Sure - so long as we avoid tripling our annual CO2 emissions by 2100 (thereby increasing CO2 levels to more than two doublings over pre-industrial and a radiative forcing of 8.5W/m2) there's nothing to worry about

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 13:15

[Lotus 50]

Diderot said:

The main issue is RCP 8.5 which ain’t happening so all else is moot,

Still missing the point - there are already signals of the impacts of AGW locally despite TB and Kawasicki's assertions. Projection scenarios don't come into it.

[turbobloke]

Post invisible so here we go again:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

The main issue is RCP 8.5 which ain’t happening so all else is moot,

Sure - so long as we avoid tripling our annual CO2 emissions by 2100 there's nothing to worry about

There would be nothing to worry about anyway, as the data shows that heat is escaping to space faster than inadequate modelling 'allows' (see McKitick and Christy) and that carbon dioxide is a non-causal spectator on a long holiday.

Ollila
These results mean that there is no climate crisis and (no) need for prompt CO2 reduction programs

Dagsvik and Moen
The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations

Mao et al
Humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate

McKitrick and Christy
A warming trend over the test interval (is) significantly smaller than that shown in models, and the difference is large enough to reject the (agw) null hypothesis that models represent it correctly

Fleming
Results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate

Varotsos and Efstathiou
The temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere are not as predicted by agw theory

Even so, stalwart work there for The Cause.