Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
Lotus 50 said:
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.Try slowly re-reading-for-comprehension my previous reply to similar nonsense.
For the phenomena I listed, a point which Lotus 50 snipped out, the IPCC acknowledges in AR6 Ch12 that there is no human signal visible and is unlikely to be seen before 2100 even under unrealistic scenarios.
The IPCC asserts at the top of the table that some temperature measures have a human signal. Care is needed, as a paper some years back, of which Prof Hulme was one author of two, pointed out that IPCC attribution of climate change to humans involves a small team of a couple of dozen or so, which agrees that there's a human signal. Political appointees at that. This is not an objective matter but a subjective matter. As causality with CO2 hasn't been established objectively, the message is clear enough, though it must be apreciated that those spinning for The Cause won't like it and likely won't recall the Hulme plus one paper. Convenient memory or real lapse, who knows, who cares.
As Prof Hulme also acknowledged more recently, supporting the existing publicly stated views expressed by Prof Christy, Dr Curry and other climatologist paper authors cited, the climate crisis is a lie, with some discussion to be had over nobility.
The IPCC asserts at the top of the table that some temperature measures have a human signal. Care is needed, as a paper some years back, of which Prof Hulme was one author of two, pointed out that IPCC attribution of climate change to humans involves a small team of a couple of dozen or so, which agrees that there's a human signal. Political appointees at that. This is not an objective matter but a subjective matter. As causality with CO2 hasn't been established objectively, the message is clear enough, though it must be apreciated that those spinning for The Cause won't like it and likely won't recall the Hulme plus one paper. Convenient memory or real lapse, who knows, who cares.
As Prof Hulme also acknowledged more recently, supporting the existing publicly stated views expressed by Prof Christy, Dr Curry and other climatologist paper authors cited, the climate crisis is a lie, with some discussion to be had over nobility.
turbobloke said:
For the phenomena I listed, a point which Lotus 50 snipped out, the IPCC acknowledges in AR6 Ch12 that there is no human signal visible and is unlikely to be seen before 2100 even under unrealistic scenarios.
The IPCC asserts at the top of the table that some temperature measures have a human signal. Care is needed, as a paper some years back, of which Prof Hulme was one author of two, pointed out that IPCC attribution of climate change to humans involves a small team of a couple of dozen or so, which agrees that there's a human signal. Political appointees at that. This is not an objective matter but a subjective matter. As causality with CO2 hasn't been established objectively, the message is clear enough, though it must be apreciated that those spinning for The Cause won't like it and likely won't recall the Hulme plus one paper. Convenient memory or real lapse, who knows, who cares.
As Prof Hulme also acknowledged more recently, supporting the existing publicly stated views expressed by Prof Christy, Dr Curry and other climatologist paper authors cited, the climate crisis is a lie, with some discussion to be had over nobility.
I didn't snip anything out - look at my reply to your initial posting and erroneous interpretation of the figure in question.The IPCC asserts at the top of the table that some temperature measures have a human signal. Care is needed, as a paper some years back, of which Prof Hulme was one author of two, pointed out that IPCC attribution of climate change to humans involves a small team of a couple of dozen or so, which agrees that there's a human signal. Political appointees at that. This is not an objective matter but a subjective matter. As causality with CO2 hasn't been established objectively, the message is clear enough, though it must be apreciated that those spinning for The Cause won't like it and likely won't recall the Hulme plus one paper. Convenient memory or real lapse, who knows, who cares.
As Prof Hulme also acknowledged more recently, supporting the existing publicly stated views expressed by Prof Christy, Dr Curry and other climatologist paper authors cited, the climate crisis is a lie, with some discussion to be had over nobility.
Chapter 12 is about signals emerging at a global scale earlier chapters of the report demonstrate that signals have already emerged at a local scale. The clue is in the introductory paragraph to the section the table is included in "Section 12.4 assessed changes in climatic impact-drivers by region, primarily based on a large number of local- and regional-scale studies (even though global studies are also used). This section presents an assessment of changes in CIDs at the global scale." Where they do identify emergent signals at a more local scale they are cross-referenced to peer reviewed papers. Are you seriously suggesting that the authors of those papers are political appointees? Suggest you actually read the report.
Talking of CO2 are you aware of the 2022 Shaviv, Svensmark and Veizer paper looking at the Earth's climate over the phanerozoic?
"We review the long-term climate variations during the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic Eon). We begin with a short summary of the relevant geological and geochemical datasets available for the reconstruction of long-term climate variations. We then explore the main drivers of climate that appear to explain a large fraction of these climatic oscillations. The first is the long-term trend in atmospheric CO2 due to geological processes, while the second is the atmospheric ionization due to the changing galactic environment. Other drivers, such as albedo and geographic effects, are of secondary importance. In this review, we pay particular attention to problems that may affect the measurements of temperature obtained from oxygen isotopes, such as the long-term changes in the concentration of ?18O seawater."
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/...
Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 15:15
"The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider."
...
“Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous” (his) paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” "
The Hulme paper from years back with this acknowledgement was Hulme & Mahony, and pointed out that human climate change was decided by an inner circle of 'a few dozen' people. Opinion not objective fact.
While the consensus 2500 lie was blown, diplomatically there was iirc no mention of the 'leading' claim, and given we're talking about the guard's van at least as much as the vanguard, it's just as well.
ARs have look-up table content which could be mistaken for statistical results rather than mere opinion. Pure coincidence.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/iw4LoQv7.jpg
...
“Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous” (his) paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” "
The Hulme paper from years back with this acknowledgement was Hulme & Mahony, and pointed out that human climate change was decided by an inner circle of 'a few dozen' people. Opinion not objective fact.
While the consensus 2500 lie was blown, diplomatically there was iirc no mention of the 'leading' claim, and given we're talking about the guard's van at least as much as the vanguard, it's just as well.
ARs have look-up table content which could be mistaken for statistical results rather than mere opinion. Pure coincidence.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/iw4LoQv7.jpg
Unsurprisingly it isn't true and Hulme himself refuted the misportrayal by Lawrence Solomon that he had attributed the consensus claim to the IPCC.
Lawrence Solomon then fired back saying - oh yes you did, and here it is from the IPCC
But he's blowing smoke - it isn't there
https://financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon...
Lawrence Solomon then fired back saying - oh yes you did, and here it is from the IPCC
But he's blowing smoke - it isn't there
https://financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon...
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 16:29
Which opinion? Hulme's observation in the peer-reviewed paper he co-authored isn't an opinion, it's witness testimony from an insider-observer. The media had a field day with the number and phrase as quoted.
Fundamentally, the human contribution is subjective opinion not objective result, it requires 'a few dozen' political appointees and at least one meeting.
An objective decision would require a minimum of one researcher, data, and two independent peer reviewers who know what they're doing.
That last point is important following the AT99 stats dog's breakfast, and the published then retracted scary oceans paper in Nature, retracted over a very basic random/systematic error screw up.
Data backs up the faux climate crisis statements from Hulme and others. Opinion contrary to the data is faith-based.
Fundamentally, the human contribution is subjective opinion not objective result, it requires 'a few dozen' political appointees and at least one meeting.
An objective decision would require a minimum of one researcher, data, and two independent peer reviewers who know what they're doing.
That last point is important following the AT99 stats dog's breakfast, and the published then retracted scary oceans paper in Nature, retracted over a very basic random/systematic error screw up.
Data backs up the faux climate crisis statements from Hulme and others. Opinion contrary to the data is faith-based.
Lotus 50 said:
So you are saying that the papers that identify signals of AGW in current weather patterns that are referenced by the IPCC aren't objective, haven't been peer-reviewed and have been produced by political appointees. Are you sure?
Mixing questions to make a leading question. Assertion with no support. Papers mentioned i.e. 'the papers' but not one cited. Vague waffle as usual. Cite a paper or two, we can go from there work and attrition loops pdermitting...I appreciate you may need another white knight, no matter. I referred to comments from an IPCC (now former IPCC) climatologist.
@kerplunk what is it being referred to...somebody put the screws on, road to Damascus, alcohol?
Click
turbobloke said:
Ollila
These results mean that there is no climate crisis and (no) need for prompt CO2 reduction programs
Guess what - it's another paper with a cooling prediction, submitted in february 2023 and with excellent timing accepted for publication in July as temps went dramatically the other way:These results mean that there is no climate crisis and (no) need for prompt CO2 reduction programs
"Because the Sun’s activity should be decreasing and the AHR effect also declines after a few years, the global temperature according to this alternative warming theory should decline permanently after 2020 even though the warming effect of GH gases increases steadily."
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uplo...
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 17:38
turbobloke said:
Mixing questions to make a leading question. Assertion with no support. Papers mentioned i.e. 'the papers' but not one cited. Vague waffle as usual.
Cite a paper or two, we can go from there work and attrition loops pdermitting...I appreciate you may need another white knight, no matter. I referred to comments from an IPCC (now former IPCC) climatologist.
@kerplunk what is it being referred to...somebody put the screws on, road to Damascus, alcohol?
Click
No vague waffle at all, I've was specific in responding to your mis-representation of the table in CH12 and the sections I quoted provide refs to some examples of papers showing AGW signals that have already emerged and there are far more in the IPCC report. Suggest you get reading.Cite a paper or two, we can go from there work and attrition loops pdermitting...I appreciate you may need another white knight, no matter. I referred to comments from an IPCC (now former IPCC) climatologist.
@kerplunk what is it being referred to...somebody put the screws on, road to Damascus, alcohol?
Click
I don't need white knights and your attempts to patronise/belittle get you nowhere. That said I note Diderot was ready to jump into action for you following my initial response to you and you jumped to his aid later. Your assertion that the IPCC haven't identified any emergent impacts resulting from AGW aside from those in table 12.12 is plainly wrong and you're too afraid that your house of cards will fall over to admit it.
Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 14th March 17:33
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 (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 aboutEdited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 13:15
Diderot said:
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 (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 aboutEdited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 13:15
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
@kerplunk what is it being referred to...somebody put the screws on, road to Damascus, alcohol?
Click
Woah a response - but he's mystified Click
It's quite clear if you read the link
Rhetoric Null Points.
@L50 I have work to do, family and dogs, friends even, etc, so i may not get back to the one or two papers (take your/their best shots). I'll need to see if I can get direct access online, or need to request a pdf from a librarian which will take more time, and so on. I'm tempted to suggest, in a helpful sort of way, that you read the one or two papers yourself, so that you're not taking anybody's word for their aim & claim (quality of conclusions). Especially if the one or two papers are just lifted from a pro-agw advocacy blog together with the mere opinion of the blogger (nullius in verba). In that way you'll have more of an idea of what's coming,
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
@kerplunk what is it being referred to...somebody put the screws on, road to Damascus, alcohol?
Click
Woah a response - but he's mystified Click
It's quite clear if you read the link
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
@kerplunk what is it being referred to...somebody put the screws on, road to Damascus, alcohol?
Click
Woah a response - but he's mystified Click
It's quite clear if you read the link
A key point is the small (few dozen) political appointees sitting down to form a collective, subjective, mere, opinion on human climate change, and this is being dodged.
Tedious.
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
@kerplunk what is it being referred to...somebody put the screws on, road to Damascus, alcohol?
Click
Woah a response - but he's mystified Click
It's quite clear if you read the link
A key point is the small (few dozen) political appointees sitting down to form a collective, subjective, mere, opinion on human climate change, and this is being dodged.
Tedious.
And I doubt we really needed an exciting 'inside man breaking cover' to tell us the detection and attribution sections are authored by a few dozen experts - like it was closely guarded secret
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 20:29
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 14th March 20:34
This is peachy, climate politics voodoo gets exorcised as the data do matter.
Oceans have been warming as mentioned on this thread recently, with a nod and a wink to humans, when looking at high regional sea skin temperatures caused by lack of mixing and reduced latent heat energy transfers (less agitation => less mixing so surface retains heat, less evaporation so surface doesn't lose latent heat). Energy imbalance errors including TOA are no big deal, we've neen told, when they are the real deal.
Kato & Rose 2024 on shortwave irradiance variation.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eQzhw9uU.jpg
This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time"...This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate...Warming of the oceans...can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation
Fascinating discussion of the primary source Kato and Rose 2024 over at the secondary source NoTricksZone
Oceans have been warming as mentioned on this thread recently, with a nod and a wink to humans, when looking at high regional sea skin temperatures caused by lack of mixing and reduced latent heat energy transfers (less agitation => less mixing so surface retains heat, less evaporation so surface doesn't lose latent heat). Energy imbalance errors including TOA are no big deal, we've neen told, when they are the real deal.
Kato & Rose 2024 on shortwave irradiance variation.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eQzhw9uU.jpg
This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time"...This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate...Warming of the oceans...can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation
Fascinating discussion of the primary source Kato and Rose 2024 over at the secondary source NoTricksZone
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff