Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
Diderot said:
Sounds like you’re suggesting there’s no natural variation involved in changes of climate.
What are the drivers for natural variation? Can you think of any of them we might be affecting? turbobloke said:
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).
Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking
https://notrickszone.com/2024/03/19/though-europe-was-mild-winters-been-a-beast-over-much-of-northern-hemisphere/Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking
I think your quote is from this link and not NSIDC.
Here is what NSIDC state
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2024/02/
I would check your information sources. They seem a little unreliable unless you can provide the links to your dataset....
You chose Feb to align with your preferred information. Since then significant changes have occurred in temperature and ice extent.
Which evidently you parroted as "now" from NTZ, without the courtesy of a credit, and is 10 days out of date
Latest antarctic sea ice extent data to the 19th - 4th lowest behind 2023 2022 and 2017 only
"You chose Feb to align with your preferred information"
turbobloke said:
HK hasn't been keeping up at the back...two papers using data, one 2023 one 2024, show that TOA radiative imbalance in recent decades involves SW radiation (solar) not the basis used in climate models, the other uses LW radiative data over the past 100 years and shows that the significant increase in CO2 over that time interval has had no discernible effect on the so-called greenhouse effect.
There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
No objective basis...There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
Are you going to start up with that "greenhouse effect theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" stuff again?
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 21st March 02:00
turbobloke said:
Against alarmist agw predictions, Antarctic sea ice extent is now higher (3,165,625 km²) than it was 27 years ago (3,075,000 km²) and is also higher than it was in 2023 / 2022 / 2019 / 2018 / 2017 / 2011 / 2006 / 1993 / 1992 / 1991 / 1981 (source NSIDC, no images or graphics in view of Rule 16).
Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking
What is your conclusion about this data? Good job UK doesn't use models for policymaking
Incidentally, this appears to be in breach of PH rules
Edited by mike9009 on Thursday 21st March 06:53
turbobloke said:
hairykrishna said:
Did they just hold out for a day that looked a bit less bad to publish that article? Better than last year but not exactly a rosy picture is it?
As to the juvenile argumentative post content involving a leading question expecting something to be said on behalf of a third party (ask the secondary source) where is established causality to humans established objectively, beyond the mere opinion of political appointees?
Nowhere at the present but do tell when you have found it.
The effects of a warming climate on Antarctica haven't really been well understood so the "alarmist agw predictions" you referred to - did you just make that up?
turbobloke said:
where is established causality to humans
Worth pointing out that you can always tell when turbobloke's got no response because he falls back to this causality line as a distraction, like a squid shooting ink. Whenever you see this line you know he hasn't got an answer.There's no acknowledgement that the data doesn't support his claim and no admission of misrepresentation, he'll just trot out this line and head back to the advocacy blogs to find the next lie to paste in here.
Edited by durbster on Thursday 21st March 08:05
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
HK hasn't been keeping up at the back...two papers using data, one 2023 one 2024, show that TOA radiative imbalance in recent decades involves SW radiation (solar) not the basis used in climate models, the other uses LW radiative data over the past 100 years and shows that the significant increase in CO2 over that time interval has had no discernible effect on the so-called greenhouse effect.
There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
No objective basis...There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
Are you going to start up with that "greenhouse effect theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" stuff again?
The research and resulting data you just ignored / sidestepped with a typical dodgy diversion is still there. SW data shows TOA radiative imbalance in recent decades involves solar effects and not the basis used in climate models. LW radiative data over the past 100 years shows that the significant increase in CO2 over that time interval has had no discernible effect on the so-called greenhouse effect. This shows uk political policy, based on inadequate climate models, to be ridiculous.
Reminders from you that faith-dogma-activism are impervious to evidence aren't needed, but add irony and some humour.
BBC News is reporting that our electricity network needs around £60bn of upgrades to hit government's 2035 (watch this date change again) decarbonisation targeting. HS2 total cost would be approx the same, slightly more iirc, and we already spent a large chunk of it. I'd include a short quote and an attributed image of the news, in a news thread, within copyright rules, but a melon may be twisted so that'll do. As for a link, find it - I did
Cancel the unaffordable pylons
then cancel Net Zero which is properly costed beyond the curiously common errors in four separate 'official' costings as more than one HST every year to 2050. See earlier post content, copyright PH.
.
Cancel the unaffordable pylons
then cancel Net Zero which is properly costed beyond the curiously common errors in four separate 'official' costings as more than one HST every year to 2050. See earlier post content, copyright PH..
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
HK hasn't been keeping up at the back...two papers using data, one 2023 one 2024, show that TOA radiative imbalance in recent decades involves SW radiation (solar) not the basis used in climate models, the other uses LW radiative data over the past 100 years and shows that the significant increase in CO2 over that time interval has had no discernible effect on the so-called greenhouse effect.
There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
No objective basis...There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
Are you going to start up with that "greenhouse effect theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" stuff again?
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
HK hasn't been keeping up at the back...two papers using data, one 2023 one 2024, show that TOA radiative imbalance in recent decades involves SW radiation (solar) not the basis used in climate models, the other uses LW radiative data over the past 100 years and shows that the significant increase in CO2 over that time interval has had no discernible effect on the so-called greenhouse effect.
There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
No objective basis...There's no objective basis for humans to be held as causal in climate change, it's merely subjective opinion on the part of political appointees contrary to data - simply not credible. Both papers are / were in this thread recently.
Are you going to start up with that "greenhouse effect theory breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" stuff again?
turbobloke said:
The research and resulting data you just ignored / sidestepped with a typical dodgy diversion is still there. SW data shows TOA radiative imbalance in recent decades involves solar effects and not the basis used in climate models.
He said ignoring that as per the said research the SW imbalance is a predicted response to AGW in the climate models - hoping we wouldn't noticeIt is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.
The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a
in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....
The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a
in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....mike9009 said:
It is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.
The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....
Mike9009, please can you point out anybody you know who says the climate is not changing. Then point out to me where the climate has remained steady for a period of time, any period over a decade.The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a
in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....Could you explain the changing titles with regards what is going on, yet with such settled sicence the deep currents, upwelling and combining layers, as well as deep salinity lakes are not understood.
Phud said:
mike9009 said:
It is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.
The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....
Mike9009, please can you point out anybody you know who says the climate is not changing. Then point out to me where the climate has remained steady for a period of time, any period over a decade.The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a
in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....Could you explain the changing titles with regards what is going on, yet with such settled sicence the deep currents, upwelling and combining layers, as well as deep salinity lakes are not understood.
There are so many messengers to shoot (video below) there's going to be a shortage of ammo on the thread. It's a long one from Martin Durkin, doing a somewhat drawn-out Hulme two-worder, with a good degree of success and few wrinkles. Grab a beer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op1xtxEgz_Y
In case of no cold beer, the politics of climate starts at 55m.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op1xtxEgz_Y
In case of no cold beer, the politics of climate starts at 55m.
Phud said:
mike9009 said:
It is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.
The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....
Mike9009, please can you point out anybody you know who says the climate is not changing. Then point out to me where the climate has remained steady for a period of time, any period over a decade.The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a
in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....Could you explain the changing titles with regards what is going on, yet with such settled sicence the deep currents, upwelling and combining layers, as well as deep salinity lakes are not understood.
A significant body of complex climate science is so poorly understood that tuned parameterisations must replace it all within inadequate climate
models which drive political policy.
The ongoing irony in mike9009's post content runs a risk of spiralling into an irony singularity. There's the expected ad hom again (deniers) and the claim about 'facts' when data has been presented in research publications which removes from CO2 any significant role in climate change. It's ignored, and the empty rhetoric continues.
The data do matter and the data show that there's no manmade climate crisis. Objective, unambiguously established causality to humans does not exist, there's nothing beyond subjective belief from a few dozen political appointees working within the brief of an agw advocacy outfit.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 21st March 16:27
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
mike9009 said:
Squirrel.
You feeling ok Mike? Phud said:
mike9009 said:
It is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.
The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....
Mike9009, please can you point out anybody you know who says the climate is not changing. Then point out to me where the climate has remained steady for a period of time, any period over a decadeThe silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.
But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a
in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....Phud said:
Could you explain the changing titles with regards what is going on, yet with such settled sicence the deep currents, upwelling and combining layers, as well as deep salinity lakes are not understood.
I am afraid I don't understand what you are talking about. Care to provide a link?mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
Where's the objectively established causality to humans in any ice data? Nothing beyond subjective mere opinion form political appointees is available.
SW and LW data show no human effect (emissions) is discernible on the so-called greenhouse effect from CO2 over many decades /TOA data is accounted for without belief systems. You still have nothing and it still shows.
Stop moving goalposts. We can save that for another day when we discuss the current climatic cooling predicted. SW and LW data show no human effect (emissions) is discernible on the so-called greenhouse effect from CO2 over many decades /TOA data is accounted for without belief systems. You still have nothing and it still shows.
The Eike 'research' is naive and completely misleading in its political ambitions about the weather. It has absolutely nothing to do with climate. Do you agree or disagree?
Completely undermining the position held. Don't worry I will post again tomorrow ....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff