Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
Two eyeballs over a few years makes an ex spurt. Painful going but in a good way.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/17719538523...
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/17719538523...
mike9009 said:
The world is warming. Why?
Do you actually lack knowledge of the major climate forcings seen in data over various timescales, and have to ask? It so, that's quite an admission given prior post content chutzpah factor. if not, then that ^ simplistic offering is tactical...attrition loop / diversion alert. Are you genuinely unaware of previous occasions when the world was warming, including just prior to and well before industrialisation, such as recently after the LIA, or during the Roman Warm Period at 2 deg C higher than nowadays in the current Adjustocene? Or even further back to the early PETM when the world experienced warming of the order 5 to 10 deg C in decades (today UAH LTT shows just over 1 deg C per century) leading to sea surface temperatures over 35 deg C in the tropics and part of the Pacific hotter still. Related research shows the North Sea SST increasing by 10 deg C.
Even without help from too-hot-to-trot climate models or the IPCC or the BBC, the arctic ccean is held to have been ice-free during and after the PETM, unsurprisingly given a polar SST around 20 deg C. Today's modest extent and pedestrian rate of climate change are far from unprecedented.
What the data do show is no manmade ciimate crisis and no need for urgent and astronomically expensive emissions reductions programmes, see e.g. Ollila (2023) which reaches that conclusion, similarly Fleming which has no need for repeat citation given recent thread history, likewise Miskolczi (2023) and others seen further back in the thread.
/attrition loop
turbobloke said:
mike9009 said:
The world is warming. Why?
Do you actually lack knowledge of the major climate forcings seen in data over various timescales, and have to ask? It so, that's quite an admission given prior post content chutzpah factor. if not, then that ^ simplistic offering is tactical...attrition loop / diversion alert. Are you genuinely unaware of previous occasions when the world was warming, including just prior to and well before industrialisation, such as recently after the LIA, or during the Roman Warm Period at 2 deg C higher than nowadays in the current Adjustocene? Or even further back to the early PETM when the world experienced warming of the order 5 to 10 deg C in decades (today UAH LTT shows just over 1 deg C per century) leading to sea surface temperatures over 35 deg C in the tropics and part of the Pacific hotter still. Related research shows the North Sea SST increasing by 10 deg C.
Even without help from too-hot-to-trot climate models or the IPCC or the BBC, the arctic ccean is held to have been ice-free during and after the PETM, unsurprisingly given a polar SST around 20 deg C. Today's modest extent and pedestrian rate of climate change are far from unprecedented.
What the data do show is no manmade ciimate crisis and no need for urgent and astronomically expensive emissions reductions programmes, see e.g. Ollila (2023) which reaches that conclusion, similarly Fleming which has no need for repeat citation given recent thread history, likewise Miskolczi (2023) and others seen further back in the thread.
/attrition loop
dickymint said:
What's up Mike9 can't keep up? Annoyed that you can't criticise a single post/link individually to the death with question after question down to minutia until you reach the point of crossing the T's......to reach your MO of 'shooting the messenger' and personal digs to score your points. 
Personal digs? These are only your last few replies to Mike9009.dickymint said:
After reading it could you try to at least put a political spin on it?
dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
Have you not posted exactly the same story from 2 different sources? Thank though. £40 per annum is not too bad then....almost as bad as the sea is boiling cliches used.....
"Climate change - the POLITICAL debate" ...... got anything to add to it as your obsession is getting boring! dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
Just to repeat an old post in case anyone may have forgotten and was not able to respond.
All the best
What a weird comment All the best
Spit it out man, what are you trying to say?durbster said:
dickymint said:
What's up Mike9 can't keep up? Annoyed that you can't criticise a single post/link individually to the death with question after question down to minutia until you reach the point of crossing the T's......to reach your MO of 'shooting the messenger' and personal digs to score your points.
Personal digs? These are only your last few replies to Mike9009.dickymint said:
After reading it could you try to at least put a political spin on it?
dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
Have you not posted exactly the same story from 2 different sources? Thank though. £40 per annum is not too bad then....almost as bad as the sea is boiling cliches used.....
"Climate change - the POLITICAL debate" ...... got anything to add to it as your obsession is getting boring! dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
Just to repeat an old post in case anyone may have forgotten and was not able to respond.
All the best
What a weird comment All the best
Spit it out man, what are you trying to say?I do think it is worthwhile attempting to challenge every post though, otherwise we can get fixed in a position. I am willing to learn and challenge. But the silence to the critique tells a story in itself.
It's 'organised theft' - land grabs USA - in the name of government and a noble lie.
https://americanpolicy.org/2024/03/05/organized-th...
https://americanpolicy.org/2024/03/05/organized-th...
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
mike9009 said:
The world is warming. Why?
Do you actually lack knowledge of the major climate forcings seen in data over various timescales, and have to ask? It so, that's quite an admission given prior post content chutzpah factor. if not, then that ^ simplistic offering is tactical...attrition loop / diversion alert. Are you genuinely unaware of previous occasions when the world was warming, including just prior to and well before industrialisation, such as recently after the LIA, or during the Roman Warm Period at 2 deg C higher than nowadays in the current Adjustocene? Or even further back to the early PETM when the world experienced warming of the order 5 to 10 deg C in decades (today UAH LTT shows just over 1 deg C per century) leading to sea surface temperatures over 35 deg C in the tropics and part of the Pacific hotter still. Related research shows the North Sea SST increasing by 10 deg C.
Even without help from too-hot-to-trot climate models or the IPCC or the BBC, the arctic ccean is held to have been ice-free during and after the PETM, unsurprisingly given a polar SST around 20 deg C. Today's modest extent and pedestrian rate of climate change are far from unprecedented.
What the data do show is no manmade ciimate crisis and no need for urgent and astronomically expensive emissions reductions programmes, see e.g. Ollila (2023) which reaches that conclusion, similarly Fleming which has no need for repeat citation given recent thread history, likewise Miskolczi (2023) and others seen further back in the thread.
/attrition loop
1. Chaos
2. Anything but CO2
turbobloke said:
It's 'organised theft' - land grabs USA - in the name of government and a noble lie.
https://americanpolicy.org/2024/03/05/organized-th...
You do find some barking websites.https://americanpolicy.org/2024/03/05/organized-th...
I doubt they could have stuffed any more emotional rhetoric in if they tried. Fear fear fear fear.
More, stateside - self-evidently inadequately designed / built solar farms didn't survive hail stones, and toxic substances were released into the soil. Greenblob on the ground.
Don't be fooled by unprecedented hailstones not seen before when images show marbles not golf balls. Golf ball hail is not uncommon, it's hit the home of a fellow Porsche enthusiast several times. There were reports online of golf ball hail @ Texas in March, April and June 2023, one report mentioned stones the size of a baseball.
https://youtu.be/rVaq3a-z9iU
Don't be fooled by unprecedented hailstones not seen before when images show marbles not golf balls. Golf ball hail is not uncommon, it's hit the home of a fellow Porsche enthusiast several times. There were reports online of golf ball hail @ Texas in March, April and June 2023, one report mentioned stones the size of a baseball.
https://youtu.be/rVaq3a-z9iU
The mention of my American fellow petrolhead experiencing golf ball hail, and POTUS's land grab, had me looking back in files - turns out he mentioned it first in 2009 so how encouraging to see less extreme weather in 2024 with only marble sized hailstones in that part of the world 
In the same 2009 file was a copy of an article by a journalist named Peter Taylor in the Western Daily Press, 02 February 2009. This is a summary not quotations:
-European Space Agency is spending millions of euros researching the link between dense reflective cloud and activity in the solar magnetosphere, as per published science from Danish meteorologists
-NASA has taken things a stage further, exploring how shifts in the high-altitude jetstream are also correlated to the solar cycle (comment: peachy)
-the solar magnetic field is lower now (2009) than at any time recorded, mimicking the beginning of a cold period during Tudor times called the Little Ice Age
-the jetstream directs Atlantic storm tracks and after a shift as predicted by solar links to climate in summer 2007, brought torrential rain to the west country
-when this recurred in 2008, I (Peter Taylor) rang the Met Office to speak to their jetstream expert, but as they didn't have one I was referred to the USA (no comment)
-based on the same ideas I expected that this winter would be marked by blocking high pressure in the Arctic depriving Britain of the ocean's remaining warmth, as happened
- in January 2007 the Met Office predicted record warmth (warm wet winter comment: ooops, models based on tax gas, tsk)
-oceanographers are working on links between solar cycles and oceanic cooling cycles which are very plain to see in recently recovered stalagmite records of the Asian monsoon failures
and finally on the land issue:
-perhaps this explains the basis for Russian and Chinese sovereign funds buying up millions of acres of food-growing land in the tropics recently
-we in the West have our eye on the wrong ball (comment: is Biden's domestic tokenism too little too late)
As ever, unlike faith in duff computer models which are truly believed, Pygmalion Syndrome fashion, to be infallible even when this is clearly not so: we need to keep an eye on the data not computer outputs; the sun is an irregular variable star, and there are other natural forcings in play e.g. ENSO. Neither 2030 nor 2050 have been and gone as yet, though we've already seen triumphalist premature adjudication by way of ramping The Cause.
Not that 2050 can or will save failed tax gas ideas. Recent rises in atmospheric levels of CO2 have had no significant impact on climate (Fleming 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7438-y “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect" ) nor any discernible impact on the greenhouse effect for the past 100 years ("observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to more than 400 ppm has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect" see Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047 and note that this is hardly surprising in view of Fleming).
In the same 2009 file was a copy of an article by a journalist named Peter Taylor in the Western Daily Press, 02 February 2009. This is a summary not quotations:
-European Space Agency is spending millions of euros researching the link between dense reflective cloud and activity in the solar magnetosphere, as per published science from Danish meteorologists
-NASA has taken things a stage further, exploring how shifts in the high-altitude jetstream are also correlated to the solar cycle (comment: peachy)
-the solar magnetic field is lower now (2009) than at any time recorded, mimicking the beginning of a cold period during Tudor times called the Little Ice Age
-the jetstream directs Atlantic storm tracks and after a shift as predicted by solar links to climate in summer 2007, brought torrential rain to the west country
-when this recurred in 2008, I (Peter Taylor) rang the Met Office to speak to their jetstream expert, but as they didn't have one I was referred to the USA (no comment)
-based on the same ideas I expected that this winter would be marked by blocking high pressure in the Arctic depriving Britain of the ocean's remaining warmth, as happened
- in January 2007 the Met Office predicted record warmth (warm wet winter comment: ooops, models based on tax gas, tsk)
-oceanographers are working on links between solar cycles and oceanic cooling cycles which are very plain to see in recently recovered stalagmite records of the Asian monsoon failures
and finally on the land issue:
-perhaps this explains the basis for Russian and Chinese sovereign funds buying up millions of acres of food-growing land in the tropics recently
-we in the West have our eye on the wrong ball (comment: is Biden's domestic tokenism too little too late)
As ever, unlike faith in duff computer models which are truly believed, Pygmalion Syndrome fashion, to be infallible even when this is clearly not so: we need to keep an eye on the data not computer outputs; the sun is an irregular variable star, and there are other natural forcings in play e.g. ENSO. Neither 2030 nor 2050 have been and gone as yet, though we've already seen triumphalist premature adjudication by way of ramping The Cause.
Not that 2050 can or will save failed tax gas ideas. Recent rises in atmospheric levels of CO2 have had no significant impact on climate (Fleming 2018 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7438-y “there is no propensity for CO2 to store heat in a systematic way over time to produce a climate change effect" ) nor any discernible impact on the greenhouse effect for the past 100 years ("observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to more than 400 ppm has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect" see Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047 and note that this is hardly surprising in view of Fleming).
AW111 said:
Keep it up turbo, you're slaying us here with your comedy posts.
No need for any more encouragement, the frequency of personal angle surrender signals totally lacking in empirical evidence is encouragement enough, and very flattering, thanks for the personal attention.More from Climate Depot on the Biden land grab predicated on bunk.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2024/03/30/property-r...
turbobloke said:
More, stateside - self-evidently inadequately designed / built solar farms didn't survive hail stones, and toxic substances were released into the soil. Greenblob on the ground.
Don't be fooled by unprecedented hailstones not seen before when images show marbles not golf balls. Golf ball hail is not uncommon, it's hit the home of a fellow Porsche enthusiast several times. There were reports online of golf ball hail @ Texas in March, April and June 2023, one report mentioned stones the size of a baseball.
https://youtu.be/rVaq3a-z9iU
They should have modelled that.....Don't be fooled by unprecedented hailstones not seen before when images show marbles not golf balls. Golf ball hail is not uncommon, it's hit the home of a fellow Porsche enthusiast several times. There were reports online of golf ball hail @ Texas in March, April and June 2023, one report mentioned stones the size of a baseball.
https://youtu.be/rVaq3a-z9iU
turbobloke said:
mike9009 said:
The world is warming. Why?
Do you actually lack knowledge of the major climate forcings seen in data over various timescales, and have to ask? It so, that's quite an admission given prior post content chutzpah factor. if not, then that ^ simplistic offering is tactical...attrition loop / diversion alertWhat the data do show is no manmade ciimate crisis and no need for urgent and astronomically expensive emissions reductions programmes, see e.g. Ollila (2023) which reaches that conclusion, similarly Fleming which has no need for repeat citation given recent thread history, likewise Miskolczi (2023) and others seen further back in the thread.
/attrition loop
Do you believe Ollila modelling? Seems odd you keep citing the papers given your strong criticism of any models previously.
The Ollila models are great in hindsight in predicting what has already happened. I am sure I could manage that. It would be interesting for Ollila to publish what his model predicts going forward from the 2022 data point. Has it predicted 2023 being extra toasty?
I reckon Ollila has made much money betting on horse races from last weekend.....
Any new credible empirical evidence saving the life of ManBearPig? Clearly not. Using empirical data, many researchers are now publishing papers showing clearly that there's no manmade climate crisis, contrary to political dogma. This isn't being coped with very well in some instances. Never mind.
Climate politics staggers on...and Carbon Brief tells us that China's emissions only increased by 5.2% last year. With the number of coal mines and coal fired power stations in the pipleline, watch that space.
That increase alone is a decent slice of our annual emissions, barely 1% of the global total. Could be close to equal, depending on our latest data.
Climate politics staggers on...and Carbon Brief tells us that China's emissions only increased by 5.2% last year. With the number of coal mines and coal fired power stations in the pipleline, watch that space.
That increase alone is a decent slice of our annual emissions, barely 1% of the global total. Could be close to equal, depending on our latest data.
turbobloke said:
What the data do show is no manmade ciimate crisis and no need for urgent and astronomically expensive emissions reductions programmes, see e.g. Ollila (2023) which reaches that conclusion, similarly Fleming which has no need for repeat citation given recent thread history, likewise Miskolczi (2023) and others seen further back in the thread.
/attrition loop
Miskolczi (2023) does not even comment on the current warming, so not sure how that helps my questioning. /attrition loop
He says in the conclusion this is a purely theoretical paper which challenges CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas and which ignores the current warming trend and empirical data. Did you get mixed up with the papers? The findings contradict what Ollila is presenting in his paper.....
turbobloke said:
As ever, unlike faith in duff computer models which are truly believed, Pygmalion Syndrome fashion, to be infallible even when this is clearly not so: we need to keep an eye on the data not computer outputs; the sun is an irregular variable star, and there are other natural forcings in play e.g. ENSO. Neither 2030 nor 2050 have been and gone as yet, though we've already seen triumphalist premature adjudication by way of ramping The Cause.
This is still not true so let's broadcast your dishonesty once again.
You said yourself countless times on this very website that cooling would begin in 2012. You claimed temperatures would drop 1.5 degrees by 2020. You never mentioned 2030 until these predictions failed. It is not premature to say that you were wrong on both of these claims.
You said in 2015 that the solar theory would be "testable" by the mid-2020s. We are in the mid-2020s, so it is not premature to say you were wrong about this too.
Now, as for 2030 and 2050.
Here's what Landscheidt (i.e. 2030) said:
Landscheidt said:
We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development.
- New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming, 2003You are even willing to misrepresent the science you like when it suits your agenda.
Abdussamatov (i.e. 2050) himself said cooling would begin in 2015 in line with the reduced solar activity. Here is what he predicted for temperatures:
It is not premature to see test this prediction up to highlighted line marking 2024.
In summary, according to the words of turbobloke, the words of Landscheidt and the words of Abdussamatov, it is not premature to judge these theories. Stop being dishonest about this*.
You have been wrong about everything so far. That is an irrefutable fact.
spoiler: he will not stop being dishonest about this
Recall the tonnage of uninformed emotive hype last summer following wildfires in southern europe, caused (according to local police depts / fire depts / politicians) by arson (including arson gangs spotted by police drones) plus an isolated incendiary device, an unattended camp fire, and grid pylon failure? The hype was memorable as intended. There was lots of howling and shrieking in MSM sources about how this unprecedented scene was climate change before our eyes, ho ho ho.
Then as posted not long afterwards in 2023 from data plus graphic at the EU EFFIS website (the european forest fire information system) at the end of the wildfire season, it turned out to be barely in the top 20 annual totals for number of fires and burn extent in the entire satellite era. All that hollerin' and emotive gloop just to ramp The Cause while looking silly in the end.
Canada was party to a similar over-reaction and false dianosis, corrected before and afterwards as per this from the Edmonton Journal prior to 2023, with prophetic comments and a prophetic report that climate modelling can only dream of. Summary:
-more such dire (wildfires and impact) situations can be expected because people are living closer to the forest
-also due to the aging of the Alberta forest (comment: increase clearance & increase managed burns appropriately? by the garments of Gaia, on your bike)
-human-caused fires e.g. camp fires / recreation activitiy have been rising fast from over 200 per year in 1993 to over 1,100 a year by 2011
-after human ignition, lightning is the next biggest cause of wildfires listed
-in the table of wildfire causes, climate change is awol
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/albert...
The IPCC is silent on trends in fire numbers and area burned, nor does IPCC evaluate trends in or causes of wildfires which in reality are contrary to almost all MSM reporting i.e.. down not up. This is so for obvious reasons, given the trend is downward with increasing emissions and levels of tax gas. IPCC does place faith in an opinion on what will happen in the future e.g. by 2050 forsooth.
What's Left of accurate reporting on wildfires...climate politics demands more hype for The Cause, rather than more accuracy which can 'do damage' to The Cause.
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/fil...
Then as posted not long afterwards in 2023 from data plus graphic at the EU EFFIS website (the european forest fire information system) at the end of the wildfire season, it turned out to be barely in the top 20 annual totals for number of fires and burn extent in the entire satellite era. All that hollerin' and emotive gloop just to ramp The Cause while looking silly in the end.
Canada was party to a similar over-reaction and false dianosis, corrected before and afterwards as per this from the Edmonton Journal prior to 2023, with prophetic comments and a prophetic report that climate modelling can only dream of. Summary:
-more such dire (wildfires and impact) situations can be expected because people are living closer to the forest
-also due to the aging of the Alberta forest (comment: increase clearance & increase managed burns appropriately? by the garments of Gaia, on your bike)
-human-caused fires e.g. camp fires / recreation activitiy have been rising fast from over 200 per year in 1993 to over 1,100 a year by 2011
-after human ignition, lightning is the next biggest cause of wildfires listed
-in the table of wildfire causes, climate change is awol
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/albert...
The IPCC is silent on trends in fire numbers and area burned, nor does IPCC evaluate trends in or causes of wildfires which in reality are contrary to almost all MSM reporting i.e.. down not up. This is so for obvious reasons, given the trend is downward with increasing emissions and levels of tax gas. IPCC does place faith in an opinion on what will happen in the future e.g. by 2050 forsooth.
What's Left of accurate reporting on wildfires...climate politics demands more hype for The Cause, rather than more accuracy which can 'do damage' to The Cause.
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/sites/default/fil...
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 1st April 17:47
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff