Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

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...

Edited by turbobloke on Monday 1st April 17:47

Desperate flailing from one topic to another. Why not deal with one subject at a time? I know why?

So, why is it warming??

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 1st April 21:25

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

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.

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.....

And you don’t think that innumerable papers discussing the output of always already flawed models are ‘theoretical’? Do you understand how science works? MMGW = hypothesis.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

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.

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.....

And you don’t think that innumerable papers discussing the output of always already flawed models are ‘theoretical’? Do you understand how science works? MMGW = hypothesis.

Really? I was asking why there is current warming. I get a load of irrelevant papers which do not explain the current trend.

Not a difficult question?

I am an engineer rather than scientist. MMGW is a theoretical hypothesis which is slowly being revealed as true by empirical data. I am asking for an alternate hypothesis to be presented to provide some balance. That is the point of science, observe, create theory, test theory, improve..... Science doe not stop at a theory.

Ollila suggests the impact of CO2 is not as great as the other models suggest. (Which might be fair) But the model only looks backwards rather than forwards so cannot be verified over the recent warming being experienced.

Miskolczi suggests that Co2 does not act as a greenhouse gas and makes no counter claims.

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

To summarize, it's one of the below:

1. Chaos
2. Anything but CO2

As apposed to CO2 but nothing else.

Tony Heller discusses Arctic sea ice.
https://youtu.be/LF7pUUd7IXk?si=_F8CHu5e0wdOcq9D

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

To summarize, it's one of the below:

1. Chaos
2. Anything but CO2

As apposed to CO2 but nothing else.

Not even slightly true. All possibilities are explored but the only one that explains the warming is the greenhouse effect.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

To summarize, it's one of the below:

1. Chaos
2. Anything but CO2

As apposed to CO2 but nothing else.

Not even slightly true. All possibilities are explored but the only one that explains the warming is the greenhouse effect.

That's why I posted a link, it explains that in the 1920s scientists were reporting a large reduction in artic sea ice along with reductions in glaciers all achieved without large increases in CO2.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

To summarize, it's one of the below:

1. Chaos
2. Anything but CO2

As apposed to CO2 but nothing else.

Not even slightly true. All possibilities are explored but the only one that explains the warming is the greenhouse effect.

Says the apostle, acolyte, amanuensis.

Here’s a question for you: how many sources of heat are there on this planet we call home?

[Vanden Saab]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

To summarize, it's one of the below:

1. Chaos
2. Anything but CO2

As apposed to CO2 but nothing else.

Not even slightly true. All possibilities are explored but the only one that explains the warming is the greenhouse effect.

Says the apostle, acolyte, amanuensis.

Here’s a question for you: how many sources of heat are there on this planet we call home?

That really depends on which part of the planet you are referring to but I would suggest there are two, external (the Sun) and internal. (The earth's core)

[mike9009]

PRTVR said:

As apposed to CO2 but nothing else.

Tony Heller discusses Arctic sea ice.
https://youtu.be/LF7pUUd7IXk?si=_F8CHu5e0wdOcq9D

So much to digest. But the 'fake' downward linear trend and explanation of was a particular highlight for me.

[turbobloke]

Climate politics thought for the day: misinformation research provides an academic veneer for political propaganda.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/stone-of-madn...

Article said:

The past several decades has seen the pathological politicization of science across several important fields, climate and public health among them.

Can it be surprising that the “inoculations” (propaganda) applied by these scholars to wrong-thinking citizens have a decidedly leftward tilt?

Can it be surprising that some scholars, the BBC Ministry of Truth and most if not all activists need to brush up on epistemology? Not forgetting causality and orders of magnitude.

[AW111]

turbobloke said:

Can it be surprising that some scholars, the BBC Ministry of Truth and most if not all activists need to brush up on epistemology? Not forgetting causality and orders of magnitude.

When are you going to stop gish-galloping and answer the question about your now disproved cooling predictions?

[mike9009]

AW111 said:

turbobloke said:

Can it be surprising that some scholars, the BBC Ministry of Truth and most if not all activists need to brush up on epistemology? Not forgetting causality and orders of magnitude.

When are you going to stop gish-galloping and answer the question about your now disproved cooling predictions?

To be fair, there is quite a lot of other subjects which need some defence too. I would go as far to say, that almost every link posted has some serious questioning to do.

But i am not expecting any answers until 2030.

Intelligent, healthy debate is a bit like the revered peer reviewed papers, oft talked about. This thread just feels like a dictators propaganda, becoming ever so slightly more desperate....the desperation probably being directly correlated with the global temperature.

But the silence is quite telling.

[turbobloke]

No new empirical evidence (data) there, just same old...but there's more data here which in papers which confound the false assumptions (e.g. on solar forcing) and tuned parameterisations within the inadequate models responsible for our wayward climate politics. This is YAD061-free treemometry from Asad et al (2024). Did somebody forget we're in the Adjustocene?

Paper said:

Our reconstruction failed to capture the recent warming trend (20th century) but captured the pronounced cold interval Dalton Minimum (AD 1815–1830). According to the comparison, our reconstruction is more indicative and reliable on decadal to interdecadal timescales when compared to other regional temperature reconstruction series.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100541

Well away from urbanisation and sensors in/around cities and airports, that's really not a helpful place to study warming. Also see Khan et al (2024).

Khan et al 2024 said:

Our reconstruction shows a significant correlation with the South Asia Summer Monsoon Index (SASMI), Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), ENSO, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and solar activity, emphasizing that all these factors have some influence on the drought variability in central-northern Pakistan.

What's missing? There's no mention of any correlation with tax gas - which is not a surprise, no surprise at all. Mentioning this key point in the manner achieved is also unsurprising.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03688-4

[kerplunk]

durbster said:

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, 2003

You 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

Indeed it's quite clear that the solar driven cooling predictions call for cooling associated with reduced solar activity. Declining solar activity is observed since the 90s but cooling is not - quite the contrary.

Of course if you still hold out that the solar activity climate link is valid the implication is that *something* has overwhelmed it, and warming would be greater still if solar activity wasn't low.

What will el sol do next? The predictions call for solar activity to decline further into a Maunder type grand minimum, but it could easily be the case that the current centennial low has bottomed out and has begun climbing again. The current solar cycle instead of being lower than the last one has now exceeded it by a small amount ending the run of declines - that's contrary to what was expected too.

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 2nd April 11:49

[AW111]

mike9009 said:

To be fair, there is quite a lot of other subjects which need some defence too. I would go as far to say, that almost every link posted has some serious questioning to do.

But i am not expecting any answers until 2030.

Intelligent, healthy debate is a bit like the revered peer reviewed papers, oft talked about. This thread just feels like a dictators propaganda, becoming ever so slightly more desperate....the desperation probably being directly correlated with the global temperature.

But the silence is quite telling.

I've been on PH a fair while, and used to attemp debate. It's not worth it.

Turbo will ignore evidence that he disagrees with, and just gish-gallop with more "debatable" stories and misrepresentation.

So I'm here mainly for amusement value, to see what waffle he posts next.

And unlike some acolytes, I skim his sources to see just how he misrepresent papers and cherry-picks his results.
The most dishonest poster on PH, and not to be trusted.

[turbobloke]

Results such as Asad et al 2024 fot exceptionally well with the more general finding from other papers in recent years, e.g. Fleming, also Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, not forgetting Ollila, that carbon dioxide increases in the last century have had no discernible impact on the greenhouse effect, that TOA radiative imbalance reflects solar SW, and that carbon dioxide lacks the capacity to 'trap' heat, hence no manmade climate crisis which is a (supposedly noble) lie. Take out UHIE and virtually all the warming from 1880 to 1980 is accounted for (see below). Tax gas cannot operate on holiday for ca 100 years then come home to save The Cause. Asad et al results point to heat islands as h urbanighly significant in producing a warming trend.

Work by climatologist Dr Roy Spencer at UAH shows that urban heat island effect warming is virtually the entire GHCN-reported warming signal since 1880. He also notes UHIE is a small part of the reported warming since 1980.

Since 1980 we've had a run of four notable ENSO impacts. The 1982 El Nino, 1987 El Nino, 2010 El Nino and 2016 El Nino warmed the climate stepwise, not continuously as CO2 would (it can't at this stage, in any case). Not forgetting the curious timing of a Barack Obama-COP-out switch for sea surface temperature (SST) from more accurate scientific buoy temperatures to heat-contaminated ship engine intake temperatures, causing instant warming via spreadsheet. Solar eruptivity - not the same as irradiance - increased in the 80s and 90s. Warming in the 80s 90s 00s and 10s isn't exactly a mystery. Fleming's book title is most apt, highlighting the rise and fall of claimed warming (not) due to innocent and life-giving CO2.

[kerplunk]

mike9009 said:

Ollila suggests the impact of CO2 is not as great as the other models suggest. (Which might be fair) But the model only looks backwards rather than forwards so cannot be verified over the recent warming being experienced.

Ollila provides a prediction though (and guess what):

"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."

Paper accepted in July last year - that aged well, lol

[kerplunk]

UAH March update - 10th consecutive large margin record breaking month



The rolling 13-month average curve is smashing it now

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Results such as Asad et al 2024 fot exceptionally well with the more general finding from other papers in recent years, e.g. Fleming, also Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, not forgetting Ollila, that carbon dioxide increases in the last century have had no discernible impact on the greenhouse effect, that TOA radiative imbalance reflects solar SW, and that carbon dioxide lacks the capacity to 'trap' heat, hence no manmade climate crisis which is a (supposedly noble) lie. Take out UHIE and virtually all the warming from 1880 to 1980 is accounted for (see below). Tax gas cannot operate on holiday for ca 100 years then come home to save The Cause. Asad et al results point to heat islands as h urbanighly significant in producing a warming trend.

Work by climatologist Dr Roy Spencer at UAH shows that urban heat island effect warming is virtually the entire GHCN-reported warming signal since 1880. He also notes UHIE is a small part of the reported warming since 1980.

Since 1980 we've had a run of four notable ENSO impacts. The 1982 El Nino, 1987 El Nino, 2010 El Nino and 2016 El Nino warmed the climate stepwise, not continuously as CO2 would (it can't at this stage, in any case). Not forgetting the curious timing of a Barack Obama-COP-out switch for sea surface temperature (SST) from more accurate scientific buoy temperatures to heat-contaminated ship engine intake temperatures, causing instant warming via spreadsheet. Solar eruptivity - not the same as irradiance - increased in the 80s and 90s. Warming in the 80s 90s 00s and 10s isn't exactly a mystery. Fleming's book title is most apt, highlighting the rise and fall of claimed warming (not) due to innocent and life-giving CO2.

Why keep quoting stuff? what is your opinion of the papers?

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

UAH March update - 10th consecutive large margin record breaking month



The rolling 13-month average curve is smashing it now

And still the Arctic sea ice remains.