Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[LittleBigPlanet]

LongQ said:

LittleBigPlanet said:

I guess some of the 42,000+ comments on the report must have come from those in this thread?

Do you have a list?

Yes. The Peer Review Panel (PRP) comments are here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/collaboratio...

The PRP is led by Sir Brian Hoskins and comprises:

• Professor Mat Collins (University of Exeter);
• Professor Jim Hall (University of Oxford);
• Dr Ed Hawkins (University of Reading);
• Professor Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh);
• Dr Erik Kjellström (Rossby Centre, SMHI, Sweden);
• Professor Christoph Schär (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH
Zurich));
• Professor Ted Shepherd (University of Reading);
• Dr Claudia Tebaldi (National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR));
• Professor Dr Bart Van Den Hurk (Institute for Environmental Studies at the VU
University, Amsterdam), and;
• Prof Sybren Drijfhout (University of Southampton).

I look forward to some of the learned folk in this thread giving the above some advice.

[turbobloke]

Scorchio! The pic may be dodgy though as New York was predicted to be under water by 2015



The Great Tax Gas Holiday continues.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

smack down

Just watching NASA jet propulsion laboratory successfully sending a lander to Mars. Astonishing that you think the same organisation is lying or wrong or involved in some kind of deception about climate science.

[/quote

That's due to brilliant engineering and dead accurate trajectory mathematics. Nothing like crystal ball gazing AGW & CC.

[robinessex]

LongQ said:

LittleBigPlanet said:

I guess some of the 42,000+ comments on the report must have come from those in this thread?

Do you have a list?

42,000 on the gravy train. Just what does that cost, and who funds them?

[robinessex]

Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4635194...

US President Donald Trump has cast doubt on a report by his own government warning of devastating effects from climate change.
Asked outside the White House about the findings that unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy, he said: "I don't believe it."
The report found that climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars annually and damage health.
The Trump administration has pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda.
The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity...continues

Rest of the story reads like a Fairly Tale

[robinessex]

The Beebs version of the Met Office fairy story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-463...

In its first major update on climate change in almost 10 years, the Met Office has warned of significant temperature rises in the decades ahead.
The UK Climate Projections 2018 study is the most up to date assessment of how the UK may change over this century.
It says that under the highest emissions scenario, summer temperatures could be 5.4C hotter by 2070.
The chances of a summer as warm as 2018 are around 50% by 2050.....continues ad nausism

Matt McGrath has a bad memory though

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-367...

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 27th November 09:09

[robinessex]

For Mr El Stovey

Why the Beeb is very relevant to this topic

https://www.thegwpf.com/how-the-bbc-quietly-oblite...

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Scorchio! The pic may be dodgy though as New York was predicted to be under water by 2015



The Great Tax Gas Holiday continues.

I don't know about the met office but somebody ought to point out the difference between weather and climate to TB

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

For Mr El Stovey

Why the Beeb is very relevant to this topic

https://www.thegwpf.com/how-the-bbc-quietly-oblite...

The GWPF, well worth a listen.

[gadgetmac]

LittleBigPlanet said:

Yes. The Peer Review Panel (PRP) comments are here: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/collaboratio...

The PRP is led by Sir Brian Hoskins and comprises:

• Professor Mat Collins (University of Exeter);
• Professor Jim Hall (University of Oxford);
• Dr Ed Hawkins (University of Reading);
• Professor Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh);
• Dr Erik Kjellström (Rossby Centre, SMHI, Sweden);
• Professor Christoph Schär (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH
Zurich));
• Professor Ted Shepherd (University of Reading);
• Dr Claudia Tebaldi (National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR));
• Professor Dr Bart Van Den Hurk (Institute for Environmental Studies at the VU
University, Amsterdam), and;
• Prof Sybren Drijfhout (University of Southampton).

I look forward to some of the learned folk in this thread giving the above some advice.

Oh trust me, they're gonna try.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

For Mr El Stovey

Why the Beeb is very relevant to this topic

https://www.thegwpf.com/how-the-bbc-quietly-oblite...

The GWPF, well worth a listen.

Yes.



We need some.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

For Mr El Stovey

Why the Beeb is very relevant to this topic

https://www.thegwpf.com/how-the-bbc-quietly-oblite...

The GWPF, well worth a listen.

Yes.



We need some.

Anyone who quotes Richard Lindzen as the world's leading climatologist may be many things but worth listening to isn't one of them.

[TonyRPH]

robinessex said:

The Beebs version of the Met Office fairy story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-463...

In its first major update on climate change in almost 10 years, the Met Office has warned of significant temperature rises in the decades ahead.
The UK Climate Projections 2018 study is the most up to date assessment of how the UK may change over this century.
It says that under the highest emissions scenario, summer temperatures could be 5.4C hotter by 2070.
The chances of a summer as warm as 2018 are around 50% by 2050.....continues ad nausism
<snip>

I saw this on the telly yesterday morning, and I had to seek out the article as I wasn't sure I was hearing right.

news article said:

Raised sea levels are also one of the consequences of a warmer world and according to the report, they could increase by 1.15 metres in London by 2100.

I presume that they mean sea levels could increase by 1.15 metres *globally* and not only in London..

Additionally, given that the sea covers ~70% of the earth's surface - a 1.15 metre rise in levels would be epic surely? Where would all that water come from?

It's estimated that 2% - 3% of water is contained in glaciers and ice caps - so even if they melt - surely that's not enough to raise the sea levels across the *entire world* by 1.15 metres?

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

42,000 on the gravy train. Just what does that cost, and who funds them?

Who funds the GWPF?

Oh, that's right, they won't reveal their sources.

But when an investigation is undertaken by a newspaper guess what, 2 donors are found and, surprise-surprise, they are linked via the IEA to fossil fuel companies.

Indeed there are other trustees of the IEA who are suspected of contributing to the GWPF like Sir Michael Hintze but they just don't want to be honest and admit it so they neither confirm or deny it.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

42,000 on the gravy train. Just what does that cost, and who funds them?

Who funds the GWPF?

Oh, that's right, they won't reveal their sources.

But when an investigation is undertaken by a newspaper guess what, 2 donors are found and, surprise-surprise, they are linked via the IEA to fossil fuel companies.

Indeed there are other trustees of the IEA who are suspected of contributing to the GWPF like Sir Michael Hintze but they just don't want to be honest and admit it so they neither confirm or deny it.

Why is funding for the AGW gravy train ok (mostly government sourced one way or another) good, but any outside source bad, if it's not feeding the AGW & CC gravy train. If AGW is so robust and provable, why are the exponents of it so concerned and worried they're being challenged? That’s how science has always worked, and I see no reason it should change.

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

42,000 on the gravy train. Just what does that cost, and who funds them?

Who funds the GWPF?

Oh, that's right, they won't reveal their sources.

But when an investigation is undertaken by a newspaper guess what, 2 donors are found and, surprise-surprise, they are linked via the IEA to fossil fuel companies.

Indeed there are other trustees of the IEA who are suspected of contributing to the GWPF like Sir Michael Hintze but they just don't want to be honest and admit it so they neither confirm or deny it.

Is that some sort of conspiracy theory?

[robinessex]

LongQ said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

42,000 on the gravy train. Just what does that cost, and who funds them?

Who funds the GWPF?

Oh, that's right, they won't reveal their sources.

But when an investigation is undertaken by a newspaper guess what, 2 donors are found and, surprise-surprise, they are linked via the IEA to fossil fuel companies.

Indeed there are other trustees of the IEA who are suspected of contributing to the GWPF like Sir Michael Hintze but they just don't want to be honest and admit it so they neither confirm or deny it.

Is that some sort of conspiracy theory?

It's what the belivers fall back on when they can't find anything worth saying

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

Is that some sort of conspiracy theory?

It's exactly like when the tobacco industry funded the pro smoking groups. Of course on here smoking probably still has no proven link to bad health

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Why is funding for the AGW gravy train ok (mostly government sourced one way or another) good, but any outside source bad, if it's not feeding the AGW & CC gravy train. If AGW is so robust and provable, why are the exponents of it so concerned and worried they're being challenged? That’s how science has always worked, and I see no reason it should change.

Nobody is so 'concerned and worried' about it

You deniers give yourselves too much credit.

[Jinx]

LittleBigPlanet said:

I was at the UK launch this morning (inc. Mr Gove's 'closed' session) - I'm surprised none of you guys were there what with the calibre of experts here. Or maybe I missed you?

A few things to note:
- Not everyone (!) likes/agrees with Gove, he's mostly a mouthpiece
- I can, with confidence, say that the Met Office do know the difference between weather and climate
- The launch of UKCP18 has been scheduled for a long time - it's not linked to the Climate Act 2008, more importantly, to coincide reporting for the next UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (to be published by Gov. in 2022 - we need these projections now to support the work that feeds into this)
- RCP8.5 is most frequently used for sensitivity and stress testing, it's at the top end of the projections. It's often used by infrastructure owners/managers to test to the resilience of their assets, amongst others.

I guess some of the 42,000+ comments on the report must have come from those in this thread?

I was too busy working - but will have to read the full detail (only got through the summary and bias notes) . Unfortunately over half the models and the global model that produced this nonsense is based on the unrealistic RCP 8.5 (read the link to Prof. Judith's critique I posted) as such it is as useful for "stress" testing as preparing for a Godzilla attack on Tokyo. What is more disturbing is this is the exact same claptrap that we have been told since 1990 (so no advancement in the science - a good sign it is not real science) - and they've added some nonsense odds which have no real link to probability theory or even the local turf accountant (who I trust more than Gove).
Now if they actually believed this report it should be a call to arms - to abandon all money wasted on mitigation - cut funding on the settled science and prepare the country for adaptation...... What odds do you think I can get on that happening?

Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 27th November 10:10