Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[turbobloke]

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

I remember the thermos dynamics and tractor kinetics moments, both ludocrous to quote a term of the day. It was exactly not as you claim. Do you remember your own tribulations with the solar wind? Parp.

I don't remember a solar wind discussion - although I know a great deal less about that than I do about Monte Carlo modelling. Some googling just brings up a thread from about 15 years ago where you're being wrong about CFC's but I doubt it's that.

That's OK, after the second time around I took screenshots and have posted one previously, you replied, so I trust your memory issue isn't anything serious, nothing more than embarrassment probably. Nowadays, global warming has caused a new era of post-modern bantercourse to emerge. I'm too busy at the mo in any case, due to consideration of an article for the Royal Sorcery, in which lemonade fizz, some blu tac, polar bear dung and a thermometer are combined to produce a model climate system.

ETA hopeful for a slot in the House of Commons library. Politics matters.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 7th April 21:38

[hairykrishna]

I fear it's age rather than embarrassment. I don't remember important stuff these days never mind arguments with you. A link would be preferable to a screenshot but I'll take either.

[turbobloke]

hairykrishna said:

I fear it's age rather than embarrassment. I don't remember important stuff these days never mind arguments with you. A link would be preferable to a screenshot but I'll take either.

Age isn't optional, we've all got some.

Due to an obviously brutal peer review process at the Royal Sorcery, I need to work quickly on trial runs of the aforementioned climate system model before my lemonade runs out of fizz. Not an age-related euphemism.

There's just enough time for this.

Renewable energy operators have just been awarded huge prices rises, putting further pressure on hard-pressed consumers.
06 April 2023 courtesy of Not Zero Watch and gov't climate mudel-based policy. Or was it muddle...
https://www.netzerowatch.com/the-great-renewables-...

[ChevronB19]

Diderot said:

your thoughts on the Eemian CO2 vs temperature incongruity.

Most likely, increased solar insolation, particularly noticeable at high latitudes. However, as mentioned, I’ve been out of the area of direct climate study since 2003, so freely admit I am not up to speed with current research.

This explains potential reasons… https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...

While this… https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05314-1 discusses the ever present problem of a fragmentary geological record being compared to much more detailed present-day data.

You might also be interested in this… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC37858...

[turbobloke]

In similar fashion my earlier reply went as far as 2008 (see below) but it would be easy enough to bother a librarian with a more recent search.

There's no requirement to reply or post at all on PH so this is just an observation, but there appear to be various issues, questions and comments being ignored.

Question.

Diderot said:

You (Chevron) mentioned you studied the Eemian - temps were about 2 degrees warmer than today, and CO2 was about 228 ppm. What should that tell us?

Observation earlier this week on insolation and the Milankovic cycles, certainly your insolation comment refers.

turbobloke said:

(Emeian interglacial isn't a particular) interest of mine but in following the climate science literature for over 35 years it's appeared on my reading list. Checking out what was written when I last looked, information available at that time included Montoya et al (1998) following Alley et al (1995) and precedng Cuffey and Marshall (2000), from which collectively the Milankovic cycles stand out. The claim, not mine, being made is that due to differing orbital characteristics in the Eemian, insolation was greater than today in high northern latitudes, bringing warmer conditions particularly during NH summers, causing ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet. Which fits with higher sea levels occurring without any corresponding large changes in Antarctic ice sheet mass. This also fits with empirical findings from Shaviv more recently in 2008.

Comment on Resplandy et al (withdrawn and 1999 mishaps.

turbobloke said:

This is indeed the politics thread, so I won't cite, again, the 4 or 5 'main' papers since 2018 which provide clear evidence that the agw in models fails against empirical data, and doesn't correspond with claims of a climate crisis. Together with two more - the Resplandy et al oceans paper, withdrawn (somehow the distinguished authors and distinguished reviewers missed systematic error being treated as random error) and the McKitrick 2021 paper in Climate Dynamics successfully refuting the key 1999 attribution study which misapplied statistical methods. IPCC and MSM have been dining out on that for nearly 25 years, and due to organised lack of coverage, still are.

In a comment on the loss of attribution relied upon by IPCC and the media for nearly 25 years.

McKitrick 2021 Abstract said:

Allen and Tett (1999, herein AT99) introduced a Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression methodology for decomposing patterns of climate change for attribution purposes and proposed the “Residual Consistency Test” (RCT) to check the GLS specification. Their methodology has been widely used and highly influential ever since, in part because subsequent authors have relied upon their claim that their GLS model satisfies the conditions of the Gauss-Markov (GM) Theorem, thereby yielding unbiased and efficient estimators. But AT99 stated the GM Theorem incorrectly, omitting a critical condition altogether, their GLS method cannot satisfy the GM conditions, and their variance estimator is inconsistent by construction. Additionally, they did not formally state the null hypothesis of the RCT nor identify which of the GM conditions it tests, nor did they prove its distribution and critical values, rendering it uninformative as a specification test. The continuing influence of AT99 two decades later means these issues should be corrected.

As above, there's no requirement to comment ot post, and if something has been missed in all the excitement, accept my apologies in advance.

[BigMon]

Diderot said:

Excellent- same year as me for my PhD - Jesus 20 years, although it took me 5 years to finish because of the full time lectureship.

It would be good to get your spin on that Balloon travesty paper. Also your thoughts on the Eemian CO2 vs temperature incongruity.

Out of interest and for full clarity what was your PhD study area Diderot?

[ChevronB19]

BigMon said:

Diderot said:

Excellent- same year as me for my PhD - Jesus 20 years, although it took me 5 years to finish because of the full time lectureship.

It would be good to get your spin on that Balloon travesty paper. Also your thoughts on the Eemian CO2 vs temperature incongruity.

Out of interest and for full clarity what was your PhD study area Diderot?

I’ve asked a similar query about background from turbobloke on more than one occasion. As he asked mine, and I answered, I thought it only polite to get a similar understanding of background. No response yet. What I will say, however, is that discussions have been polite, which is a nice change for NP&E.

I’m not asking these questions as a form of ‘point scoring’, I’m genuinely interested, as background can influence opinion, a comment which could equally be aimed at me, entirely reasonably. The difference is that my opinions relating to climate change (about which I have contributed through via several peer reviewed published papers before I decided to jump ship from academia) are supported by an enormous majority of those working in the same and similar areas, and have been adopted by societies across the world. I can see debate about precise mechanisms etc. within scientists working in this area, but I see only a very few who claim anthropogenic global warming has very little overall impact, and even fewer saying it doesn’t exist, certainly amongst scientists working in this field. Those that do are largely those working in different areas, but I acknowledge a skeptic could equally say it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

For clarity, I’m not saying this to shut up debate, debate is always good, and believe me, in the academic world it can get *way* more savage than NPFE), nor I am intending to say ‘I’m cleverer than you’ (I have a clear understanding of my limitations).

Edited by ChevronB19 on Saturday 8th April 10:57

[robinessex]

ChevronB19 said:

I’m not asking these questions as a form of ‘point scoring’, I’m genuinely interested, as background can influence opinion, a comment which could equally be aimed at me, entirely reasonably. The difference is that my opinions relating to climate change (about which I have contributed through via several peer reviewed published papers before I decided to jump ship from academia) are supported by an enormous majority of those working in the same and similar areas, and have been adopted by societies across the world. I can see debate about precise mechanisms etc. within scientists working in this area, but I see only a very few who claim anthropogenic global warming has very little overall impact, and even fewer saying it doesn’t exist, certainly amongst scientists working in this field. Those that do are largely those working in different areas, but I acknowledge a skeptic could equally say it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

You've just shown why I asked if the planet changes temperature a few degrees in 100 years will it be an issue/problem? Bit pointless thousands of scientists beavering away in academia when no one knows if it's of any practical use.

[ChevronB19]

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

I’m not asking these questions as a form of ‘point scoring’, I’m genuinely interested, as background can influence opinion, a comment which could equally be aimed at me, entirely reasonably. The difference is that my opinions relating to climate change (about which I have contributed through via several peer reviewed published papers before I decided to jump ship from academia) are supported by an enormous majority of those working in the same and similar areas, and have been adopted by societies across the world. I can see debate about precise mechanisms etc. within scientists working in this area, but I see only a very few who claim anthropogenic global warming has very little overall impact, and even fewer saying it doesn’t exist, certainly amongst scientists working in this field. Those that do are largely those working in different areas, but I acknowledge a skeptic could equally say it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

You've just shown why I asked if the planet changes temperature a few degrees in 100 years will it be an issue/problem? Bit pointless thousands of scientists beavering away in academia when no one knows if it's of any practical use.

Increased temperature will result in increased ice melt, will result in increased sea level, will affect low lying communities, and by inference affect communities at higher altitudes asl as populations from lower lying communities have to move. That’s at its simplest. There are other complexities such as its effect on deep water currents like the North Atlantic Drift, and the change in certain areas from a broadly oceanic climate to a continental climate (something the UK is particularly sensitive to).

So yes, a rise in temperature will be an issue/problem, irrespective of forcing mechanism.

[Diderot]

BigMon said:

Diderot said:

Excellent- same year as me for my PhD - Jesus 20 years, although it took me 5 years to finish because of the full time lectureship.

It would be good to get your spin on that Balloon travesty paper. Also your thoughts on the Eemian CO2 vs temperature incongruity.

Out of interest and for full clarity what was your PhD study area Diderot?

As per my username, the French Enlightenment - the study interfaced with a number of areas: philosophy, politics, historiography, science, linguistics etc, as most of its principal figures were polymaths.

Not my area at all now.

[robinessex]

ChevronB19 said:

So yes, a rise in temperature will be an issue/problem, irrespective of forcing mechanism.

Why?

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 8th April 13:53

[ChevronB19]

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

[

So yes, a rise in temperature will be an issue/problem, irrespective of forcing mechanism.

Why?

Please do see previous post. Or alternatively tell me why sea level rise/change in deep ocean currents *won’t* be a problem, or alternatively why you think an overall temperature rise won’t cause an increase in sea level (ignoring isostasy etc in certain areas) and/or changes in the climate from oceanic to continental won’t have a societal and ecological effect?

Note - this is all couched on the original query from you based purely in temperature irrespective of mechanism and/or whether it is real or not. The query was ‘if it does, what’s the problem’ (in essence).

[turbobloke]

ChevronB19 said:

BigMon said:

Diderot said:

Excellent- same year as me for my PhD - Jesus 20 years, although it took me 5 years to finish because of the full time lectureship.

It would be good to get your spin on that Balloon travesty paper. Also your thoughts on the Eemian CO2 vs temperature incongruity.

Out of interest and for full clarity what was your PhD study area Diderot?

I’ve asked a similar query about background from turbobloke on more than one occasion. As he asked mine, and I answered, I thought it only polite to get a similar understanding of background. No response yet. What I will say, however, is that discussions have been polite, which is a nice change for NP&E.

Is that the full story, either regarding me or regarding events on PH? Allow me to answer: no x2.

The question you refer to was first asked of me maybe 10 years or so ago. At that time, an extremist activist on a climate thread invited me to meet them outside a nominated police station with original degree and postgraduate qualifications, also publications. They claimed I wasn't a scientist, and was a fantasist. Do you think their approach, asking for a meeting as above outside a nominated police station, is in any way normal? This was around the time when green zealotry was using details on PH to contact my family, which is totally inexcusable, my employer i.e. me, which was somewhat funny when reading comms suggesting I should lose my job due to my take on climate, and prominent people, not that I'm prominent for sure, at the university I attended including fellow researchers who tend to be prominent. Due to comments made, the police were involved, and depending on events, potentially still are. Beyond that there's not much more needs to be said beyond the obvious point that I stopped sharing personal info based on advice and removed it from access points where possible.

Naturally the police station request was refused, but in the spirit of cooperation I identified a sane, neutral thread contributor whose PH profile suggested a professional background and contacted them, then with their agreement I sent scans to them which answered the above request from the extremist activist, who then posted that they would also send information to the third party on how to verify the info (scans) I had sent. The third party described what had been sent, verifying and confirming my background, posting their conclusion in the thread. If you think that palaver is going to be repeated each time a personal angle is taken, I can help out - it's not. There are definitely PHers posting on this thread who were posting in the earlier one and it's for them to say whether my description of what happened <on PH> at that time is the same as what they saw and read.

The entire game is ultimately pointless, the scientific and political aspects both need to be examined at source and individuals need to make their own minds up. Naturally, and with no criticism implied, some won't be in a position to do so, but there are plenty of people on PH in various disciplines who can cope well with issues around data analysis and manipulation, statistical methods, causality, epistemology, and then there's the politics.

For others and in particular for agw supporters, it's evidently a case of searching for 'experts' they want to believe, rejecting any 'experts' they don't want to believe (using a range of irrelevant logical fallacy reasons) and then playing a game of Top Trumps with qualifications and experience of PHers, aiming to find reasons to criticise them and reject their contributions for equally irrelevant reasons. Such is life in the PH playground.

Talking of the playground, if you've been following the thread, you'll have noticed tactical posts from agw supporters which talk about me as if I made predictions of climate cooling 2030 - 2050 when these are actually from Landscheidt and Abdusamatov papers. I posted info from the papers and said I considered these predictions, based on empirical data, to have more credibility then IPCC modelling - which in the past the IPCC has said isn't prediction. This info is then posted as though the science and predictions are somehow mine, which is clearly a tactical nonsense form of personal attack. At least the work from Landscheidt and Absusamatov can be checked out, unlike the more snow/less snow more hurricanes/fewer hurricanes more floods more droughts cooling is warming angles from agw, where everything points to global warming...note how the extreme cold experienced across USA this winter has been blamed on global warming, which has become essentially unfalsifiable and hence nonscience.

In summary, I've posted details of my background previously and it did nothing to stop the ad hominem nonsense from zealots, and there's nothing to be gained from repeating the above exercise. At one point I mentioned that I'd carried out some unremarkable research on the impact of solar storms on the terrestrial magnetic field aka solar eruptivity forcing in climate terms (Bucha auroral oval mechanism, Svensmark CRF/LLC/albedo mechanism) including some data in graphical form from a typical event.

I decided long ago to leave the Top Trumps players to their own game...and not referring to you Chevron these players have so far been in the looking-for-experts-they-want-to-believe branch of the new green religion. Finally, I agree that exchanges with you are in no way the usual NP&E bearpit bantercourse.

Back on topic, in case anyone else missed this from late March. A recent example of Net Zero death by a thousand cuts as the lunacy pf the policy is exposed month by month No complete / sudden u-turn can be expected for politicial survival reasons. The thread has already explored how people go mad quickly in herds then recover slowly one by one.

Link said:

Ministers will refuse to force oil and gas companies to stop flaring by 2025, as recommended in the review of Net Zero by Chris Skidmore earlier this year.

Ofgem will not gain important powers to include the Net Zero target in its regulation of the energy sector, effectively defanging the regulator.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/24/uk-government-launch-revamped-net-zero-strategy-oil-gas-capital-aberdeen#:~:text=Ministers%20will%20refuse%20to%20force,sector%2C%20effectively%20defanging%20the%20regulator.

PS I've lost enthusiasm for my RS climate system model enterprise, the round trip to Yorkshire Wildlife Park just isn't worth a steaming pile.

[ChevronB19]

Diderot said:

BigMon said:

Diderot said:

Excellent- same year as me for my PhD - Jesus 20 years, although it took me 5 years to finish because of the full time lectureship.

It would be good to get your spin on that Balloon travesty paper. Also your thoughts on the Eemian CO2 vs temperature incongruity.

Out of interest and for full clarity what was your PhD study area Diderot?

As per my username, the French Enlightenment - the study interfaced with a number of areas: philosophy, politics, historiography, science, linguistics etc, as most of its principal figures were polymaths.

Not my area at all now.

Thought I’d never heard of him until now, so read the wiki on him, then vaguely remembered an episode of ‘In our time’ on him, sounds like he had a very interesting life. (Sorry, OTT I know).

[ChevronB19]

turbobloke said:

[
The question you refer to was first asked of me maybe 10 years or so ago. At that time, an extremist activist on a climate thread invited me to meet them outside a nominated police station with original degree and postgraduate qualifications, also publications. They claimed I wasn't a scientist, and was a fantasist. Do you think their approach, asking for a meeting as above outside a nominated police station, is in any way normal?

Erm, that answer and the response is irrelevant, at no point have I given any indication I would behave in the same way, and indeed would be horrified if someone did the same to me? You asked me my background, I answered, I don’t think it was entirely unreasonable to ask your background and wasn’t asking for any personal details, so to be honest I’m slightly upset you are transferring the opinions of someone who was clearly a complete loon onto someone (me) who was asking an entirely innocent question, although I accept that wasn’t the intention, it could easily be interpreted as such - the danger of interpretation (irony)

Off to watch football now.

Edited by ChevronB19 on Saturday 8th April 12:20

[turbobloke]

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

The question you refer to was first asked of me maybe 10 years or so ago. At that time, an extremist activist on a climate thread invited me to meet them outside a nominated police station with original degree and postgraduate qualifications, also publications. They claimed I wasn't a scientist, and was a fantasist. Do you think their approach, asking for a meeting as above outside a nominated police station, is in any way normal?

Erm, that answer and the response is irrelevant, at no point have I given any indication I would behave in the same way, and indeed would be horrified if someone did the same to me?

And that response is quite absurd, if I post details others will have access; and if I PM you with info, I'm going against police advice and can't exercise control over its subsequent use no matter how sane you appear to be and may well be. This is obvious and was set out in my post. Did comprehension fail? Are you blissfully unaware of what zealotry gets up to?

ETA following your own edit: I have not conflated you with anyone, any group or anything else. In fact my post explicitly said otherwise. You must havr missed it speed reading ahead of the football.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 8th April 12:23

[ChevronB19]

turbobloke said:

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

[
The question you refer to was first asked of me maybe 10 years or so ago. At that time, an extremist activist on a climate thread invited me to meet them outside a nominated police station with original degree and postgraduate qualifications, also publications. They claimed I wasn't a scientist, and was a fantasist. Do you think their approach, asking for a meeting as above outside a nominated police station, is in any way normal?

Erm, that answer and the response is irrelevant, at no point have I given any indication I would behave in the same way, and indeed would be horrified if someone did the same to me?

And that response is quite absurd, if I post details others will have access; and if I PM you with info, I'm going against police advice and can't exercise control over its subsequent use no matter how sane you appear to be and may well be. This is obvious and was set out in my post. Did comprehension fail?

See edited post above - also I didn’t ask for ‘details’, just in the same way all I have done is say I’ve got a PhD in Quaternary Geology and a couple of postdocs in the same subject. That was literally all I was asking for, no intention of ‘doxxing’ etc.

Edited by ChevronB19 on Saturday 8th April 12:26

[turbobloke]

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

[
The question you refer to was first asked of me maybe 10 years or so ago. At that time, an extremist activist on a climate thread invited me to meet them outside a nominated police station with original degree and postgraduate qualifications, also publications. They claimed I wasn't a scientist, and was a fantasist. Do you think their approach, asking for a meeting as above outside a nominated police station, is in any way normal?

Erm, that answer and the response is irrelevant, at no point have I given any indication I would behave in the same way, and indeed would be horrified if someone did the same to me?

And that response is quite absurd, if I post details others will have access; and if I PM you with info, I'm going against police advice and can't exercise control over its subsequent use no matter how sane you appear to be and may well be. This is obvious and was set out in my post. Did comprehension fail?

See edited post above

And see my edit which followed yours

[ChevronB19]

turbobloke said:

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

[
The question you refer to was first asked of me maybe 10 years or so ago. At that time, an extremist activist on a climate thread invited me to meet them outside a nominated police station with original degree and postgraduate qualifications, also publications. They claimed I wasn't a scientist, and was a fantasist. Do you think their approach, asking for a meeting as above outside a nominated police station, is in any way normal?

Erm, that answer and the response is irrelevant, at no point have I given any indication I would behave in the same way, and indeed would be horrified if someone did the same to me?

And that response is quite absurd, if I post details others will have access; and if I PM you with info, I'm going against police advice and can't exercise control over its subsequent use no matter how sane you appear to be and may well be. This is obvious and was set out in my post. Did comprehension fail?

See edited post above

And see my edit which followed yours

Can’t find a thumbs up emoji, but cool!

[dickymint]

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

[
The question you refer to was first asked of me maybe 10 years or so ago. At that time, an extremist activist on a climate thread invited me to meet them outside a nominated police station with original degree and postgraduate qualifications, also publications. They claimed I wasn't a scientist, and was a fantasist. Do you think their approach, asking for a meeting as above outside a nominated police station, is in any way normal?

Erm, that answer and the response is irrelevant, at no point have I given any indication I would behave in the same way, and indeed would be horrified if someone did the same to me? You asked me my background, I answered, I don’t think it was entirely unreasonable to ask your background and wasn’t asking for any personal details, so to be honest I’m slightly upset you are transferring the opinions of someone who was clearly a complete loon onto someone (me) who was asking an entirely innocent question, although I accept that wasn’t the intention, it could easily be interpreted as such - the danger of interpretation (irony)

Off to watch football now.

Edited by ChevronB19 on Saturday 8th April 12:20

United supporter I hope