Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
20 page reports. Get a grip 
You clearly don't work for a living.
But you still couldn't show me the paragraph that stated what you said.
I’m not sure (m)any of the climate cult have jobs, they seem to all be retired old people. It’s all part of the political old blokes package. Distrust everyone, Anti Pc gone mad, the EU the BBC, etc You clearly don't work for a living.
But you still couldn't show me the paragraph that stated what you said.
Perhaps this is what happens when some people retire and have too much free time and they become marginalised?
Looks like the mash were even more right than they thought with their satire about retired angry people distrusting scientists.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cl...
European carmakers have openly questioned the EU’s 2021 car emissions goals while rejecting tougher reduction targets planned for 2030.
https://www.dw.com/en/auto-industry-pushes-back-ag...
https://www.dw.com/en/auto-industry-pushes-back-ag...
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
In comparison, your statement above isn't controversial it's rubbish. You should however tell NASA scientist Dr Mike Hathaway that he's being controversial as he ought to know.
Meanwhile others on the thread are awaiting anwers from agw supporters, this model suggests there may be a long wait.
Hathaway was talking in 2009 about predictions for the upcoming solar cycle 24 peak, which is now in the past, so we can look at the numbers:NASA astrophysicist Dr Mike Hathaway said:
Still, something like the Dalton Minimum - two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots - lies in the realm of the possible.
I agree with Hathaway's view. However we're both <not> controversial. Other scientists have said the same (Abdussamatov for starters) and you should try the 2008 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics peer-reviewed paper by deJager and Duhau or indeed for a Dalton/Maunder discussion review the poster paper from Stozhkov and Okhlopkov (2010, 22nd European Cosmic Ray Symposium). Lots of interesting reading awaits you.Meanwhile others on the thread are awaiting anwers from agw supporters, this model suggests there may be a long wait.
SC24 peaked at around 81 sunspots - quite low but not Dalton territory.
Agreeing with Hathaway's view after it turned out not to be the case is a bit weird. Perhaps I'm missing something.
turbobloke said:
You're missing something.
Apart from that, you're working in some unreal domain where you expect climate and the actual factors influencing it to be too precisely predictable.
err yes I've noticed what a champion you are for including the actual factors that occurred when discussing climate model projections, lol.Apart from that, you're working in some unreal domain where you expect climate and the actual factors influencing it to be too precisely predictable.
turbobloke said:
In particular I didn't quote a date from Hathaway in connection with the statement I was agreeing with. If Hathaway is a cycle out that's between you and him, it wasn't my view.
Indeed you didn't - that's why I checked. He was also quite dismissive about the possibility of a Maunder so you're not very aligned there either.turbobloke said:
My comments on this theme are regularly accompanied by 'keep an eye on the data, solar and temperature' as that's the only way forward.
That's what I did above - checked the data.turbobloke said:
We will recgnise a Dalton or Maunder event if it concludes (Dalton) after two very weak solar cycles. I agree with Hathaway that a Dalton event is possible - a Dalton event ia not controversial, see other references above - but don't see any reason to agree with anyone's view on any other aspect including timing as this view should / will change as the data emerges.
My reply to LoonyTunes for 2030 arose from some evidence that was available in 2015 regarding very weak solar polar fields that had been noted by NASA probably Hathaway.
This scenario would if it plays out give knowledge by 2030 as to whether at least one very weak solar cycle has occurred. If a Maunder event unfolds then the prolonged low level of activity would continue.
As per the links below the situation at present remains in line with a possible Dalton minimum. I'll keep on keeping an eye on the data and post on PH if there are significant events to report, this will help agw supporters, who rely on inadequate climate models and avoid empirical data and its implications, to keep in touch with reality from time to time.
https://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weathe...
Well anything's possible I guess. However the laurels for predicting SC24 correctly must go to Leif Svalgaard who in 2005 predicted a sunspot count for SC24 = 75 +/-8. My reply to LoonyTunes for 2030 arose from some evidence that was available in 2015 regarding very weak solar polar fields that had been noted by NASA probably Hathaway.
This scenario would if it plays out give knowledge by 2030 as to whether at least one very weak solar cycle has occurred. If a Maunder event unfolds then the prolonged low level of activity would continue.
As per the links below the situation at present remains in line with a possible Dalton minimum. I'll keep on keeping an eye on the data and post on PH if there are significant events to report, this will help agw supporters, who rely on inadequate climate models and avoid empirical data and its implications, to keep in touch with reality from time to time.
https://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weathe...
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...
His prediction for SC25 came out earlier this year; SC25 to be a bit higher than SC24. If that pans out you'll still be 'waiting for Dalton' in 2030.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/SORCE/meet...
I don't see you mentioning Svalgaard's work much - why is that?
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 5th September 11:40
wc98 said:
Diderot said:
what data would that be?
lots of data here http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-Vie... .just another interpretation from another scientist but i thought those that like the appeals to authority (real live climate scientist etc) might be more inclined to read it.except loony that struggles with reading more than a single paragraph per day,though can happily type more than that. only person i have ever heard of that can type faster than they read 
El stovey said:
I’m not sure (m)any of the climate cult have jobs, they seem to all be retired old people. It’s all part of the political old blokes package. Distrust everyone, Anti Pc gone mad, the EU the BBC, etc
Perhaps this is what happens when some people retire and have too much free time and they become marginalised?
Looks like the mash were even more right than they thought with their satire about retired angry people distrusting scientists.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cl...
Perhaps this is what happens when some people retire and have too much free time and they become marginalised?
Looks like the mash were even more right than they thought with their satire about retired angry people distrusting scientists.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cl...
so people have to trust scientists because they are scientists, even though they have been found to be untrustworthy in the past ? Don't believe the lie about all the free time when you retire, it's just not true, children and grandchildren see to that and you don't get any holidays.
Diderot said:
wc98 said:
Diderot said:
what data would that be?
lots of data here http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-Vie... .just another interpretation from another scientist but i thought those that like the appeals to authority (real live climate scientist etc) might be more inclined to read it.except loony that struggles with reading more than a single paragraph per day,though can happily type more than that. only person i have ever heard of that can type faster than they read 
And spot a cultist from behind his computer screen...PRTVR said:
so people have to trust scientists because they are scientists, even though they have been found to be untrustworthy in the past ? LoonyTunes said:
Diderot said:
wc98 said:
Diderot said:
what data would that be?
lots of data here http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-Vie... .just another interpretation from another scientist but i thought those that like the appeals to authority (real live climate scientist etc) might be more inclined to read it.except loony that struggles with reading more than a single paragraph per day,though can happily type more than that. only person i have ever heard of that can type faster than they read And spot a cultist from behind his computer screen...Diderot said:
LoonyTunes said:
Diderot said:
wc98 said:
Diderot said:
what data would that be?
lots of data here http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-Vie... .just another interpretation from another scientist but i thought those that like the appeals to authority (real live climate scientist etc) might be more inclined to read it.except loony that struggles with reading more than a single paragraph per day,though can happily type more than that. only person i have ever heard of that can type faster than they read And spot a cultist from behind his computer screen...LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
so people have to trust scientists because they are scientists, even though they have been found to be untrustworthy in the past ? wc98 said:
durbster said:
We do.
The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.
maybe speak to a few more.... he agrees humans are having a small effect on the earths temp but it is nothing to worry about. The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.
wc98 said:
what is your definition of agw vs cagw ?
You'd have to define specifically what you mean by cagw before I can answer that.PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
so people have to trust scientists because they are scientists, even though they have been found to be untrustworthy in the past ? 
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.
The above post from durbster merely confirms that others' opinions matter more to people incapable of forming their own...Yes, I'm happy to accept that I'm not in a position where I can question their expertise. I'm not so arrogant to believe that, after spending ten minutes reading a blog post I'm suddenly equal to somebody actively working in the respective field.
This is your strategy for digging yourself out of the credibility hole is it; to convince us that the authors of the science papers you cited are either misrepresenting or not understanding their own data, and it's actually your bloggers who know best.
All I can do as a layman is decide who I consider most credible: you, your amateur blogs and advocacy groups vs. the vast majority of expertise in all relevant fields.
turbobloke said:
This has been explained to durbster several times by various individuals, you'd think it would be understood by now.
But that would require me to take your explanations seriously. 
turbobloke said:
It's a blog post from an advocacy group! I did not expect that!dickymint said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
so people have to trust scientists because they are scientists, even though they have been found to be untrustworthy in the past ? So, with that in mind, lets start listing the Scientific Institutions and Govt's who believe/don't believe in AGW and we'll see who runs out of names first shall we...
And remember, no misrepresentations allowed
I'll start:
The Royal Society (loads of scientists in there)
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
so people have to trust scientists because they are scientists, even though they have been found to be untrustworthy in the past ? Do you recall "Mike's Nature Trick" and "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" also “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor” not forgetting "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise" and do you also recall which branch of science they relate to? It's The Team and climate science as you must surely have known.
Do research grants arise from political decisions on use of gov't aka taxpayers' money, or from the ether?
"While scientific journals normally require study authors to disclose potential conflicts of interest, this requirement often is not stringently enforced."
"Out of 44 studies determined to have a financial or professional conflicts of interest, 43 produced results favourable to the sponsor."
Meanwhile:
"Industry funding doesn’t necessarily bias work and it has many benefits for advancing science"
And:
"journal retracts 60 articles, smashes 'peer review ring'"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp...
https://www.theepochtimes.com/does-funding-influen...
durbster said:
But that would require me to take your explanations seriously.
Another scientist (at least one) and several other PHers have explained it to you, yes of course you should take explanations seriously where they're confirming something as obvious as data interpretation.LoonyTunes said:
20 page reports. Get a grip
You clearly don't work for a living.
But you still couldn't show me the paragraph that stated what you said.
if you read the thread and my replies to el stovey you would know my situation. i think you have me mixed up with someone else re showing you a paragraph that i claimed stated what i said . i didn't link to a 20 page report either.You clearly don't work for a living.
But you still couldn't show me the paragraph that stated what you said.
if you don't have time to read links on here due to working 24/7 ( if you worked for me and spent any time at all on here outside break time you would be sacked) where did you get the time to come to the position you appear to have adopted ? just pluck it out of thin air or read a greenpiss leaflet ?
El stovey said:
I’m not sure (m)any of the climate cult have jobs, they seem to all be retired old people. It’s all part of the political old blokes package. Distrust everyone, Anti Pc gone mad, the EU the BBC, etc
Perhaps this is what happens when some people retire and have too much free time and they become marginalised?
Looks like the mash were even more right than they thought with their satire about retired angry people distrusting scientists.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cl...
i am 48, i think that just lets me scrape into the old people bracket. i have been working today, but not for a living.Perhaps this is what happens when some people retire and have too much free time and they become marginalised?
Looks like the mash were even more right than they thought with their satire about retired angry people distrusting scientists.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/cl...
kerplunk said:
err yes I've noticed what a champion you are for including the actual factors that occurred when discussing climate model projections, lol.
The actual factors that occurred when discussing model projections? Are they factors other than models omitting climate forcings, working on a low Level of Scientific Understanding (low LOSU) for other forcings, having inadequate temporal and spatial resolution, getting feedbacks wrong, and the rest? They are indeed included.kerplunk said:
He was also quite dismissive about the possibility of a Maunder so you're not very aligned there either.
The only part of what Hathaway said that I agreed with was the possibility of an imminent Dalton event. The other aspects you cited where Hathaway either got a solar cycle prediction wrong or commentd on a Maunder event were introduced by you though they were/are irrelevant to what I posted.kerplunk said:
Well anything's possible I guess. However the laurels for predicting SC24 correctly must go to Leif Svalgaard who in 2005 predicted a sunspot count for SC24 = 75 +/-8.
Interesting but not the main point so you're still missing something. It's about more than sunspot numbers.In terms of solar minima and the Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo mechanism and the Bucha auroral oval mechanism, both peer-reviewed science with empirical data in their support, it’s the length of the period of minimal to zero sunspots - rather than the maximum number of sunspots present at any one time - that requires attention.
More completely it’s the length of the period of overall minimal solar eruptivity that matters; there are relevant phenomena beyond sunspots, such as coronal holes.
Hopefully you'll remember next time we enter this attrition loop.
kerplunk said:
I don't see you mentioning Svalgaard's work much - why is that?
i mentioned svalgaard above. have you had a read of his position on climate change ? i think issuing a position statement is a good idea for those involved in the science. it might make the definition of the so called consensus clearer.Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 5th September 11:40
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
20 page reports. Get a grip
You clearly don't work for a living.
But you still couldn't show me the paragraph that stated what you said.
if you read the thread and my replies to el stovey you would know my situation. i think you have me mixed up with someone else re showing you a paragraph that i claimed stated what i said . i didn't link to a 20 page report either.You clearly don't work for a living.
But you still couldn't show me the paragraph that stated what you said.
if you don't have time to read links on here due to working 24/7 ( if you worked for me and spent any time at all on here outside break time you would be sacked) where did you get the time to come to the position you appear to have adopted ? just pluck it out of thin air or read a greenpiss leaflet ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff