Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
mike9009 said:
Is there some debate as to how green house gases work? Or is the fundamental mechanism of the impact of green house gases being questioned?
Not as suggested. The issue isn't with radiative absorption / quantum molecular spectroscopy of CO2, it's the point that any energy absorbed 1) cannot be 'trapped' and 2) based on observations, is escaping to space faster than climate models allow for. No crisis as such. Saturation / near-saturation is ignored by those whose position benefits from ignoring / dismissing it. Ignoring these evident failures, some pointed out starkly in McKitrick and Christy (2018) using data, is convenient for those whose position benefits from it. The idea that it's been trapped 700m deep in the oceans is lacking. Downwelling IR barely penetrates ~cm below the surface and as retired climatologist Judith Curry explained following the Trenberth (co-author) paper's claim and similar, the mechanism involved isn't clear and hasn't been explained in any detail.
The 'missing energy has been found' line has it that we can know the relevant non-surface ocean temperatures from around 1950 to ± 0.04°C which many find to be wholly unrealistic. Researchers at Harvard University back in 2019 found that the deep Pacific Ocean lags a few centuries in terms of temperature and is still adjusting to the planet's entry into the Little Ice Age. Rosenthal et al (2013) showed that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Those error bars, an order of magnitude larger (x10) than above are more realistic. Both water masses were approx 1°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and approx 0.7°C warmer than in recent decades. Not unprecedented, not cooler. But but but it's already warmer down there now, and tax gas did it somehow - if it is and if error bars are kosher.
The bottom line is that models continue, regardless, on the modellers' own merry way and are retained as a basis for political policymaking
turbobloke said:
Not that you've said otherwise, but climate has always changed, always will; species have moved about, flourished or died out. It's not new, special or unprecedented. Except for the obsessive media focus from journalists who don't understand the lack of causality to humans and what this means for their obsession and one-sided coverage. Clearly, if they didn't toe the line, they'd be visited by the Climate Inquisition and vilified to the limit and beyond. Religious zealotry is like that, it hates disagreement / dissent aka heresy, and ignores objective evidence behind it.
The information below would take about 20s + 10s to skim read if you or anyone hasn't taken a look previously.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/JpnUPVMC.jpg
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/x4nUU5Kk.jpg
It's OK TB, I'm on your side. I literally couldn't give a sThe information below would take about 20s + 10s to skim read if you or anyone hasn't taken a look previously.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/JpnUPVMC.jpg
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/x4nUU5Kk.jpg
t about the changing climate anyway.kerplunk said:
mike9009 said:
Is there some debate as to how green house gases work? Or is the fundamental mechanism of the impact of green house gases being questioned?
How to answer such a question.. Some dispute the earth is round.
There is plenty of dispute as to how they work in the real world
Two years and counting, nothing changes regardless of what actually changes, as climate politics is settled (for now) but climate is something else.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/zLXPtdoT.png
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/qprWgaQj.png
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/zLXPtdoT.png
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/qprWgaQj.png
In case anyone hadn't noticed, the Beeb climate propaganda machine is starting up in anticipation of COP28.
Climate change: Is the world warming faster than expected?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-673...
Climate records have tumbled in 2023.
There have been historically high sea temperatures, worrying lows in Antarctic sea-ice, and extreme weather events hitting every continent - the latest being an "unbearable" heatwave in Brazil.
It's now "VIRTUALLY CERTAIN" that 2023 will be the hottest year on record. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NO MAJOR CLIMATE SCIENCE BODY EXPECTED AT THE START OF THE YEAR. (What happened to the models then ?)
Scientists have long known that temperatures will continue to rise as humans keep releasing record amounts of planet-heating greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, mainly through burning fossil fuels. This is the main cause of global warming.
WHILE THEY ARE STRUGGLING TO FULLY EXPLAIN 2023's "gobsmacking" surge in temperatures, here are four additional reasons that COULD be behind the increases.........continues
Climate change: Is the world warming faster than expected?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-673...
Climate records have tumbled in 2023.
There have been historically high sea temperatures, worrying lows in Antarctic sea-ice, and extreme weather events hitting every continent - the latest being an "unbearable" heatwave in Brazil.
It's now "VIRTUALLY CERTAIN" that 2023 will be the hottest year on record. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NO MAJOR CLIMATE SCIENCE BODY EXPECTED AT THE START OF THE YEAR. (What happened to the models then ?)
Scientists have long known that temperatures will continue to rise as humans keep releasing record amounts of planet-heating greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, mainly through burning fossil fuels. This is the main cause of global warming.
WHILE THEY ARE STRUGGLING TO FULLY EXPLAIN 2023's "gobsmacking" surge in temperatures, here are four additional reasons that COULD be behind the increases.........continues
Apologies if behind a paywall, not sure how to sort that, maybe wiser heads than me could fix it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/bbc-hy...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/bbc-hy...
Composer62 said:
Apologies if behind a paywall, not sure how to sort that, maybe wiser heads than me could fix it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/bbc-hy...
BBC reporter racking up air miles to preach on global warming? Obviously fake news https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/bbc-hy...
aunty's climate politics credentials are greener than green as per agw catastrophist preachers in general. Hold that thought. Almost a decade ago Greenpeace Director of International Programs, Pascal Husting, made the headlines for living in Luxemburg and travelling to his Greenpeace office in Amsterdam using an evil aircraft thereby contributing to lots of CO666O2 emissions. Aaccording to Monbiot he should be chalking up notches on his airmiles print-out.
https://www.monbiot.com/2006/02/28/we-are-all-kill...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/2...
Naturally it's OK for proselytising greenies to fly as long as they lecture the rest of us on not flying. Ecohypocrisy since at least 2006, and counting.
turbobloke said:
mike9009 said:
Is there some debate as to how green house gases work? Or is the fundamental mechanism of the impact of green house gases being questioned?
Not as suggested. The issue isn't with radiative absorption / quantum molecular spectroscopy of CO2, it's the point that any energy absorbed 1) cannot be 'trapped' and 2) based on observations, is escaping to space faster than climate models allow for. No crisis as such. Saturation / near-saturation is ignored by those whose position benefits from ignoring / dismissing it. Ignoring these evident failures, some pointed out starkly in McKitrick and Christy (2018) using data, is convenient for those whose position benefits from it. The idea that it's been trapped 700m deep in the oceans is lacking. Downwelling IR barely penetrates ~cm below the surface and as retired climatologist Judith Curry explained following the Trenberth (co-author) paper's claim and similar, the mechanism involved isn't clear and hasn't been explained in any detail.
The 'missing energy has been found' line has it that we can know the relevant non-surface ocean temperatures from around 1950 to ± 0.04°C which many find to be wholly unrealistic. Researchers at Harvard University back in 2019 found that the deep Pacific Ocean lags a few centuries in terms of temperature and is still adjusting to the planet's entry into the Little Ice Age. Rosenthal et al (2013) showed that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Those error bars, an order of magnitude larger (x10) than above are more realistic. Both water masses were approx 1°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and approx 0.7°C warmer than in recent decades. Not unprecedented, not cooler. But but but it's already warmer down there now, and tax gas did it somehow - if it is and if error bars are kosher.
The bottom line is that models continue, regardless, on the modellers' own merry way and are retained as a basis for political policymaking
Has anyone published papers with a model of a more realistic increase in heat and how did that modelling differ to the generally accepted consensus?
mike9009 said:
Ah, so the green house gases do have an effect, but just not at the rate predicted by modelling (to date).
Has anyone published papers with a model of a more realistic increase in heat and how did that modelling differ to the generally accepted consensus?
Nah, turbobloke is just regurgitating his usual waffle, none of which is backed up by evidence or data. He's basically stuck in an infinite loop of repeatedly posting fossil fuel propaganda that was written 15 years ago to this thread. Nobody knows why.Has anyone published papers with a model of a more realistic increase in heat and how did that modelling differ to the generally accepted consensus?
The reality is that observations have tracked the predicted warming trend correctly - to an accuracy less than 10%. You can see this for yourself (the data is in the public domain) or you can just do a search for "global temperature observations vs models". Even the models created in the 1970s have held up pretty good. It's just the laws of physics at the end of the day.
Meanwhile, turbobloke's credentials on this topic are that he said rapid global cooling would start in 2012, temperatures would fall 1.5 degrees by 2020 and we'd be well on the way to a new ice age by 2030. He's been demonstrably wrong about everything climate related for two decades, all documented on this forum.
The input effects are well-known, this from calculaitons based on data involving lots of spectral lines, not assumptions based on faith or politics.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/rnjUk4QF.jpg.
Meanwhile "they didn’t mention that most of that warming occurred before 1920 when CO2 levels were just above 300ppm"
From an article on approx 65 years of increasingly political climate politics punctuated by a cooling problem and a pause problem not forgetting use of glue to hide a decline.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/rnjUk4QF.jpg.
Meanwhile "they didn’t mention that most of that warming occurred before 1920 when CO2 levels were just above 300ppm"
From an article on approx 65 years of increasingly political climate politics punctuated by a cooling problem and a pause problem not forgetting use of glue to hide a decline.
Extreme weather 'biggest threat' to UK heritage
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-674...
Flooding, wildfires and extreme weather threaten the future of nearly three-quarters of sites managed by the National Trust, a new report says.
The charity says climate change is "the single biggest threat" facing its 28,500 historic homes, 250,000 hectares of land and 780 miles of coastline.
In Monday's report, the trust called on the UK government to do more to help organisations adapt to climate change.
The government said it had a five-year plan to boost the country's resilience.
Patrick Begg, the trust's natural resources director, said that climate change demanded "urgent and unswerving attention" and presented "the single biggest threat to the places in our care".....................continues
I saw this on the Beeb this morning, absolutely no explanation as to why/how this is happening. A futile explanation about a leaking roof on a stately home was (apparently) due to climate change, thus more rain. Not the complete lack of maintenance over the last 200 years.
"When it comes to the trust's historic buildings and stately homes, protecting them from extreme weather isn't cheap.
The Tudor mansion Coughton Court in Warwickshire is currently undergoing a £3.3m facelift to make sure its roof and gutters can cope with heavy rainfall. "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-674...
Flooding, wildfires and extreme weather threaten the future of nearly three-quarters of sites managed by the National Trust, a new report says.
The charity says climate change is "the single biggest threat" facing its 28,500 historic homes, 250,000 hectares of land and 780 miles of coastline.
In Monday's report, the trust called on the UK government to do more to help organisations adapt to climate change.
The government said it had a five-year plan to boost the country's resilience.
Patrick Begg, the trust's natural resources director, said that climate change demanded "urgent and unswerving attention" and presented "the single biggest threat to the places in our care".....................continues
I saw this on the Beeb this morning, absolutely no explanation as to why/how this is happening. A futile explanation about a leaking roof on a stately home was (apparently) due to climate change, thus more rain. Not the complete lack of maintenance over the last 200 years.
"When it comes to the trust's historic buildings and stately homes, protecting them from extreme weather isn't cheap.
The Tudor mansion Coughton Court in Warwickshire is currently undergoing a £3.3m facelift to make sure its roof and gutters can cope with heavy rainfall. "
Former Sky News boss John Ryley says he 'failed' on climate change coverage
I always thought Moonbat in the Guardian was ( almost) no1 climate change bonkers, but here is someone who beats him easily.
The man who ran Sky News for 17 years up until this spring has told the Climate Show With Tom Heap that the way media outlets are covering climate change is "pretty poor" and they are "not doing their job".
John Ryley, who stood down from the top job at the award-winning channel in April, also said he believes his own efforts to deliver sufficient climate coverage had "failed".
He was interviewed about a new book he co-edited called Toxic News? Covering Climate Change which features essays from academics and journalists on the challenges of reporting the subject.
"It poses an existential threat to the planet and the humans on it and I wanted to know what other journalists thought about the quality of reporting," he added.
He also has some agreement with campaigners who often accuse the media of failing to tell the whole truth about climate change......................continues
I always thought Moonbat in the Guardian was ( almost) no1 climate change bonkers, but here is someone who beats him easily.
The man who ran Sky News for 17 years up until this spring has told the Climate Show With Tom Heap that the way media outlets are covering climate change is "pretty poor" and they are "not doing their job".
John Ryley, who stood down from the top job at the award-winning channel in April, also said he believes his own efforts to deliver sufficient climate coverage had "failed".
He was interviewed about a new book he co-edited called Toxic News? Covering Climate Change which features essays from academics and journalists on the challenges of reporting the subject.
"It poses an existential threat to the planet and the humans on it and I wanted to know what other journalists thought about the quality of reporting," he added.
He also has some agreement with campaigners who often accuse the media of failing to tell the whole truth about climate change......................continues
I still find it a little odd how some want to focus so intensely, and solely on effect, but seem able to ignore, or just want to conveniently forget cause.
This is like someone complaining about the emissions coming out of a factory, whilst completely ignoring the factory which is creating those emissions in the first place. Seems all a*se about face to me.
This is like someone complaining about the emissions coming out of a factory, whilst completely ignoring the factory which is creating those emissions in the first place. Seems all a*se about face to me.
durbster said:
Nah, turbobloke is just regurgitating his usual waffle
I could be wrong but I'm not sure I've seen tb raising the idea that downwelling longwave radiation from the atmosphere is incapable of heating up the oceans before, until recently. This might be his new favourite greenhouse paradigm busting idea in the category of "climate scientists are stoopid and have missed something obvious" (ref - greenhouse effect theory breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and CO2 is saturated).
Not that it's a 'new' paradigm busting talking point though:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-rad...
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 20th November 11:55
Attrition looping remains pointless.
Causality isn't satisfied CO2 => temperature as per multiple papers which are repeatedly ignored for strategic reasons (no wheels on the agw wagon, keep pushing anyway). Relevant timescales are covered in Monnin et al (as well as similar from Petit et al plus three more at least), Humlum et al, Koutsoyiannis et al, McKitrick, then there's Feming, and Mao et al. All the rest including blah blah repeats from agw are window dressing.
That's why LongQ started this Climate Politics thread, climate is politics and has been for decades. As of now, BBC climate politics generates silly leading questions as below, inviting indoctrinated youth and propagandised elders to make the usual assumptive leaps by ignoring causality and orders of magnitude, which are ignoringly ignored (see above).
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/22eMiecd.jpg
Causality isn't satisfied CO2 => temperature as per multiple papers which are repeatedly ignored for strategic reasons (no wheels on the agw wagon, keep pushing anyway). Relevant timescales are covered in Monnin et al (as well as similar from Petit et al plus three more at least), Humlum et al, Koutsoyiannis et al, McKitrick, then there's Feming, and Mao et al. All the rest including blah blah repeats from agw are window dressing.
That's why LongQ started this Climate Politics thread, climate is politics and has been for decades. As of now, BBC climate politics generates silly leading questions as below, inviting indoctrinated youth and propagandised elders to make the usual assumptive leaps by ignoring causality and orders of magnitude, which are ignoringly ignored (see above).
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/22eMiecd.jpg
turbobloke said:
Attrition looping remains pointless.
Causality isn't satisfied CO2 => temperature as per multiple papers which are repeatedly ignored for strategic reasons
Causality isn't satisfied CO2 => temperature as per multiple papers which are repeatedly ignored for strategic reasons
Rather, turbobloke repeatedly ignores substantive points made about the stuff he posts and just 'moves on' - and then later hubristically declares himself victorious like it didn't happen
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Attrition looping remains pointless.
Causality isn't satisfied CO2 => temperature as per multiple papers which are repeatedly ignored for strategic reasons
Causality isn't satisfied CO2 => temperature as per multiple papers which are repeatedly ignored for strategic reasons
Rather, turbobloke repeatedly ignores substantive points made about the stuff he posts and just 'moves on' - and then later hubristically declares himself victorious like it didn't happen
What's relevant, is that which is politically relevant, and tax gas is in there - hence LongQ's thread.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff