Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[mybrainhurts]

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/19/a...

Another loony rises to the surface of the mire...

[turbobloke]

mybrainhurts said:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/19/a...

Another loony rises to the surface of the mire...

I blame global cooling.

[robinessex]

Sway said:

Can't link from phone, but just seen a BBC report of Greenpeace activists being found not guilty of criminal damage of a coal fired station due to a legal excuse of prevention of climate change...

My previous comment on this:-

And there we have a dilema. A recent UK case used this defence:-

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/10...

The defendents won their case using this defence. The trial of the six Greenpeace UK activists was the first case in which acting to prevent climate change causing damage to property formed part of a 'lawful excuse' defence. Using the biggest load of bks and rubbish ever presented in a UK court. And, of course, the prosecution just rolled over and did nothing. Can anyone imagine the UK prosecution ever challenging such a defence? Even if a prosecutor gathered the evidence to repudiate/challenge this claptrap, can you imagining him being allowed by 'higher authorities'? Me neither.

[turbobloke]

Possibly that report was in the context of an oil-related protest in the USA which tried the same line of defence, but the Judge eventually ruled against their pathetic excuse.

From a few days ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/14/us-court-to-...

Update:
http://qz.com/594560/a-judge-just-dealt-a-bitter-s...

Link said:

...the judge instructed the jury not to take the “necessity defense” argument into consideration...

I thought I had read something in another news item today that the protesters had lost but may be mistaken as locating it again has proved difficult.

[deeps]

Scuffers said:

BBC TV news leading on this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3535...

Climate change: 2015 'shattered' global temperature record by wide margin

then showing this:

Even if the planet was hurled into a giant ice bucket, I guarantee that graph would continue to rise! Had/Cru - a laughing stock! I wonder what Phil Jones is doing these days?

[Lotus 50]

LongQ said:

So you are suggesting that a "global" climate change scenario can be specifically applied to produce results localised to just parts of the UK?

What is that based on? And what has changed to make that a reality of "now" that was not a reality in times past?

Prevailing winds and location of off-shore subsidy farms?

Does Gaia actually understand the human "month" identification and react accordingly?

In the words of a song - that you may need to adapt a little - "We call it rain but the human name doesn't mean st to a tree."

There has been work carried out to forecast the potential impacts of climate change at a more localised level, yes. This has included using different models (and ensemble forecasting using a number of model runs and varying input parameters etc) and emissions scenarios. For example:

http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/21708

AND: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/t/r/UK.pdf

I'm not sure what you mean by the "what has changed to make this a reality of "now" that was not a reality in times past" but suggest you read the reports/supporting info etc. The summary of the recent events produced by CEH is interesting in that the events were pretty extreme and would be the kind of event that might be expected to happen more frequently with increases in global temperature. Whether or not it's possible to say that this event was a result of climate change, or made worse by it, I don't know but suspect that CEH and others will be commenting further when/if they produce a more detailed report on the event.

[London424]

What on earth happened to the 1998/99 El Nino years that had been held out as significantly higher temps?

I could have sworn they were peaks of temp charts I've seen!

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

...the kind of event that might be expected to happen more frequently with increases in global temperature...

Except that it's not happening more frequently and the nature of the events is far from unprecedented. This has been pointed out in the case of Tewkesbury, then Somerset, then Cumbria flooding...the latest correction to dogma arose from Dr Tom Spencer at Cambridge and various colleagues as posted in this thread and others.

The basics are wrong in any case as any actual extreme weather that may arise e.g. a 1703 re-run is more likely under global cooling than warming given that extreme weather is driven by the magnitude of the pole-equator temperature differential which narrows under warming conditions, i.e. the wrong result.

And as usual, alarmists want it both ways, even under the gospel of warming there is at least one paper which argues that global warming will lead to less extreme weather (Streeter and Dugmore, 2014) the opposite of claims by climate alarmists. It's another example of the less snow/more snow, fewer hurricanes/more hurricanes approach to win-win ascientific alarmism.

In one recent instance where the jet stream intensified and drifted away from the pole, bringing so-called extreme weather to the UK, this was blamed on global warming in a typical knee-jerk reaction when in fact the predictions from global warming 'theory' had been that the jet stream would weaken and drift closer to the pole.

Even the IPCC are closer to reality than the zealots in thrall to them. IPCC has pointed out that when it comes to hurricanes, floods, droughts, local severe weather e.g. thunderstorms, there is a lack of evidence linking these events to human activity, with equally limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with such climate variables in the first place.

Apart from all that, what can possibly give anybody any confidence that mean global temperature has increased as claimed by enthusiastic examinations of the corrupted near-surface data? Are people aware of how much of the 'rise' is actually due to adjustments to the data?

Further global cooling to a Maunder type event may well bring extreme weather at some future point, but that will be seen in the data and not from inadequate climate models or the alarmism they've been feeding.

Anyone with an open mind taking just one step back can surely see that the entire global-warming-extreme-weather edifice is a crock o'the proverbial.

[XM5ER]

Sorry to hear that Bob Carter has died.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/profess...

It reminds me that we need more of the next generation to start picking up the baton for real science.

[turbobloke]

XM5ER said:

Sorry to hear that Bob Carter has died.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/profess...

It reminds me that we need more of the next generation to start picking up the baton for real science.

More at the link below.

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-grea...

[robinessex]

turbobloke said:

XM5ER said:

Sorry to hear that Bob Carter has died.

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/profess...

It reminds me that we need more of the next generation to start picking up the baton for real science.

More at the link below.

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-grea...

Be interesting to see how much reporting of this sad event gets onto the mainstream media.

[superlightr]

radioactive material in tea?

[turbobloke]

superlightr said:

radioactive material in tea?

Not wishing to add to the flippancy though I will as humour transcends all - surely it's down to global warming.

[Moonhawk]

turbobloke said:

superlightr said:

radioactive material in tea?

Not wishing to add to the flippancy though I will as humour transcends all - surely it's down to global warming. climate change

"global warming" implies humans are only at fault if it get's warmer - whereas with "climate change" you can get slapped by the terminally outraged no matter what happens

[turbobloke]

Moonhawk said:

turbobloke said:

superlightr said:

radioactive material in tea?

Not wishing to add to the flippancy though I will as humour transcends all - surely it's down to global warming. climate change

"global warming" implies humans are only at fault if it get's warmer - whereas with "climate change" you can get slapped by the terminally outraged no matter what happens

GPWM

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

Lotus 50 said:

...the kind of event that might be expected to happen more frequently with increases in global temperature...

Except that it's not happening more frequently and the nature of the events is far from unprecedented. This has been pointed out in the case of Tewkesbury, then Somerset, then Cumbria flooding...the latest correction to dogma arose from Dr Tom Spencer at Cambridge and various colleagues as posted in this thread and others.

The basics are wrong in any case as any actual extreme weather that may arise e.g. a 1703 re-run is more likely under global cooling than warming given that extreme weather is driven by the magnitude of the pole-equator temperature differential which narrows under warming conditions, i.e. the wrong result.

And as usual, alarmists want it both ways, even under the gospel of warming there is at least one paper which argues that global warming will lead to less extreme weather (Streeter and Dugmore, 2014) the opposite of claims by climate alarmists. It's another example of the less snow/more snow, fewer hurricanes/more hurricanes approach to win-win ascientific alarmism.

In one recent instance where the jet stream intensified and drifted away from the pole, bringing so-called extreme weather to the UK, this was blamed on global warming in a typical knee-jerk reaction when in fact the predictions from global warming 'theory' had been that the jet stream would weaken and drift closer to the pole.

Even the IPCC are closer to reality than the zealots in thrall to them. IPCC has pointed out that when it comes to hurricanes, floods, droughts, local severe weather e.g. thunderstorms, there is a lack of evidence linking these events to human activity, with equally limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with such climate variables in the first place.

Apart from all that, what can possibly give anybody any confidence that mean global temperature has increased as claimed by enthusiastic examinations of the corrupted near-surface data? Are people aware of how much of the 'rise' is actually due to adjustments to the data?

Further global cooling to a Maunder type event may well bring extreme weather at some future point, but that will be seen in the data and not from inadequate climate models or the alarmism they've been feeding.

Anyone with an open mind taking just one step back can surely see that the entire global-warming-extreme-weather edifice is a crock o'the proverbial.

I sometimes wonder how we managed to shun the notion of sorcery.

[turbobloke]

mybrainhurts said:

I sometimes wonder how we managed to shun the notion of sorcery.

In jest I do sometimes wonder if believers shout and jump up and down during solar eclipses to scare away the sky dragon and stop it eating the Sun. After all it works every time, the power of humans over nature is immense as we can see all around us.

[chris watton]

mybrainhurts said:

I sometimes wonder how we managed to shun the notion of sorcery.

Perhaps they'll announce that they've created, through alchemy, the purest form of 'Green', next!

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

mybrainhurts said:

I sometimes wonder how we managed to shun the notion of sorcery.

In jest I do sometimes wonder if believers shout and jump up and down during solar eclipses to scare away the sky dragon and stop it eating the Sun. After all it works every time.

Please stop it. The thought of George Monbiot jumping up and down naked just made me throw up in my porridge...

[turbobloke]

mybrainhurts said:

turbobloke said:

mybrainhurts said:

I sometimes wonder how we managed to shun the notion of sorcery.

In jest I do sometimes wonder if believers shout and jump up and down during solar eclipses to scare away the sky dragon and stop it eating the Sun. After all it works every time.

Please stop it. The thought of George Monbiot jumping up and down naked just made me throw up in my porridge...

They have to wear paint. Allegedly.