Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
kerplunk said:
For sure 10 years is a very short time period in climate terms, but then so are some of the predictions.
Here's another example from Paul Hudson's 2009 blog post: What happened to global warming?
"So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely."
The met office won that one I think.
You're ducking the question it seems. Here's another example from Paul Hudson's 2009 blog post: What happened to global warming?
"So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely."
The met office won that one I think.
That arguments of cooling and short range predictions have been made, doesn't alter the fact that the chart you posted could have myriad trend lines drawn on it depending on what you want to state. Nor does it change that even 10yrs is a mere blip on what should be being considered the full data set (day 0 to present day).
Analysis of 2,000 year temps evidently has its flaws too, but the trends it shows are interesting and quite different from your 10yr chart.
Fact is we have no idea whether we are at the start of a never ending rise or just somewhere else on a much lower frequency curve/wave.
It would be highly amusing if we were actually in the middle of a cooling cycle and the last 100yrs data was a blip when you zoom out to the 4.5bn yr time scale and hence are on paths to do things that make the situation worse
Personally I think wasting natural resources is a generally bad idea. So I don't think we should do nothing on those fronts. But not because I think it will alter temperatures by 0.2degC, just because it's wasteful.
On temps I am of the view that we are part of a much, much bigger system which we have little detailed clue about at present, and that the significant influencers lie elsewhere. Either way, the climate changes no matter what time horizon you use
Murph7355 said:
kerplunk said:
For sure 10 years is a very short time period in climate terms, but then so are some of the predictions.
Here's another example from Paul Hudson's 2009 blog post: What happened to global warming?
"So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely."
The met office won that one I think.
You're ducking the question it seems. Here's another example from Paul Hudson's 2009 blog post: What happened to global warming?
"So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely."
The met office won that one I think.
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 8th August 17:33
kerplunk said:
Sort of, you tried to change the subject and I wasn't interested. No time to discuss earth's climate from 'day 0' to present right now sorry. Why don't you try turbobloke - he thinks solar-forced cooling is imminent which you disagree because you think the earth just (*wavey hand*) does what it wants regardless. Maybe he'll be interested in discussing your elegant theory
Yup, I said just that. 
Still, your chart and trend line prove a lot.
'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4066...
Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found.
Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.
However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.
Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme..................continues
Some very selective BBC investigation! I'm sure we could supply them with tons more dodgy data if they were the slightest bit interested ! Also puts some of the above posts in their place. Dodgy data indeed, what a surprise!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4066...
Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found.
Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.
However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.
Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme..................continues
Some very selective BBC investigation! I'm sure we could supply them with tons more dodgy data if they were the slightest bit interested ! Also puts some of the above posts in their place. Dodgy data indeed, what a surprise!
Murph7355 said:
kerplunk said:
Sort of, you tried to change the subject and I wasn't interested. No time to discuss earth's climate from 'day 0' to present right now sorry. Why don't you try turbobloke - he thinks solar-forced cooling is imminent which you disagree because you think the earth just (*wavey hand*) does what it wants regardless. Maybe he'll be interested in discussing your elegant theory
Yup, I said just that. Still, your chart and trend line prove a lot.
Indeed, without established causality it's relatively worthless in this context but it's all there is on offer. There is no established causality to humans in any global climate data.
kerplunkl said:
turbobloke - he thinks solar-forced cooling is imminent
It's not about what Murph7355 thinks or what I think.When I indicate what solar data is pointing to, I usually remember to add a comment that we need to keep looking at the data to get a better idea of where things are heading. See below...even durbster can see it on-screen in my posts though assumptions made after that point may be out of kilter.
This means that once again your true belief is up against the data, not any individual on PH, and that's a lose every time for true belief.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
We can do no more than keep an eye on the data
I've asked this and been met with silence many times before, but let's try again.Where on earth is this magical temperature data you are constantly referring to?
RTFP. I'm referring to 'the data' and in the case of climate cooling resulting from very low levels of solar eruptivity and a reduction in TSI (not the same) it's solar data primarily - I'll take the time to explain (again) in a mo and although some science is required, the IPCC gets a mention so there's politics in here as well.
As believers will know, being well up on this sort of thing
the current interest centres on future solar activity changes, some of which have been seen so far in Cycle 24 which corresponds to approx 2008 to 2019, and remains relevant to what lies ahead in Cycle 25.which is approx 2019 to 2030.Cycle 24 hasn't completed yet and Cycle 25 hasn't started. This is what made kerplunk's recent sarcy comment about using corrupted near-surface data and wood for trees, to examine cooling now, so ironic and amusing as it revealed both a lack of understanding of relevant climate science and a lack of awareness of what's being said on PH and elsewhere. It's not about now as the Sun winds down, it's about how far the wind down will proceed in Cycle 24, then 25, and the likely impacts on Earth.
This is one type of solar data under consideration, the solar radio flux at 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) which acts as a trustworthy indicator of solar activity. Recall that Cycle 24 in the gtaphic below isn't complete. Compare with 21.
Given there are peer-reviewed papers already in print that demonstrate solar impact on climate via the solar eruptivity forcings that IPCC faithful types completely ignore, it's very relevant to the terrestrial climate and lower troposphere temperature.
Published research by Svensmark and the CERN CLOUD experiment have shown that cosmic ray flux is liinked to low level cloud formation and thence to albedo. This is the CRF-:LLC-Albedo solar eruptivity forcing mechanism. The terrestrial neutron flux, caused by galactic cosmic rays hitting oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, causes changes in cloudiness by providing nucleation sites for cloud formation to start.
When the Sun is active the solar wind acts as a barrier to high energy cosmic rays. During periods of solar inactivity the neutron flux increases because more high energy cosmic rays are getting through. Currently the neutron count is climbing rapidly as the peaks in the solar wind / interplanetary magnetic field (and Ap Index) have passed. Due to the albedo effect this will support cooling. These are the data to keep an eye on.
Published research by Bucha has shown that during periods of peak solar activity including solar storm impacts, the energy funneled into the auroral oval near the poles causes an increase in temperature from the thermosphere down to the troposphere. When the Sun is quiet this doesn't happen and the temperature increases don't take place, therefore this also supports cooling.
I've given the references to Svensmark and Bucha papers in many previous posts in PH climate threads. Both of the above mechanisms are different to considerations of total solar irradiance (TSI) which is the only solar variable considered in IPCC type analyses, and even then they get it wrong by failing to account for the result found experimentally by Shaviv that changes in TSI are amplified in their impact at the surface, x5 to x7 iirc. TSI is a radiative phenomenon, the eruptivity forcings described above are particulate and magnetic in nature.
This is why the future is of interest, more than the present, and why I include mention in my posts that we need to continue to look at the data i.e. 2017-2019 then 2019-2030. The projections in published papers from researchers such as Abdussamatov which I posted recenrly mention 2042 or 2043. This is partly due to the half-length of the magnetic solar cycle increasing beyond 11 years during deep solar minima and also usefully reminds us that there is an expected lag from solar data minima to temperature data minima.
These types of forecast are essentially different to the forecasts from IPCC sources as they're based on data not climate model gigo, but there will be one more difference in terms of their treatment. While the list of failed predictions based on agw junkscience is longer than any of our arms, agw staggers on with political hands stuck up its jacksie to narch it around and give the appearance of life when in fact agw bit the dust long ago. Qutie rightly solar eruptivity forcing ideas must change if the solar eruptivity changes occur as looks likely right now, but the lagged climate response isn't forthcoming between 2030-2060.
Meanwhile it would be reasonable to buy Damart and candles.
durbster said:
Do you have some credible evidence of this corruption and fraud, and an explanation as to why it has escaped the law for several decades?
It is possible to conspire to pervert the truth with fraudulent practices and escape the law, just ask Phil Jones. He admitted to loosing raw data and even destroying it. How convenient. He may have the title Dr in front of his name, which you would cite as a ‘qualified expert’, but at best he’s highly incompetent and at worst, a fraud, who belongs in jail with quite a few others for costing billions for the continual promoting (without evidence outside a model or ‘processed’ data) of this clap trap.
durbster said:
What on earth made you think we'd have a Mediterranean climate within 15 years!?
I didn’t, but all the alarmists and disciples back then kept repeating the mantra, temps rising faster than ever, records broken continually, worse than previously thought, the south coast will be like the south of France, blahdy blahdy blah… surely you remember? Or maybe you don’t, perhaps it was a big year for you in primary school?Anyway, the dimwit career bureaucrats, civil servants and politicians lapped it up, just like they continue to do so… despite nothing at all happening...
robinessex said:
'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4066...
Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found.
Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.
However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.
Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme..................continues
Some very selective BBC investigation! I'm sure we could supply them with tons more dodgy data if they were the slightest bit interested ! Also puts some of the above posts in their place. Dodgy data indeed, what a surprise!
The line that strikes me as being the the most apposite here is "Global levels have been rising in recent years, and scientists are unsure why."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4066...
Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found.
Air monitors in Switzerland have detected large quantities of one gas coming from a location in Italy.
However, the Italian submission to the UN records just a tiny amount of the substance being emitted.
Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme..................continues
Some very selective BBC investigation! I'm sure we could supply them with tons more dodgy data if they were the slightest bit interested ! Also puts some of the above posts in their place. Dodgy data indeed, what a surprise!
Compared to understanding the chaotic climate of the planet and all the factors that go with it the measurement of a few gases should be easy surely?
Maybe it is but they can't say so for political reasons.
In which case there are at least some politicians out there who seem to understand that the proposed problem and the proposed solutions are not being taken seriously by everyone. (Or should that be anyone in politics?)
If one accepts that, or something like it as the McGrath article appears to be suggesting in part, just what is this piece intended to be doing? Pricking some thick skins to find a conscience? Rousing the green troops to strive for even greater efforts? Or (very unlikely) laying the starting blocks for a retreat from Paris?
Or perhaps just something entirely different in government funded research pitches?
turbobloke said:
kerplunkl said:
turbobloke - he thinks solar-forced cooling is imminent
It's not about what Murph7355 thinks or what I think.When I indicate what solar data is pointing to, I usually remember to add a comment that we need to keep looking at the data to get a better idea of where things are heading. See below...even durbster can see it on-screen in my posts though assumptions made after that point may be out of kilter.
This means that once again your true belief is up against the data, not any individual on PH, and that's a lose every time for true belief.
For the record I'm quite open to the idea that we may be heading into a period of reduced solar activity and in some ways I hope it happens - the sooner the better.
Bacardi said:
durbster said:
Do you have some credible evidence of this corruption and fraud, and an explanation as to why it has escaped the law for several decades?
It is possible to conspire to pervert the truth with fraudulent practices and escape the law, just ask Phil Jones. He admitted to loosing raw data and even destroying it. How convenient. He may have the title Dr in front of his name, which you would cite as a ‘qualified expert’, but at best he’s highly incompetent and at worst, a fraud, who belongs in jail with quite a few others for costing billions for the continual promoting (without evidence outside a model or ‘processed’ data) of this clap trap.
durbster said:
What on earth made you think we'd have a Mediterranean climate within 15 years!?
I didn’t, but all the alarmists and disciples back then kept repeating the mantra, temps rising faster than ever, records broken continually, worse than previously thought, the south coast will be like the south of France, blahdy blahdy blah… surely you remember? Or maybe you don’t, perhaps it was a big year for you in primary school?Anyway, the dimwit career bureaucrats, civil servants and politicians lapped it up, just like they continue to do so… despite nothing at all happening...
I remember trying to clean my car many times with used bath water - yep, the hosepipe ban (again) was necessary because disaster was imminent - the future wasn't bleak (mid-winter), it would be the opposite - lots of scary pics appeared of empty reservoirs and cracked, dried-up land and river beds. Argghhh! This was our future (they said) a scorched desert earth UK was around the corner.
Not sure which corner it was, but it didn't happen.
Fast forward to today at the London Athletics earlier on tv. Hilarious.
Studio presenters complaining about the 'cold'! 'It's soooo cold!' says Gabby Logan.
But it's summer!
One of the runners was asked why she didn't do as well as was expected, and why others times were down?
'It was so cold out there.'
Back to Gabby and she's put on another layer!
Jesus Christ! Watch out! The Ice Age (well, another one) cometh!
kerplunk said:
Sorry tb you've misunderstood why I referenced you, but it's not important.
Well, thank goodness for your continued arrogant sanctimony...kerplunk said:
For the record I'm quite open to the idea that we may be heading into a period of reduced solar activity and in some ways I hope it happens - the sooner the better.
Why’s that then? To combat the unproven CO2 global warming myth… or do you approve of older people dying in cold weather who cannot afford to pay for green subsidies on their fuel bills?turbobloke said:
Published research by Bucha has shown that during periods of peak solar activity including solar storm impacts, the energy funneled into the auroral oval near the poles causes an increase in temperature from the thermosphere down to the troposphere. When the Sun is quiet this doesn't happen and the temperature increases don't take place, therefore this also supports cooling.
So the temperature data is absolutely fine when used to correlate this theory? What happened to GIGO? 
Once again, your hypocrisy undermines your argument.
Still, looks like your theory is really popular with creationists. The fourth search result for "svensmark theory" is the Institue for Creation Research:
http://www.icr.org/article/new-theory-climate-chan...
If there's one group who know about "sound science", it's creationists.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Published research by Bucha has shown that during periods of peak solar activity including solar storm impacts, the energy funneled into the auroral oval near the poles causes an increase in temperature from the thermosphere down to the troposphere. When the Sun is quiet this doesn't happen and the temperature increases don't take place, therefore this also supports cooling.
So the temperature data is absolutely fine when used to correlate this theory? What happened to GIGO? Once again, your hypocrisy undermines your argument.
If you knew anything much or even had the ability to comprehend what's going on in the thread you'd realise straight away from the clear descriptions that both solar eruptivity forcings operate top down in the atmosphere, not bottom up.
It's temperature in the troposphere - balloons, radiosondes and all that. Sure you could have a go at extracting this real signal from the corrupted near-surface data with its exclusion of cold readings, lulc uhie gdp effects, upward adjustments of recent readings, multiple substitutions and the rest, but who in their right might would try? Maybe if you're one of the people who can see an invisible signal it might work if the faith is strong enough.
It's not about temperatures near aircon outlets, airport tarmac, trash burners, chimneys and car parks.
Please keep displaying your ignorance with sarcy irony on top.
For the many folks visiting this thread who bring powers of comprehension above believer level, the auroral oval eruptivity forcing mechanism is clearly localised...the poles. Bucha's research was all the more interesting for giving due consideration to orographic effects (durbster can look it up) and atmospheric circulation patterns. It's natural science that sure as hell beats the carp out of political science. Also better than plonking temperature sensors near jetwash and airport tarmac, then howling about how hot it was for a couple of minutes while pretending it's something else.
turbobloke said:
If you knew anything much or even had the ability to comprehend what's going on in the thread you'd realise straight away from the clear descriptions that both solar eruptivity forcings operate top down in the atmosphere, not bottom up.
It's temperature in the troposphere - balloons, radiosondes and all that. Sure you could have a go at extracting this real signal from the corrupted near-surface data with its exclusion of cold readings, lulc uhie gdp effects, upward adjustments of recent readings, multiple substitutions and the rest, but who in their right might would try? Maybe if you're one of the people who can see an invisible signal it might work if the faith is strong enough.
It's not about temperatures near aircon outlets, airport tarmac, trash burners, chimneys and car parks.
Please keep displaying your ignorance with sarcy irony on top.
Anyway, I will ask again for you to please show us this marvellous data you keep referring to.
Amazingly o for orography follows n for no - as in no idea but can see an invisible signal.
Meanwhile....over at ICECAP they've been discussing stormy climate deception that's clobbering poorer families (pdf).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Driessen_-_Stormy_...
turbobloke said:
Amazingly o for orography follows n for no - as in no idea but can see an invisible signal.
Meanwhile....over at ICECAP they've been discussing stormy climate deception that's clobbering poorer families (pdf).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Driessen_-_Stormy_...
A reminder of the request: can you show us the temperature data you're referring to please?
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Amazingly o for orography follows n for no - as in no idea but can see an invisible signal.
Meanwhile....over at ICECAP they've been discussing stormy climate deception that's clobbering poorer families (pdf).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Driessen_-_Stormy_...
A reminder of the request: can you show us the temperature data you're referring to please?
I had access to printed versions of two key peer-reviewed Bucha / Bucha and Bucha papers and made copies of the abstracts. Here's one excerpt as posted previously on PH climate threads, which is material to the current discussion. This is from an era when pertinent data was made available to the peer review process.
Abstract said:
...downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature...
This is exactly as posted, yesterday iirc.Which paper(s) are you referring to that refute the temperature increase? A reference will do, no link is necessary.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff