Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[robinessex]

FORGET AGW OR CC. A MORE SERIOUS MENACE !!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/837120/Yello...

Fears that deadly Yellowstone supervolcano about to BLOW after 1400 earthquakes hit

YELLOWSTONE volcano has been struck by 1,400 earthquakes in recent weeks, leading to fears that the supervolcano is ready to blow and WIPE OUT life on Earth.
Seismic activity around the Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, US, is not uncommon, but the heaviest swarm in half a decade has people very concerned.Since June 12, there has been over 1,400 tremors in the region, and experts state that the swarm could go on for another month.The Yellowstone Caldera supervolcano last erupted 70,000 years ago but a spike in seismic activity around the national park has unsettled nerves.If the Wyoming volcano were to erupt it would kill an estimated 87,000 people immediately and make two-thirds of the USA immediately uninhabitable. The as the large spew of ash into the atmosphere would block out sunlight and directly affect life beneath it creating a “nuclear winter” and threatening ALL life on earth.

Where's Durbster when you need him ?

[turbobloke]

That'd be cool. Too cool.

O/T peace and love to all the beautiful thread people, mwah mwah.

[steveT350C]

NASA admits it hasn't being accurately measuring Earth's radiation balance...

"Up until now, the error on this measurement is estimated to be around +/- 5Wm^2, which means any ‘global warming’ signal is lost in the error margin."

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/08/09/nasa-ad...

[turbobloke]

Awesome. Thanks for the link SteveT350C.

Good to see PHer tallbloke in action also.

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Where's Durbster when you need him?

As an interested impartial observer of this thread I do find these constant childish remarks tedious in the extreme - and I've seen them numerous times on here. Apart from the fact that they do just look like bullying pure and simple they also undermine the 'weight' of your post.

The post was interesting enough without the ridiculous last sentence tacked on simply to rile one poster.

He says he'll stop if the rest of you do. Please accept that invitation - the thread will read so much better for it.

[steveT350C]

turbobloke said:

Awesome. Thanks for the link SteveT350C.

Good to see PHer tallbloke in action also.

[mybrainhurts]

gadgetmac said:

As an interested impartial observer of this thread I do find these constant childish remarks tedious in the extreme - and I've seen them numerous times on here. Apart from the fact that they do just look like bullying pure and simple they also undermine the 'weight' of your post.

The post was interesting enough without the ridiculous last sentence tacked on simply to rile one poster.

He says he'll stop if the rest of you do. Please accept that invitation - the thread will read so much better for it.

You don't understand the nature of the durbster...read some more of his posts.

[Bacardi]

gadgetmac said:

He says he'll stop if the rest of you do. Please accept that invitation - the thread will read so much better for it.

Perhaps he should lead by example, rather than calling anyone with a different point of view 'attack chimps'?

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

Bacardi said:

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?

No you haven't quite 'projected' my motives correctly there. I had more scientific research benefits in mind - it would answer a lot of questions. Obviously if it caused another little ice age I wouldn't want that but that's not likely I think.

You're entitled to your opinion but solar data continues to run against that opinion.

Pesonally I regard data as more important in forming opinions than anything else when it comes to matters of this nature, so forgive me for not being in a position to see how your opinion has any merit (given that there's considerable credible data against it).

This data has been moving against your position for several years and has given rise to headlines like this:

2013 Nov - Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries...New Scientist of all places! [how long ago did 'the' LIA end?]
2015 Apr - The sun is now virtually blank...

I'm not disputing predictions of low solar activity ahead, they appear quite credible. Read my post again - it's about the effect on climate. Even if we get a Maunder type grand minimum the LIA started well before the MM, so MM = LIA doesn't follow.

Cheeky - no need to read your post again, I enjoyed it in its fullness already

When looking these things up online it's common to find dates given for the LIA as 1550 to 1850 and 1645 to 1715 for the Maunder Minimum. On this basis your point seems reasonable but the dates are arbitrary and inevitably hide details within a form of cherry picking. One of the issues is that the telescope was invented in the very early 1600s so even the most basic direct evidence of solar activity, sunspots, weren't being counted before then.

The medieval period of high solar activity (proxy data, isotopes) and the medieval climate optimum reflect this issue. The climate optimum is listed in the same way as the LIA with arbitrary start and end points of 950 to 1250. Even if these dates are out by 100 years at each end, the start of the decline in solar activity begins before the start date of the LIA you almost gave. How far down the slope you want to go before declaring a minimum is underway is also arbitrary, you will probably choose the year potayto and I'll choose the year potarto.

Evidence for the climate impact needs to meet correlation, causality and mechanism checks. Around the same time that I was scribbling notes on a copy of Bucha and Bucha, I was in correspondence with Dr John Butler of Armagh Observatory. That site is a good source of data over time due to continuity on the one hand and the relative lack of nearby development on the other (lulc uhie gdp and temps). This is due to preserving the observatory site from light pollution as far as possible.

My correspondence revealed the following. Continuous data for solar activity and temperature at Armagh go back to the late 1700s. Yes it's one location but what a location to have available. When the length of the solar cycle - a good measure of total solar activity with active cycles a year or three or more shorter than quiet cycles - is examined against the corresponding average temperature, the order of events is correct with solar first, there are mechanisms to account for the impact including but going beyond TSI e.g. Svensmark CRF-LLC-Albedo, and Bucha auroral oval solar eruptivity forcings, and the correlation is very strong. I can accept in advance that you will point to a single site narrative, but then I would need you to explain how Armagh is 'different' in a bad way when in fact if it's different then it's in a good way for examining this type of phenomenon.

https://photos.shutterfly.com/full/33186480263

The link to climate doesn't require belief.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 9th August 16:23

Thanks for that, interesting. Speaking of 'requiring belief' Svalgaard doesn't think much of the cycle length - temperature correlation idea: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temp... ...but then he doesn't appear to think much of any solar-climate link! (I exaggerate slightly)

So much wiggle-matching goes on in this field it seems.

Hard for a layman to know what to think about it all when so many learned folk are in sharp disagreement.

[s2art]

kerplunk said:

Hard for a layman to know what to think about it all when so many learned folk are in sharp disagreement.

At least it tells you that the science isnt settled.

[durbster]

Bacardi said:

gadgetmac said:

He says he'll stop if the rest of you do. Please accept that invitation - the thread will read so much better for it.

Perhaps he should lead by example, rather than calling anyone with a different point of view 'attack chimps'?

To clarify, I'm referring specifically to people like mybrainhurts and dickymint, who aren't interested in discussing what's been said or in contributing anything meaningful to the thread. They're only here to bully and intimidate.

Ignoring them is easy enough (and I have done for years), but the problem is they can unfortunately set a tone which infects other people's conversations, leading to people getting nasty with each other unnecessarily.

I've absolutely no problem with anyone who has something to debate (yourself included), and I would apologise to anyone if they feel I've had a go at them without justification.

[turbobloke]

It's a record, why no doomageddon panic?! Not a surprise though with all the tax gas floating around back then.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Where's Durbster when you need him?

As an interested impartial observer of this thread I do find these constant childish remarks tedious in the extreme - and I've seen them numerous times on here. Apart from the fact that they do just look like bullying pure and simple they also undermine the 'weight' of your post.

The post was interesting enough without the ridiculous last sentence tacked on simply to rile one poster.

He says he'll stop if the rest of you do. Please accept that invitation - the thread will read so much better for it.

If you put your head above the parapet, expect to get shot at !

[PRTVR]

s2art said:

kerplunk said:

Hard for a layman to know what to think about it all when so many learned folk are in sharp disagreement.

At least it tells you that the science isnt settled.

And that it is so complex that it may not be settled any time soon, but still the drive to remove plant food from the atmosphere goes on.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

And that it is so complex that it may not be settled any time soon, but still the drive to remove plant food from the atmosphere goes on.

Remove the plant food we put there, you mean.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

And that it is so complex that it may not be settled any time soon, but still the drive to remove plant food from the atmosphere goes on.

Remove the plant food we put there, you mean.

The plant food that had already been there before

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

If you put your head above the parapet, expect to get shot at !

This is a thread in a forum for grown-ups not a war zone.

[XM5ER]

robinessex said:

FORGET AGW OR CC. A MORE SERIOUS MENACE !!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/837120/Yello...

Fears that deadly Yellowstone supervolcano about to BLOW after 1400 earthquakes hit

YELLOWSTONE volcano has been struck by 1,400 earthquakes in recent weeks, leading to fears that the supervolcano is ready to blow and WIPE OUT life on Earth.
Seismic activity around the Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, US, is not uncommon, but the heaviest swarm in half a decade has people very concerned.Since June 12, there has been over 1,400 tremors in the region, and experts state that the swarm could go on for another month.The Yellowstone Caldera supervolcano last erupted 70,000 years ago but a spike in seismic activity around the national park has unsettled nerves.If the Wyoming volcano were to erupt it would kill an estimated 87,000 people immediately and make two-thirds of the USA immediately uninhabitable. The as the large spew of ash into the atmosphere would block out sunlight and directly affect life beneath it creating a “nuclear winter” and threatening ALL life on earth.

Yellowstone is something to watch but not worry about as there is feck all we can do about it. That said, as ever with journalism, the devil is in the detail.

"heaviest swam in half a decade" roughly translated means there was a bigger one 6 years ago.

[XM5ER]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

If you put your head above the parapet, expect to get shot at !

This is a thread in a forum for grown-ups not a war zone.

I actually agree with gadgetmac on this, despite me being a perpetrator of Durbster pisstaking (but only on my own behalf and not other peoples). One of the things that caused me to call into question the validity of AGW 13+ years ago was the behaviour of the AGW alarmist crowd. On the whole realclimate, skepticalscience and desmogblog are still as shrill and unpleasant to any dissent as ever, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt are still loons but its does our arguments a disservice to resort to the same tactics.

That said, this isn't twitter, this is a rough and tumble forum. I've been called all sorts over the years but I find pearl-clutching responses to be rather attention seeking at best or a way of argument deflecting at worst.

[mybrainhurts]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

If you put your head above the parapet, expect to get shot at !

This is a thread in a forum for grown-ups not a war zone.

Call me pedantic, but I don't think he meant he had the military means to threaten the forum.