Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
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. 
DibblyDobbler said:
gadgetmac said:
This is a thread in a forum for grown-ups not a war zone.
+1 the ad hominem attacks are a needless distraction - I, for one, want to hear both sides of the debate I've been following these debates in many different places for well over a decade now, and it's always the same.
The best thing to do is to simply ignore the dodgy posts - otherwise just the act of complaining about said distractions becomes another source of distraction in itself.
turbobloke said:
It's a record, why no doomageddon panic?! Not a surprise though with all the tax gas floating around back then.
Faulty batch of thermometers TB. Has to be the answer.
And poor location too. I mean, in the shade so close to a river! Think of the heat transfer from the water of the river into the shade. Probably added 20 degrees!
The odd thing though is the lack of mention of the Blue Mountains burning up in the heat especially with so many days that hot. One would have thought the gum trees would self combust given recent reports in the media about the Med area. Oz trees must have been much hardier and more fire resistant back then.
turbobloke said:
Meteorologist Joe Bstardi said:
The fact is that global temperatures from 2006-2007, while Gore was basking in the glory of his apocalypse-driven fame, were warmer than they are now, and we are still falling off the Super El Niño peak.
After the initial box office flop this will be sweet music to Gore. OK it won't.Wobbegong said:
turbobloke said:
Meteorologist Joe Bstardi said:
The fact is that global temperatures from 2006-2007, while Gore was basking in the glory of his apocalypse-driven fame, were warmer than they are now, and we are still falling off the Super El Niño peak.
After the initial box office flop this will be sweet music to Gore. OK it won't.
Wobbegong said:
turbobloke said:
Meteorologist Joe Bstardi said:
The fact is that global temperatures from 2006-2007, while Gore was basking in the glory of his apocalypse-driven fame, were warmer than they are now, and we are still falling off the Super El Niño peak.
After the initial box office flop this.will be sweet music to Gore. OK it won't.The articles I have on file show that Albert stated In 2007, 2008 and 2009 that the Arctic would be “ice-free” by around 2013 (so 2014 qualifies) because of alleged “man-made global warming'. His office qualified the statement by adding that there may still be remnants of ice that hadn't melted so not absolutely 100% but essentially free of ice.
Clearly here we are in 2017 and oops - Gore got it wrong. Quite surprising really
In fact, in 2013 the year of Al's prediction, ice cover had expanded by ~50% compared to 2012.Gore was parroting an alarmist prediction from Professor Wieslaw Maslowski which the BBC went to town on. Maslowski had told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections underestimated the processes driving ice mass loss. It will shock PHers to find that the Maslowski team was basing their projection on a computer model. Not just any old model but "a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice".
Very impressive stuff
steveT350C said:
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...
I get the feeling that some at NASA are covering their back, if the president decided to have an investigation into the goings on relating to global warming some may be found wanting."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...
Interestingly one of the problems they are having is due to cloud's,
who would have thought that.
PRTVR said:
steveT350C said:
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...
I get the feeling that some at NASA are covering their back, if the president decided to have an investigation into the goings on relating to global warming some may be found wanting."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...
Interestingly one of the problems they are having is due to cloud's,
who would have thought that.
This confirms that current climate models are based on bad assumptions and explains but one of the reasons why models are fiddlefactored to work out better, or less badly. As somebody once said, climate models are both fundamentally wrong and have been wrongly adjusted.
The current Adjustocene era is doubly alive and well!
The last word goes to Stephens et al from their Nature Geoscience paper, with my emphasis added.
Stephens et al said:
For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 - 239.7 - 99.9 Wm2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm2(95% confidence)...Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.
In other words it's not just a bit sphincter about cakehole it's totally cassock over surplice for the tax gas religion, but faced with another fundamental invisibility-immeasurability conundrum simply believing will suffice as usual. We know this because the above revelation is dated 2012 and here we are in 2017 as though it never happened. At least it was reported on PH Edited to turn ? into - in the Stephens et al extract.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 10th August 22:21
PRTVR said:
steveT350C said:
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...
I get the feeling that some at NASA are covering their back, if the president decided to have an investigation into the goings on relating to global warming some may be found wanting."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...
Interestingly one of the problems they are having is due to cloud's,
who would have thought that.
indeedAnd for those that have only been here for the strawberry season although they have claimed years
Roger is a PH legend 
El Nino popped reality back inside a lone Russian model, as they say.
Not that the model had El Nino as a pre-programmed excuse, so gigo still applies and watch this space for the next falling out.
This may still get a mention in the House and on the BBC.
Not that the model had El Nino as a pre-programmed excuse, so gigo still applies and watch this space for the next falling out.
This may still get a mention in the House and on the BBC.
turbobloke said:
El Nino popped reality back inside a lone Russian model, as they say.
Source: https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5...
Apparently every single one of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who reject AGW that you guys keep telling us about must not have been available for a BBC Radio 4 interview yesterday, so they had to dig up Lord Lawson again, presumably in an effort to balance out them publicising Al Gore's new film.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
durbster said:
Apparently every single one of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who reject AGW that you guys keep telling us about must not have been available for a BBC Radio 4 interview yesterday, so they had to dig up Lord Lawson again, presumably in an effort to balance out them publicising Al Gore's new film.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
Balance ? One political person for another is a balance.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40889563
What's your take on NASA admitting it unable to calculate the energy balance of the earth ?
The faith is better funded than the heresy against agw doctrine (aka realism) faithful disciple confesses.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/09/warmist-ran...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/09/warmist-ran...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff