Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

Balance ? One political person for another is a balance.

Yep.

PRTVR said:

What's your take on NASA admitting it unable to calculate the energy balance of the earth ?

My take is: it's great!

Because it's yet more proof they're being open, are just trying to do good science, and are not part of a global conspiracy to ... er ... whatever it is.

I think we all agree the atmosphere is a hugely complex environment with countless variables and we're only really starting to understand it. I would expect this is how it'll be for the next few decades at least while we figure it all out.

[turbobloke]

We've seen our fair share of carbon scams / fraud over the years, made possible by the faith and ineptitude.

2013 Elderly investors warned over £24m carbon credit scam
2015 Police recover £6 million netted by fraudster pair in carbon credits scam
2016 Scammers behind London Carbon Credit Company jailed
2016 Multi-billion euro carbon-trading fraud trial opens in Paris

Did we miss this one in all the excitement?

2017 Fell for a carbon credit scam - Can I get my money back?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/jessica-investiga...

[turbobloke]

"11 Aug over at RCS: NASA Erasing the Past to Bring Funding to the Present"

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/nasaerasing...

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/graph-1-1024x559.gif" Target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Hang on a minute, I thought the science was settled.

[turbobloke]

El Guapo said:

durbster said:

I think we all agree the atmosphere is a hugely complex environment with countless variables and we're only really starting to understand it. I would expect this is how it'll be for the next few decades at least while we figure it all out.

Hang on a minute, I thought the science was settled.

Beware living in the Adjustocene! What can be adjusted may be adjusted!!

"11 Aug over at RCS: NASA Erasing the Past to Bring Funding to the Present"

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/nasaerasing...

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/...

Hang on...

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/...

But:..

A prominent feature of the homogenised Svalbard (Arctic) temperature record is a marked warming 1917–1922
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2011/175296...

World’s Worst Heatwave The (Australia) Marble Bar heatwave, 1923-24
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/21/worlds-wors...

1922 saw a not quite record temperature 123F in Libya, revised down from 136F by WMO
https://www.livescience.com/23156-new-world-hottes...

Dunbrody (Sundays River Valley in Eastern Cape, South Africa) recorded 50.0 ºC on 03 November 1918
http://www.weathersa.co.za/learning/climate-questi...

In summary:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/thumbnai...

[jurbie]

durbster said:

I think we all agree the atmosphere is a hugely complex environment with countless variables and we're only really starting to understand it. I would expect this is how it'll be for the next few decades at least while we figure it all out.

So you agree with the central premise of this thread that spending trillions trying to come up with a solution that might not work for a problem that perhaps doesn't exist is not a good use of resources?

Took a while but we got there in the end.

[PRTVR]

jurbie said:

durbster said:

I think we all agree the atmosphere is a hugely complex environment with countless variables and we're only really starting to understand it. I would expect this is how it'll be for the next few decades at least while we figure it all out.

So you agree with the central premise of this thread that spending trillions trying to come up with a solution that might not work for a problem that perhaps doesn't exist is not a good use of resources?

Took a while but we got there in the end.

I would like to welcome durbster as our latest climate realist.

[robinessex]

Beeb CC story

Anger over 'untrue' climate change claims

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4089...

Scientists have responded furiously to claims about climate change made in a live BBC radio interview. Experts told BBC News that the assertions made by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson on Radio 4's Today programme were simply untrue.
Lord Lawson had claimed that global temperatures had "slightly declined" over the past 10 years. However, scientists working in the field said the records showed the complete opposite to be the case. BBC Radio 4's Today programme defended its decision to interview Lord Lawson on Thursday morning in a segment on climate change. The BBC argued that it had a duty to inform listeners about all sides of a debate. Lord Lawson's claims about climate change are "simply not true", says the Met Office's Peter Stott During the interview, Lord Lawson said that "official figures" showed that "during this past 10 years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined". But speaking in a follow-up discussion on Friday morning, Dr Peter Stott from the UK Met Office said the former Chancellor had got the facts wrong. "We know that 2016 was the warmest on record, over a degree warmer than late 19th Century levels, so this claim that we heard from Nigel Lawson that there's been cooling is simply not true," he told the BBC. His view was echoed by Prof Richard Betts from the University of Exeter. "The official figures do not show that the global mean temperature 'has slightly declined'. In fact, they show the opposite - global mean temperature has increased during the past 10 years," he said in a statement. "The last three years were warmer than the previous seven, and indeed were the warmest on record, and this year is also shaping up to be nearly as warm (probably not quite as warm as last year since the influence of the El Nino has passed, but still a very warm year)." On Thursday, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its 2016 State of the Climate report, stating that the year was the warmest in 137 years of record keeping. All over the planet, the peer reviewed study found strong evidence of ongoing warming linked to human activities. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit new highs, as did global sea levels, while at both poles the extent of sea-ice hit new lows. Lord Lawson, who was energy secretary in Margaret Thatcher's government before becoming chancellor, now chairs the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank that describes itself as "open-minded on the contested science of global warming". He was taking part in a segment following an interview with former US Vice President Al Gore, who was promoting the sequel to his hit documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which made the case for tackling climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. On the programme, Mr Gore made the economic case for renewable energy and said that "climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive" in the 10 years since the first film. It was suggested to the former Democratic presidential contender that he was going further than the scientific consensus but he said researchers around the world were "virtually unanimous on this and have been for decades", adding that "record downpours" in the UK were a result of climate change. Lord Lawson was asked why he thought Mr Gore was, in his words, "talking complete nonsense". The former cabinet minister said that "all the experts say there hasn't been" an increase in extreme weather events, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But speaking on Friday morning, Dr Stott said Lord Lawson was wrong about the IPCC as well. The panel had clearly indicated that there had been an increase in extreme events and that these increases were linked to human use of fossil fuels. "If you take the global picture, the IPCC said very clearly that it is very likely that human influence has contributed to observed global-scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes," he told the Today programme.” If you take the global picture and look at the global fingerprint - yes, you can attribute that." Many scientists took to Twitter to express their dismay at the airing of what they say were false claims. Physicist and BBC presenter Professor Brian Cox said it was "irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science". Fellow physicist and broadcaster Jim al-Khalili tweeted: "For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you." He added: "There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on." In a statement, the BBC said, "The BBC's role is to hear different views so listeners are informed about all sides of debate and we are required to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality."

The usual crowd of yes men then. Not one of them can prove what they said. As for the last paragraph, that really is the Beebs taking the piss. Since the inception of this Forum, the Beeb has NEVER published any CC rebuttal How about some heavy weight knowledgeable people from the other side of the fence being asked their opinion?

[robinessex]

Another Beeb nonesense CC article

Climate change has shifted the timing of European floods

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4088...

Climate change has had a significant impact on the timing of river floods across Europe over the past 50 years, according to a new study. In some regions, such as southern England, floods are now occurring 15 days earlier than they did half a century ago. But the changes aren't uniform, with rivers around the North Sea seeing floods delayed by around eight days. The study has been published in the journal Science. Floods caused by rivers impact more people than any other natural hazard, and the estimated global damages run to over a $100bn a year. Researchers have long predicted that a warming world would have direct impacts on these events but until now the evidence has been hard to establish. Floods are affected by many different factors in addition to rainfall, such as the amount of moisture already in the soil and other questions such as changes in land-use that can speed up water run-off from hillsides. This new study looks at this issue in some depth, by creating a Europe-wide database of observations from 4,262 hydrometric stations in 38 countries, dating back to 1960.The analysis finds a clear but complex impact of climate change on river flooding. The most consistent changes are in north-eastern Europe around Scandinavia where earlier snow melt due to warmer temperatures is leading to earlier spring floods. Around 50% of monitoring stations are seeing floods eight days earlier than they did 50 years ago. The biggest changes are seen along the western edge of Europe, from Portugal up to Southern England. Half the stations recorded floods at least 15 days earlier than previously. A quarter of the stations saw flooding more than 36 days earlier than in 1960. In these regions, the issue isn't snow melt - it's more about saturated soils. Maximum rainfall tends to occur in the autumn and gets stored in the soils. Heavier and earlier rain means that the groundwater reaches capacity earlier. "It's the interplay between extreme rainfall and the abundance of rainfall," lead author Prof Günter Blöschl, from the Technical University of Vienna, told BBC News. "In southern England, it has been raining more, longer and more intensely than in the past. This has created a rising groundwater table and higher soil moisture than usual and combined with intense rainfall this produces earlier river floods." However, around the North Sea, in the Netherlands, Denmark and Scotland, the trend is towards later floods. The scientists believe this is due to changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the weather phenomenon that pushes storms across the ocean into Europe. The NAO is driven by differences in atmospheric pressure between the North Pole and the Equator. Recent, rapid changes in temperatures in the Arctic are interfering with these pressure levels and changing the track of the oscillation and storms as well. According to this study, the storms are arriving later and as a result some river flooding happens later too. Prof Blöschl says that this study shows clear evidence of the impact of human-induced climate change in many regions - but there are still some areas of uncertainty. "Where the human imprint is obvious is in the northeast of Europe. It is quite a direct link, with a warming climate and earlier snow melt," he said. "However, the areas impacted by the NAO are more difficult to attribute to anthropogenic global warming. The jury is still out on that aspect.” The study foresees subtle but significant impacts that could arise from the change in flood timing. There could be effects on river ecosystems with salmon spawning later in the year. There could also be implications for hydropower stations, and for agriculture if fields stay wetter for longer. "The more serious concern is that if warming impacts the seasonality it may also impact the scale of flooding," said Prof Blöschl." You could think of timing changes as the harbinger of future changes of flood magnitude. That is the more serious concern. If that happens, flood risk management will have to adapt and that will be different in different parts of Europe.” Other experts believe that the changes in flood timing identified by this study have significant implications for how we understand the risk of river floods and how we deal with them. "Nearly every major city and town in Europe is built on a river and we protect this urban infrastructure by using past floods as a gauge of the potential risk," said Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London. "The study shows that this approach underestimates the risk, as climate change has made European floods occur earlier in the year, increasing their potential impact. "This means all the infrastructure that we have built to protect our cities needs to be reviewed as much of it will be inadequate to protect us from future climate change-induced extreme flooding."

So many assumptions in the article, it might as well be a fairy story.

[gadgetmac]

Needs a paragraph or ten.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

Needs a paragraph or ten.

Why? I compressed it down to make it smaller.

[voyds9]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

Needs a paragraph or ten.

Why? I compressed it down to make it smaller.

Just adjust it so we can see a larger change

[robinessex]

voyds9 said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

Needs a paragraph or ten.

Why? I compressed it down to make it smaller.

Just adjust it so we can see a larger change

?

[turbobloke]

"Lord Lawson had claimed that global temperatures had "slightly declined" over the past 10 years."

I'm not surprised that this caused some warming of the globes at the BBC and its climate faithful. All that time and money spent diddling the data and pushing out rentapapers to 'bust' ho ho ho The Pause and then some ennobled oik has the temerity to note what's been happening with raw data. How dare the heretic speak out!

There's been quite a few examples of 'the diddle' posted in this thread relatively recently and in other PH climate threads over the years. Even the MSM picked up on one example a couple of years ago (below) but when the high priests hear of any gospel values being broken on air it's bound to generate more heat than light on their side.

PreDiddle


PostDiddle


Plenty more where that came from as we on PH know only too well. Such is life as lived in the Adjustocene.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 11th August 17:50

[turbobloke]

A choice of desserts to go with the main course.

[turbobloke]

These links worked as signposted at the time of saving.


GISS raw data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/


GISS adjusted data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

[grumbledoak]

Scottish wind power racket:
https://capx.co/the-scottish-wind-power-racket/

Not a shock to anyone here, I would imagine.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

How about some heavy weight knowledgeable people from the other side of the fence being asked their opinion?

I wonder.

Has it occurred to you that there just isn't anybody to ask? Why do you think the BBC keep having to dig up an ancient former politician who's daughter makes pies to represent your view, instead of somebody who is qualified in at least something vaguely relevant.

Speaking of Lord Lawson, his GWPF were trying to back up their man's bks on Twitter earlier today... but failed again. They shared a graph claiming the temperature had actually cooled in the last ten years.

https://twitter.com/thegwpfcom/status/896011085433...

Except it's been known for months that this graph had an error that stitched two sets of data together incorrectly. It's pointed out in the replies, so did the GWPF accept this and apologise for spreading misinformation? Of course not, because they probably knew it anyway.

The error:
https://twitter.com/khaustein/status/7490228191582...

And here's what the author of the graph thinks:

Ryan Maue said:

‏Stop using my name and graphic. What the hell?

https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/896047812302995456

These are the best people you have, apparently.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

These are the best people you have, apparently.

Ryan's dad is bigger than Nigel's dad?

It's not about the people.

Lord Lawson's metaphorical dad has more data than that.

Is that the best argument you have?

No ability to determine radiative imbalance sufficiently accurately so no identification of tax gas forcing is possible with any tiddler signal lost in noise.

Consistent with no visible causal human signal in any global climate data.

Making reliance on fallacies, faith and size of dad necessary to stifle debate and shut down discussion.

That's how bad it is for your objectively unsupportable position.

[Ali G]

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

You do understand that the BBC itself decided that there should be no further broadcast of anything remotely considered to be both scientific and contrary to the CAGW hypothesis?

In its own very peculiar manner, the BBC determined that the science was settled!