Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

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...

That's a curious response, which doesn't do what your lack of comment claims for it. Silence hides all sorts of issues here.

1, the same tactic of publishing tens of models with widely varying outputs increases the opportunity to coincide with reality via chance rather than skill

2. that chance is illustrated by the fortuitous strong El Nino event helping the wide envelope of scenarios to be wide enough to appear reasonable in the recent past

3. the Representatvie Concentration Pathways approach is relatively new (from AR5 irrc) and the very small model-reality comparison timescale of the graphic you posted further demonstrates the inherent lack of skill involved, these models need more time to move away from reality as per the graphic I posted which has a significantly longer timeline to check against reality (the graphic you posted has more uncharted territory on the time axis to appear more impressive)

4. Even with the short timescale and lack of skill, reality dropped out from,or was on the edge of the gigo spread, around 2012 but the obvious and blatant use of a thick black line tries to avoid appreciation of this aspect

5. Carbon dioxide coupled models cannot get the 2100 level of CO2 to better than +/- 300ppmv which is neatly sidestepped using RCPs

[Ali G]

This is an old link, but still relevant..

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/09/27/bbc-peddle...

[Ali G]

An old wail article on BBC's coverage of AGW..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016299/Cl...

Peiser said:

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a noted critic of the BBC, said: ‘My worry is they may use this argument that the science is settled to prevent anyone who is critical of the policies from being interviewed.’

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

An old wail article on BBC's coverage of AGW..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016299/Cl...

Peiser said:

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a noted critic of the BBC, said: ‘My worry is they may use this argument that the science is settled to prevent anyone who is critical of the policies from being interviewed.’

That chap Peiser doesn't need computer modelling to get it right.

Dr Judith Curry is also critical of the policies (covered by WUWT) and rightly so.

She conducted an interview - published a few days ago on August 09 - where she clearly set out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicised scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions.

Larry Hamlin said:

Dr. Curry a world renowned and academically honoured climatologist and former chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences faculty at the Georgia Institute of Technology, discussed political attacks she has been subjected to that started when she began to question the tactics of the climate alarmist “consensus” following the revelations brought into the light by Climategate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4

Dr Curry also notes that wind and solar “won’t work” in addressing future energy and emissions desires and that instead of trying to rely upon renewables new research is needed on better energy options.

[DibblyDobbler]

durbster said:

DibblyDobbler said:

I read those quotes earlier - found it pretty depressing to be honest

It's an interesting point though about 'the science' though: man produces CO2 and CO2 is a warming gas (in the laboratory at least). So much for 'the science'?

But how much (if any) of the small rises in global temperatures are due to man made CO2? That's where we need to be looking isn't it? Data rather than science is what we need IMHO...

Have a read (or listen) of this:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549

Thanks Durbs, that was an interesting read

(sorry everybody as this is not really 'political' but I hope it's not derailing things too much - it's very basic for some of you but may be useful for others like me!)

Let me attempt to summarise - two main points:

1. We know for sure the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels due to relative proportions of the Carbon isotopes. This seems legit to me (interested in any comments from either side?)

2. We can tell by satellite spectroscopy that the additional CO2 is blocking the radiation of heat (in the form of infrared radiation) - this also seems legit (again interested in comments)

I personally wouldn't attempt to contest the above - so is this the 'settled science' we keep hearing about?

It's how much impact the above is having where I think the debate is - RSS (original and unadjusted data I believe) has the long term trend at less than +0.2 degrees per decade despite a large amount of man made CO2 being added in - to me we're going to have to burn a hell of a lot of fossil fuels to make much of a difference!?

So my 2p worth... yes we're making more CO2, yes this is warming the atmosphere a little but is it worth all the alarmism and noise... not so sure

[turbobloke]

DibblyDobbler said:

Let me attempt to summarise - two main points:

1. We know for sure the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels due to relative proportions of the Carbon isotopes. This seems legit to me (interested in any comments from either side?)

2. We can tell by satellite spectroscopy that the additional CO2 is blocking the radiation of heat (in the form of infrared radiation) - this also seems legit (again interested in comments)

I personally wouldn't attempt to contest the above - so is this the 'settled science' we keep hearing about?

The basic settled science here is that carbon dioxide, in a test tube, absorbs thermal radiation (IR) and warms up. A closed test tube is not a planetary atmosphere, the energetics are far more complex (carbon dioxide absorbs at only a few fixed frequencies. and the planet's surface has its own IR spectrum unlike typical lab sources) and energy out needs to be considered as well as energy in, for obvious reasons. Carbon monoxide, another naturally occurring trace gas, also absorbs IR in a test tube.

It's not correct that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere arises only from burning fossil fuels. As temperatures rise modestly and naturally, carbon dioxide will degas from the oceans and go into the atmosphere. The decreasing solubility of carbon dioxide with increasing temperature is so basic it's not really in a disputed/undisputed category as there's no doubt whatsoever.

Experimentation by Dr H Hug has shown that total absorption by carbon dioxide takes place within 10m of the ground. If carbon dioxide levels double, this total absorption will take place within half the distance 5m. A shorter distance is measured in metres not deg C. Even if the total absorption within 10m is disputed and set aside, whatever level of absorption is occurring, say 95%, will still occur in half the current distance on doubling CO2. As before, a shorter distance isn't measured in deg C. This is very basic.

The Beer Law tells us that after the first few ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, well below the pre-industrial level, further addidions have very little effect, the absorption decreases markedly. An accurate (mathematically) analogy given to expand on this effect concerns a room with a light on, which signifies the planet surface as an energy source, a single window which represents an escape route to space for the energy, i.e. the atmosphere, and a series of black-out blinds that can be pulled down to cover the window, i,e. carbon dioxide levels. The effect of pulling the first blind down is very noticeable. After 400 have been pulled down (400 ppmv) the additional effect is virtually nil. This is where we are now with carbon dioxide, Adding more isn't going to do the job. It's why climate models rely on positive feedback from water vapour, which is also a problem as water vapour feedback like overall feedback is negative.

Supposedly, absorptions higher in the troposphere are implicated to get around the near-surface saturation problem for agw. We've covered this on PH many times before. It's insufficient as an excuse and in terms of 'satellite spectroscopy' remember that it's radiation from the planet's surface heading out to space that matters, and I would refer readers to this comment from an experienced IR astronomer.

PhD infrared astronomer writing as Mike Sinacola said:

I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 microns we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to (ground) temperatures below even that of the south pole.

IR astronomers work on mountain tops and observe through the upper levels of the troposphere.

The type of response to this is typified by a warmist comment offered by one of PH's resident believers some time ago, by which I mean they posted it, they didn't say it:
"You’re a professional infrared spectroscopist. Absorption of surface-emitted IR by atmospheric CO2 has been understood in detail for more than 50 years. Why is it so hard for you to figure out?" Have a re-read of that, it says nothing except ^You're wrong and we're right' within language selected to smear but with no detail whatsoever. Typical!

DibblyDobbler said:

It's how much impact the above is having where I think the debate is - RSS (original and unadjusted data I believe) has the long term trend at less than +0.2 degrees per decade despite a large amount of man made CO2 being added in - to me we're going to have to burn a hell of a lot of fossil fuels to make much of a difference!?

As above, additional carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will have virtually no effect according to the Beer Law (also not disputed). Carbon dioxide doesn't behave like blankets stacked on top of each other, or as more and more tiny mirrors in the atmosphere as per erroneous illustrations in school text books. The Beer Law accurately describes the natural law of diminishing returns from increased carbon dioxide levels.

This particular attrition loop has been navigated many times in PH threads but not for a while so one more loop won't do any harm.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 12th August 14:47

[DibblyDobbler]

Thanks TB - will read this more carefully later and apologies for the looping!

[turbobloke]

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks TB - will read this more carefully later and apologies for the looping!

That's OK It happens all the time.

With nothing new on the warmist side beyond the latest data diddling, old chestnuts must be revisited as though it was convincing new news.

[turbobloke]

This (reporting) is relatively new news...GWPF dated 10/8/17.

New Climate Science Scandal: Climate Report Edits Out Highly Embarrassing Section Showing USA Tmax Higher in 1920s and 1930s



https://www.thegwpf.com/new-science-scandal-us-cli...

A previous version was deleted in an attempt to prevent comparison, but a copy had been saved – see info at the above link for details of the scam, with originals below.

Fifth Draft
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/cli...
Third Draft:
https://archive.org/details/CSSRTODALL

It’s not just in the USA either. In England, according to the long running CET record, the hottest day occurred back in 1976, and was equalled in 1990.

Putting a thermometer or thermocouple in jetwash might increase the record.

[Ali G]

So the Dust Bowl conditions of the thirties no longer happened?

[Einion Yrth]

Ali G said:

So the Dust Bowl conditions of the thirties no longer happened?

Steinbeck, eh? 'kin fantasist.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

That makes absolutely no sense. I've never asked you to trust me and I've never claimed to be an authority on the subject. All I do on here is challenge the misinformation, and try to point people towards credible sources credible to me. This seems to make people irrationally furious. :biggrin:

Ambiguity removed....

[robinessex]

Dubster posted

Have a read (or listen) of this:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549

Er, so what. CO2 doesn't cause temperature rise, so it's irrelevant how much CO2 us humans contribute.

[robinessex]

Al Gore

"Many cities in the USA are heading towards 100% renewables !!!"

That should be fun to watch

[dickymint]

robinessex said:

Al Gore

"Many cities in the USA are heading towards 100% renewables !!!"

That should be fun to watch

And this is how He does it............

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-go...

[turbobloke]

Comment on the politics behind the (now doctored) US climate report I posted yesterday.

Marc Morano as Publisher of the CFACT political blog Cimate Depot said:

Here we go again. The New York Times is hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again pre-determined science.

. . .

The U.S. government has done these types of reports for decades. Back in 1974, the CIA “State of the Climate" Report warned that global cooling was going to cause floods, famines, extreme weather.

. . .

In 2017, through a mix of cherry-picking between global incidents and U.S. events, the writers pick and choose what events and regional trends to highlight to fit their narrative, not noting that the continental U.S. is only about 1.5% of earth’s surface.

Cooling would be expected to increase extreme weather.

[LongQ]

Does anyone understand German psychology and politics?

Given their high electricity costs ...

CO2 emissions not exactly heading towards their target.

https://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/...

but they still want more of the same in terms of "clean energy".

http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/germans-renewable-en...



Puts me in mind of the old wry observation about "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

[Moonhawk]

dickymint said:

And this is how He does it............

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-go...

He's a fking hypocrite.

Expecting everyone else to cut back - whilst he himself uses resources at many times the rate of the average person - but it's ok because he's rich enough to buy carbon offsets (which aren't even proven to be legitimate) - so that makes everything alright.

[grumbledoak]

Moonhawk said:

He's a fking hypocrite.

He's a fking conman. Anything he's backing, you can bet it's a scam.

[mybrainhurts]

LongQ said:

Does anyone understand German psychology and politics?

Given their high electricity costs ...

CO2 emissions not exactly heading towards their target.

When Germany was teetering on the brink of regularly losing its power supply after closing down its nuclear plants in the wake of the Japanese earthquake, I fell foul of a German lady customer, whose views on the subject I badly misjudged.

Me....I hear you're having problems with power supplies in Germany

Vat do you mean?

Well, you've shut down your nuclear plants and have nothing to fill the gap...

Ve haff vind und ve haff solar...

Well, yes, but they're not reliable enough to work...

VE ARE GERMANS, VE VILL MAKE IT VURK....

Ooops....the Fourth Reich cometh, never mind conquering the world, this one will conquer the climate....

She was on a real guilt trip....

How vill my grandchidren, und their children, und their children view ME for poisoning zer groound vith nuclear vaste?