Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[mondeoman]

Probably when there's a theory that passes the lol test and that is aligned to the data, not one that hindcasts the data to align to the theory and puts us in flea wagging the dog territory.

Edited because unreadable

Edited by mondeoman on Wednesday 8th November 22:46

[Lotus 50]

turbobloke said:

Once more, no diversions this time: how come the solar irradiance in IPCC treatments has been unamplified? How come the peer-reviewed science of Bucha and Svensmark on solar eruptivity forcings are basically ignored?

It's appreciated that this isn't to leave room for an unobserved role for dastardly tax gas in the models.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 8th November 19:35

Simple answer is that I don't know, probably because the changes in solar irradiance (assuming there are any longer term changes beyond the 11 year cycles examined in the paper) either aren't sufficiently strong or don't correlate over a longer time period with the changes in surface temp. A question back, where's the time series of solar irradiance data that shows increases in activity over the last 200 years that correlates with global surface temp rather than 11 year cyclical changes correlating to sea surface levels/temp?

PS: you appealed to authority first, I reserve the right to do the same!

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 9th November 05:12

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Gawd knows what "a transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming" is supposed to mean - do the radiative properties of greenhouse gases get tired and stop working afer a while?

I would imagine that by itself it cannot generate heat, the best it can do is slow down cooling, think of the insulation in your loft, it doesn't generate heat just slow down the loss.

The insulation keeps temps elevated for as long as there is a source of heat in the house.

The only sense I can make of it is that by 'permanent dangerous warming' TB means it doesn't carry on getting endlessly warmer and warmer as in a runaway situation, but it's a strange way of putting it.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 8th November 20:31

But surely the earth is not always in a heating phase ? During the night there is no primary heat source.

[Lotus 50]

PRTVR said:

But surely the earth is not always in a heating phase ? During the night there is no primary heat source.

During the night there's no primary heat source on the side of the planet facing away from the sun. There is on the other.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 9th November 06:32

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Gawd knows what "a transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming" is supposed to mean - do the radiative properties of greenhouse gases get tired and stop working afer a while?

I would imagine that by itself it cannot generate heat, the best it can do is slow down cooling, think of the insulation in your loft, it doesn't generate heat just slow down the loss.

The insulation keeps temps elevated for as long as there is a source of heat in the house.

The only sense I can make of it is that by 'permanent dangerous warming' TB means it doesn't carry on getting endlessly warmer and warmer as in a runaway situation, but it's a strange way of putting it.

As frequently happens in climate threads the irony from believer responses runs deep.

Firstly, the "strange way of putting it" ought to be familiar. The words were chosen carefully and specifically to reflect claims made by the IPCC's own stables, whose information pollution includes gems such as this: "UN experts urge immediate action to cut emissions of CO2 ... the 'safe' level of CO2 to avoid dangerous global warming is more like 350ppm". Putting to one side the arrant nonsense of the statement as a whole, we see that exceeding a stated atmospheric carbon level will lead to "dangerous global warming". Here we are at 400ppmv and shenanigans from ship engine intake temperatures apart, what warming dangerous or otherwise? The UN IPCC has also warned us that "methane is a stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale" and as we have been told straight-faced that heat is trapped, the dangerous warming will be permanent.

The arrant nonsense and nonscience of the above statements is another matter, they were put about by UN IPCC sources and I was clearly justified in the form of words I used to reflect agw doctrine. The irony of a believer criticising the gospel according to IPCC, in the mistaken belief that they were the words of a climate realist, puts a cherry on top of the irony cake.

Then we come to belief in the gigo of inadequate climate models with their hundred or so parameterisations, non-linear partial differential equations, discretisation and so on (easy peasy stuff to the faithful it would seem) while apparently failing to comprehend words as simple as insignificant, transient, delay and cooling, how amazing is that. It can only be yet another manifestation of a truest of true version of belief. Gaia be praised etc.

[turbobloke]

What's this...did HRH Charles The Green really lobby to alter climate change policy after his estate secretly bought shares in an offshore company based in Bermuda that would benefit from a rule change, did the offshore outfit really send lobbying files to the prince’s office just weeks before he made an important speech calling for changes to international treaties which would benefit the company, was one of HRH's closest (now late) friends really a Director of the offshore company, did the Duchy then triple the value of its investment in the space of a year?

Pass the Duchy (sic) on the Left hand side, Paradise Lost, kerching.

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

What's this...did HRH Charles The Green really lobby to alter climate change policy after his estate secretly bought shares in an offshore company based in Bermuda that would benefit from a rule change, did the offshore outfit really send lobbying files to the prince’s office just weeks before he made an important speech calling for changes to international treaties which would benefit the company, was one of HRH's closest (now late) friends really a Director of the offshore company, did the Duchy then triple the value of its investment in the space of a year?

Pass the Duchy (sic) on the Left hand side, Paradise Lost, kerching.

It's for a good cause.

[LongQ]

turbobloke said:

What's this...did HRH Charles The Green really lobby to alter climate change policy after his estate secretly bought shares in an offshore company based in Bermuda that would benefit from a rule change, did the offshore outfit really send lobbying files to the prince’s office just weeks before he made an important speech calling for changes to international treaties which would benefit the company, was one of HRH's closest (now late) friends really a Director of the offshore company, did the Duchy then triple the value of its investment in the space of a year?

Pass the Duchy (sic) on the Left hand side, Paradise Lost, kerching.

I expect his plants told him to do it.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

I was asking in the context of Ali G's post, as he seems to be implying that no part of the AGW theory can be measured.

The trouble with trolls is that they are addictive. A little outrage here, a little annoyance there, releases a little adrenaline, a bit of dopamine when you write your reply and the whole cycle goes round again. Durbster you should change your login to Golden Brown.

I'd love to know what you think trolls are.

[adrenaline] I explained that to you before, feel free to find the previous explanation that you ignored. [dopamine]

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Gawd knows what "a transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming" is supposed to mean - do the radiative properties of greenhouse gases get tired and stop working afer a while?

I would imagine that by itself it cannot generate heat, the best it can do is slow down cooling, think of the insulation in your loft, it doesn't generate heat just slow down the loss.

The insulation keeps temps elevated for as long as there is a source of heat in the house.

The only sense I can make of it is that by 'permanent dangerous warming' TB means it doesn't carry on getting endlessly warmer and warmer as in a runaway situation, but it's a strange way of putting it.

As frequently happens in climate threads the irony from believer responses runs deep.

Firstly, the "strange way of putting it" ought to be familiar. The words were chosen carefully and specifically to reflect claims made by the IPCC's own stables, whose information pollution includes gems such as this: "UN experts urge immediate action to cut emissions of CO2 ... the 'safe' level of CO2 to avoid dangerous global warming is more like 350ppm". Putting to one side the arrant nonsense of the statement as a whole, we see that exceeding a stated atmospheric carbon level will lead to "dangerous global warming". Here we are at 400ppmv and shenanigans from ship engine intake temperatures apart, what warming dangerous or otherwise? The UN IPCC has also warned us that "methane is a stronger a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a 100-year time scale" and as we have been told straight-faced that heat is trapped, the dangerous warming will be permanent.

The arrant nonsense and nonscience of the above statements is another matter, they were put about by UN IPCC sources and I was clearly justified in the form of words I used to reflect agw doctrine. The irony of a believer criticising the gospel according to IPCC, in the mistaken belief that they were the words of a climate realist, puts a cherry on top of the irony cake.

Then we come to belief in the gigo of inadequate climate models with their hundred or so parameterisations, non-linear partial differential equations, discretisation and so on (easy peasy stuff to the faithful it would seem) while apparently failing to comprehend words as simple as insignificant, transient, delay and cooling, how amazing is that. It can only be yet another manifestation of a truest of true version of belief. Gaia be praised etc.

You haven't clarified anything here.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Gawd knows what "a transient delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming" is supposed to mean - do the radiative properties of greenhouse gases get tired and stop working afer a while?

I would imagine that by itself it cannot generate heat, the best it can do is slow down cooling, think of the insulation in your loft, it doesn't generate heat just slow down the loss.

The insulation keeps temps elevated for as long as there is a source of heat in the house.

The only sense I can make of it is that by 'permanent dangerous warming' TB means it doesn't carry on getting endlessly warmer and warmer as in a runaway situation, but it's a strange way of putting it.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 8th November 20:31

But surely the earth is not always in a heating phase ? During the night there is no primary heat source.

Seeing as temps don't plunge towards absolute zero overnight there's clearly plenty of the sun's energy still in the system by morning, but I think we're getting away from the point.

[Engineer792]

kerplunk said:

Seeing as temps don't plunge towards absolute zero overnight there's clearly plenty of the sun's energy still in the system by morning, but I think we're getting away from the point.

I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise, and yes, the point is in danger of becoming a casualty.

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

[adrenaline] I explained that to you before, feel free to find the previous explanation that you ignored. [dopamine]

Nope, I don't remember you ever answering the question. You deflected by trying to get me to explain what a troll is, as I recall.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

[adrenaline] I explained that to you before, feel free to find the previous explanation that you ignored. [dopamine]

Nope, I don't remember you ever answering the question. You deflected by trying to get me to explain what a troll is, as I recall.

Nope, I showed you a text book definition of a troll and asked you what you thought it meant.

[XM5ER]

Came across another interesting article in my feed today, another psychologist is amazed to find that scientists are human and subject to confirmation bias.

http://nautil.us/issue/54/the-unspoken/the-trouble...

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

[adrenaline] I explained that to you before, feel free to find the previous explanation that you ignored. [dopamine]

Nope, I don't remember you ever answering the question. You deflected by trying to get me to explain what a troll is, as I recall.

Nope, I showed you a text book definition of a troll and asked you what you thought it meant.

It's all on the first couple of pages of this version of the thread so it's easy to find and prove that never happened:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

Do you know what "trolling" means? It seems not.

I'm still waiting for enlightenment.

It was your slur - it's on you to explain why you used it.

No, you implied that I don't know what it means. Enlighten me as I clearly don't know, you said so, see above. (You still don't get this internet thing do you, what you write stays written).

It sounds like you still aren't really sure what a troll is, so perhaps you should stop labelling people with it.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

[adrenaline] I explained that to you before, feel free to find the previous explanation that you ignored. [dopamine]

Nope, I don't remember you ever answering the question. You deflected by trying to get me to explain what a troll is, as I recall.

Nope, I showed you a text book definition of a troll and asked you what you thought it meant.

It's all on the first couple of pages of this version of the thread so it's easy to find and prove that never happened:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

Do you know what "trolling" means? It seems not.

I'm still waiting for enlightenment.

It was your slur - it's on you to explain why you used it.

No, you implied that I don't know what it means. Enlighten me as I clearly don't know, you said so, see above. (You still don't get this internet thing do you, what you write stays written).

It sounds like you still aren't really sure what a troll is, so perhaps you should stop labelling people with it.

I know full well what a troll is and you just got trolled.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

Lotus 50 said:

durbster said:

No, I don't dispute it. The sun is the primary driver of earth's temperature.

Now please explain what solar mechanism explains why the sun is behind the current rise in the earth's temperature?

Being pedantic but actually this isn't completely correct. Yes the sun warms the Earth up and is naturally a primary driver of the Earth's climate BUT the earth's atmosphere and the associated greenhouse effect that it causes is also a natural driver of the Earth's temp. If the Earth didn't have a natural greenhouse effect the Earth would be about 30C cooler and much more hostile to life.

The sun does drive variations in the Earth's climate - for example as identified by TB. But it's not the only cause. Natural changes in the Earth's atmosphere have been identified as causes of climate change prior to us getting involved as well (and I'm not just talking about volcanic dust etc). However, the relatively recent changes (last 150-200 years) can't as far as I've been able to find be explained by solar forcing alone. As per Durbster's request It would be good to hear if someone has an unreported mechanism that does explain it - might be best on the science thread though!

Thanks

And now we wait to see whether dickymint will share on his theory with us.

And wait you will! Why would you think I have a theory? You have had a multitude of answers to your question but yet again you show yourself up as a troll by mocking people.

I wont give you "a theory" but some good advice . Buy Damart because it aint getting warmer anytime soon........and candles.

[durbster]

dickymint said:

Why would you think I have a theory?

Because:

dickymint said:

durbster said:

Jinx said:

You are confusing natural global warming with AGW. The physical evidence (warmer poles, fewer hurricanes and extended growing seasons) is expected due to natural warming.

What causes "natural warming"?

The Sun...

I asked you to expand on this answer.

dickymint said:

You have had a multitude of answers to your question but yet again you show yourself up as a troll by mocking people.

So I think this illustrates you've absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to the thread, beyond personal attacks.

dickymint said:

I wont give you "a theory" but some good advice . Buy Damart because it aint getting warmer anytime soon........and candles.

Yes well done, you've copied something turbobloke says.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

dickymint said:

Why would you think I have a theory?

Because:

dickymint said:

durbster said:

Jinx said:

You are confusing natural global warming with AGW. The physical evidence (warmer poles, fewer hurricanes and extended growing seasons) is expected due to natural warming.

What causes "natural warming"?

The Sun...

I asked you to expand on this answer.

dickymint said:

You have had a multitude of answers to your question but yet again you show yourself up as a troll by mocking people.

So I think this illustrates you've absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to the thread, beyond personal attacks.

dickymint said:

I wont give you "a theory" but some good advice . Buy Damart because it aint getting warmer anytime soon........and candles.

Yes well done, you've copied something turbobloke says.

Blimey so much effort to write a load of garbage - keep it up your really showing your colours ... as did your comment the other day on the lines of not really being interested about climate change!

Crack on Durbs