Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Lotus 50 said:
Jinx said:
Levels of CO2 reflect the amount of animal life on the planet - not temperatures (800 year lag minimum) . Sea level acceleration is risible and the rise is barely at the limits of measurable.
What "evidence" have you seen that convinces you that a poor correlation in limited time bands (and zero correlation at other times) is a concern? Remember the consensus is only that man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (50% of which is absorbed very quickly by nature doing what nature does) and that the world is warmer now than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is no consensus that the warming is dangerous.
Have a read of "Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - the parallels of the hysteria surrounding super sonic travel and NOx is uncanny.
Yes CO2 levels are driven by levels of plant/animal life. They then have an impact on surface temps and can cause positive feedback in terms of methane releases/additional CO2 emissions (as well as negative ones such as increased plant growth/coverage). Where did I say that the warming was dangerous? I did say that research in to past CO2 levels and sea level indicates significant change may happen over the next few centuries. Whether that's dangerous or not depends on what we do to manage them. What "evidence" have you seen that convinces you that a poor correlation in limited time bands (and zero correlation at other times) is a concern? Remember the consensus is only that man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (50% of which is absorbed very quickly by nature doing what nature does) and that the world is warmer now than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. There is no consensus that the warming is dangerous.
Have a read of "Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - the parallels of the hysteria surrounding super sonic travel and NOx is uncanny.
Kawasicki said:
Any research I have read seems to indicate that the warming led to a CO2 rise, not the other way around.
You need to look further. t does both - it causes warming and can lead temp change but feedback mechanisms that release additional CO2 with temp mean that if another factor causes a temp change then CO2 levels can increase as a result,Lotus 50 said:
wc98 said:
is that a serious statement ? since when was science a defined rigid path ? if we knew all the answers do you think all that money would have been spent on cern ?
As serious as the suggestion that there's a conspiracy to starve science of funding where it may contradict the view that the primary cause of temp change since the industrial revolution is CO2. The reality is that most work can get funded if it demonstrates sufficient value/priority. There's value in primary research like they do at Cern and there's value in research to understand/refine climate change and the potential impacts from it so that we can try to do something about it. If someone makes sufficient case to do research that shows that CO2 isn't a key factor in recent climate change then it would very likely get funded. The problem is that there isn't a sufficient case. It's not down to a conspiracy.Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th July 19:51
Randy Winkman said:
There must be a queue of governments and businesses a mile long to provide funding to show no MMGW, but they need the evidence to get them started. It seems not to exist, or at least just isn't good enough.
Why would you assume that? It's not even close to true. Western governments have been throwing grant money and eco subsidies around as if money can just be printed without end. No academic could afford to oppose that for more than one grant cycle, and businesses will cheerfully switch to subsidy farming; it's far easier than work.On the evidence side, it is worth looking up what happens to wind farms when the subsidies run out. And China is so convinced CO2 is evil they stopped building power stations and now runs on 100% eco fairy dust...
Lotus 50 said:
Kawasicki said:
Any research I have read seems to indicate that the warming led to a CO2 rise, not the other way around.
You need to look further. t does both - it causes warming and can lead temp change but feedback mechanisms that release additional CO2 with temp mean that if another factor causes a temp change then CO2 levels can increase as a result,There is no evidence for CO2 causing significant warming. Please point it out.
Where are the results from the CO2 related feedbacks? The hockey stick?
Randy Winkman said:
Without having the same knowledge of the subject that you clearly have, this is also my gut feeling. There must be a queue of governments and businesses a mile long to provide funding to show no MMGW, but they need the evidence to get them started. It seems not to exist, or at least just isn't good enough.
Why would you think that governments are naturally disposed show anything other than what they have identified as being of use to them in maintaining political power? And being able to fund vanity projects. Having some sort of "popular" (i.e. simple message) cause they can promote with that aim is perfect for them. Better still if the effects are a long way into the future by which time they will be long gone.
Think about it. Do you see it a different way?
For governments and business, not having to deal with climate change just means you can let people do more of what they want, travel where they like, spend more money on stuff they want and generally live it up. They vote for you and spend their money with you. Everyone's then happy.
LongQ said:
Randy Winkman said:
Without having the same knowledge of the subject that you clearly have, this is also my gut feeling. There must be a queue of governments and businesses a mile long to provide funding to show no MMGW, but they need the evidence to get them started. It seems not to exist, or at least just isn't good enough.
Why would you think that governments are naturally disposed show anything other than what they have identified as being of use to them in maintaining political power? And being able to fund vanity projects. Having some sort of "popular" (i.e. simple message) cause they can promote with that aim is perfect for them. Better still if the effects are a long way into the future by which time they will be long gone.
Think about it. Do you see it a different way?
The truth helps democratically elected Govts maintain power as if later caught out they would be up s
t creek.So, in brief, how are this Tory govt using MMGW to maintain their position of power in the UK?
Kawasicki said:
Our best data, which spans hundreds of thousands of years, consistently shows CO2 lagging temp. Agreed?
There is no evidence for CO2 causing significant warming. Please point it out.
Where are the results from the CO2 related feedbacks? The hockey stick?
Nope I don't agree CO2 doesn't consistently lag temp for example at the end of the last ice age and over the last couple of hundred years:There is no evidence for CO2 causing significant warming. Please point it out.
Where are the results from the CO2 related feedbacks? The hockey stick?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS...
The current warming is significant and loads of work has been done to try and identify what is causing it. The only likely explanation for it is increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and yes in doing that analysis solar forcings were examined). It's basically set out in the last set of IPCC reports but there have also been secondary reviews of that work and they came to the same conclusions.
In terms of CO2 feedback mechanisms, they in themselves are likely to be temperature dependent and lag changes in CO2 and temp. For example:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/101
or the slow thawing of permafrost, allowing the drying and decomposition of marshland releasing methane and Co2 etc..
Lotus 50 said:
Kawasicki said:
Our best data, which spans hundreds of thousands of years, consistently shows CO2 lagging temp. Agreed?
There is no evidence for CO2 causing significant warming. Please point it out.
Where are the results from the CO2 related feedbacks? The hockey stick?
Nope I don't agree CO2 doesn't consistently lag temp for example at the end of the last ice age and over the last couple of hundred years:There is no evidence for CO2 causing significant warming. Please point it out.
Where are the results from the CO2 related feedbacks? The hockey stick?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS...
The current warming is significant and loads of work has been done to try and identify what is causing it. The only likely explanation for it is increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and yes in doing that analysis solar forcings were examined). It's basically set out in the last set of IPCC reports but there have also been secondary reviews of that work and they came to the same conclusions.
In terms of CO2 feedback mechanisms, they in themselves are likely to be temperature dependent and lag changes in CO2 and temp. For example:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/101
or the slow thawing of permafrost, allowing the drying and decomposition of marshland releasing methane and Co2 etc..
“The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.”
Simulations ran in the model (which was designed to show CO2 as a powerful driver of global warming) are used as supporting evidence.
So the last deglaciation had temp lagging CO2, and all the others CO2 lagged temp. I wonder what caused all those deglaciations then? It definitely wasn’t man, and the huge increases in temp make the current warming insignificant, even though CO2 is rising quickly to a high level. It should be very obvious by now that we are getting very large feedbacks in water vapour level, but we are not. And without water vapour related feedback CO2 is at current levels a weak driver.
Your second link is about justifying a pre industrial starting point and is irrelevant, but I read it anyway.
Yeah, feedbacks can be nasty, just not seeing much at the moment.
Lotus 50 said:
As serious as the suggestion that there's a conspiracy to starve science of funding where it may contradict the view that the primary cause of temp change since the industrial revolution is CO2. The reality is that most work can get funded if it demonstrates sufficient value/priority. There's value in primary research like they do at Cern and there's value in research to understand/refine climate change and the potential impacts from it so that we can try to do something about it. If someone makes sufficient case to do research that shows that CO2 isn't a key factor in recent climate change then it would very likely get funded. The problem is that there isn't a sufficient case. It's not down to a conspiracy.
firstly, thanks very much for the reasoned debate. it makes a nice change on this thread (note i am as guilty as anyone for the unreasonable stuff).Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 4th July 19:51
i am making no claim regarding a conspiracy to deny funding.it's just the way it is. there is a defending of the hierarchy going on that exists in all branches of science,i suspect more prevalent where public funding is concerned. in the case of climate science i have read papers that were absolute junk and it was hard to figure how they had manged to get funding unless there was an annual budget needing spent. one in particular i emailed the author regarding the conclusion and the answer i got to my query was "because it is" ,with no explanation. this was a fair few years back and regarded a bas survey expedition phd that claimed to have discovered an anthropogenic signal in ocean co2 content somewhere near the arctic,and coincidentally near a major area of upwelling co2 from the ocean floor. how did they identify the anthropogenic component of the upwelling co2 ? see above answer. just utter,utter crap.this one takes the biscuit (others may disagree)
http://aquadoc.typepad.com/files/prog_hum_geogr-20... what clown signed off on that ?
regarding recent climate change? what climate change? warm oceanic cycle phases see a poleward shift of the temperate zone and the cool phase sees it shift toward the equator.i have yet to see a single weather phenomena in the uk or anywhere else that meets the oft used "unprecedented" claim.
one of the biggest alarm bells for me regarding the science is that i can actually come up with questions on the science that straight answers from the community cannot be provided. if this entire forum was iq tested i would be near the bottom, dumb gits like me should be easy to convince with facts or convoluted bulls
t. what is the net effect of clouds on the temperature of the earth? what drives enso? what causes ice ages and subsequent warming events? why is there currently no tropospheric hotspot when the vast majority of all human emitted co2 has been released in the last 30 years ,it should be glowing in the night sky ffs (ok that last bit was hyperbole 
). why are extreme weather events not increasing or even decreasing ?just some of the questions that climate science struggles to answer with real measured physical data. at this level ,reanalysis data and modeling systems that are not well understood just doesn't cut it for me.
i can appreciate the precautionary element of not knowing how the earth will react to all the things we do, but for me that is natural evolution as human being are just another species that happens to live on the planet. i see a myriad of far more pressing issues that if addressed would lead to real meaningful positive results for the planet and they all seem to be barely talking points as the cult of co2 sucks the life and funding clean out of real environmentalism.
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
Randy Winkman said:
Without having the same knowledge of the subject that you clearly have, this is also my gut feeling. There must be a queue of governments and businesses a mile long to provide funding to show no MMGW, but they need the evidence to get them started. It seems not to exist, or at least just isn't good enough.
Why would you think that governments are naturally disposed show anything other than what they have identified as being of use to them in maintaining political power? And being able to fund vanity projects. Having some sort of "popular" (i.e. simple message) cause they can promote with that aim is perfect for them. Better still if the effects are a long way into the future by which time they will be long gone.
Think about it. Do you see it a different way?
The truth helps democratically elected Govts maintain power as if later caught out they would be up s
t creek.So, in brief, how are this Tory govt using MMGW to maintain their position of power in the UK?
And it's not party political. It's "Government". Those who seek positions of relative power and influence - the human descriptions of political leanings that we might apply are quite irrelevant here.
In any case the local country governments and their civil servants and advisers are more than happy to let "higher" authorities set policy that then "forces" the local "law makers" to fit in with the rest of the world. So it it all goes well they can claim success and if it all turns out badly they can offer excuses to the effect that they were only doing "the world's" bidding.
Just regular politics in our ever more "global" and "connected" world.
If you project the problem far enough into the future you are unlikely, as a politician, to be caught out while still alive.
Better still if you push the idea that today's young (even those who are not yet and may never be conceived) will end up paying for "mistakes" of today you have covered your backside and suggested the blame for anything that goes wrong at some future point lies squarely on the heads of the voters not the politicians. Or, to put it another way, the democratic process.
Of course today's young will end up "paying" in the future. The entire systems only works so long as that principle is allowed to continue.
What they can't say is that the one obvious requirement for any attempt to "fight" the problem is to reduce consumption. That would mean reducing energy usage and reducing the ability to use energy for "productivity". So you step back towards self sufficiency rather than global trade. It would be logical to stop breeding but humans won't.
Future generations will not pay for any claimed excesses of today. No one will pay. The debt will simply become irrelevant. Life will be what it will be.
Any government that was minded to be honest (your proposal for how they should cover their backsides) really should point out that worldwide air travel for short leisure experiences is a complete no-no in MMGW terms which, at the same time, would make a new runway at Heathrow a non-issue rather than a political hot-potato.
Likewise the nonsense (in Green World terms) of allowing manufacturers to waste ever more energy and material resource on developing ludicrously powerful vehicles (well, this is a car site) that no one can fully utilise on their normal lives and will never offer a good productive return on the energy expended making them.
The only point they have in their favour, from a political point of view, is a high value and high rate of fuel consumption, both of which might be good source of tax income. That people who are clever enough to become wealthy are also stupid enough to throw money away on such trinkets probably explains more about the BS surrounding MMGW than any amount of HGO hectoring. Especially if those same money wasters also express a desire to be associated with "green" credentials.
As for the masses - they seem to expect cheap access to worldwide travel. To hell with the "pollution", the travel allows them to pretend to each other that they are "saving the planet". Nothing symbolises that more than the annual (or indeed semi-annual) COP meetings where an admitted 15,000 or so people will flying somewhere for a 2 week junket to "discuss" how the reduce CO2 emissions. Presumably they feel that setting an example is not something that will work and move people towards adopting their agenda. They may well be right - so they may as well make it work for them while they can.
If the music stops everyone will end up in the same mire.
That's a message with which very few politicians would want to be associated. Kicking the MMGW concept a long way into the tall grass of the future and getting people to chase it down the same path is a matter of their survival here and now. Don't look around - go and chase the MMGW can.
It's not their only re-direction tool for when things become a challenge for them. But it looks like the one that may have the longest life, being unprovable on way or another in a human timescale, and at the same time offer unlimited taxation and law making opportunities. What more could politicians and Civil Servants want to assist their careers to early retirement?
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Haven't clicked on it but I'm aware of Bob Tidale's lonely theory about ENSO already, thanks anyway.
Aware but haven't read it? Jinx said:
Doesn't hurt to read theories especially when there is a lack in the IPCC reports. Bob's writing is very easy to read.
I read plenty thanks. You haven't proffered anything new and I don't feel inclined to revist Tisdale's theory.When i see serious people taking it seriously I will too (I'm afraid you don't count).
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 5th July 01:08
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 5th July 01:14
kerplunk said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Haven't clicked on it but I'm aware of Bob Tidale's lonely theory about ENSO already, thanks anyway.
Aware but haven't read it? Jinx said:
Doesn't hurt to read theories especially when there is a lack in the IPCC reports. Bob's writing is very easy to read.
I read plenty thanks. You haven't proffered anything new and I don't feel inclined to revist Tisdale's theory.When i see serious people taking it seriously I will too (I'm afraid you don't count).
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 5th July 01:08
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 5th July 01:14
LongQ said:
gadgetmac said:
Can you explain to me how promoting MMGW helps a Govt maintain political power please.
It's not about promoting MMGW per se. It's about using anything possible to manage and control the population. And set taxes....
1. Scientists have been talking about CO2 since the 1950s. Politicians weren't interested until the 2000s.
2. How exactly does this conversation go?
We need something that will allow us to control the population and set taxes.
I have an idea. Let's invent something called global warming and tell people the world will get consistently warmer?"
What happens if the world doesn't get consistently warmer?
Let's just hope there's a huge coincidence and it happens anyway.
And what happens when we're voted out of power?
We will speak to pretty much all governments and opposition parties in the world and they'll all agree to go along with it for some reason.
And how do we present this to the public?
We will speak to all the world's scientists and tell them to lie, undermine their entire profession and never tell anyone about it. For funding.
And how does this allow us to control the population?
We'll be able to make them change to SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EFFICIENT LIGHTBULBS!
It's perfect! Muhahahahaha
durbster said:
So many words, so little plausibility, sense or logic.
1. Scientists have been talking about CO2 since the 1950s. Politicians weren't interested until the 2000s.
2. How exactly does this conversation go?
We need something that will allow us to control the population and set taxes.
I have an idea. Let's invent something called global warming and tell people the world will get consistently warmer?"
What happens if the world doesn't get consistently warmer?
Let's just hope there's a huge coincidence and it happens anyway.
And what happens when we're voted out of power?
We will speak to pretty much all governments and opposition parties in the world and they'll all agree to go along with it for some reason.
And how do we present this to the public?
We will speak to all the world's scientists and tell them to lie, undermine their entire profession and never tell anyone about it. For funding.
And how does this allow us to control the population?
We'll be able to make them change to SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EFFICIENT LIGHTBULBS!
It's perfect! Muhahahahaha
Have a read of "Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" - the parallels of the hysteria surrounding super sonic travel and NOx is uncanny.1. Scientists have been talking about CO2 since the 1950s. Politicians weren't interested until the 2000s.
2. How exactly does this conversation go?
We need something that will allow us to control the population and set taxes.
I have an idea. Let's invent something called global warming and tell people the world will get consistently warmer?"
What happens if the world doesn't get consistently warmer?
Let's just hope there's a huge coincidence and it happens anyway.
And what happens when we're voted out of power?
We will speak to pretty much all governments and opposition parties in the world and they'll all agree to go along with it for some reason.
And how do we present this to the public?
We will speak to all the world's scientists and tell them to lie, undermine their entire profession and never tell anyone about it. For funding.
And how does this allow us to control the population?
We'll be able to make them change to SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EFFICIENT LIGHTBULBS!
It's perfect! Muhahahahaha
durbster said:
Scientists have been talking about CO2 since the 1950s. Politicians weren't interested until the 2000s.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by governments i.e. interested politicians, was founded in 1988.
Reagan and Dubya actively promoted (pointless) climate change policies in the 80s.
The Kyoto Protocol took shape between 1992 and 1997 when it was 'agreed'. Ratification took ages, but what else could be expected; these days it's durbed
a non-existent failure.Well, what do you know durbster? Good question
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
"pretty warm"
It's currently as "pretty warm" (TM kerplunk) as it was at this time of year in 1991, 2001 and 2012, not forgetting the tail end of 1988.
In the UAH LTT data plotted below, the peaks for 1997-98, 2009-10 and 2015-16 arose from natural El Nino events. There's no human warming anywhere to be seen, as causality to humans is currently unavailable with whereabouts unknown.
TB your graph and apparent refusal to see the underlying trend in the graph you posted prompted me to try and hunt down the source publication for the original data. I'm not sure if the one below is the original source but it does seem to analyse the same data and identifies a warming trend over the time series of +.114 deg C per decade - which I think is pretty much in line with the general surface temp increase trends measured elsewhere. It's currently as "pretty warm" (TM kerplunk) as it was at this time of year in 1991, 2001 and 2012, not forgetting the tail end of 1988.
In the UAH LTT data plotted below, the peaks for 1997-98, 2009-10 and 2015-16 arose from natural El Nino events. There's no human warming anywhere to be seen, as causality to humans is currently unavailable with whereabouts unknown.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3492/d91b60dbb3b3...
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/c...
In other words the lower atmosphere is getting warmer (and not just as a result of el nino events).
In a subsequent post you referred to the work of Bucha in identifying the link between climate and solar/geomagnetic activity. I've had a rummage and found a few papers of his but they're mostly 20+ years old and he seems to readliy accept the human influence on climate that you claim doesn't exist and that, in the first paper (published in 1998) the solar/geomagnetic influence is likely to be a cooling one (and thus slow global warming down).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
You keep saying there's no causality between CO2 and climate change, where's your evidence for causality between the role of solar eruptivity/auroral oval climate forcing and the surface temp changes that we've experienced since the industrial revolution? Over the last 2 decades the trend is still upwards...
robinessex said:
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
"pretty warm"
It's currently as "pretty warm" (TM kerplunk) as it was at this time of year in 1991, 2001 and 2012, not forgetting the tail end of 1988.
In the UAH LTT data plotted below, the peaks for 1997-98, 2009-10 and 2015-16 arose from natural El Nino events. There's no human warming anywhere to be seen, as causality to humans is currently unavailable with whereabouts unknown.
TB your graph and apparent refusal to see the underlying trend in the graph you posted prompted me to try and hunt down the source publication for the original data. I'm not sure if the one below is the original source but it does seem to analyse the same data and identifies a warming trend over the time series of +.114 deg C per decade - which I think is pretty much in line with the general surface temp increase trends measured elsewhere. It's currently as "pretty warm" (TM kerplunk) as it was at this time of year in 1991, 2001 and 2012, not forgetting the tail end of 1988.
In the UAH LTT data plotted below, the peaks for 1997-98, 2009-10 and 2015-16 arose from natural El Nino events. There's no human warming anywhere to be seen, as causality to humans is currently unavailable with whereabouts unknown.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3492/d91b60dbb3b3...
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/c...
In other words the lower atmosphere is getting warmer (and not just as a result of el nino events).
In a subsequent post you referred to the work of Bucha in identifying the link between climate and solar/geomagnetic activity. I've had a rummage and found a few papers of his but they're mostly 20+ years old and he seems to readliy accept the human influence on climate that you claim doesn't exist and that, in the first paper (published in 1998) the solar/geomagnetic influence is likely to be a cooling one (and thus slow global warming down).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
You keep saying there's no causality between CO2 and climate change, where's your evidence for causality between the role of solar eruptivity/auroral oval climate forcing and the surface temp changes that we've experienced since the industrial revolution? Over the last 2 decades the trend is still upwards...
Lotus 50 is quite wrong on several fronts.
I do note the data in UAH LTT measurements, I note that there is no causality in this or any temperature data that can be linked to any human activity, and that any 'trend' noted depends on the choice of start and end dates and where there is no open choice over the start date.
The first Bucha abstract mentioned states that "downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature" which is based on data not models and shows a direct link from solar eruptivity to temperature through the auroral oval mechanism.
The last time I responded to this flavour of attrition loop, and given that I have copies of the peer-reviewed papers rather than googled abstracts - but fair enough, a googled abstract is better than an advocacy group advert from The Team - I posted data from Bucha & Bucha relating to the major solar storm in March 1989 which demonstrated the causal link. The time lag between solar storm impact and the tropospheric temperature rise was in keeping with energy transfer timescales and in the right order i.e. SSC first then deltaT (this is the direct opposite of what's found with carbon dioxide where the order of events is 'the wrong way round' which rules out causality. See Monnin et al, Humlum et al, also referenced many times in these attrition loops as per Bucha. The paper I referred to had deltaKp +40 in the averaged daily geomagnetic activity index, leading to deltaP + 30hPa (hectopascals) at 5500m altitude i.e. mid-troposphere above Iceland 65N 20W, and deltaT +5 deg C as far south as 50N 15E.
There's no sell-by date on research, nothing has emerged to counter the Bucha findings based on experimental results. Model outputs are not data (see 'gigo'). IPCC publications ignore solar eruptivity forcings (both Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo and Bucha auroral oval) in the forcings they list in SPMs.
There is no visible anthropogenic forcing visible in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (energy) as per Stephens et al using satellite data. If people use faith to believe that it exists, they should be pleased to know that it's immeasurably small.
There is no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data, see IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6
IPCC said:
IPCC said:
Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.
Still waiting for signal, still waiting for catastrophe, no causal data to support agw (as required, an unattributed trend if it exists may be interesting but it's not due to humans without causality).Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.
None of the other material linked by L50 has any data with a causal human signal. Faith statements, like model gigo, do not represent empirical data, they represent the faith of the person making the statement.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff