Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
El stovey said:
Turbowaffle, you’re preaching to five followers in a car forum.
If you want to change science and scientific consensus why are you endlessly posting this tripe in here?
It’s a complete waste of time.
If you want to change science and scientific consensus why are you endlessly posting this tripe in here?
It’s a complete waste of time.
Stoves there is an "ignore this thread" button!! It's marked as a little x on your My Stuff page
dickymint said:
Stoves there is an "ignore this thread" button!! It's marked as a little x on your My Stuff page
It’s interesting though to pop back in ever so often to see if the posters have worked out they’re in a cult yet.
They even seem to take the fact that people don’t hang about as evidence that they’ve proved them wrong. It’s classic echo chamber behaviour.
El stovey said:
It’s classic echo chamber behaviour.
I'm sure you are an expert in such matters.BTW, do you and kerplunk, zygalski and a couple of other names all live together?
It's notable how you so often turn up in a group at the same time after days of inactivity and create your own little sub-chamber of echoes. The style of the comments reminds me of those at The Stoat blog a few years ago. And indeed nearly all of the other "leading" closed forums and blogs frequented by the internet active "Climate Science" thought leaders and their acolytes.
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Stoves there is an "ignore this thread" button!! It's marked as a little x on your My Stuff page
It’s interesting though to pop back in ever so often to see if the posters have worked out they’re in a cult yet.
They even seem to take the fact that people don’t hang about as evidence that they’ve proved them wrong. It’s classic echo chamber behaviour.
LongQ said:
El stovey said:
It’s classic echo chamber behaviour.
I'm sure you are an expert in such matters.BTW, do you and kerplunk, zygalski and a couple of other names all live together?
It's notable how you so often turn up in a group at the same time after days of inactivity and create your own little sub-chamber of echoes. The style of the comments reminds me of those at The Stoat blog a few years ago. And indeed nearly all of the other "leading" closed forums and blogs frequented by the internet active "Climate Science" thought leaders and their acolytes.
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
El stovey said:
It’s classic echo chamber behaviour.
I'm sure you are an expert in such matters.BTW, do you and kerplunk, zygalski and a couple of other names all live together?
It's notable how you so often turn up in a group at the same time after days of inactivity and create your own little sub-chamber of echoes. The style of the comments reminds me of those at The Stoat blog a few years ago. And indeed nearly all of the other "leading" closed forums and blogs frequented by the internet active "Climate Science" thought leaders and their acolytes.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
I know my limits 
We create our own limits KP - reach for the skies........ El stovey said:
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
El stovey said:
It’s classic echo chamber behaviour.
I'm sure you are an expert in such matters.BTW, do you and kerplunk, zygalski and a couple of other names all live together?
It's notable how you so often turn up in a group at the same time after days of inactivity and create your own little sub-chamber of echoes. The style of the comments reminds me of those at The Stoat blog a few years ago. And indeed nearly all of the other "leading" closed forums and blogs frequented by the internet active "Climate Science" thought leaders and their acolytes.
Yes, probably it is in his or her's case.
durbster said:
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
The depth and grandeur of the conspiracy that is supposed to be in-play for this to be true makes the non-landing on the moon or the cult of Christianity look like small potatoes by comparison.
LoonyTunes said:
conspiracy
True Believers - as defined by an IPCC Lead Author - use this word frequently (whether you're one, or not). Can you find and quote/link to a post where anyone else uses it? Nobody else seems to think there's a conspiracy.
Otherwise....you just got yourself a strawman alert.
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'.
The most difficult question was obviously not very difficult to answer after all.We don’t know.
We are still waiting, even though we have been promised giant disasters and catastrophic consequences by now, they don’t seem to have materialised.
Can the precautionary principle phase of the loop begin now? I can’t wait, it is my favourite part.
Kawasicki said:
Can the precautionary principle phase of the loop begin now? I can’t wait, it is my favourite part.
A timely reminder of Hansen's errors follows with these snips from a guest article over at the political blog Climate Depot. The full article is at this link:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/03/ross-mckitr...
05 July 2018
Ross McKitrick and John Christy
How accurate were James Hansen’s 1988 testimony and subsequent JGR article forecasts of global warming? According to a laudatory article by AP’s Seth Borenstein, they “pretty much” came true, with other scientists claiming their accuracy was “astounding” and “incredible.” Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue in the Wall Street Journal, and Calvin Beisner in the Daily Caller, disputed this.
The whole debate has focused on comparisons of the 1988 and 2017 endpoints. Skeptical Science waved away the differences by arguing that if one adjusts for an overestimation in the rise of greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing, Hansen’s 2017 Scenario B prediction was not far off reality.
The main forecast in Hansen’s paper was a trend, not a particular temperature level. To assess his forecasts properly we need to compare his predicted trends against subsequent observations. To do this we digitized the annual data from his Figure 3. We focus on the period from 1982 to 2017 which covers the entire CO2 forecast interval.
The 1982 to 2017 warming trends in Hansen’s forecasts, in degrees C per decade, were:
Scenario A: 0.34 +/- 0.08
Scenario B: 0.29 +/- 0.06
Scenario C: 0.18 +/- 0.11
Scenario A overstates CO2 and other greenhouse gas growth and rejects against the observations; but Scenario B understates CO2 growth and zeroes-out non-CO2 greenhouse gas growth yet it too significantly overstates the warming.
The trend in Scenario C does not reject against the observed data, in fact the two are about equal. But this is the one that left out the rise of greenhouse gases after 2000. The observed CO2 level reached 368 ppm in 1999 and continued going up thereafter to 407 ppm in 2017. The Scenario C CO2 level reached 368 ppm in 2000 but remained fixed thereafter. Yet this scenario ended up with a warming trend most like the real world.
How can this be? Here is one possibility. Suppose Hansen had offered a Scenario D, in which greenhouse gases continue to rise, but after the 1990s they have very little effect on the climate. That would play out similarly in his model to Scenario C, and it would match the data.
Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph.
John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
turbobloke said:
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).
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.
To quote the Bucha & Bucha paper abstract I referenced above: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.
"The results seem to imply that the global warming could be slowed down in next decades, because the natural component influencing the increase of temperature in the 20th century will most probably decrease in the next century due to the weaker external geomagnetic forcing which was suggested to modify natural meteorological processes."
In other words they recognise that the solar/geomagnetic forcing you are referring to isn't the cause of the increase in temp since the industrial revolution. They may have demonstrated correlation and causality to a specific event (and I accept there are lots of different causes for changes in climate - both short and long-term) but I'll ask again though where's your evidence for this correlating to and causing the longer term temp trend since the industrial revolution?
Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 5th July 17:40
Lotus 50 said:
turbobloke said:
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).
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.
To quote the Bucha & Bucha paper abstract I referenced above: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.
"The results seem to imply that the global warming could be slowed down in next decades, because the natural component influencing the increase of temperature in the 20th century will most probably decrease in the next century due to the weaker external geomagnetic forcing which was suggested to modify natural meteorological processes."
In other words they recognise that the solar/geomagnetic forcing you are referring to isn't the cause of the increase in temp since the industrial revolution...
Can you refer me and others to the Bucha data which demonstrates causality to humans in energy or temperature data at any time since the industrial revolution? I'll offer a hint here...there isn't any.
Beyond that I refer only to the data in Bucha's papers and the implications of it, not to any beliefs or opinions as these are not empirical data. People are entitled to opinions, beliefs and faith, but it's not empirical data and is neither here nor there.
Bucha suggests that in the decades ahead, climate cooling is likely, and at the moment - even taking into account the date of publication - they are correct given that solar data and temperature data are still consistent with either a Maunder or Dalton event starting within the next 20 years. We need to keep an eye on the data to see how it plays out. Climate models offer nothing but gigo.
Lotus 50 said:
... they may have demonstrated correlation and causality to a specific event (and I accept there are lots of different causes for changes in climate - both short and long-term). I'll ask again though where's your evidence for this correlating to and causing the longer term temp trend since the industrial revolution?
The evidence you refer to as mine originates from other scientists including Newell et al.New Scientist commentary on Newell et al said:
A 22-year cycle linked with changes in the Sun's activity has influenced trends in temperature this century (20th) more than any other factor. This is the conclusion of Nicholas Newell, a scientist in Arlington, Massachusetts. He and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have analysed temperature variations from 1856 to 1986.
The result of their work is the best set of global annual averages that researchers have ever had. The data go back to the middle of the 19th century.
The most important of these data are scientists' measurements of the air temperature, made at night above the oceans. These are called Marine Air Temperatures, or MATs.
Newell and his colleagues analysed the variations in these temperatures and found strong evidence of a periodic fluctuation with a cycle that is 21.8 years long (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 16, p 311). Statistical tests that the researchers have applied to the data show that there is less than one chance in a thousand that this periodicity is simply an accumulation of random changes.
The cycle of 21.8 years matches a fundamental cyclic change in the Sun, the so-called 'double sunspot cycle', over which the magnetic polarity of the Sun first reverses, then reverts to its former state. Most people are more familiar with the cycle of sunspot activity that lasts for 11 years. The average length of the double sunspot cycle over the past 237 years has been very close to 22 years.
This contains a direct reference to solar magnetic activity, i.e. solar eruptivity not just irradiance, which is the basis for experimentally confirmed solar forcings on terrestrial climate (Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo and Bucha auroral oval).The result of their work is the best set of global annual averages that researchers have ever had. The data go back to the middle of the 19th century.
The most important of these data are scientists' measurements of the air temperature, made at night above the oceans. These are called Marine Air Temperatures, or MATs.
Newell and his colleagues analysed the variations in these temperatures and found strong evidence of a periodic fluctuation with a cycle that is 21.8 years long (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 16, p 311). Statistical tests that the researchers have applied to the data show that there is less than one chance in a thousand that this periodicity is simply an accumulation of random changes.
The cycle of 21.8 years matches a fundamental cyclic change in the Sun, the so-called 'double sunspot cycle', over which the magnetic polarity of the Sun first reverses, then reverts to its former state. Most people are more familiar with the cycle of sunspot activity that lasts for 11 years. The average length of the double sunspot cycle over the past 237 years has been very close to 22 years.
All that has happened since the time of publication of Newell et al includes a couple of strong El Ninos and The Pause. Sure we saw The Pause removed from spreadsheets by using heat-contaminated ship intakes for sea surface temperatures but that nonsense fooled few people beyond the usual suspects. It was rushed through for Obama to witter on at the Paris climate boondoggle. Great for this politics thread but not exactly scientific.
This is the nth time the above empirical evidence has been posted, iirc it was posted earlier today - presumably you can now read it even if you missed it on previous occasions, and as such perhaps you can explain how any manmade global warming is happening when there is empirical evidence for solar dominance in climate forcing and nothing attributable to anthropogenic carbon dioxied visible in the data? Are we back to having faith in invisible things? Are so-called records being made by magic or by natural variation? Are non-existent increases in extreme weather arising by magic or is natural variation operating as it always has and always will?
The reality is this: there is no visible anthropogenic forcing in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (energy) data, anything present is immeasurably small, which is a technical way of saying that it doesn't exist beyond those with faith in invisible things. Is that you?
Kawasicki said:
Am I missing some vital piece of information here, it just seems to me that the current temperature and rate of temperature rise are completely unremarkable...
Completely unremarkable is spot on. So is 'natural'.Climate agw junkscience is junk. Hence this wonderful politics thread(!)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff