Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
zygalski said:
If AGW proof is good enough for ExxonMobil, it's good enough for me.
Hardly amusing, poor effort.Nullius In Verba so don't take ExxonMobil's word for it, though as per NASA, NOAA (etc etc) it's not actually an organisation 'speaking'. It'll be either somebody very high up operating strategically in the current political climate, or more often in publicly funded bodies, an activist or two on a committee.
You're too easily bought (free). At least big oil used significant real moolah to help pay for the start-up at UEA's Climatic Research Unit way back when. Surely - in the gospel of the faith - with Warmist Central in receipt of Big Oil money at the get-go, this renders their output null and void.
No opinion beats credible empirical data and you're in common with other agw believers in having no credible empirical data to offer, it's only ever your own verbiage or somebody else's.
When we're circling on yet another of these attrition loops and I cite credible empirical data in peer-reviewed papers (Monnin et al, Humlum et al, Stephens et al) it's not my opinion but the data which tells you all you need to know. Not that it will do any good as in agw circles 'the data don't matter' ho ho ho.
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
I'm just not sure if it's that consequential to the big picture. Not many scientists seem to think so.
How many have you 'seemed' to consult on this point? Alternatively it's green bloggery regurgitated and reheated, hardly scientific."The data don't matter"
Wrong.
It's a fundamental failure of the agw hypothesis, one of many, and it's ignored by The Team players for convenience along with the rest of the failures. As you know, I suspect.
There's some dizzy thinking in the world of a manmade warmer world. Which we knew, but here's some more.
USA tax gas emissions have fallen under Trump so he's a villain. Politics, anyone?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/ye...
From 2012 to 2017 Russia reduced its emissions which have nevertheless been edging upwards.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/449817/co2-emi...
Over at Grist, climate activist Eric Holthaus has warned the world that the Trump-Putin alliance is a deliberate attempt to delay action on climate change.
In a Grist article Hothaus has claimed that Trump and Putin were “colluding to destroy our planet’s climate system.”
No such demonisation of India or China, an almost perfect sin of omission.
USA tax gas emissions have fallen under Trump so he's a villain. Politics, anyone?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/ye...
From 2012 to 2017 Russia reduced its emissions which have nevertheless been edging upwards.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/449817/co2-emi...
Over at Grist, climate activist Eric Holthaus has warned the world that the Trump-Putin alliance is a deliberate attempt to delay action on climate change.
In a Grist article Hothaus has claimed that Trump and Putin were “colluding to destroy our planet’s climate system.”
No such demonisation of India or China, an almost perfect sin of omission.
zygalski said:
If AGW proof is good enough for ExxonMobil, it's good enough for me.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues...
'The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.'
Christ you're dumb. This has been covered time and time again, FFS! https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues...
'The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.'
All Oil Majors support efforts against climate change. Why? Simple, they know that gas is plentiful and seen as the 'transition fuel'. It's also the real long term fuel seeing as there's so fecking much of it. Climate change is also used as a stick to increase carbon floor price which prices coal out of competitiveness with gas.
It's simple economics, plays to the green blob, kills their competitiors and helps sell their product!
How many times?????
Seems like conflicting off message posts from the echo chamber? 
Do exxon support MMGW theory to make money out of gas? Or are they only supporting it for PR while continuing to fund groups opposing climate change bodies and organisations?
Seems like Exxon think it’s real but are still trying to make money out of it, which is normal. That doesn’t show that they don’t think MMGW exists.
Saying FFS it’s been proven (by people on this thread) many times isn’t really very good evidence.
Do exxon support MMGW theory to make money out of gas? Or are they only supporting it for PR while continuing to fund groups opposing climate change bodies and organisations?
Seems like Exxon think it’s real but are still trying to make money out of it, which is normal. That doesn’t show that they don’t think MMGW exists.
Saying FFS it’s been proven (by people on this thread) many times isn’t really very good evidence.
Ali G said:
'....They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.But 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.
“We stress that the question is not whether Exxon Mobil ‘suppressed climate change research,’ but rather how they communicated about it,” Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Supran wrote. “Exxon Mobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it.”
jshell said:
Christ you're dumb. This has been covered time and time again, FFS!
All Oil Majors support efforts against climate change. Why? Simple, they know that gas is plentiful and seen as the 'transition fuel'. It's also the real long term fuel seeing as there's so fecking much of it. Climate change is also used as a stick to increase carbon floor price which prices coal out of competitiveness with gas.
It's simple economics, plays to the green blob, kills their competitiors and helps sell their product!
How many times?????
Actually, it rather looks like you're the one who's been duped.All Oil Majors support efforts against climate change. Why? Simple, they know that gas is plentiful and seen as the 'transition fuel'. It's also the real long term fuel seeing as there's so fecking much of it. Climate change is also used as a stick to increase carbon floor price which prices coal out of competitiveness with gas.
It's simple economics, plays to the green blob, kills their competitiors and helps sell their product!
How many times?????
A little more discussion of consensus Oreskes and the Exxon campaign here...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/24/study-naomi...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/24/study-naomi...
durbster said:
Yeah, Google Scholar - the published science search engine - only returns 3.2 million hits for the term "climate change", and 1.8 million for "global warming".
Very little science.
Climate change is a normal event, global warming research mostly comes from a stand point of its happening , what can we associate with it, all along with the normal caveat , maybe ,possibly, etc.Very little science.
A lot of the papers come from the IPCC, you remember them, it was ran by a Railway engineer,
Famous for a paper on glacial retreat that was constructed from a travel book, the weight of evidence has to have credibility, if that is your metric, not just a volume.
turbobloke said:
Stuff, then...
When we're circling on yet another of these attrition loops and I cite credible empirical data in peer-reviewed papers (Monnin et al, Humlum et al, Stephens et al) it's not my opinion but the data which tells you all you need to know. Not that it will do any good as in agw circles 'the data don't matter' ho ho ho.
On the Humlum et al., paper (which I presume is Humlum et al., 2013), I presume you have read the Richardson (2013) paper in reply (here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...When we're circling on yet another of these attrition loops and I cite credible empirical data in peer-reviewed papers (Monnin et al, Humlum et al, Stephens et al) it's not my opinion but the data which tells you all you need to know. Not that it will do any good as in agw circles 'the data don't matter' ho ho ho.
Interested in your insights on this, notably (see Conclusions on p.227):
- Humlum et al., apply the DIFF12 procedure to temperature and cumulative atmospheric CO2 but rather than apply it to cumulative anthropogenic emissions of CO2, they apply it to annual anthropogenic emission rate. This choice means that they effectively compare the first differential of cumulative atmosphericCO2 with the second differential of cumulative anthropogenic CO2
I think the conclusion of this paper is noteworthy (repeated verbatim):
Richardson 2013 paper said:
They proceed to make conclusions about the long term change in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980, despite having removed most of the long term contribution through differentiation. Additionally, the method is inconsistent, with first derivatives of atmospheric CO2 and temperatures compared with
the second derivative of human CO2 contribution.
When the first derivative of human CO2 contribution is considered, a positive correlation is found at all lags. Quantifying the relationships determines that the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero (?0.01 ± 0.21 ppm yr?1), and that the entire atmospheric CO2 rise can be explained by human emissions with an atmospheric fraction of 56% when land use emissions are not considered.
It was shown that this result, unlike that of Humlum et al., is consistent with conservation of mass. Furthermore, it is consistent with falling ocean pH (Caldeira and Wicket, 2003; González-Dávila et al., 2007; Byrne et al., 2010), model simulations and other approaches in the literature which have reached identical conclusions (Falkowski et al., 2000).
Seems like the data does matter.the second derivative of human CO2 contribution.
When the first derivative of human CO2 contribution is considered, a positive correlation is found at all lags. Quantifying the relationships determines that the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero (?0.01 ± 0.21 ppm yr?1), and that the entire atmospheric CO2 rise can be explained by human emissions with an atmospheric fraction of 56% when land use emissions are not considered.
It was shown that this result, unlike that of Humlum et al., is consistent with conservation of mass. Furthermore, it is consistent with falling ocean pH (Caldeira and Wicket, 2003; González-Dávila et al., 2007; Byrne et al., 2010), model simulations and other approaches in the literature which have reached identical conclusions (Falkowski et al., 2000).
Edited by LittleBigPlanet on Wednesday 25th July 07:51
Ali G said:
A little more discussion of consensus Oreskes and the Exxon campaign here...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/24/study-naomi...
Ah, where would you be without the Watts propaganda blog? The Fox News of climate change, feeding people whatever view they want to read.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/24/study-naomi...
And we know how well informed your average Fox News viewer is.
PRTVR said:
Climate change is a normal event, global warming research mostly comes from a stand point of its happening , what can we associate with it, all along with the normal caveat , maybe ,possibly, etc.
A lot of the papers come from the IPCC, you remember them, it was ran by a Railway engineer,
Famous for a paper on glacial retreat that was constructed from a travel book, the weight of evidence has to have credibility, if that is your metric, not just a volume.
Setting the turbobloke levels of waffle and diversion aside, do you concede that claiming there is "very little science" about climate change was wrong?A lot of the papers come from the IPCC, you remember them, it was ran by a Railway engineer,
Famous for a paper on glacial retreat that was constructed from a travel book, the weight of evidence has to have credibility, if that is your metric, not just a volume.
LittleBigPlanet said:
turbobloke said:
Stuff, then...
When we're circling on yet another of these attrition loops and I cite credible empirical data in peer-reviewed papers (Monnin et al, Humlum et al, Stephens et al) it's not my opinion but the data which tells you all you need to know. Not that it will do any good as in agw circles 'the data don't matter' ho ho ho.
On the Humlum et al., paper (which I presume is Humlum et al., 2013), I presume you have read the Richardson (2013) paper in reply (here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...When we're circling on yet another of these attrition loops and I cite credible empirical data in peer-reviewed papers (Monnin et al, Humlum et al, Stephens et al) it's not my opinion but the data which tells you all you need to know. Not that it will do any good as in agw circles 'the data don't matter' ho ho ho.
Interested in your insights on this, notably (see Conclusions on p.227):
- Humlum et al., apply the DIFF12 procedure to temperature and cumulative atmospheric CO2 but rather than apply it to cumulative anthropogenic emissions of CO2, they apply it to annual anthropogenic emission rate. This choice means that they effectively compare the first differential of cumulative atmosphericCO2 with the second differential of cumulative anthropogenic CO2
I think the conclusion of this paper is noteworthy (repeated verbatim):
Richardson 2013 paper said:
They proceed to make conclusions about the long term change in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980, despite having removed most of the long term contribution through differentiation. Additionally, the method is inconsistent, with first derivatives of atmospheric CO2 and temperatures compared with
the second derivative of human CO2 contribution.
When the first derivative of human CO2 contribution is considered, a positive correlation is found at all lags. Quantifying the relationships determines that the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero (?0.01 ± 0.21 ppm yr?1), and that the entire atmospheric CO2 rise can be explained by human emissions with an atmospheric fraction of 56% when land use emissions are not considered.
It was shown that this result, unlike that of Humlum et al., is consistent with conservation of mass. Furthermore, it is consistent with falling ocean pH (Caldeira and Wicket, 2003; González-Dávila et al., 2007; Byrne et al., 2010), model simulations and other approaches in the literature which have reached identical conclusions (Falkowski et al., 2000).
Seems like the data does matter.the second derivative of human CO2 contribution.
When the first derivative of human CO2 contribution is considered, a positive correlation is found at all lags. Quantifying the relationships determines that the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero (?0.01 ± 0.21 ppm yr?1), and that the entire atmospheric CO2 rise can be explained by human emissions with an atmospheric fraction of 56% when land use emissions are not considered.
It was shown that this result, unlike that of Humlum et al., is consistent with conservation of mass. Furthermore, it is consistent with falling ocean pH (Caldeira and Wicket, 2003; González-Dávila et al., 2007; Byrne et al., 2010), model simulations and other approaches in the literature which have reached identical conclusions (Falkowski et al., 2000).
[/footnote]
Easy enough for the layman (me) to follow but sciency enough to have some gravitas amongst those that read these papers. Well done LittleBigPlanet.
LoonyTunes said:
That's very interesting. I await Turbobloke's response.
Easy enough for the layman (me) to follow but sciency enough to have some gravitas amongst those that read these papers. Well done LittleBigPlanet.
Easy enough for the layman (me) to follow but sciency enough to have some gravitas amongst those that read these papers. Well done LittleBigPlanet.
Conculsion said:
Quantifying the relationships determines that the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero
Seriously? No volcanoes? No ocean warming (which releases CO2)? I find that conclusion most perplexing and against many previous papers and data. Does anyone have a link to the full paper as the previous link is pay-per-view? durbster said:
Ali G said:
A little more discussion of consensus Oreskes and the Exxon campaign here...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/24/study-naomi...
Ah, where would you be without the Watts propaganda blog? The Fox News of climate change, feeding people whatever view they want to read.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/24/study-naomi...
And we know how well informed your average Fox News viewer is.
PRTVR said:
Climate change is a normal event, global warming research mostly comes from a stand point of its happening , what can we associate with it, all along with the normal caveat , maybe ,possibly, etc.
A lot of the papers come from the IPCC, you remember them, it was ran by a Railway engineer,
Famous for a paper on glacial retreat that was constructed from a travel book, the weight of evidence has to have credibility, if that is your metric, not just a volume.
Setting the turbobloke levels of waffle and diversion aside, do you concede that claiming there is "very little science" about climate change was wrong?A lot of the papers come from the IPCC, you remember them, it was ran by a Railway engineer,
Famous for a paper on glacial retreat that was constructed from a travel book, the weight of evidence has to have credibility, if that is your metric, not just a volume.
my point about "very little science" still stands what we have seen is a rise in papers with MMGW as part of it, just pick any animal and Google it along with climate change and there all there, this is not science on climate change but people who study specific areas giving their opinions.
PRTVR said:
Waffle ? The IPCC admitted it's failings in the Glacial report, do you not ask yourself why they did it ? It's not about science anymore, if it ever was,
I never mentioned the IPCC so I don't know why you keep talking about them. The research has been conducted by countless groups from all over the world for more than half a century, as you will see if you simply look at it.PRTVR said:
my point about "very little science" still stands what we have seen is a rise in papers with MMGW as part of it, just pick any animal and Google it along with climate change and there all there, this is not science on climate change but people who study specific areas giving their opinions.
So despite being shown clear, objective proof of huge amounts of climate change research, you've simply decided it doesn't exist and that's that 
And all the published peer-reviewed science is just people's opinions. Righto
The mental gymnastics required to keep convincing yourself of this delusion is really something.
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's very interesting. I await Turbobloke's response.
Easy enough for the layman (me) to follow but sciency enough to have some gravitas amongst those that read these papers. Well done LittleBigPlanet.
Easy enough for the layman (me) to follow but sciency enough to have some gravitas amongst those that read these papers. Well done LittleBigPlanet.
Conculsion said:
Quantifying the relationships determines that the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero
Seriously? No volcanoes? No ocean warming (which releases CO2)? I find that conclusion most perplexing and against many previous papers and data. Does anyone have a link to the full paper as the previous link is pay-per-view? Regarding your point, the paper states (p.227) "...whilst natural causes contribute to the variability, their contribution to the long term change since January 1980 is indistinguishable from zero".
Regarding the methodological issue, my understanding is that the Humlum paper has used monthly data from Jan 1980 to Dec 2008 and used an approach that applies a 12-month running mean to each time series, change over a 12-month period is then calculated and used to produce a new timeseries (labelled "DIFF12" in the Humlum et al. 2013 paper). However, Humlum et al., go on to compare these (12-monthly running means) DIFF12 values with annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions rather than the cumulative emissions over the same period which, in short, means that long-term trends (of multiple years) is removed. When this is done correctly, a correlation is found in each case and, a quantification of the relationship allows the authors to determine that "the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero (?0.01 ± 0.21 ppm yr?1), and that the entire atmospheric CO2 rise can be explained by human emissions with an atmospheric fraction of 56% when land use emissions are not considered."
LittleBigPlanet said:
Use SciHub (http://sci-hub.tw) and copy/paste in the DOI.
Regarding your point, the paper states (p.227) "...whilst natural causes contribute to the variability, their contribution to the long term change since January 1980 is indistinguishable from zero".
Regarding the methodological issue, my understanding is that the Humlum paper has used monthly data from Jan 1980 to Dec 2008 and used an approach that applies a 12-month running mean to each time series, change over a 12-month period is then calculated and used to produce a new timeseries (labelled "DIFF12" in the Humlum et al. 2013 paper). However, Humlum et al., go on to compare these (12-monthly running means) DIFF12 values with annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions rather than the cumulative emissions over the same period which, in short, means that long-term trends (of multiple years) is removed. When this is done correctly, a correlation is found in each case and, a quantification of the relationship allows the authors to determine that "the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero (?0.01 ± 0.21 ppm yr?1), and that the entire atmospheric CO2 rise can be explained by human emissions with an atmospheric fraction of 56% when land use emissions are not considered."
Link didn't work - but the worrying thing is they removed the second derivative of human CO2 to form their conclusion. By only using the first derivative they ignore the acceleration of Human CO2 emissions during the 1980 to 2008 time period. They use the correlation with the individual mean annual linear increase in cumulative emissions to imply the increase is all Human CO2 - almost circular in reasoning and begs the question. I would love to check their calculations as the stepped correlations (correlates at this bit and this bit and this bit - but not the whole thing unless you only look at this bit and this bit and this bit) do not necessarily imply correlation across the entire time series.Regarding your point, the paper states (p.227) "...whilst natural causes contribute to the variability, their contribution to the long term change since January 1980 is indistinguishable from zero".
Regarding the methodological issue, my understanding is that the Humlum paper has used monthly data from Jan 1980 to Dec 2008 and used an approach that applies a 12-month running mean to each time series, change over a 12-month period is then calculated and used to produce a new timeseries (labelled "DIFF12" in the Humlum et al. 2013 paper). However, Humlum et al., go on to compare these (12-monthly running means) DIFF12 values with annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions rather than the cumulative emissions over the same period which, in short, means that long-term trends (of multiple years) is removed. When this is done correctly, a correlation is found in each case and, a quantification of the relationship allows the authors to determine that "the average natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 since 1980 is indistinguishable from zero (?0.01 ± 0.21 ppm yr?1), and that the entire atmospheric CO2 rise can be explained by human emissions with an atmospheric fraction of 56% when land use emissions are not considered."
durbster said:
Yeah, Google Scholar - the published science search engine - only returns 3.2 million hits for the term "climate change", and 1.8 million for "global warming".
Very little science.
it returns about 1.9 million hits for the term flat earth,your point is ? it can return 10 billion hits, it adds nothing to the veracity of the claims made in them. Very little science.
LittleBigPlanet said:
Regarding your point, the paper states (p.227) "...whilst natural causes contribute to the variability, their contribution to the long term change since January 1980 is indistinguishable from zero
That assertion, a statement of belief, turns reality on its head and is baseless even by IPCC standards of wordsmithery.If anyone cares to look in an IPCC report SPM they will see that the most basic of natural forcings, solar irradiance, has been ascribed a LOSU (Level Of Scientific Understanding) of Low. Solar eruptivity isn't included, isn't mentioned.
Shaviv (2008 so plenty of time for The Team to read it) used data not gigo models to demonstrate that solar irradiance is amplified in impact between x5 and x7.
I recall that IPCC AR4 SPM had solar irradiance forcing, arising from solar output variability, at 0.12 Wm-2 so taking the lower bound x5 from Shaviv's paper, a value which was obtained using empirical data, gives an impact represented by 0.6 Wm-2.
According to Stephens et al (2012) using Ceres satellite data not gigo models: “For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance = 0.6 Wm-2". As far as I can recall 2000-2010 is post-1980.
Then we come to a fundamental question, where any warming is coming from if it's not natural variation. It's not carbon dioxide, supposedly providing a radiative forcing level which is not seen in the data.
The presence of natural, solar, climate forcing was established some time ago in peer-reviewed science published by Newell et al which was covered in New Scientist at the time.
New Scientist coverage of Newell et al said:
changes in the Sun's activity has influenced trends in temperature this century (20th) more than any other factor
New Scientist also said:
(Newell et al) collated and analysed temperature measurements from around the world. 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.
Natural variability is present in the data and (apparently ^^) virtually absent in gigo from climate models. Only politicians would take the latter over the former.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.
While this is the climate politics thread, there needs to be some shred of credibility in political statements. This is an appropriate but exacting standard and failure to achieve it is only to be expected.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff