Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

jshell said:

zygalski said:

Actually, it rather looks like you're the one who's been duped.

Not at all. Every large oil company has it's own believer scientists. Many of the staff are believers. It's great for the company, it suits their longterm sales agenda.

[LongQ]

More from Dr. Edenhofer

I would be very interested to hear what people understand to be the message of this presentation.

Or maybe messageS?

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/talks/201...

Edited by LongQ on Monday 30th July 18:25

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

More from Dr. Edenhofer

I would be very interested to hear what people understand to be the message of this presentation.

Or maybe messageS?

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/talks/201...

Edited by LongQ on Monday 30th July 18:25

Thanks for the link - fascinating.

The message I got is that Prof Dr E might want to stick to politics but avoid climate.

Did he really say that the atmosphere is a limited sink quantified at up to ~1,300 Gt CO2 when many sources cite the current level as over 3,200 Gt and the oceans are a far more important sink anyway? It was 3,000 Gt in 2008 iirc. Wrong end of the stick (maybe).

The motive may be to assess climate 'damage' (atmospheric) measured by tax gas content, in order to award 'damages' to third world nations as per his redistributive agenda, yet with the far higher levels in nature previously, this is fabricated not elucidated.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

So the record at Heathrow was caused by UHI or a spike caused by two aircraft landing?

can you describe a naturally occurring weather phenomena(enhanced by agw) that would cause a spike in temperatures like that over a short period of time, like a few minutes ?
those spikes may well occur all the time, but at lower temps ,hence no record to hype for the msm. if you know where i can get the daily data for a year i will take a look.

Looks like the sun came out:



https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-wind-data-d...

[kerplunk]

Incidentally I checked whether Heathrow is a contributing station to GHCN (the land data used by NOAA/NASA) for their climate products and it isn't (however Gatwick is).

Haven't checked whether Heathrow is used in the CRU datasets but on the basis that they supposedly use 90% the same station data as ghcn I'm gonna assume it isn't.

ps. just checked Rome airport - not used in GHCN

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 30th July 19:36

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

So the record at Heathrow was caused by UHI or a spike caused by two aircraft landing?

can you describe a naturally occurring weather phenomena(enhanced by agw) that would cause a spike in temperatures like that over a short period of time, like a few minutes ?
those spikes may well occur all the time, but at lower temps ,hence no record to hype for the msm. if you know where i can get the daily data for a year i will take a look.

Looks like the sun came out:



https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-wind-data-d...

So why does a similar burst of energy around 20 minutes later not result in a similar peak in temperature?

By what mechanism does the particular highest reading of the day happen to be much more of a peak than any other with more or less similar levels of radiation?

Surely an "in the shade" reading, which as I understand things is how temperature measurements were intended to be measured from a long time back would be unlikely to be so "peaky" for a brief blast of sun energy when offering minute by minute readings?

Or is there much more to the weather and temperature stuff than can currently be used in analysis?

Of did someone decide they wanted the day to have a record that the media could pick up on? Or perhaps fed with.

The pattern just looks wrong. However the minute by minute wind dirention does seen to show that period of 4 minutes leading up to the time of the highest temperature claimed does have the wind lowing in a specific direction which would appear to give the shortest possible route from the tarmac of the runway to the position of the recording equipment.

A very similar burst of radiation at Kew around 14.36 does not produce the same temperature spike by any means. What is different?

[kerplunk]

LongQ said:

kerplunk said:

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

So the record at Heathrow was caused by UHI or a spike caused by two aircraft landing?

can you describe a naturally occurring weather phenomena(enhanced by agw) that would cause a spike in temperatures like that over a short period of time, like a few minutes ?
those spikes may well occur all the time, but at lower temps ,hence no record to hype for the msm. if you know where i can get the daily data for a year i will take a look.

Looks like the sun came out:



https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-wind-data-d...

So why does a similar burst of energy around 20 minutes later not result in a similar peak in temperature?

dunno - maybe one of those jets that landed sucked the warm air away with it's enjuns

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

LongQ said:

kerplunk said:

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

So the record at Heathrow was caused by UHI or a spike caused by two aircraft landing?

can you describe a naturally occurring weather phenomena(enhanced by agw) that would cause a spike in temperatures like that over a short period of time, like a few minutes ?
those spikes may well occur all the time, but at lower temps ,hence no record to hype for the msm. if you know where i can get the daily data for a year i will take a look.

Looks like the sun came out:



https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-wind-data-d...

So why does a similar burst of energy around 20 minutes later not result in a similar peak in temperature?

dunno - maybe one of those jets that landed sucked the warm air away with it's enjuns

"Dunno" More junk then.

Wind data can't dispel anything on its own. Claiming it can is armwaving at its best. As posted earlier heat transport in such a context will involve not just surface wind but eddies, radiation and convection. There's nothing whatsoever in play that limits influence to wind, so ruling out wind (even if that were the case) isn't going to be sufficient. Unless you want it to be, but that's no good either.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

I was pointing out that a pilot may or may not know much about the internal working of engines.

Sadly, acknowledging expertise is rejected in this thread. It means we have to shout "appeal to authority" at you and call you gullible and stupid and stuff like that. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

I was pointing out that a pilot may or may not know much about the internal working of engines.

Sadly, acknowledging expertise is rejected in this thread.

Of course it isn't.

Royal Society "nullius in verba" take nobosy's word for it.

Which is what mainstream scientific scepticism is all about, not your misdirection about expertise being rejected,

Some agw supporters clearly need to learn to distinguish opinion from evidence, a failing shared by the BBC among others. If expertise produces credible evidence (empirical data) it's taken seriously, if paid government appointees ramp The Cause and excuse The Team's religious doctrine with verbiage that's a world apart and deserves to be criticised for what it is.

An 'appeal to authority' relates to opinion not data, that would be called 'appeal to data' and it's what science is built on, as opposed to climate junkscience which is built on "the data don't matter".

[turbobloke]

Media coverage and believer comment holds that wildfires are increasing and caused by global warming.

"Wildfires Raging in Greece and California Prove Climate Change Is..." Fun for thread participants=complete the propaganda headline.

The perception being pushed is that wildfires are worse than previously thought (and found) but this is another myth...data from San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. shows no increase in the last thirty years, and no increase over a timescale of ~hundred years.

[Ali G]

There does appear to be an anthropogenic element 'though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw

[LoonyTunes]

As memes are the back in fashion again

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

There does appear to be an anthropogenic element 'though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw

Keith couldn't get around fast enough - he's innocent!

There's our two pennine blazes (arson), LA (arson), and Greece where authorities strongly suspect arson. Arson was also to blame for the 2009 and 2017 California fires, the latter involving 'illegal cooking'.

A 2008 national study showed that half of all Australian bushfires then recorded were arson or suspected arson.

[jjlynn27]

LoonyTunes said:

jjlynn27 said:

But I'm curious about that reply that was edited by a Mod. Tell me more about that one

Anything on this or shall we chalk this to another one of things that turbo made up?

[turbobloke]

Climate/Carbon taxation has the potential to cause more hunger and food insecurity than so-called manmade climate change says IIASA-led research (IIASA = International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis).

GWPF report at the link:

https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-carbon-taxes-could...

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

LoonyTunes said:

jjlynn27 said:

But I'm curious about that reply that was edited by a Mod. Tell me more about that one

Anything on this or shall we chalk this to another one of things that turbo made up?

Prepare to be submerged under a (sea level rising) flood of unrelated tables and graphs and photos and quotes.

[Ali G]

El stovey said:

Prepare to be submerged under a (sea level rising) flood of unrelated tables and graphs and photos and quotes.

Aww diddums - has trolley dolly rejected you again?

I would not be surprised!

Coz that was no trolley dolly!

[anonymous-user]

Ali G said:

El stovey said:

Prepare to be submerged under a (sea level rising) flood of unrelated tables and graphs and photos and quotes.

Aww diddums - has trolley dolly rejected you again?

I would not be surprised!

Coz that was no trolley dolly!

As usual, I’m afraid your highly individual humour has escaped me again. Perhaps you’re actually just not very well? It’s hard to tell really.

[Ali G]

El stovey said:

It’s hard to tell really.

It is hard for you to comprehend - but nevertheless - the 'telling' comes easy (for you)