Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[dickymint]

kerplunk said:

dickymint said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I also pointed out that the significantly larger IPCC forcing claimed for CO2 doesn't show up even within the overall error bars (you forgot or chose to ignore the point that there are other constraints beyond CERES instrumentation). In addition I indicated that date matters as well as data, since overall forcing and CO2 effects have declined from one report to the next. This has been over-compensated by feedback inflation (also not seen in the data),

I guess somebody at IPCC HQ has an ounce of shame that the relatively large forcing claimed is simply not seen, so it's been shrinking over time as CO2 impotence becomes clearer.

So despite me explaining to you already (days ago not months) that there would be no expectation of finding the full anthropgenic forcing since 1750 in current TOA radiative imbalance measurments (because the planet will have warmed up to redress the balance) you still don't get it.

btw you used the 1.66Wm2 figure for CO2 from AR4 when you should be using the total anthropogenic forcing which includes methane and CFCs etc, minus a bit for aerosol emissions. That figure from AR5 is 2.3Wm2 - an even BIGGER inconsistancy with Stephens et al according to your flawed logic, but as above you apparently don't understand straightforward thermodynamics.

I've not seen a theoretical consideration of what the TOA radiative imbalance should be at any one time, but it would be somewhere south of 2.3 and somewhere north of zero. I'd expect 'most' of the forcing since 1750 has been used up already so the 0.6W/m2 in Stephens et al doesn't sound particularly out of the way to me.

So run that by me again - what should average Global temperatures be and why?

Huh? Not gonna bother with you sorry.

Fine by me......thought you were a bit pissy about unanswered questions earlier?

[turbobloke]

dickymint said:

kerplunk said:

dickymint said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

I also pointed out that the significantly larger IPCC forcing claimed for CO2 doesn't show up even within the overall error bars (you forgot or chose to ignore the point that there are other constraints beyond CERES instrumentation). In addition I indicated that date matters as well as data, since overall forcing and CO2 effects have declined from one report to the next. This has been over-compensated by feedback inflation (also not seen in the data),

I guess somebody at IPCC HQ has an ounce of shame that the relatively large forcing claimed is simply not seen, so it's been shrinking over time as CO2 impotence becomes clearer.

So despite me explaining to you already (days ago not months) that there would be no expectation of finding the full anthropgenic forcing since 1750 in current TOA radiative imbalance measurments (because the planet will have warmed up to redress the balance) you still don't get it.

btw you used the 1.66Wm2 figure for CO2 from AR4 when you should be using the total anthropogenic forcing which includes methane and CFCs etc, minus a bit for aerosol emissions. That figure from AR5 is 2.3Wm2 - an even BIGGER inconsistancy with Stephens et al according to your flawed logic, but as above you apparently don't understand straightforward thermodynamics.

I've not seen a theoretical consideration of what the TOA radiative imbalance should be at any one time, but it would be somewhere south of 2.3 and somewhere north of zero. I'd expect 'most' of the forcing since 1750 has been used up already so the 0.6W/m2 in Stephens et al doesn't sound particularly out of the way to me.

So run that by me again - what should average Global temperatures be and why?

Huh? Not gonna bother with you sorry.

Fine by me......thought you were a bit pissy about unanswered questions earlier?

A bit of forcing and out pops an irony and hypocrisy imbalance.

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

I'd expect 'most' of the forcing since 1750 has been used up already so the 0.6W/m2 in Stephens et al doesn't sound particularly out of the way to me.

Armwaving as expected but...really?

Christy and McK said:

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.

Indeed.

Hansen et al 1981 said:

It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the (20th) century.

Oops. See under 'Humlum et al' & 'Stephens et al' (both 21st century).

Tax gas is awol since the 90s. It was supposedly too weak prior to the 80s-90s. Squeezed out, then. The data do matter.

The picture of natural forcing holds together. The picture of agw falls apart and requires politicians sticking their arm up the 'arris of the agw corpse to march it around and look alive. Media reports show it dancing around.

[turbobloke]

Purely out of interest at this point, for those interested (!) in squeezed out tax gas, see the exchange here between TheHeretic / kerplunk / me from back on 02 March 2012.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Scroll down, or up, depending on your settings.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

I'd expect 'most' of the forcing since 1750 has been used up already so the 0.6W/m2 in Stephens et al doesn't sound particularly out of the way to me.

Armwaving as expected but...really?

Christy and McK said:

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.

Indeed.

Hansen et al 1981 said:

It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the (20th) century.

Oops. See under 'Humlum et al' & 'Stephens et al' (both 21st century).

Tax gas is awol since the 90s. It was supposedly too weak prior to the 80s-90s. Squeezed out, then. The data do matter.

The picture of natural forcing holds together. The picture of agw falls apart and requires politicians sticking their arm up the 'arris of the agw corpse to march it around and look alive. Media reports show it dancing around.

ok well you've not addressed anything here have you so nothing more to say.

[dickymint]

turbobloke said:

Purely out of interest at this point, for those interested (!) in squeezed out tax gas, see the exchange here between TheHeretic / kerplunk / me from back on 02 March 2012.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Scroll down, or up, depending on your settings.

Haha the old 2nd Law debate.......back when ice cubes could boil a kettle

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Purely out of interest at this point, for those interested (!) in squeezed out tax gas, see the exchange here between TheHeretic / kerplunk / me from back on 02 March 2012.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Scroll down, or up, depending on your settings.

holy cow, you're really going to try and ressurect that greenhouse effect breaks the 2nd law nonsense again?

Feel free!

(brace yourselves folks)

[jjlynn27]

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?

turbobloke said:

Another reply, which was about to be posted here, was edited by a Mod so there'd be no point in repeating it.

Still nothing?

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Purely out of interest at this point, for those interested (!) in squeezed out tax gas, see the exchange here between TheHeretic / kerplunk / me from back on 02 March 2012.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Scroll down, or up, depending on your settings.

holy cow, you're really going to try and ressurect that greenhouse effect breaks the 2nd law nonsense again?

Feel free!

(brace yourselves folks)

Seeing as TB has linked to a science thread discussion I've re-posted the link over there for further discussion.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[turbobloke]

Looking through some related files after that 2012 reminiscing, and Hey Preclot! These popped up. NOAA was cool back then



The cooling was visible in various datasets including US HCN.



NASA showed the full monty cooling at one time.



Since then the smoothies/smoothers stripped the cooling away, massage style.



This is peachy from Karl of ship engine intake fame, and whatever was the NOAA administrator taking?!



And get this from Rasool & Schneider (1971).



If repeated today it would be enough to have heretics ostracised and defunded.



Pipers changing tunes? Cool.

[Ali G]

I'll try not to revisit subject matter that has been done to death, but it is interesting to note how one 'consensus' (which was that the effect was pretty much saturated - which is not to say that it did not exist) into another 'consensus'!

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

I'll try not to revisit subject matter that has been done to death, but it is interesting to note how one 'consensus' (which was that the effect was pretty much saturated - which is not to say that it did not exist) into another 'consensus'!

Good point. Reminiscing can be risky wrt attrition looping.

The effect being a transient and insignificant delay in cooling, not permanent dangerous warming

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

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?

turbobloke said:

Another reply, which was about to be posted here, was edited by a Mod so there'd be no point in repeating it.

Still nothing?

You and any other PHer should know by now that I don't make things up.

Also you are well aware of the edited post in question as you mentioned it yourself.

On the same day that this was posted by RAFsmoggy, and referred to by me in the other thread...



...this was also posted by sidicks, with a Mod edit, and you asked about it:



https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

As it happens, my post was accurate, unlike your convenient memory.

Back to climate politics with frequent demolitions of agw junkscience

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

jjlynn27 said:

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?

turbobloke said:

Another reply, which was about to be posted here, was edited by a Mod so there'd be no point in repeating it.

Still nothing?

You and any other PHer should know by now that I don't make things up.

You do. All the time.

turbobloke said:

Also you are well aware of the edited post in question as you mentioned it yourself.

On the same day that this was posted by RAFsmoggy, and referred to by me in the other thread...



...this was also posted by sidicks, with a Mod edit, and you asked about it:



https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...


As it happens, my post was accurate, unlike your convenient memory.

Back to climate politics with frequent demolitions of agw junkscience

Bwahahahaha.

The sadness and desperation of shoring up support by random posters is funny on its own. Then linking that to post by unrelated post by sidicks which was edited by the mod is something else. Are you well?

Just like anti-vaxxers. different subject exact same MO.

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

... it is interesting to note how one 'consensus' (morphs) into another 'consensus'!

This is unlikely to lead to attrition looping but you never know. If anyone is unaware of the New York Times' current line on climate then a few minutes online will make it clear.

However...

New York Times 26 January 1989 headline
“U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend”

NYT said:

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

Just for the humour element, in the same year a NOAA bod was talking of 'considerable uncertainty among scientific experts' regarding warming/cooling.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Not sure I understand the question Jinx, but you'll note from Stephens et al they never say they're looking for 1.66W (or rather 2.3) in TOA measurements because that's a theoretical number computed from radiative transfer equations etc for all of our emissions since 1750. The real imbalance at any time would be much smaller and even harder to detect because you're trying to measure a small difference between two large numbers.

This is a huge area of estimation - and we are not just measuring a small difference between two large numbers we are trying to measure a very small difference between two large numbers with huge error bars. An exercise in futility that can never produce a meaningful answer (no matter how many decimal places you use in your calculations) .
CO2 is not doing what the predictions suggest it should and there is no threat of catastrophic warming or catastrophic climate change from the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere. From all the measurements so far and from the enhanced plant growth and resilience to drought, CO2 is a net benefit to the planet and us.
There are 3 known planet killing catastrophes that will happen at some point - asteroid strike, the sun using up its hydrogen supply and CO2 starvation from either an ice age or all the free CO2 ending up at the bottom of the ocean. Low CO2 is a threat to all life - high CO2 might, just might cause a few issues for coastal areas (though it will be slow enough to hire the Dutch). I know which one is more likely to keep me up at night.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Not sure I understand the question Jinx, but you'll note from Stephens et al they never say they're looking for 1.66W (or rather 2.3) in TOA measurements because that's a theoretical number computed from radiative transfer equations etc for all of our emissions since 1750. The real imbalance at any time would be much smaller and even harder to detect because you're trying to measure a small difference between two large numbers.

This is a huge area of estimation - and we are not just measuring a small difference between two large numbers we are trying to measure a very small difference between two large numbers with huge error bars. An exercise in futility that can never produce a meaningful answer (no matter how many decimal places you use in your calculations) .

Tell it to turbobloke - he's the only person claiming a visible radiative imbalance in this thread

[LoonyTunes]

Published today, here's why Heathrow is so hot

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493

It's the BBC so I expect it to be rubbished by a few but the findings are according to Paul Williams, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading.

Elsewhere in the article it states:

"The Met Office told us that their weather stations are built to very specific standards and any biases that could affect temperature records are taken into account when taking down readings.

The Met Office also pointed out that Heathrow is many miles from the sea, which means it does not benefit from a cooling effect that many coastal areas receive.

It says if you look at overall temperature records, there is a pattern between high temperature and the distance from the sea."

I'll be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this being as how it was an issue on here over the last few days.

[jet_noise]

LoonyTunes said:

Here's why Heathrow is so hot

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493

It's the BBC so I expect it to be rubbished by a few but the findings are according to Paul Williams, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading.

Elsewhere in the article it states:

"The Met Office told us that their weather stations are built to very specific standards and any biases that could affect temperature records are taken into account when taking down readings.

The Met Office also pointed out that Heathrow is many miles from the sea, which means it does not benefit from a cooling effect that many coastal areas receive.

It says if you look at overall temperature records, there is a pattern between high temperature and the distance from the sea."

Watch the pea.
The article quotes record temperatures then discusses averages. The good professor avoids commenting on the maxima.
He also does not consider that Heathrow being 8 miles away from the centre (i.e 8 miles nearer the edge) of the urban island would be expected to be cooler, not the same maybe?
I wonder how the biases are "taken into account" when taking down readings. Does this mean they are adjusted in some way?
Journalist or advocate, you decide!

[LoonyTunes]

jet_noise said:

LoonyTunes said:

Here's why Heathrow is so hot

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493

It's the BBC so I expect it to be rubbished by a few but the findings are according to Paul Williams, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading.

Elsewhere in the article it states:

"The Met Office told us that their weather stations are built to very specific standards and any biases that could affect temperature records are taken into account when taking down readings.

The Met Office also pointed out that Heathrow is many miles from the sea, which means it does not benefit from a cooling effect that many coastal areas receive.

It says if you look at overall temperature records, there is a pattern between high temperature and the distance from the sea."

Watch the pea.
The article quotes record temperatures then discusses averages. The good professor avoids commenting on the maxima.
He also does not consider that Heathrow being 8 miles away from the centre (i.e 8 miles nearer the edge) of the urban island would be expected to be cooler, not the same maybe?
I wonder how the biases are "taken into account" when taking down readings. Does this mean they are adjusted in some way?
Journalist or advocate, you decide!

That's some pretty biased points you make yourself.

To take your just your first point "The article quotes record temperatures then discusses averages. The good professor avoids commenting on the maxima" - well of course it does, it's the record temperatures there that have caused the discussion to be about the average temperature there. What could he possibly say about the maxima? It is what it is.