Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

My post yesterday at 1546 hrs said:

As to solar and temperature data still indicating a potential Dalton (or Maunder) minimum, we can report back on how the data progressed and any impacts present or absent ca 2030.

That's imminent in climate terms but the post in which I first used the term imminent was on Monday 7th August last year not 1801 hrs yesterday.

[LoonyTunes]

What you said yesterday is irrelevant. In 2017 you said it was "imminent".

So when is "imminent"? This winter? Next year? 2025? 2050? 2250?

[turbobloke]

LoonyTunes said:

What you said yesterday is irrelevant. In 2017 you said it was "imminent".

So when is "imminent"? This winter? Next year? 2025? 2050? 2250?

Already answered, 2030 on current data but keep an eye on the data.

When is carbon dioxide coming back from holiday?

[LoonyTunes]

turbobloke said:

LoonyTunes said:

What you said yesterday is irrelevant. In 2017 you said it was "imminent".

So when is "imminent"? This winter? Next year? 2025? 2050? 2250?

Already answered, 2030 on current data but keep an eye on the data.

When is carbon dioxide coming back from holiday?

So nicely far enough away that none of us will remember that you said it. OK, so the temps will continue to rise until 2030 based on current 'models' before falling over the cliff at that point or does the forecast of 2030 include a gradual levelling off leading up to 2030? If it does will it start next year as that's when the Solar Minimum begins?

[turbobloke]

AGW supporters have been pushing back the dates of predictions for more than 30 years, the point is they have to do so as their predictions keep failing. I already indicated that solar-temperature ideas must be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, rather than the treatment applied to failed agw junkscience where predictions are simply re-heated and served up with a later date. As to detail look online for the previous Dalton minimum and Maunder minimum to get an indication of how events unfold.

Meanwhile...Hansen didn’t expect CO2 effects to appear above the noise of natural variation until around 2000, het his Scenario C (the only one that fits the data) only works from 2000 if there was no carbon dioxide increase since then, which of course there has been. As a result carbon dioxide must have been on holiday since 2000 and the question asked was – when is it coming back from holiday?
Having answered your petty question that I had already answered anyway, the least you can do is answer my question which is clearly more important (it relates to CO2) and you haven’t answered yet. Is there a problem answering questions as opposed to asking questions that have already been answered?

[turbobloke]

Carbon dioxide must have been on holiday since 2000 (Hansen C works only if this is so).

Another opportunity for any agw supporter to set the record straight

When will carbon dioxide return from holiday?

[LoonyTunes]

turbobloke said:

AGW supporters have been pushing back the dates of predictions for more than 30 years, the point is they have to do so as their predictions keep failing. I already indicated that solar-temperature ideas must be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, rather than the treatment applied to failed agw junkscience where predictions are simply re-heated and served up with a later date. As to detail look online for the previous Dalton minimum and Maunder minimum to get an indication of how events unfold.

Meanwhile...Hansen didn’t expect CO2 effects to appear above the noise of natural variation until around 2000, het his Scenario C (the only one that fits the data) only works from 2000 if there was no carbon dioxide increase since then, which of course there has been. As a result carbon dioxide must have been on holiday since 2000 and the question asked was – when is it coming back from holiday?
Having answered your petty question that I had already answered anyway, the least you can do is answer my question which is clearly more important (it relates to CO2) and you haven’t answered yet. Is there a problem answering questions as opposed to asking questions that have already been answered?

Er, I don't claim to have the answers which contradict what the vast majority of Scientists, Scientific Institutions and Governments around the globe are saying. That would be you. You also claim to be a climate scientist (of sorts I believe). So when you make controversial statements I don't need to answer questions but am fully entitled to ask them. I don't go to my local parish council meeting and expect the councillor to stand up on stage and ask me questions.

[turbobloke]

LoonyTunes said:

turbobloke said:

AGW supporters have been pushing back the dates of predictions for more than 30 years, the point is they have to do so as their predictions keep failing. I already indicated that solar-temperature ideas must be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, rather than the treatment applied to failed agw junkscience where predictions are simply re-heated and served up with a later date. As to detail look online for the previous Dalton minimum and Maunder minimum to get an indication of how events unfold.

Meanwhile...Hansen didn’t expect CO2 effects to appear above the noise of natural variation until around 2000, het his Scenario C (the only one that fits the data) only works from 2000 if there was no carbon dioxide increase since then, which of course there has been. As a result carbon dioxide must have been on holiday since 2000 and the question asked was – when is it coming back from holiday?
Having answered your petty question that I had already answered anyway, the least you can do is answer my question which is clearly more important (it relates to CO2) and you haven’t answered yet. Is there a problem answering questions as opposed to asking questions that have already been answered?

Er, I don't claim to have the answers which contradict what the vast majority of Scientists, Scientific Institutions and Governments around the globe are saying.

You don't know what the vast majority of scientists or scientific institutions think. You believe what you're told they think but that's another matter.

LoonyTunes said:

That would be you.

What would be me?

LoonyTunes said:

You also claim to be a climate scientist (of sorts I believe).

I've taught the science of climate variation at post-graduate level and previously carried out some research into the Sun-Earth interaction. This involved/involves mostly physics (plus chemistry with maths to go).

LoonyTunes said:

So when you make controversial statements I don't need to answer questions

In comparison, your statement above isn't controversial it's rubbish. You should however tell NASA scientist Dr Mike Hathaway that he's being controversial as he ought to know.

NASA astrophysicist Dr Mike Hathaway said:

Still, something like the Dalton Minimum - two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots - lies in the realm of the possible.

I agree with Hathaway's view. However we're both <not> controversial. Other scientists have said the same (Abdussamatov for starters) and you should try the 2008 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics peer-reviewed paper by deJager and Duhau or indeed for a Dalton/Maunder discussion review the poster paper from Stozhkov and Okhlopkov (2010, 22nd European Cosmic Ray Symposium). Lots of interesting reading awaits you.

Meanwhile others on the thread are awaiting anwers from agw supporters, this model suggests there may be a long wait.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

LoonyTunes said:

turbobloke said:

AGW supporters have been pushing back the dates of predictions for more than 30 years, the point is they have to do so as their predictions keep failing. I already indicated that solar-temperature ideas must be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, rather than the treatment applied to failed agw junkscience where predictions are simply re-heated and served up with a later date. As to detail look online for the previous Dalton minimum and Maunder minimum to get an indication of how events unfold.

Meanwhile...Hansen didn’t expect CO2 effects to appear above the noise of natural variation until around 2000, het his Scenario C (the only one that fits the data) only works from 2000 if there was no carbon dioxide increase since then, which of course there has been. As a result carbon dioxide must have been on holiday since 2000 and the question asked was – when is it coming back from holiday?
Having answered your petty question that I had already answered anyway, the least you can do is answer my question which is clearly more important (it relates to CO2) and you haven’t answered yet. Is there a problem answering questions as opposed to asking questions that have already been answered?

Er, I don't claim to have the answers which contradict what the vast majority of Scientists, Scientific Institutions and Governments around the globe are saying.

You don't know what the vast majority of scientists or scientific institutions think. You believe what you're told they think but that's another matter.

LoonyTunes said:

That would be you.

What would be me?

LoonyTunes said:

You also claim to be a climate scientist (of sorts I believe).

I've taught the science of climate variation at post-graduate level and previously carried out some research into the Sun-Earth interaction. This involved/involves mostly physics (plus chemistry with maths to go).

LoonyTunes said:

So when you make controversial statements I don't need to answer questions

In comparison, your statement above isn't controversial it's rubbish. You should however tell NASA scientist Dr Mike Hathaway that he's being controversial as he ought to know.

NASA astrophysicist Dr Mike Hathaway said:

Still, something like the Dalton Minimum - two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots - lies in the realm of the possible.

I agree with Hathaway's view. However we're both <not> controversial. Other scientists have said the same (Abdussamatov for starters) and you should try the 2008 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics peer-reviewed paper by deJager and Duhau or indeed for a Dalton/Maunder discussion review the poster paper from Stozhkov and Okhlopkov (2010, 22nd European Cosmic Ray Symposium). Lots of interesting reading awaits you.

Meanwhile others on the thread are awaiting anwers from agw supporters, this model suggests there may be a long wait.

Hathaway was talking in 2009 about predictions for the upcoming solar cycle 24 peak, which is now in the past, so we can look at the numbers:

SC24 peaked at around 81 sunspots - quite low but not Dalton territory.

Agreeing with Hathaway's view after it turned out not to be the case is a bit weird. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

LoonyTunes said:

turbobloke said:

AGW supporters have been pushing back the dates of predictions for more than 30 years, the point is they have to do so as their predictions keep failing. I already indicated that solar-temperature ideas must be subjected to proper scientific scrutiny, rather than the treatment applied to failed agw junkscience where predictions are simply re-heated and served up with a later date. As to detail look online for the previous Dalton minimum and Maunder minimum to get an indication of how events unfold.

Meanwhile...Hansen didn’t expect CO2 effects to appear above the noise of natural variation until around 2000, het his Scenario C (the only one that fits the data) only works from 2000 if there was no carbon dioxide increase since then, which of course there has been. As a result carbon dioxide must have been on holiday since 2000 and the question asked was – when is it coming back from holiday?
Having answered your petty question that I had already answered anyway, the least you can do is answer my question which is clearly more important (it relates to CO2) and you haven’t answered yet. Is there a problem answering questions as opposed to asking questions that have already been answered?

Er, I don't claim to have the answers which contradict what the vast majority of Scientists, Scientific Institutions and Governments around the globe are saying.

You don't know what the vast majority of scientists or scientific institutions think. You believe what you're told they think but that's another matter.

LoonyTunes said:

That would be you.

What would be me?

LoonyTunes said:

You also claim to be a climate scientist (of sorts I believe).

I've taught the science of climate variation at post-graduate level and previously carried out some research into the Sun-Earth interaction. This involved/involves mostly physics (plus chemistry with maths to go).

LoonyTunes said:

So when you make controversial statements I don't need to answer questions

In comparison, your statement above isn't controversial it's rubbish. You should however tell NASA scientist Dr Mike Hathaway that he's being controversial as he ought to know.

NASA astrophysicist Dr Mike Hathaway said:

Still, something like the Dalton Minimum - two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots - lies in the realm of the possible.

I agree with Hathaway's view. However we're both <not> controversial. Other scientists have said the same (Abdussamatov for starters) and you should try the 2008 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics peer-reviewed paper by deJager and Duhau or indeed for a Dalton/Maunder discussion review the poster paper from Stozhkov and Okhlopkov (2010, 22nd European Cosmic Ray Symposium). Lots of interesting reading awaits you.

Meanwhile others on the thread are awaiting anwers from agw supporters, this model suggests there may be a long wait.

Hathaway was talking in 2009 about predictions for the upcoming solar cycle 24 peak, which is now in the past, so we can look at the numbers:

SC24 peaked at around 81 sunspots - quite low but not Dalton territory.

Agreeing with Hathaway's view after it turned out not to be the case is a bit weird. Perhaps I'm missing something.

You're missing something.

Apart from that, you're working in some unreal domain where you expect climate and the actual factors influencing it to be too precisely predictable. In particular I didn't quote a date from Hathaway in connection with the statement I was agreeing with. If Hathaway is a cycle out that's between you and him, it wasn't my view.

My comments on this theme are regularly accompanied by 'keep an eye on the data, solar and temperature' as that's the only way forward.

We will recgnise a Dalton or Maunder event if it concludes (Dalton) after two very weak solar cycles. I agree with Hathaway that a Dalton event is possible - a Dalton event ia not controversial, see other references above - but don't see any reason to agree with anyone's view on any other aspect including timing as this view should / will change as the data emerges.

My reply to LoonyTunes for 2030 arose from some evidence that was available in 2015 regarding very weak solar polar fields that had been noted by NASA probably Hathaway.



This scenario would if it plays out give knowledge by 2030 as to whether at least one very weak solar cycle has occurred. If a Maunder event unfolds then the prolonged low level of activity would continue.

As per the links below the situation at present remains in line with a possible Dalton minimum. I'll keep on keeping an eye on the data and post on PH if there are significant events to report, this will help agw supporters, who rely on inadequate climate models and avoid empirical data and its implications, to keep in touch with reality from time to time.

https://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weathe...

[turbobloke]

Don't Panic Captain Manbearpig

"Time is running out to save the Paris Agreement, UN climate experts warned Tuesday at a key Bangkok meeting, as rich nations were accused of shirking their responsibility for environmental damage. If nations cannot reach an agreement by a December summit in Poland—known as COP24—the Paris Agreement, carved out in 2015, will be at risk. Money is at the heart of issue."
AFP, 4 September 2018

Another climate boondoggle beckons. Private jets, limos, fine food and wine, hot air, basically green lifestyles exemplified...wonderful.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

You don't know what the vast majority of scientists or scientific institutions think.

Yes you do. All the notable scientific institutions have websites with comprehensive information on them, and individuals have social media accounts and blogs. All easily verified by simply looking.

turbobloke said:

You believe what you're told they think but that's another matter.

Oh, you're definitely not hawking a conspiracy theory, right?

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

My comments on this theme are regularly accompanied by 'keep an eye on the data, solar and temperature' as that's the only way forward.

We do.

The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

All the notable scientific institutions have websites with comprehensive information on them, and individuals have social media accounts and blogs. All easily verified by simply looking.

A percentage was mentioned which was and is fantasy, as the person offering the 99% number has no evidence for it and neither do you. Moreover the number of insitutions, an appeal to consensus, is irrelevant whatever the actual but unknown % may be.

Why mention conspiracy again? You must believe truly in one.

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

My comments on this theme are regularly accompanied by 'keep an eye on the data, solar and temperature' as that's the only way forward.

We do.

The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.

Pestering people for opinions doesn't change data.

Also no the data don't support agw, agw models offer a mismatch with reality as demonstrated on numerous occasions.

And no I'm not misleading anyone, everyone who's interested can check what's happening with the data for themselves.

Your continued if misguided focus on me remains flattering and amusing, could you manage any more? It's helpful all-round.

[wc98]

durbster said:

We do.

The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.

maybe speak to a few more. leif svalgaard,to date the only solar scientist (that i am aware of) to make a correct prediction of a solar cycle for nasa that allowed a multi million dollar satellite to remain in orbit.
i think, but you would be better to ask him, that like most people he agrees humans are having a small effect on the earths temp but it is nothing to worry about.

what is your definition of agw vs cagw ? for me agw is worth spending £1.26 on, cagw would be a genuine crisis.

forgot link https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif_Svalgaar...

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

durbster said:

We do.

The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.

maybe speak to a few more. leif svalgaard,to date the only solar scientist (that i am aware of) to make a correct prediction of a solar cycle for nasa that allowed a multi million dollar satellite to remain in orbit.
i think, but you would be better to ask him, that like most people he agrees humans are having a small effect on the earths temp but it is nothing to worry about.

what is your definition of agw vs cagw ? for me agw is worth spending £1.26 on, cagw would be a genuine crisis.

forgot link https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif_Svalgaar...

The above post from durbster merely confirms that others' opinions matter more to people incapable of forming their own, though only when it's what they want to hear. There's also a hint that there's anything singularly close to certainty available in terms of interprtation, which is wrong.

The data is out there and can be intepreted by anyone with the interest and capacity. For example Dr Doug Hoffman interprets the data in Stephens et al as showing the effect of CO2 forcing “lost in the noise of uncertainty” which I agree with. Hoffman also states from the same source that "simply put, there is more energy coming into and leaving Earth than accounted for by climate models" so readers can take from that what they wish about climate models..Stephens has different interpretations, apparently. no more or less worthy than Hoffman's and it's nothing to do with misleading or lying. This has been explained to durbster several times by various individuals, you'd think it would be understood by now.

https://www.thegwpf.com/doug-hoffman-new-global-en...

[Diderot]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

My comments on this theme are regularly accompanied by 'keep an eye on the data, solar and temperature' as that's the only way forward.

We do.

The data and temperature support AGW, and the solar scientists I spoke to after you cited their papers to make this claim before also supported AGW. You were misleading the thread, again.

what data would that be?

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

The above post from durbster merely confirms that others' opinions matter more to people incapable of forming their own, though only when it's what they want to hear. There's also a hint that there's anything singularly close to certainty available in terms of interprtation, which is wrong.

The data is out there and can be intepreted by anyone with the interest and capacity. For example Dr Doug Hoffman interprets the data in Stephens et al as showing the effect of CO2 forcing “lost in the noise of uncertainty” which I agree with. Hoffman also states from the same source that "simply put, there is more energy coming into and leaving Earth than accounted for by climate models" so readers can take from that what they wish about climate models..Stephens has different interpretations, apparently. no more or less worthy than Hoffman's and it's nothing to do with misleading or lying. This has been explained to durbster several times by various individuals, you'd think it would be understood by now.

https://www.thegwpf.com/doug-hoffman-new-global-en...

away from those generating the major headlines (hottest summer evah etc) that is the crux of the matter. the state of the science is just as other branches of science existed in the formative years hence the wide range of opinion on the same data. without a doubt that is a necessity for further learning. dialing down on the certainty claims might not be great for future funding (due to the perverse way politicians look at things, for me it is the best reason to maintain useful levels of funding) but it would make for more open and productive communication between the various groups involved.

given the amount of co2 we have punted into the atmosphere in recent decades and the lack of subsequent catastrophe , i struggle to understand the lack of questioning from some quarters. well three of them. the fourth quarter being politicians working an angle is no surprise at all.

[wc98]

Diderot said:

what data would that be?

lots of data here http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-Vie... .just another interpretation from another scientist but i thought those that like the appeals to authority (real live climate scientist etc) might be more inclined to read it.except loony that struggles with reading more than a single paragraph per day,though can happily type more than that. only person i have ever heard of that can type faster than they read

[LoonyTunes]

wc98 said:

lots of data here http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-Vie... .just another interpretation from another scientist but i thought those that like the appeals to authority (real live climate scientist etc) might be more inclined to read it.except loony that struggles with reading more than a single paragraph per day,though can happily type more than that. only person i have ever heard of that can type faster than they read

20 page reports. Get a grip

You clearly don't work for a living.

But you still couldn't show me the paragraph that stated what you said.