Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

turbobloke said:

thegwpf

maybe if you read the link you would realise it is no laughing matter. or is only the sceptic side required to state facts and warmists can just pluck made up stats out their arse all day and feed them to their gullible virtue signalling mates in the msm to print and broadcast with no thought they might be challenged.the equivalent of the bbc broadcasting facts on commercial airlines provided by that font of aviation knowledge know as plane stupid. i am sure you would be fine with that, not.

then again, if you are only here to troll why would you bother reading links.

If it's the link I think it is, it's not something made up by the GWPF, it was reporting on content from elsewhere (coverage of 'IPPR CLIMATE LIES PROMOTED BY BBC & THE GUARDIAN').

Evidently (i.e based on evidence, in posts) there are agw supporters who remain in a thread lower set where the pace is as pedestrian as recent natural climate change, and the difference between primary and secondary sources hasn't been covered yet. For such people a 'shoot the messenger' ad hom logical fallacy fail is somehow seen as a win. How quaint!

In any case, imagine laughing heartily at an organisation headed by a lefty Labour peer, aaaaawfully vulgar daahling.

There are fewer surprises for those who keep up at the back.

[gadgetmac]

The irony is that it's the GWPF using the IPCC's report as part-proof that the IPPR's report is wrong.

And Turbobloke is posting it up.

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the IPPR's report - if you don't think that's funny then you've lost your sense of humour.

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

The irony is that it's the GWPF using the IPCC's report as part-proof that the IPPR's report is wrong.

What set are you in?! The material at the link was not originated at/by GWPF.

The GWPF isn't using IPCC material, the primary source is. GWPF have simply reported it. GWPF are using primary source content.

There's nothing ironic in 'IPCC against IPCC' as that represents a most fruitful avenue to explore - the IPCC is a rich source of contradictions e.g. future climate states cannot be predicted, but let's do it anyway; policy on grey lit use (mountain guide banter); not forgetting their Freudian boobs e.g. Himalayan glaciers (dyscalculia?). Such fun.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

El stovey said:

turbobloke said:

thegwpf

maybe if you read the link you would realise it is no laughing matter. or is only the sceptic side required to state facts and warmists can just pluck made up stats out their arse all day and feed them to their gullible virtue signalling mates in the msm to print and broadcast with no thought they might be challenged.the equivalent of the bbc broadcasting facts on commercial airlines provided by that font of aviation knowledge know as plane stupid. i am sure you would be fine with that, not.

then again, if you are only here to troll why would you bother reading links.

It looks like they have made some shoddy mistakes - poor quality stuff from a 'thinktank' - nothing new there then.

I've spotted a mistake in the refutation:

"What is the temperature increase from 1998-2016? According to the Woodforthetrees index, which uses a combination of temperature indices, the linear fit gives a change of 0.15C which is 0.008 °C per year, a third of what the IPPR claim."

No, it's 0.013 using the Woodfortrees combined index so about half of what the IPPR claim (the author hasn't realised that the 'to' date on woodfortrees is non-inclusive). For Gistemp it's 0.018. Dunno where the IPPR got 0.025 from - land only data perhaps?

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 23:05

[deeps]

Vanden Saab said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

How little you know.

Even with a little knowledge it's clear that you are no professor.

You really are not doing yourself any favours, claiming that you know an anonymous person on the Internet isn't who he says he is puts into doubt everything you also claim to know about climate change.

Best policy is always to give them plenty of rope. As sure as the sun rises they will hang themselves

[deeps]

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, I could try and be smart like you and believe everything I read on the internet especially when it involves posters aggrandizing themselves on forums.

I find the irony staggering. 10/10! I don't normally get personal because I don't do pointless bhy bullst, but that one is a classic that has to be quoted!

[deeps]

El stovey said:

Vanden Saab said:

You really are not doing yourself any favours, claiming that you know an anonymous person on the Internet isn't who he says he is puts into doubt everything you also claim to know about climate change.

We all know that you’re a returning banned poster.

By definition that's not true either.

[deeps]

From one piece of Twitter nonsense to another... good old global warming hitting it large

[durbster]

deeps said:

From one piece of Twitter nonsense to another... good old global warming hitting it large

That appears to be some snow.

There's a good article on the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events here:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/how-do-we-...

[stew-STR160]

hairykrishna said:

wc98 said:

i haven't seen anyone on here dispute it either .

Give over. Many (most?) of your fellow sceptics believe that CO2 does essentially nothing. Or that it's effect is already saturated. Or that the fact that a lot of it's absorption bands overlap with water means it's irrelevant.

So, short of us all saying that CO2 is the most important climate forcing thing around, and that it's ALL out of 'balance' because we have put some back into the atmosphere, blah blah blah...

Massively oversimplified.

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

gadgetmac said:

Yeah, I could try and be smart like you and believe everything I read on the internet especially when it involves posters aggrandizing themselves on forums.

I find the irony staggering. 10/10! I don't normally get personal because I don't do pointless bhy bullst, but that one is a classic that has to be quoted!

Ok...quote me bigging myself up....

I'll wait.

But if you don't I'll be back as this is just another misrepresentation/lie.

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

El stovey said:

Vanden Saab said:

You really are not doing yourself any favours, claiming that you know an anonymous person on the Internet isn't who he says he is puts into doubt everything you also claim to know about climate change.

We all know that you’re a returning banned poster.

By definition that's not true either.

Rubbish, it's clear to everyone what that means...except the permanently confused.

[gadgetmac]

Vanden Saab said:

gadgetmac said:

El stovey said:

Vanden Saab said:

You really are not doing yourself any favours, claiming that you know an anonymous person on the Internet isn't who he says he is puts into doubt everything you also claim to know about climate change.

We all know that you’re a returning banned poster.

Crikey, if his foundation for being on PH itself is a lie then why would you believe absolutely anything he posts.

Are you saying it is?

Which bit of "IF his foundation for being on PH..." didn't make it through the visual pathways to register with your brain.

[turbobloke]

El stovey said:

We all know . . . returning banned poster.

All? Another exaggeration / generalisation.

Given that knowledge is a different matter to suspicion, does the above statement not show that sleuthing has taken place contrary to Rule 2 in the PH posting rules? Somebody should notify the UN. Then again maybe not, they'd only get it wrong.

[turbobloke]

Professor emeritus Niels Axel Mörner has popped up above the parapet once again, which may be of interest to politicians and threaders.

https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2019/02/09/12-ik...

Beyond a comment about IPCC climate science being in part “anti-scientific nonsense” which is no surprise, a translation of Morner's content gives the following snips in the context of sea level changes:

Prof Morner said:

Global sea level changes...stem from the solar cycles

The carbon dioxide greenhouse effect has had no place

Looking at the first point, placing solar cycle data against published rate of change of sea level (not just adjusted sea level) gives this, with rate of sea level change in blue/purple and solar in black..



As far as the second point is concerned, given that sea level has been slowly increasing since the end of the LIA, we need to look for accelerated rise in the tax gas era. Research confirms the lack of acceleration, and in fact finds a reproducible slight deceleration in the data. Tax gas on holiday. This has been described as 'proper science' given that the same measurement type is used for extended periods of the same length (decades).

Sources for the above: Woodworth et al, Holgate, Douglas.

Returning to adjustments in sea level data, the Wayback Machine (internet archive) is needed to show what happens. The screenshots below compare data for the same periods in time as published in 2013 and as it was from the same uni source in 2004. Naturally the adjustments confer a significant increase in sea level, as shown by the raw and adjusted data for periods of time in 92/93 and 02/03 at links that still work (for now, though the archive will still work). Feel free to check it out using the URLs shown including the archive by putting 2004 in place of 2013 for the URL in your search as follows: https://web.archive.org/web/20040719102733/http://...

[gadgetmac]

Why are you polluting the Politics thread with Data sets and your comments on them???

And deniers are the trolls...

Anyway, that aside, is that the Niels-axel Morner of whom this was said...

Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."

What a surprise that once again a rogue source is quoted from a retiree. And once again almost nobody is listening to him...can't think why.

[Atomic12C]

gadgetmac said:

And deniers are the trolls...

Anyway, that aside,.....

The strength of evidence will win out the day.

The spurious link that human CO2 emission has had a measurable effect on climate warming, over and above natural variance is very very weak, to the point of non-existence.
The existing datasets are unable to demonstrate it, unless of course one is putting full faith in to the ground temperature data which is being heavily manipulated ?

So any rational person following the debacle can see straight away that the trolling is done by the alarmist agenda and those that follow with blind faith in the religious preachings of its narrative.

[gadgetmac]

Atomic12C said:

A ?

Which bit of what I wrote is incorrect?

Have a back.

Atomic12C said:

The strength of evidence will win out the day.

It has already, you're part of small fringe set along with the good Niels-axel Mother.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Ok fine but appealing to unceratinty over something that could go one way or the other doesn't do much to ameliorate risk. It increases it if anything.

This is the paradox of the 'lukewarmers' - they appeal to uncertainty over things like cloud response and the degree to which natural variability is contributing, but they think global warming can be constrained to a much narrower range than the IPCC does. That doesn't sound like 'uncertainty' to me and more like believerdom.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 14:54

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 13th February 16:44

i'm not interested in ameliorating risk. mainly due to the fact i don't think there is anything being risked by current levels of co2 output . the problems that concern me such as pollution, waste, deforestation,general habitat loss ,over fishing and lack of enforcement of current fishing rules in many places around the globe including the western developed world are there to be addressed right now.

i'm also not interested in anyone's estimated range of temperatures in the future. earth's history already gives us a good idea what they are anyway.somewhere between an ice age and hothouse earth,though given the long term cooling trend of the planet the latter is unlikely. by most metrics the last 30 years have been some of the most benign in terms of weather human history has known. some of this is down to better resilience due to advances in technology but mostly it's down to the lack of big weather driven natural disasters. i just don't see anything to worry about and certainly nothing to invoke the devils spawn that is the "precautionary principle".

So if I understand you correctly, as far as you're concerned, climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates, the planet could rapidly warm several degrees in a short time period, but you see no hazard because the last 30 years have been fine.

Have I got that right?

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

climate sensitivity could be at the high end of estimates

My aunt could be my uncle - even with the chromosomal issue, gender is fluid these days, but so far aunty is still aunty. She's not even a model.

Tax gas has been around for many decades and has increased continuously as a (very small) proportion of atmispheric gases. However it has clearly been on holiday (see below).

Aside from loaded assumptions in useless climate models, where is the credible empirical data in support of the above wild conjecture regarding climate sensitivity?

This is from Scafetta et al (2017) and shows peer-reviewed publications with claimed transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity metrics declining significantly over time as the climate system has refused to read IPCC conjecture (pure & applied) and refused to cooperate with inaccurate model predictions of climageddon. The difference over time is embarrassing to the faith, but then Trenberth has already pointed out that IPCC climate scientists have no idea where energy is going - as previously noted it went thataway ^^,

At least two papers published too late for inclusion in Scafetta's own 2017 paper show even lower climate sensitivity.