Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

It's sa deeply flawed hypothesis. Further into the article, they suggest:

"To test the above?mentioned hypothesis, we consider P and ET data from climate model simulations of the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). For the reference period 1976–2005, we use data from historical simulations, whereas for the future period 2006–2100, we use data from simulations with the “business as usual” RCP8.5 emissions scenario (Moss et al., 2010)."

RC8.5 isn't business as usual, it's the worst case scenario. Doh.

An odd factor to care about when the results downgrade risk:

"Observational Constraints Reduce Likelihood of Extreme Changes in Multidecadal Land Water Availability"

CF the Zeke Hausfather Nature article. RCP 8.5 simply isn't business as usual. This is lazy research and par for the course.


"RCP8.5 was intended to explore an unlikely high-risk future2. But it has been widely used by some experts, policymakers and the media as something else entirely: as a likely ‘business as usual’ outcome. A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature.

This is particularly problematic when the worst-case scenario is contrasted with the most optimistic one, especially in high-profile scholarly work. This includes studies by the IPCC, such as AR5 and last year’s special report on the impact of climate change on the ocean and cryosphere4. The focus becomes the extremes, rather than the multitude of more likely pathways in between."

Yeah I know.

So they kicked the ball as hard as they could and using observational constraints they got reduced likelhood of extreme effects.

And you're complaining that they kicked the ball so hard.

'Tis all boolax anyway of course. But beyond the bleeding obvious, it demonstrates that the peer review process is at best slapdash since such a fundamental error was not picked up by reviewers or indeed the editors of the journal.

There's no rule to not use high forcing levels in models - that would be censorious and scientifically incurious.

They should probably stop calling 8.5 business as usual though

[robinessex]

[quote=hairykrishna)

There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change.


[/quote]

No there isn't, just those with rose cloured glasses CC want to see.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

As for climate change and forest fires, I've gone through the loop with Robinessex at least 3 times and he still refuses to understand the hydrology so there's no point in trying again...

You can try all you like, as you like science, I'll repeat. Timber requires a temperature of 230C to ignite. The majority of fires are started by humans. The only nature provided ignition source is the occasional lightning strike. Humidity isn't temperature.

PS

Hydrology is the science that encompasses the study of WATER on the Earth's surface and beneath the surface of the Earth, the occurrence and movement of WATER, the physical and chemical properties of WATER, and its relationship with the living and material components of the environment.

[kerplunk]

Lotus 50 said:

As for climate change and forest fires, I've gone through the loop with Robinessex at least 3 times and he still refuses to understand the hydrology so there's no point in trying again...

indeed

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

Lotus 50 said:

As for climate change and forest fires, I've gone through the loop with Robinessex at least 3 times and he still refuses to understand the hydrology so there's no point in trying again...

indeed

Another that doesn't know what he's talking about.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah I know.

So they kicked the ball as hard as they could and using observational constraints they got reduced likelhood of extreme effects.

And you're complaining that they kicked the ball so hard.

Exactly. No response from TB - and no response from TB re my earlier ask for the time series of data showing how solar eruptivity has a stronger relationship to the increase in global temps over the last 200 years than GHGs either. The evidence he's put forward might suggest a 20 year (or so) cycle but where's the evidence for a longer-term increase as opposed to noise on the longer term trend...?

As for climate change and forest fires, I've gone through the loop with Robinessex at least 3 times and he still refuses to understand the hydrology so there's no point in trying again...

Meanwhile:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

Edited by Lotus 50 on Tuesday 20th April 09:10

Did you read the comments section of that? Looks like CC believers are in the minority

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

Lotus 50 said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah I know.

So they kicked the ball as hard as they could and using observational constraints they got reduced likelhood of extreme effects.

And you're complaining that they kicked the ball so hard.

Exactly. No response from TB - and no response from TB re my earlier ask for the time series of data showing how solar eruptivity has a stronger relationship to the increase in global temps over the last 200 years than GHGs either. The evidence he's put forward might suggest a 20 year (or so) cycle but where's the evidence for a longer-term increase as opposed to noise on the longer term trend...?

As for climate change and forest fires, I've gone through the loop with Robinessex at least 3 times and he still refuses to understand the hydrology so there's no point in trying again...

Meanwhile:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

Edited by Lotus 50 on Tuesday 20th April 09:10

Did you read the comments section of that? Looks like CC believers are in the minority

Very few denying CC in fact.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Lotus 50 said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah I know.

So they kicked the ball as hard as they could and using observational constraints they got reduced likelhood of extreme effects.

And you're complaining that they kicked the ball so hard.

Exactly. No response from TB - and no response from TB re my earlier ask for the time series of data showing how solar eruptivity has a stronger relationship to the increase in global temps over the last 200 years than GHGs either. The evidence he's put forward might suggest a 20 year (or so) cycle but where's the evidence for a longer-term increase as opposed to noise on the longer term trend...?

As for climate change and forest fires, I've gone through the loop with Robinessex at least 3 times and he still refuses to understand the hydrology so there's no point in trying again...

Meanwhile:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

Edited by Lotus 50 on Tuesday 20th April 09:10

Did you read the comments section of that? Looks like CC believers are in the minority

Very few denying CC in fact.

Pointing out the government's CC stance is bks, mostly a waste of time. Certainly, no enthusiasm detected.

[Randy Winkman]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

Lotus 50 said:

kerplunk said:

Yeah I know.

So they kicked the ball as hard as they could and using observational constraints they got reduced likelhood of extreme effects.

And you're complaining that they kicked the ball so hard.

Exactly. No response from TB - and no response from TB re my earlier ask for the time series of data showing how solar eruptivity has a stronger relationship to the increase in global temps over the last 200 years than GHGs either. The evidence he's put forward might suggest a 20 year (or so) cycle but where's the evidence for a longer-term increase as opposed to noise on the longer term trend...?

As for climate change and forest fires, I've gone through the loop with Robinessex at least 3 times and he still refuses to understand the hydrology so there's no point in trying again...

Meanwhile:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

Edited by Lotus 50 on Tuesday 20th April 09:10

Did you read the comments section of that? Looks like CC believers are in the minority

Very few denying CC in fact.

Pointing out the government's CC stance is bks, mostly a waste of time. Certainly, no enthusiasm detected.

Is being bo****ks and a waste of time limited only to this government's climate change policy?

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

You can try all you like, as you like science, I'll repeat. Timber requires a temperature of 230C to ignite. The majority of fires are started by humans. The only nature provided ignition source is the occasional lightning strike. Humidity isn't temperature.

PS

Hydrology is the science that encompasses the study of WATER on the Earth's surface and beneath the surface of the Earth, the occurrence and movement of WATER, the physical and chemical properties of WATER, and its relationship with the living and material components of the environment.

I'm very well aware of what hydrology is. What you don't get is the link between a lack of water (and how climate change can make that worse) and the increased severity of fires. It's not about who starts them it's what happens once they've started. I've explained it to you several times and provided backup info to demonstrate what I'm saying. You're clearly incapable of understanding it so I'm not going to try again.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Did you read the comments section of that? Looks like CC believers are in the minority

If that's the case then why is the Govt bringing forward the net zero target? - they (and all of the other UK political parties) clearly believe it's a big enough problem for them to act, and to show political leadership, without losing significant numbers of votes.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

You can try all you like, as you like science, I'll repeat. Timber requires a temperature of 230C to ignite. The majority of fires are started by humans. The only nature provided ignition source is the occasional lightning strike. Humidity isn't temperature.

PS

Hydrology is the science that encompasses the study of WATER on the Earth's surface and beneath the surface of the Earth, the occurrence and movement of WATER, the physical and chemical properties of WATER, and its relationship with the living and material components of the environment.

I'm very well aware of what hydrology is. What you don't get is the link between a lack of water (and how climate change can make that worse) and the increased severity of fires. It's not about who starts them it's what happens once they've started. I've explained it to you several times and provided backup info to demonstrate what I'm saying. You're clearly incapable of understanding it so I'm not going to try again.

These fires are happening in temperatures, at the most, only a couple of degree hotter than usual, I don't think it matters diddly squat. The wind at the scene of these fires is the major factor in their severity. Climate change is NOT CAUSING MORE FIRES, which is what all the references to them tries to infer.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

If that's the case then why is the Govt bringing forward the net zero target

Because the idiot politicians think they can control the climate, and this will do just that,. Delusional is the only way to understand their logic.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

These fires are happening in temperatures, at the most, only a couple of degree hotter than usual, I don't think it matters diddly squat. The wind at the scene of these fires is the major factor in their severity. Climate change is NOT CAUSING MORE FIRES, which is what all the references to them tries to infer.

Rob, we've been through this several times. Each time I've challenged you to provide an example of a reference in the news that says that climate change is causing more fires and each time you've failed. It isn't the number of fires it's the severity of the fires and a key cause of the increased severity is increased drought.

[Kawasicki]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

These fires are happening in temperatures, at the most, only a couple of degree hotter than usual, I don't think it matters diddly squat. The wind at the scene of these fires is the major factor in their severity. Climate change is NOT CAUSING MORE FIRES, which is what all the references to them tries to infer.

Rob, we've been through this several times. Each time I've challenged you to provide an example of a reference in the news that says that climate change is causing more fires and each time you've failed. It isn't the number of fires it's the severity of the fires and a key cause of the increased severity is increased drought.

Where is the evidence that drought has increased?

https://theconversation.com/global-drought-has-not...

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Because the idiot politicians think they can control the climate, and this will do just that,. Delusional is the only way to understand their logic.

It's clearly not a major vote loser so that strongly suggests that those that don't believe in people's influence on climate are a minority.

[Lotus 50]

Kawasicki said:

Where is the evidence that drought has increased?

https://theconversation.com/global-drought-has-not...

They may not have globally but why don't you look at the link between drought and the location of wildfires?

[dickymint]

Kawasicki said:

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

These fires are happening in temperatures, at the most, only a couple of degree hotter than usual, I don't think it matters diddly squat. The wind at the scene of these fires is the major factor in their severity. Climate change is NOT CAUSING MORE FIRES, which is what all the references to them tries to infer.

Rob, we've been through this several times. Each time I've challenged you to provide an example of a reference in the news that says that climate change is causing more fires and each time you've failed. It isn't the number of fires it's the severity of the fires and a key cause of the increased severity is increased drought.

Where is the evidence that drought has increased?

https://theconversation.com/global-drought-has-not...

And then there’s “CC causes more rain” oops

[Kawasicki]

Lotus 50 said:

Kawasicki said:

Where is the evidence that drought has increased?

https://theconversation.com/global-drought-has-not...

They may not have globally but why don't you look at the link between drought and the location of wildfires?

Global drought hasn't increased, global wildfires also haven't increased. Due to natural variation some areas will have more droughts and other areas will have less droughts. You saying that CO2 is responsible for increased drought in some regions is about as logical as me saying that increased CO2 is responsible for less drought in some areas.

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 20th April 16:41

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

Each time I've challenged you to provide an example of a reference in the news that says that climate change is causing more fires and each time you've failed.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-a-climate-emergency-and-were-going-to-say-so/




Increasingly dangerous wildfires are just one consequence of climate change. Here, a man watches in 2013 as the Springs fire in California approaches. Credit: David McNew Getty Images