Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[PRTVR]

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

mko9 said:

robinessex said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

And what do they use to illustrate the climate emergency? California fires, which are all started by humans deliberately or accidently. Sod all to do with the climate.

More bks:-

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Wild fires having nothing to do with climate? Where do wild fires happen? Rain forests? The antarctic?

Work it out yourself, but I'm not expecting an answer.

They happen in dry places, and are exacerbated by the actions of mankind. California is not dry because of man-made global warming, but it is dry due to climate change. It has been dry for centuries, with periods of extended drought, going back to the end of the last ice age.

Mumbo jumbo rubbish. Nothing you wrote is fact or provable, just the normal guessing. You've also contradicted yourself. Keep up the good work.

Do you think that wild fires are as likely to start and spread in wet places as dry places?

In places that historically have been dry, are fires starting in areas that never had wild fires before ?

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

mko9 said:

robinessex said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

And what do they use to illustrate the climate emergency? California fires, which are all started by humans deliberately or accidently. Sod all to do with the climate.

More bks:-

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Wild fires having nothing to do with climate? Where do wild fires happen? Rain forests? The antarctic?

Work it out yourself, but I'm not expecting an answer.

They happen in dry places, and are exacerbated by the actions of mankind. California is not dry because of man-made global warming, but it is dry due to climate change. It has been dry for centuries, with periods of extended drought, going back to the end of the last ice age.

Mumbo jumbo rubbish. Nothing you wrote is fact or provable, just the normal guessing. You've also contradicted yourself. Keep up the good work.

Do you think that wild fires are as likely to start and spread in wet places as dry places?

In places that historically have been dry, are fires starting in areas that never had wild fires before ?

Doerr and Santin, definitely not known for climate scepticism, have given an update to their 2015 paper showing (data not gigo) that globally, wildfires are still decreasing.

"considering the total area burned at the global level, we are still not seeing an overall increase, but rather a decline"
Pesumably wet wins.

We've had cold is the new warm, more snow less snow, more hurricanes fewer hurricanes, now a wildfire decrease over decades is due to global warming, less extreme is more extreme.

Not surprisingly, politicians' beloved climate models are all over the place, not least with hydrology. Global warming is said to make dry areas drier and wet areas wetter which has become known as the DDWW hypothesis. Unfortunately a 2014 paper showed that this has checked out less than half the time. More recently Underwood (2019) in "What Climate Models Get Wrong About Future Water Availability" used a predictive method based on historical data rather than the agw hypothesis to show that not only is that approach more accurate but also agw climate model ensembles exaggerate extrema and produce less reliable projections. The non-agw approach has more skill.

Even so the article is agw friendly, more or less or less or more. Work that out with a pencil.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 18th April 21:32

[deeps]

Angela Merkel has global warming well under control in Germany this month. Who would have predicted closing down their nuclear options and importing Russian gas would have worked so well. She knew.

Article said:

With a mean temperature of 4.5°C for Germany, April so far continues to be the second coldest since 1881, according to German DWD national weather service records. Only 1917 was colder at a mean of 4.3°C.

[robinessex]

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

mko9 said:

robinessex said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

And what do they use to illustrate the climate emergency? California fires, which are all started by humans deliberately or accidently. Sod all to do with the climate.

More bks:-

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Wild fires having nothing to do with climate? Where do wild fires happen? Rain forests? The antarctic?

Work it out yourself, but I'm not expecting an answer.

They happen in dry places, and are exacerbated by the actions of mankind. California is not dry because of man-made global warming, but it is dry due to climate change. It has been dry for centuries, with periods of extended drought, going back to the end of the last ice age.

Mumbo jumbo rubbish. Nothing you wrote is fact or provable, just the normal guessing. You've also contradicted yourself. Keep up the good work.

Do you think that wild fires are as likely to start and spread in wet places as dry places?

Most wildfires are the result of actions by humans, either deliberate or accidental. The only ignition source from nature is lightning strikes. Nothing to do with CC at all. It's simple to work out if you think about it.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Doerr and Santin, definitely not known for climate scepticism, have given an update to their 2015 paper showing (data not gigo) that globally, wildfires are still decreasing.

"considering the total area burned at the global level, we are still not seeing an overall increase, but rather a decline"
Pesumably wet wins.

We've had cold is the new warm, more snow less snow, more hurricanes fewer hurricanes, now a wildfire decrease over decades is due to global warming, less extreme is more extreme.

Not surprisingly, politicians' beloved climate models are all over the place, not least with hydrology. Global warming is said to make dry areas drier and wet areas wetter which has become known as the DDWW hypothesis. Unfortunately a 2014 paper showed that this has checked out less than half the time. More recently Underwood (2019) in "What Climate Models Get Wrong About Future Water Availability" used a predictive method based on historical data rather than the agw hypothesis to show that not only is that approach more accurate but also agw climate model ensembles exaggerate extrema and produce less reliable projections. The non-agw approach has more skill.

Even so the article is agw friendly, more or less or less or more. Work that out with a pencil.

Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 18th April 21:32

"used a predictive method based on historical data rather than the agw hypothesis"

"The non-AGW approach has more skill"

Stop making things up

[Lotus 50]

kerplunk said:

"used a predictive method based on historical data rather than the agw hypothesis"

"The non-AGW approach has more skill"

Stop making things up

Just for accuracy, here's what the "what climate models..." article said...

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/what-climate-m...

and here's the plain english summary of the paper behind the article (Padron et al)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

'Human?induced emissions of greenhouse gases are warming our planet and if unabated would continue to do so. Projected climate change can affect rainfall, evapotranspiration, and streamflow and hence water availability over land. Climate model projections of future average water availability still vary substantially across different models. We find that part of this disagreement can be explained by the amount of rainfall that each model simulates for the present. In a drying region, for example, if a model has more water in the present, then the simulated loss is likely higher; whereas if it is already dry in the present, then there is only a small amount of water that can be lost. Therefore, we improve the projections by placing more confidence on the accuracy of those climate models whose average rainfall from the past decades is more similar to observed rainfall amounts. We show that previous projections of very extreme future changes in water availability are less likely to occur on 73% of the land's surface. We also provide improved projections of regional changes that are useful for the management of water resources, indicating more drying in the Amazon and less drying in Europe, Southern Africa, and Western North America."

Climate models are used to project what may happen to different variables under a number of different scenarios. Seems to me that a model used to derive projections of one particular aspect of climate may not project another particularly well and some of the scenarios used are more likely to happen than others. As a result some of the outputs are more likely to happen than others. Turns out that the models that best predict past hydrological events provide the best future projections which isn't really surprising.

Aside from taking text from the first article and making it appear as his own, like you I'm not sure where TB's assertion re AGW models comes from. It's certainly wishful thinking on his part - all of the models used are 'AGW models' they took the AGW models that provided better hindcasts and they provided better projections.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Monday 19th April 11:01

[Diderot]

Lotus 50 said:

kerplunk said:

"used a predictive method based on historical data rather than the agw hypothesis"

"The non-AGW approach has more skill"

Stop making things up

Just for accuracy, here's what the "what climate models..." article said...

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/what-climate-m...

and here's the plain english summary of the paper behind the article (Padron et al)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

'Human?induced emissions of greenhouse gases are warming our planet and if unabated would continue to do so. Projected climate change can affect rainfall, evapotranspiration, and streamflow and hence water availability over land. Climate model projections of future average water availability still vary substantially across different models. We find that part of this disagreement can be explained by the amount of rainfall that each model simulates for the present. In a drying region, for example, if a model has more water in the present, then the simulated loss is likely higher; whereas if it is already dry in the present, then there is only a small amount of water that can be lost. Therefore, we improve the projections by placing more confidence on the accuracy of those climate models whose average rainfall from the past decades is more similar to observed rainfall amounts. We show that previous projections of very extreme future changes in water availability are less likely to occur on 73% of the land's surface. We also provide improved projections of regional changes that are useful for the management of water resources, indicating more drying in the Amazon and less drying in Europe, Southern Africa, and Western North America."

Climate models are used to project what may happen to different variables under a number of different scenarios. Seems to me that a model used to derive projections of one particular aspect of climate may not project another particularly well and some of the scenarios used are more likely to happen than others. As a result some of the outputs are more likely to happen than others. Turns out that the models that best predict past hydrological events provide the best future projections which isn't really surprising.

Aside from taking text from the first article and making it appear as his own, like you I'm not sure where TB's assertion re AGW models comes from. It's certainly wishful thinking on his part - all of the models used are 'AGW models' they took the AGW models that provided better hindcasts and they provided better projections.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Monday 19th April 11:01

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.

[Tony427]

Amazing how different ownership of news media can change the message.

Over here we have Sky propaganda every evening in a special climate programme whilst the Aussies Sky team see it differently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRBdy-6nZ0

[kerplunk]

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"

[mybrainhurts]

Tony427 said:

Amazing how different ownership of news media can change the message.

Over here we have Sky propaganda every evening in a special climate programme whilst the Aussies Sky team see it differently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRBdy-6nZ0

Yup, they might be sheep shaggers, but they get the important stuff right...

[hairykrishna]

turbobloke said:

Doerr and Santin, definitely not known for climate scepticism, have given an update to their 2015 paper showing (data not gigo) that globally, wildfires are still decreasing.

"considering the total area burned at the global level, we are still not seeing an overall increase, but rather a decline"
Pesumably wet wins.

We've had cold is the new warm, more snow less snow, more hurricanes fewer hurricanes, now a wildfire decrease over decades is due to global warming, less extreme is more extreme.

The article explains it quite well.

"The global decrease is mostly driven by less fire in savannahs and grasslands, mainly in Africa, but also in South America and Australia. In quantitative terms, fire in those grassy ecosystems account for around 70% of the total global area burnt, so the reduction in fire activity here outweighs the increase in burned area that we are seeing in other parts of the world."

"The decline in global average area burned has indeed been misused to support false claims numerous times. There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change. Even the decrease in fire in tropical savannas that we just mentioned does not mean that climate change is not having an impact there too; actually, quite the opposite. This reduction has been in part attributed to conversion of savanna to agricultural land but, also, to shifting rainfall patterns that reduce the overall flammability of grasslands."


https://royalsociety.org/blog/2020/10/global-trend...

Edited by hairykrishna on Monday 19th April 23:02

[dickymint]

mybrainhurts said:

Tony427 said:

Amazing how different ownership of news media can change the message.

Over here we have Sky propaganda every evening in a special climate programme whilst the Aussies Sky team see it differently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRBdy-6nZ0

Yup, they might be sheep shaggers, but they get the important stuff right...

Same here in Wales

[mybrainhurts]

dickymint said:

mybrainhurts said:

Tony427 said:

Amazing how different ownership of news media can change the message.

Over here we have Sky propaganda every evening in a special climate programme whilst the Aussies Sky team see it differently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRBdy-6nZ0

Yup, they might be sheep shaggers, but they get the important stuff right...

Same here in Wales

Velcro gloves...oof, suit you, sir..

[mybrainhurts]

deeps said:

Angela Merkel has global warming well under control in Germany this month. Who would have predicted closing down their nuclear options and importing Russian gas would have worked so well. She knew.

Article said:

With a mean temperature of 4.5°C for Germany, April so far continues to be the second coldest since 1881, according to German DWD national weather service records. Only 1917 was colder at a mean of 4.3°C.

Not forgetting their new coal fired power stations....36 was it?

[Diderot]

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."

[kerplunk]

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.

[Diderot]

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.

[STR160]

dangerousB said:

I would say this article is more prescient:-

https://abruptearthchanges.com/2019/11/13/i-surviv...

" Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’; ideology is. "

Quite.

[Lotus 50]

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

[STR160]

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

Wonderful. More BS.

Looking forward to revisiting these threads in a couple of decades when the alarmists are still going on about how we're all doomed and start calling for genocide because all of their other brilliant ideas didn't work, and none of their predictions came to pass.