Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

BBC News is reporting that our electricity network needs around £60bn of upgrades to hit government's 2035 (watch this date change again) decarbonisation targeting. HS2 total cost would be approx the same, slightly more iirc, and we already spent a large chunk of it. I'd include a short quote and an attributed image of the news, in a news thread, within copyright rules, but a melon may be twisted so that'll do. As for a link, find it - I did

Cancel the unaffordable pylons then cancel Net Zero which is properly costed beyond the curiously common errors in four separate 'official' costings as more than one HST every year to 2050. See earlier post content, copyright PH.
.

Good to see the BBC are balanced. Phew.

I wonder why BBC did not report on the Eike research. Probably because they are biased.....

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

There are so many messengers to shoot (video below) there's going to be a shortage of ammo on the thread. It's a long one from Martin Durkin, doing a somewhat drawn-out Hulme two-worder, with a good degree of success and few wrinkles. Grab a beer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op1xtxEgz_Y

In case of no cold beer, the politics of climate starts at 55m.

I see what you mean - that's a boat load of conspiratorial shooting of messengers going on there.

Of course, I realise that's not what you really meant - that would be bestowing you with self-awareness which I don't think is your strong point

I liked the sciencey bits best. Durkin still sticking with the cosmic ray theory proponents I see - apparently when solar activity is low it gets colder.

Lot's of talking heads getting behind the CO2 lag in the ice cores - that's a credibilty red flag in my book

Follow the data! But let's denounce the surface data - naturally

[turbobloke]

More previously hidden costs of Net Zero climate policy emerge in a tale of obvious unaffordability and massive debt from the fantasies of zealots.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/more-fantasy...

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

More previously hidden costs of Net Zero climate policy emerge in a tale of obvious unaffordability and massive debt from the fantasies of zealots.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/more-fantasy...

Have you not posted exactly the same story from 2 different sources? Thank though. £40 per annum is not too bad then....almost as bad as the sea is boiling cliches used.....

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Phud said:

mike9009 said:

It is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.

The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.

But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....

Mike9009, please can you point out anybody you know who says the climate is not changing. Then point out to me where the climate has remained steady for a period of time, any period over a decade

Climate has always changed from chaotic short term variations to longer term trends. Not sure I have stated differently in my post? The concern at present is the rate of change in a short space of time. The issue for denialists is there is no data supporting an assignable cause for the rapid rate of change....in fact in this thread it has been hypothesized there would be cooling now due to reducing solar activity.

Phud said:

Could you explain the changing titles with regards what is going on, yet with such settled sicence the deep currents, upwelling and combining layers, as well as deep salinity lakes are not understood.

I am afraid I don't understand what you are talking about. Care to provide a link?

Your claim that the current rate of climate change is especially high needs data to support it. Without data it’s just an empty claim.

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

More previously hidden costs of Net Zero climate policy emerge in a tale of obvious unaffordability and massive debt from the fantasies of zealots.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/more-fantasy...

Have you not posted exactly the same story from 2 different sources? Thank though. £40 per annum is not too bad then....almost as bad as the sea is boiling cliches used.....

"Climate change - the POLITICAL debate" ...... got anything to add to it as your obsession is getting boring!

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Phud said:

mike9009 said:

It is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.

The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.

But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....

Mike9009, please can you point out anybody you know who says the climate is not changing. Then point out to me where the climate has remained steady for a period of time, any period over a decade

Climate has always changed from chaotic short term variations to longer term trends. Not sure I have stated differently in my post? The concern at present is the rate of change in a short space of time. The issue for denialists is there is no data supporting an assignable cause for the rapid rate of change....in fact in this thread it has been hypothesized there would be cooling now due to reducing solar activity.

Phud said:

Could you explain the changing titles with regards what is going on, yet with such settled sicence the deep currents, upwelling and combining layers, as well as deep salinity lakes are not understood.

I am afraid I don't understand what you are talking about. Care to provide a link?

Your claim that the current rate of climate change is especially high needs data to support it. Without data it’s just an empty claim.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

[mike9009]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

More previously hidden costs of Net Zero climate policy emerge in a tale of obvious unaffordability and massive debt from the fantasies of zealots.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/more-fantasy...

Have you not posted exactly the same story from 2 different sources? Thank though. £40 per annum is not too bad then....almost as bad as the sea is boiling cliches used.....

"Climate change - the POLITICAL debate" ...... got anything to add to it as your obsession is getting boring!

Glad you are getting bored of reason, common sense and facts.

I was getting bored of misleading, questionable propaganda. But that IS politics

At least we are quits now ....

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

The issue for denialists is there is no data supporting an assignable cause for the rapid rate of change....in fact in this thread it has been hypothesized there would be cooling now due to reducing solar activity.

Ad hom fallacy (denialists) Null Points. Climate has always changed, always will. Your problem is the lack of causality objectively and unambiguously assigned to humans, at present it's the subjetive view of a few dozen political appointees as per the paoer from Hulme +1 cited recently.

The sun's activity isn't reducing right now, solar maximum has been building in 2023-2024, and is expected to peak 2024-2026. The hypothesised reduction in activity over a longer timescale of the past few cycles has already been noted. Cycle 23 which ended in 2008 was weaker than 2022 to an unexpected degree, unexpected in terms of orthodox climate rhetoric. It had a decrease of 37% (sunspot area) and 46% (facular area). Can't find the coronal hole measures to add a more complete record of relevant solar eruptivity (Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha) to the mix with solar irradiance, never mind.

The projecions based on solar data you refer to involve ~2030 (Landscheidt) and ~2050 (Abdusamatov) not 2024. To avoid looking so uninformed, why not look stuff up somewhere with accurate information e.g. the scientific literature as above...IPCC won't help here.

There's no recent rapid rate of change as per your claim, it's nowhere near unprecedented. The extent and rate of change in the past 100 years has been unremarkable and pedestrian. For rapid change see papers from e.g. Cortijo et al 1997, Clark et al 2002, Alley et al 2003. The extent and rate of change noted in these and similar papers involves rapid shifts of 8 deg C (and more) in 30 to 50 years. UAH LTT v6 has the recent rate of change at barely more than 0.1 deg C in a decade (Global Temperature Report 2022). Could your claim be more wrong - rhetorical question.

There's low accuracy and value in the naked assertions you're offering with ad homs to go, assertions which are curiously similar to UN IPCC / activist alarmism, though the spelling is OK and we've now gone through another attrition loop seen several times in the last 20 years on PH climate threads. Lucky us.

The politics here is mainly in the lack of relevant information reaching politicians, they get soaked in the same dross about 'unprecedented' and the rest, while not thinking to look for themselves. They don't know, or want to know, so policy is a massive, expensive and dangerous snafu.

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

I was getting bored of misleading, questionable propaganda.

Don't parrot it then.

[mike9009]

On 20th March 2024, the Antarctic sea ice extent was the lowest recorded since 1979 excluding 2023 and 2017.

This is my secondary research based on primary data by NSIDC.

[mike9009]

turbobloke in 2015 said:

Bashkirtsev and Mashnich (2003) note that "a number of publications report that the anthropogenic impact on the Earth's climate is an obvious and proven fact" when "none of the investigations dealing with the anthropogenic impact on climate convincingly argues for such an impact" and "solar activity during the (solar) cycles 24 and 25 will be, as expected, even lower" while "according to Chistyakov (1996, 2000), the minimum of the secular cycle of solar activity will fall on cycle 25 (2021-2026), which will result in the minimum global temperature of the surface air".

Which is available to politicians for policymaking purposes while being clear and testable...unlike global warming which produces warming and cooling, fewer hurricanes and more hurricanes, less snow and more snow (etc). What's more it passes the test - so far - as Cycle 24 has indeed proved to be 'even lower' as per the 2003 paper comment above.



Buy Damart and candles.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1470667&i=5480

Just a reminder about the impact of solar activity.

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

On 20th March 2024, the Antarctic sea ice extent was the lowest recorded since 1979 excluding 2023 and 2017.

This is my secondary research based on primary data by NSIDC.

Got any politics?.................


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

[kerplunk]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke in 2015 said:

Bashkirtsev and Mashnich (2003) note that "a number of publications report that the anthropogenic impact on the Earth's climate is an obvious and proven fact" when "none of the investigations dealing with the anthropogenic impact on climate convincingly argues for such an impact" and "solar activity during the (solar) cycles 24 and 25 will be, as expected, even lower" while "according to Chistyakov (1996, 2000), the minimum of the secular cycle of solar activity will fall on cycle 25 (2021-2026), which will result in the minimum global temperature of the surface air".

Which is available to politicians for policymaking purposes while being clear and testable...unlike global warming which produces warming and cooling, fewer hurricanes and more hurricanes, less snow and more snow (etc). What's more it passes the test - so far - as Cycle 24 has indeed proved to be 'even lower' as per the 2003 paper comment above.



Buy Damart and candles.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1470667&i=5480

Just a reminder about the impact of solar activity.

Another one:

turbobloke said:

PR content from the USA SSRC awaiting headline slot on the BBC website.


Space and Science Research Corporation
PO Box 607841
Orlando
FL 32860 TEL: (407) 667-????
www.spaceandscience.net

New Cold Climate to Devastate Global Agriculture within Ten Years

Thursday, April 30, 2015 Press Release 2-2015 9:00 AM EDT

The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) announces today that the predicted new cold climate will soon begin to end the historic era of growth in US and global agricultural output that began after the end of World War II.

Specifically, as a result of recent events on the Sun and changes in the Earth’s climate, the SSRC again warns that record crop yields and volume in the US and Canadian corn, wheat, and soybean belts are about to end. The SSRC expects the first substantial damage could be observed at any time but certainly within the next ten years.

This new announcement is based on a well researched set of new climate trends of oceanic and atmospheric temperatures, and solar activity.

It is entirely possible that the decades-long period of record global agricultural output that our world has enjoyed will soon be over, perhaps for many decades.

This ominous prediction is accentuated by the fact that governments worldwide and their agricultural corporations, systems, and farmers, are preparing for more global warming and doing nothing to adapt to the ongoing transition to a new potentially dangerous cold climate.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1470667&i=1220

[deeps]

mike9009 said:

On 20th March 2024, the Antarctic sea ice extent was the lowest recorded since 1979 excluding 2023 and 2017.

This is my secondary research based on primary data by NSIDC.

What about the all important Antarctica land based ice?

I hear they've been having record breaking low temperatures in that neck of the woods?

I guess that's pretty good as around 90% of the planet's ice is there and probably unlikely to melt at minus 50 or so.

[micky g]

mike9009 said:

On 20th March 2024, the Antarctic sea ice extent was the lowest recorded since 1979 excluding 2023 and 2017.

This is my secondary research based on primary data by NSIDC.

Satellite measurement of sea ice began in 1979 so that's hardly surprising. The Antarctic sea ice coverage had increased year on year up to around 2015 so what point are you trying to make? What was the driver behind the increased sea ice coverage?

[durbster]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

On 20th March 2024, the Antarctic sea ice extent was the lowest recorded since 1979 excluding 2023 and 2017.

This is my secondary research based on primary data by NSIDC.

Got any politics?.................


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

Have you? Your total contribution to this thread is harrassing anyone who calls out turbobloke's bullst.

[durbster]

micky g said:

mike9009 said:

On 20th March 2024, the Antarctic sea ice extent was the lowest recorded since 1979 excluding 2023 and 2017.

This is my secondary research based on primary data by NSIDC.

Satellite measurement of sea ice began in 1979 so that's hardly surprising. The Antarctic sea ice coverage had increased year on year up to around 2015 so what point are you trying to make? What was the driver behind the increased sea ice coverage?

It's worth pointing out there's always been huge uncertainty around Antarctica because it's so massive and there's so little data. But yeah, it has been quite stable until recently and hasn't seen anything like the kind of extraordinary changes in the northern hemisphere.

However, turbobloke's claim that this is contrary to "alarmist predictions" is another misrepresentation. It looks like Antarctica's response to global warming is pretty much in line with what was expected.

This is what the IPCC's AR4 report in 2007 says:

IPCC said:

Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and gain mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.

Source

Sounds about right when compared with observations.

[turbobloke]

NSIDC is suffering from an average lag in its narrative. In recent months, arctic sea ice has continued a recent and rapid regrowth. Reporting this in at least two ways is possible, it can be decribed in order as Nth lowest, or the Mth highest since X or Y. The choices made aren't surprising. Average can be taken by ignoring the latest decade of data and using 1981-2010 for comparison, when taking 1991-2020 gives a different picture. Why not use 1991-2020 for comparison purposes, could a political angle be at work (rhetorical question). The lit shows ocean currents and atmospheric circulation patterns are at work in short term cyclic changes. Sir Atty has told BBC viewers that arctic summer ice could vanish by 2035. Could and could not. This recent episode of chewing the could was was based, no surprises, on computer modelling. All previous computer model sea ice predictions now timed out have been duff. Computers can't cope with ocean currents and atmospheric circulation patterns well enough, though assumptions and tuned prameterisations in place of science don't help in the Adjustocene. MSM parrots the rhetoric without challenge and politicians read the doom version, out of date or not, thus helping the policy snafu to grind on.

Following a post giving a link that wasn't the link, NSIDC is easy to find.

[turbobloke]

PS credible information contrary to fashionable narrative and associated political policy is also easy to find. Be like the arctic climate and cycle (along to google).

Try an online image search for the following term and consider the first hit:
1922 arctic ocean getting warm seals vanish icebergs melt

Also try a standard search on the following term and read the first hit:
Statement on Arctic Climate Change from the President of the Royal Society 1817

One is a newspaper report from 1922 and the other involves minutes of the RS i.e. President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 and both are repeated at numerous secondary sources.