Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

I can find no mention of an unprecedented rate of climate change in mike9009's posts.

I'm quite happy to call +1C in 50yrs rapid myself, especially in the context of a likelihood for that rate of change to continue leading to +3C in just 150yrs which would be a profound change in a very short period of time.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 22 March 21:34

Yes, he didn’t use the word unprecedented. He did say that the concern at present is the rate of change in a short space of time.

You’re happy to call 1C in 50 years rapid. That’s a subjective judgment, which you are 100% free to make.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Talking of things clearly <not> unprecedented, there's a good supply of climate politics nonsense in the news as usual, with an expected dose of litigiousness.

-Heartland Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and National Legal & Policy Center are suing the US gov't over offshore unreliables and whale deaths (surely land-based bat and bird slaughter by turbines should be in the same box)

Thanks, a purely political move. Right whales are mainly dieing due to getting entangled in fishing nets and vessel strikes.
And no reported deaths due to static objects - there are already turbines off the east coast of US.
I note the concern of the heartland institute does not extend to the fishing industry too.

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Talking of things clearly <not> unprecedented, there's a good supply of climate politics nonsense in the news as usual, with an expected dose of litigiousness.

-Heartland Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and National Legal & Policy Center are suing the US gov't over offshore unreliables and whale deaths (surely land-based bat and bird slaughter by turbines should be in the same box)

Thanks, a purely political move. Right whales are mainly dieing due to getting entangled in fishing nets and vessel strikes.
And no reported deaths due to static objects - there are already turbines off the east coast of US.
I note the concern of the heartland institute does not extend to the fishing industry too.

There's been a concerted campaign trying to draw a line under whale deaths linked to offshore turbines, as per the slaughter of thousands of bats and raptors on land which has worked well, but it doesn't add up to anything more than a concerted PR campaign, no doubt well-funded. The proliferation of fact checks and smokescreen articles online is a sign of this, fact is awol along with eufficient checking. Mentions of static objects ^ suggests some sort of subsurface event involving contact, but as with bats where nothing more than a pressure difference is needed to cause death, there's no need for a static object offshore to get whales to beach and die.

Limited experiments lay claim to there being no impact form land based turbine infrasound on humans, of these examples not all cover the impact of infrasound on buildings which creates low level audible noise due to resonance and overtone frequencies, while some do manage to avoid the social pressure from greenism and indicate harnful psychological effects from this. How many whale psychologists are involved in studies, how many whale psychologists are there? The arrogance of humans knows few bounds, as per considering as even remotely feasible that politicians can control a complex non-linear coupled chaotic planetary climate system part-time via taxation and nudge theory.

Acoustic signals from surveying, also drilling offshore, together with infrasound 2Hz to 10Hz (and above) which incliudes frequencies beyond our audible range from blade rotation, can interfere with whale communication and navigation. Whale vocalisation starts at 10-50Hz. Infrasound has low attenuation over very long distances. As with other aspects of this tale of poor policymaking, there's no evidence to show conclusively that whale comms and navigation are immune to offshore subsidy farming, but as you would expect there's lots of assertion by unreliable energy activists and vested interests. The longer research goes on and the more widespread news of the climate crirsis lie becomes, more will be said on this for sure.

[mike9009]

Did I mention bats? I may have mentioned squirrel. The lawsuit posted by you was about Right Whales. Offshore drilling for oil must also concern you and the plight of the Right Whales?

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 23 March 09:59

[turbobloke]

Having read around the impact of Prof Mike Hulme's "climate crisis = noble lie" intervention, I found another Hulmism referred to which states that in the case of climate change it's not appropriate or helpful for climate politics to proceed under the limiting and dangerous 'states of emergency' being introduced, as they constrain responses and threaten democracy. This ties in with his 'noble lie' writing; if and when I locate the primary source and have the actual words used, I'll post a brief enough quote together with a link if one exists. Prof Hulme is talking a lot of sense atm.

[durbster]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

I can find no mention of an unprecedented rate of climate change in mike9009's posts.

I'm quite happy to call +1C in 50yrs rapid myself, especially in the context of a likelihood for that rate of change to continue leading to +3C in just 150yrs which would be a profound change in a very short period of time.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 22 March 21:34

Yes, he didn’t use the word unprecedented. He did say that the concern at present is the rate of change in a short space of time.

You’re happy to call 1C in 50 years rapid. That’s a subjective judgment, which you are 100% free to make.

Turbobloke using "rapid" to describe Arctic sea ice undergoing a rate of change that isn't particularly notable in the record = silence.
mike9009 using "rapid" to describe temperatures undergoing the fastest rate of change in human history = OMG calling it "rapid" is so misleading.

turbobloke said:

...arctic sea ice has continued a recent and rapid regrowth.

[turbobloke]

On revisiting a research publication recently cited which found from radiative data (LW) that 100 years of increasing carbon dioxide levels saw no discernible impact on the greenhouse effect, there was a note at the foot of the paper that no funding was received to carry out the research, which was undertaken out of scientific curiousity. No funding from Big Oil! No funding from politicians doling out public money - paying the paper and calling the tune couldn't apply that way either.

It reminded me of this, an exchange in Parliament between an MP and a Minister for Manbeapig with funds to dole out. As Hansard is an open source through the Government Open Parliament Licence (this sentence acknowledges Hansard):



The playing field is not only far from level, it has only one side to it.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Wrong. I have no problem acknowledging these claims if they are real. Out of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning decades, the idea that a few would have taken a punt on Arctic ice doing something dramatic isn't a surprise.

You are attempting at drawing an equivalence here. There's no equivalence - it changes nothing about my stated views if I acknowledge that a random person predicted 2015 as you claim (no evidence provided of course). I have never put much stock in outlier views like that. I've always said I'll follow the weight of evidence and there's never been a consensus for those claims.

And that's where your equivalence fails. I can acknowledge that kind of thing because it doesn't change anything for me, but you and turbobloke can't acknowledge your own failed predictions because doing so would threaten your whole ideology. There's nothing else for you to believe but the truth.

So it's your turn - do you accept you got it wrong about global cooling?

What 'weight of evidence' are you talking about other than model projections (which tun too hot)?

It is remarkable that after 15 years posting about climate change, you still don't actually know what the scientific basis is.

Diderot said:

What has my post about possible cooling from 2011 got to do with anything? I am not a climate scientist, my views do not influence climate policy or get picked up by the media and disseminated widely.

Oh, you're talking about Prof Wadhams. Yes, he said that and he was wrong but his comments obviously didn't influence policy so your point is a dud. Policy is driven primarily by the IPCC reports and they have never included such claims.

Why it matters is that you believed the global cooling scientists (I see your attempt to backpedal by saying "possible" cooling ). Those scientists didn't just get the rate of change wrong as Prof Wadhams did, they predicted a totally different direction.

Have you ever terrorised them for this? Do you repeatedly refer to their failed predictions and how their science is junk? Of course not, and that's because your position is not rational, it is ideological and therefore you will only ever be angry about what they tell you to be angry about.

Diderot said:

The fact remains that the history of climate science is littered with failed predictions that have never come to pass, but these predictions do influence policy.

As earlier, this is just wrong. The two predictions you have from seven decades of research did not define a single policy. The actual science that is used to drive policy been more than accurate enough to pass the test for setting policy.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Wrong. I have no problem acknowledging these claims if they are real. Out of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning decades, the idea that a few would have taken a punt on Arctic ice doing something dramatic isn't a surprise.

You are attempting at drawing an equivalence here. There's no equivalence - it changes nothing about my stated views if I acknowledge that a random person predicted 2015 as you claim (no evidence provided of course). I have never put much stock in outlier views like that. I've always said I'll follow the weight of evidence and there's never been a consensus for those claims.

And that's where your equivalence fails. I can acknowledge that kind of thing because it doesn't change anything for me, but you and turbobloke can't acknowledge your own failed predictions because doing so would threaten your whole ideology. There's nothing else for you to believe but the truth.

So it's your turn - do you accept you got it wrong about global cooling?

What 'weight of evidence' are you talking about other than model projections (which tun too hot)?

It is remarkable that after 15 years posting about climate change, you still don't actually know what the scientific basis is.

If there was a thread irony award then that would win.

Climate modelling is the basis, climate models aren't science (they can't cope with much of it and use lots of tuned parametetrisations instead). Climate models are, as noted in the peer-reviewed literature, falsified a priori and also (if that wasn't enough) by hypothesis testing against data.

There is no basis whatsoever for using such models in policymaking, neither assertion nor belief offer a valid reason.

[turbobloke]

As per Folland of Met Office and IPCC vintage - the data don't matter, we're (they're) not basing recommendations (to government) on the data, we're (they're) basing them on the climate models.

The rest is unfortunate history. ETA.,,,relocated something on the Pygmalion Effect https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-love-of-a-model-...

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 23 March 11:59

[kerplunk]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

Mike, Google Younger Dryas.

Thanks. Interesting why such a temp change in a short period of time in a different geographic locations happened. I suspect we would probably know if we had the same satellite data and observation at the time.

Genuinely appreciated!! Good to learn more....

Always good to learn more. I do every day.

What we can deduce from the Younger Dryas event is it wasn't due to humans. Moreover, the very modest and slow rate of change since the Little Ice Age is not unprecedented in its scale or speed, nowhere near it. No need to be alarmed.

Obviously, I have a different takeaway from reading about it. Other than Younger Dryas was not caused by humans. But you knew that and I don't think I used the word unprecedented.... Yamaha did.

No need to be alarmed - earth has experienced some mad abrupt climate shifts in the past. Riiight

Also read up on Dansgaard-Oescher events and Heinrich events. The evidence seems to be that earth has experienced some astonishing abrupt climate shifts in the past during the last glacial period, and in the transition from glacial to interglacial. The younger dryas was the last abrupt shift before things settled down into the relatively stable climate of the last ten thousand or so years.

But now humans are prodding the beasty with a stick - faster than our ability to truly understand the consequences (to quote Stephen Schneider).

I like to think those abrupt shifts in the past are intrinsically linked to a world more extensively covered in ice sheets than what it is now, and so the human perturbation is unlikely to invoke such mad wobbles, but there is no precedent for the current situation to go by

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It is remarkable that after 15 years posting about climate change, you still don't actually know what the scientific basis is.

If there was a thread irony award then that would win.

Climate modelling is the basis, climate models aren't science (they can't cope with much of it and use lots of tuned parametetrisations instead). Climate models are, as noted in the peer-reviewed literature, falsified a priori and also (if that wasn't enough) by hypothesis testing against data.

There is no basis whatsoever for using such models in policymaking, neither assertion nor belief offer a valid reason.

Nope. The basis is the laws of physics and we have enough observational data and physical evidence now to test the theory. This theory predates the first models by a century and a half, so it's impossible for the models to be the basis.

Climate models are simply a tool that attempts to apply the theory to make long-term projections. They've done a good job of that so have been incredibly useful, but if they had got it wrong it wouldn't necessarily disprove the theory.

On the other hand, you opted for some global cooling scientists and according to all the evidence and data available, their theory has failed the scientific test.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

As per Folland of Met Office and IPCC vintage - the data don't matter, we're (they're) not basing recommendations (to government) on the data, we're (they're) basing them on the climate models.

The rest is unfortunate history. ETA.,,,relocated something on the Pygmalion Effect https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-love-of-a-model-...

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 23 March 11:59

To re-iterate once again - Chris Folland never said "the data don't matter". He was basically saying that at that time in 1993 the observed warming was short and didn't yet constitute a 'human 'signal' and so they were basing their recommendations on the models and not on the obs to date.

In the same letter to Physics World he also said, in the future the data would become more important as the human signal emerges (if the models are right) and that's why they are investing in improving the observational databases.

A few years ago turbobloke posted a snipped version of the letter that cut out the part about the data becoming more important in the future and outright denied Folland had said it after Folland claimed that's what he had said, essentially calling Folland a liar

No unsnipped version of the letter could be found on the internet (though turbobloke clearly had a copy but didn't post it when asked to) so I emailed Chris Folland and he sent me the whole letter.




(click on the letter and then click on it again to see a readable version)

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 13:51

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It is remarkable that after 15 years posting about climate change, you still don't actually know what the scientific basis is.

If there was a thread irony award then that would win.

Climate modelling is the basis, climate models aren't science (they can't cope with much of it and use lots of tuned parametetrisations instead). Climate models are, as noted in the peer-reviewed literature, falsified a priori and also (if that wasn't enough) by hypothesis testing against data.

There is no basis whatsoever for using such models in policymaking, neither assertion nor belief offer a valid reason.

Nope. The basis is the laws of physics and we have enough observational data and physical evidence now to test the theory. This theory predates the first models by a century and a half, so it's impossible for the models to be the basis.

Climate models are simply a tool that attempts to apply the theory to make long-term projections. They've done a good job of that so have been incredibly useful, but if they had got it wrong it wouldn't necessarily disprove the theory.

On the other hand, you opted for some global cooling scientists and according to all the evidence and data available, their theory has failed the scientific test.

A complete bag of wind. Again, you are trying to predict what a chaotic system is going to do, which according to the mathematician Edward Lorenz:-

Please note that Edward Lorenz was one of the scientist you worship, he's on your side of the fence, and he's said:

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Edward Norton Lorenz (May 23, 1917 – April 16, 2008) was an American mathematician and meteorologist who established the theoretical basis of weather and climate predictability, as well as the basis for computer-aided atmospheric physics and meteorology. He is best known as the founder of modern chaos theory, a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

It is remarkable that after 15 years posting about climate change, you still don't actually know what the scientific basis is.

If there was a thread irony award then that would win.

Climate modelling is the basis, climate models aren't science (they can't cope with much of it and use lots of tuned parametetrisations instead). Climate models are, as noted in the peer-reviewed literature, falsified a priori and also (if that wasn't enough) by hypothesis testing against data.

There is no basis whatsoever for using such models in policymaking, neither assertion nor belief offer a valid reason.

Nope. The basis is the laws of physics and we have enough observational data and physical evidence now to test the theory. This theory predates the first models by a century and a half, so it's impossible for the models to be the basis.

Climate models are simply a tool that attempts to apply the theory to make long-term projections. They've done a good job of that so have been incredibly useful, but if they had got it wrong it wouldn't necessarily disprove the theory.

On the other hand, you opted for some global cooling scientists and according to all the evidence and data available, their theory has failed the scientific test.

A complete bag of wind. Again, you are trying to predict what a chaotic system is going to do, which according to the mathematician Edward Lorenz:-

Please note that Edward Lorenz was one of the scientist you worship, he's on your side of the fence, and he's said:

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Edward Norton Lorenz (May 23, 1917 – April 16, 2008) was an American mathematician and meteorologist who established the theoretical basis of weather and climate predictability, as well as the basis for computer-aided atmospheric physics and meteorology. He is best known as the founder of modern chaos theory, a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.

robinessex, to clarify do you think the climate system can be 'forced'? For example by an increase/decrease in solar irradiance, or by volcanic eruptions lofting stuff into the atmosphere?

You used to be (at least) a big turbobloke fan and he clearly thinks the climate can be forced and predictions can be made. Now you've gone all 'chaos' do you now reject turbobloke's ideas too?

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 23 March 13:21

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Having read around the impact of Prof Mike Hulme's "climate crisis = noble lie" intervention, I found another Hulmism referred to which states that in the case of climate change it's not appropriate or helpful for climate politics to proceed under the limiting and dangerous 'states of emergency' being introduced, as they constrain responses and threaten democracy. This ties in with his 'noble lie' writing; if and when I locate the primary source and have the actual words used, I'll post a brief enough quote together with a link if one exists. Prof Hulme is talking a lot of sense atm.

I actually agree with Mike Hulme. Evolution towards net zero rather than revolution seems a sensible approach to control AGW.

[deeps]

This new film is doing the rounds, although I think Youtube has shadow banned it so it's not appearing in their search results.


Climate The Movie (The Real Truth)


https://vimeo.com/924719370?fbclid=IwAR039bgUfnaYt...

[kerplunk]

deeps said:

This new film is doing the rounds, although I think Youtube has shadow banned it so it's not appearing in their search results.


Climate The Movie (The Real Truth)


https://vimeo.com/924719370?fbclid=IwAR039bgUfnaYt...

It's back on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Wrong. I have no problem acknowledging these claims if they are real. Out of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning decades, the idea that a few would have taken a punt on Arctic ice doing something dramatic isn't a surprise.

You are attempting at drawing an equivalence here. There's no equivalence - it changes nothing about my stated views if I acknowledge that a random person predicted 2015 as you claim (no evidence provided of course). I have never put much stock in outlier views like that. I've always said I'll follow the weight of evidence and there's never been a consensus for those claims.

And that's where your equivalence fails. I can acknowledge that kind of thing because it doesn't change anything for me, but you and turbobloke can't acknowledge your own failed predictions because doing so would threaten your whole ideology. There's nothing else for you to believe but the truth.

So it's your turn - do you accept you got it wrong about global cooling?

What 'weight of evidence' are you talking about other than model projections (which tun too hot)?

It is remarkable that after 15 years posting about climate change, you still don't actually know what the scientific basis is.

Diderot said:

What has my post about possible cooling from 2011 got to do with anything? I am not a climate scientist, my views do not influence climate policy or get picked up by the media and disseminated widely.

Oh, you're talking about Prof Wadhams. Yes, he said that and he was wrong but his comments obviously didn't influence policy so your point is a dud. Policy is driven primarily by the IPCC reports and they have never included such claims.

Why it matters is that you believed the global cooling scientists (I see your attempt to backpedal by saying "possible" cooling ). Those scientists didn't just get the rate of change wrong as Prof Wadhams did, they predicted a totally different direction.

Have you ever terrorised them for this? Do you repeatedly refer to their failed predictions and how their science is junk? Of course not, and that's because your position is not rational, it is ideological and therefore you will only ever be angry about what they tell you to be angry about.

Diderot said:

The fact remains that the history of climate science is littered with failed predictions that have never come to pass, but these predictions do influence policy.

As earlier, this is just wrong. The two predictions you have from seven decades of research did not define a single policy. The actual science that is used to drive policy been more than accurate enough to pass the test for setting policy.

I know what the hypothesis is. You have deluded yourself that it is something akin to scientific law.

If you’d bothered to read the links I posted you would have seen that it wasn’t just Wadhams (who the Guardian suggested was: “one of the world’s leading ice experts”), it was also Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski, who actually predicted 2013, plus others. As I said this is but one of a litany of failed predictions.

Are you so naive as to not understand how policy is made? And did you not realise that Wadhams was an IPCC contributor?

[mike9009]

The consensus models are at least directionally correct. Unlike some models....