Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
durbster said:
I had a glance at the video and it looked like the same old propaganda we've seen countless times before.
I saw the bit where the voice over claimed temperatures today are the same as the 1940s (it's around 19m in). The graph stops in the year 2000 so somehow when they say "today", they ignore all data from the laster quarter of a century. They coincidentally zoom in and crop out the year on the graph just before he says the word "today".
Once you know all their tricks they're pretty easy to spot. That was enough for me to know it's not worth wasting any more time on.
So are you saying then that the climate deniers are using selective data?I saw the bit where the voice over claimed temperatures today are the same as the 1940s (it's around 19m in). The graph stops in the year 2000 so somehow when they say "today", they ignore all data from the laster quarter of a century. They coincidentally zoom in and crop out the year on the graph just before he says the word "today".
Once you know all their tricks they're pretty easy to spot. That was enough for me to know it's not worth wasting any more time on.
God forbid!
turbobloke said:
Agreed it's unedifying wherever anything selective like that happens
... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
It's "unedifying" to use selective data when discussing global climate he says, and then requests you look at a specific month on a single temperature record from one region of one country. ... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
According to today's DT Business Briefing, windfarm operators are facing investigation following concerns of overcharging customers by £100m. It's wait'n'see.
That's separate to being quidsin due to £m payments when no electricity is generated, and all the subsidies, which represent situation (ab)normal in the industry.
That's separate to being quidsin due to £m payments when no electricity is generated, and all the subsidies, which represent situation (ab)normal in the industry.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed it's unedifying wherever anything selective like that happens
... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
It's "unedifying" to use selective data when discussing global climate he says, and then requests you look at a specific month on a single temperature record from one region of one country. ... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
mike9009 said:
mike9009 said:
kerplunk said:
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 youtubeClimate The Movie (The Real Truth)
https://vimeo.com/924719370?fbclid=IwAR039bgUfnaYt...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM
So many questions.
Co2 'usually' follows temperature, but what happens when co2 is artificially driven in front of temperature? The hypothesis seemed to indicate that temperature is driving the Co2 increase and therefore should not be worried about.
What would happen if the temperature was +13 degrees now as witnessed when the dinosaurs were kicking around? The film seemed to present this as normal and therefore no consequence for humans.
Human life seems to have developed and spawned/ flourished during the period of lower co2 emissions in the recent past. Why?
Why have the Kenyans not been helped in the last 5 decades by the oil rich nations to get out of energy poverty? Why the sudden concern now for the poor? Politics at work from the film makers, perhaps?
Plenty more questions during the course of the film, but as you all know my memory is not the best
Good to see that the professors in the piece still seem to have their jobs too.
1. Cloud cover is the dominant driver.
2. Supernova events causing variations
3. Solar flares
4. Volcanic events
I am unsure if there was consensus and these factors probably do influence the climate. But none of them seemed to have predicted the current warming with their hypotheses or presented data to support a correlation to the current warming. It would have been good to see a correlation between global cloud cover and global temps, for example. So, to me, it seemed like a red herring against the current trend and leaves me with the only correlated data is co2 concentrations.
Additionally much was made of the warming in the 1930's and 1940's being as hot as it is today. Yet I cannot find any temperature records supporting this on a global ( or even local) scale. Which is a little odd.
Updated to 2024 - in fact, no cooling ensued and a pronounced global warming is observed. No solar-climate model has predicted a warming of the earth - quite the contrary. And that means projections of future climate are unreliable. Gizza job!
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]
Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
You do not understand chaos theory.Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.
Myself. I've had 'fun' with CFD turbulent flow and other areas of engineering that exhibit chaotic or unpredictable, widely variable, results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU
Software:-
https://hexagon.com/products/product-groups/comput...
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed it's unedifying wherever anything selective like that happens
... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
It's "unedifying" to use selective data when discussing global climate he says, and then requests you look at a specific month on a single temperature record from one region of one country. ... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
. Well, if you had looked at the link you would have seen that: “After 1846 and 1676 comes June 1826 with a mean temperature of 17.3°C, and then June 1822 (17.1°C). June 2023 looks to be in the same territory. The next three hottest Junes tie with a mean CET of 16.9°C: 1762, 1798 and 1976.”
Diderot said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed it's unedifying wherever anything selective like that happens
... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
It's "unedifying" to use selective data when discussing global climate he says, and then requests you look at a specific month on a single temperature record from one region of one country. ... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
. Well, if you had looked at the link you would have seen that: “After 1846 and 1676 comes June 1826 with a mean temperature of 17.3°C, and then June 1822 (17.1°C). June 2023 looks to be in the same territory. The next three hottest Junes tie with a mean CET of 16.9°C: 1762, 1798 and 1976.”
Diderot said:
Beyond that glaringly obvious logical contradiction, their time lapse style video is dishonest. It begins in 1880 when the global weather station coverage was non-existent over the vast majority of the planetary surface. This vast lacuna is made even larger by the (charitably) ‘variable’ quality of stations in the UK and elsewhere. But hey, the data (or almost total lack of it) don’t matter.
This whole article, and the report, smacks of self-congratulation. Who in their right mind is going to freely admit that their research is effectively compromised by a lack of data?
Diderot: the entire temperature record is totally invalid because there weren't enough weather stations around the world in 1880This whole article, and the report, smacks of self-congratulation. Who in their right mind is going to freely admit that their research is effectively compromised by a lack of data?
Also Diderot: I can see absolutely no problem in summarising the global temperature from a single month in one record in one region of one country.
Such comically shameless hypocrisy. What a ridiculous farce.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Agreed it's unedifying wherever anything selective like that happens
... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
It's "unedifying" to use selective data when discussing global climate he says, and then requests you look at a specific month on a single temperature record from one region of one country. ... try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.
. Well, if you had looked at the link you would have seen that: “After 1846 and 1676 comes June 1826 with a mean temperature of 17.3°C, and then June 1822 (17.1°C). June 2023 looks to be in the same territory. The next three hottest Junes tie with a mean CET of 16.9°C: 1762, 1798 and 1976.”
Diderot said:
Beyond that glaringly obvious logical contradiction, their time lapse style video is dishonest. It begins in 1880 when the global weather station coverage was non-existent over the vast majority of the planetary surface. This vast lacuna is made even larger by the (charitably) ‘variable’ quality of stations in the UK and elsewhere. But hey, the data (or almost total lack of it) don’t matter.
This whole article, and the report, smacks of self-congratulation. Who in their right mind is going to freely admit that their research is effectively compromised by a lack of data?
Diderot: the entire temperature record is totally invalid because there weren't enough weather stations around the world in 1880This whole article, and the report, smacks of self-congratulation. Who in their right mind is going to freely admit that their research is effectively compromised by a lack of data?
Also Diderot: I can see absolutely no problem in summarising the global temperature from a single month in one record in one region of one country.
Such comically shameless hypocrisy. What a ridiculous farce.
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]
Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
You do not understand chaos theory.Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.
Myself. I've had 'fun' with CFD turbulent flow and other areas of engineering that exhibit chaotic or unpredictable, widely variable, results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU
Software:-
https://hexagon.com/products/product-groups/comput...
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
robinessex said:
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
That's a pity I was hoping you'd reply to this from a few days ago: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?
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]
Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
You do not understand chaos theory.Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.
Myself. I've had 'fun' with CFD turbulent flow and other areas of engineering that exhibit chaotic or unpredictable, widely variable, results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU
Software:-
https://hexagon.com/products/product-groups/comput...
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
First thing we were taught at green belt level was not to have preconceived ideas as to solve any problem just record the data - first task I was called in to tackle a problem (too much downtime/errors (surface mount machine for circuit boards) by my senior engineer he said "I know how to solve it so get me some data to prove it"
....Much like climate modelling I'd suggest!!Speaking of shifting positions this was a good find by durbster.
To answer durbster's question; more recently Diderot has said that warming is to be expected as we're still recovering from the little ice age
durbster said:
I didn't have memory of Diderot being a cooling ahoy advocate in the past. 
To answer durbster's question; more recently Diderot has said that warming is to be expected as we're still recovering from the little ice age
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 25th March 19:17
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
That's a pity I was hoping you'd reply to this from a few days ago: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?
dickymint said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]
Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
You do not understand chaos theory.Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
QED
The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.
Myself. I've had 'fun' with CFD turbulent flow and other areas of engineering that exhibit chaotic or unpredictable, widely variable, results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU
Software:-
https://hexagon.com/products/product-groups/comput...
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
First thing we were taught at green belt level was not to have preconceived ideas as to solve any problem just record the data - first task I was called in to tackle a problem (too much downtime/errors (surface mount machine for circuit boards) by my senior engineer he said "I know how to solve it so get me some data to prove it"
....Much like climate modelling I'd suggest!!Hence my critique of R-squared values without the corresponding p values. Not heard back from the professor yet.... I must check if he has updated the website in response ...
As you will understand stats and sample size is useful in engineering/ science to determine factors in apparently chaotic systems - natural variation can be pulled out of the background quite easily using randomised full factorials.....just depends if you are looking for the perfect model or something that can be used pragmatically to improve understanding. (Foundries and DOEs particularly useful in drilling through the apparent chaos.) But never witnessed with the unicorn 100% perfection.....
Hence why I am particularly suspicious of any data presented to check understanding. There is a lack of understanding on both sides but I prefer critiquing papers which go against my political view point
Unfortunately I cannot do an MSA on satellite temp recording or Co2 ppm so I need to put an element of trust in experts.....I now work in aviation electronics and we run a couple of SMT machines, although not my expertise. The screen printer and reflow give us the most issues.....
Edited by mike9009 on Monday 25th March 20:57
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
That's a pity I was hoping you'd reply to this from a few days ago: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?
turbobloke regularly refers to it too on repeat:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
But tb is not averse to promoting long-term predictions of future climate states.
See what I mean?
What am I missing?
Prof Pielke on how ten years' worth of cancel culture for The Cause has ended up failing (almost) totally, and how weather = climate / local = global disasters cost more but not because of climate change.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/disasters-cos...
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/disasters-cos...
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
That's a pity I was hoping you'd reply to this from a few days ago: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?
turbobloke regularly refers to it too on repeat:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
But tb is not averse to promoting long-term predictions of future climate states.
See what I mean?
What am I missing?
You say I refer to something regularly on repeat, but the quote you give is from IPCC not me, your faiiure to make that clear wasn't an accident. In addition, their approach effectively excludes solar eruptivity involvement, so the idea of meaningful solar influence (Landscheidt, Abdusamatov) is outside the IPCC belief system which you also omitted by accident presumably.
You say I'm not averse to promoting long-term predictions of future climate states, when short-term predictions from Landscheidt and Abdusamatov aren't long-term, and reporting their work as published in the literature isn't promoting.
I have more confidence in the content of published work based on empirical evidence than in politi-lit based on assumptions and tuned parameterisations, that's not going to be surprising to anyone who avoids taking positions based on faith.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 27th March 13:11
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
That's a pity I was hoping you'd reply to this from a few days ago: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?
turbobloke regularly refers to it too on repeat:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
But tb is not averse to promoting long-term predictions of future climate states.
See what I mean?
What am I missing?
You say I refer to something regularly on repeat, but the quote you give is from IPCC not me, your faiiure to make that clear wasn't an accident. In addition, their approach effectively excludes solar eruptivity involvement, so the idea of meaningful solar influence (Landscheidt, Abdusamatov) is outside the IPCC belief system which you also omitted by accident presumably.
You say I'm not averse to promoting long-term predictions of future climate states, when short-term predictions from Landscheidt and Abdusamatov aren't long-term, and reporting their work as published in the literature isn't promoting.
I have more confidence in the content of published work based on empirical evidence than in politi-lit based on assumptions and tuned parameterisations, that's not going to be surprising to anyone who avoids taking positions based on faith.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 27th March 13:11
Yes which you often repeat. So for clarity what are you saying here - that it is not a view of the climate system that you subscribe to yourself?
"predictions from Landscheidt and Abdusamatov aren't long-term"
Abdusamatov 2012 predicted cooling from 2014 to a new little ice age around 2055
From Landscheidt's 2001 paper - New Little Ice Age instead of global warming:
"As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on earth"
These are not long term predictions of future climate states?
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
No further replies on this 'Of Topic' discussion
That's a pity I was hoping you'd reply to this from a few days ago: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?
turbobloke regularly refers to it too on repeat:
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
But tb is not averse to promoting long-term predictions of future climate states.
See what I mean?
What am I missing?
You say I refer to something regularly on repeat, but the quote you give is from IPCC not me, your faiiure to make that clear wasn't an accident. In addition, their approach effectively excludes solar eruptivity involvement, so the idea of meaningful solar influence (Landscheidt, Abdusamatov) is outside the IPCC belief system which you also omitted by accident presumably.
You say I'm not averse to promoting long-term predictions of future climate states, when short-term predictions from Landscheidt and Abdusamatov aren't long-term, and reporting their work as published in the literature isn't promoting.
I have more confidence in the content of published work based on empirical evidence than in politi-lit based on assumptions and tuned parameterisations, that's not going to be surprising to anyone who avoids taking positions based on faith.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 27th March 13:11
Yes which you often repeat. So for clarity what are you saying here - that it is not a view of the climate system that you subscribe to yourself?
"predictions from Landscheidt and Abdusamatov aren't long-term"
Abdusamatov 2012 predicted cooling from 2014 to a new little ice age around 2055
From Landscheidt's 2001 paper - New Little Ice Age instead of global warming:
"As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on earth"
These are not long term predictions of future climate states?
Exercise for PHers well-versed on IPCC faith: pick an IPCC report with WG1 Ch12 titled "Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility" with 33 references to 2300. Note that the chapter title contains 'long-term' in the context of 2300.
No comment on 'irreversibility' in this context is needed. Given the thermodynamic processes of melting and freezing are reversible, and our planet has lost and then grown back its polar ice sheets naturally, the infamous climate politics sense of humour is in play again.
My view is that 2300 is long term compared to 2050 and the IPCC chapter title agrees 2300 is long term. However, in order to try to score an internet point while prolonging this Monty Pythonesque 5 minute argument (attrition loop) you will likely disagree with IPCC and me. Either way, IPCC is disagreeing with itself. Lovely.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff