Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
...the IPCC take is a more absolutist view on my side.
...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.
....My view is that 2300 is long term compared to 2050 and the IPCC chapter title agrees 2300 is long term.
Your 'IPCC says' ch12 support says in the opening sentence......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.
....My view is that 2300 is long term compared to 2050 and the IPCC chapter title agrees 2300 is long term.
"This chapter assesses long-term projections of climate change for the end of the 21st century and beyond"
The longest section is 12.4 - Projected Climate Change over the 21st Century
So much for that red herring
Rather than that^ I think understanding the meaning of the IPCC quote about the nature of the (chaotic) climate system is aided by including the follow on sentence:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 27th March 17:59
kerplunk said:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
Why not try guessing instead? You stand a 50% chance of being correct.Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
Why not try guessing instead? You stand a 50% chance of being correct.Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
I'm not sure that would have the policy implications that you seek
Talking of short term and long term change, the oft-claimed political cure of the ozone hole problem is fatally holed below the waterline.
On several occasions when claims for the "success" of the Montreal Protocol have been baselessly trumpeted in climate threads and elsewhere (mankind controlling nature blah blah bill hooks) I've posted links to news items from the last 15- 25 years, including NASA, about the increasing frequency of record hole size since the Protocol was implemented. Now there's an overview (choose short-term or long-term to taste) showing just how wrong the above claims are. See Kessenich et al in Nature Communications, 2023 (open access).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42637-0
It's still too tough to swallow that stratospheric ozone links to stratosphere temperature and solar UV, with sporadic volcanism getting in on the act from time to time. Parts of the solar UV spectrum vary over the solar cycle by ~50% so faced with this, what can be done for The Cause...bury it in TSI (total solar irradiance) using mostly one database which lowballs TSI variation compared to others in use by scientists. Then go all Pygmalion Complex over models which use this cherry picked TSI representation to effectively exclude solar factors. Once done, announce that the data don't matter, just base political policy on inadequate climate models where the tax gas agw approach fails against data as per McKitrick and Christy (2018).
On several occasions when claims for the "success" of the Montreal Protocol have been baselessly trumpeted in climate threads and elsewhere (mankind controlling nature blah blah bill hooks) I've posted links to news items from the last 15- 25 years, including NASA, about the increasing frequency of record hole size since the Protocol was implemented. Now there's an overview (choose short-term or long-term to taste) showing just how wrong the above claims are. See Kessenich et al in Nature Communications, 2023 (open access).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42637-0
Reality said:
Following indications of early-spring recovery, the October middle stratosphere is dominated by continued, significant ozone reduction since 2004, amounting to 26% loss in the core of the ozone hole.
It was no success story prior to 2004. In plain language, that's flopsville as Montreal goes the way of Paris.It's still too tough to swallow that stratospheric ozone links to stratosphere temperature and solar UV, with sporadic volcanism getting in on the act from time to time. Parts of the solar UV spectrum vary over the solar cycle by ~50% so faced with this, what can be done for The Cause...bury it in TSI (total solar irradiance) using mostly one database which lowballs TSI variation compared to others in use by scientists. Then go all Pygmalion Complex over models which use this cherry picked TSI representation to effectively exclude solar factors. Once done, announce that the data don't matter, just base political policy on inadequate climate models where the tax gas agw approach fails against data as per McKitrick and Christy (2018).
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
Why not try guessing instead? You stand a 50% chance of being correct.Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
I'm not sure that would have the policy implications that you seek
turbobloke said:
Talking of short term and long term change, the oft-claimed political cure of the ozone hole problem is fatally holed below the waterline.
On several occasions when claims for the "success" of the Montreal Protocol have been baselessly trumpeted in climate threads and elsewhere (mankind controlling nature blah blah bill hooks) I've posted links to news items from the last 15- 25 years, including NASA, about the increasing frequency of record hole size since the Protocol was implemented. Now there's an overview (choose short-term or long-term to taste) showing just how wrong the above claims are. See Kessenich et al in Nature Communications, 2023 (open access).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42637-0
It's still too tough to swallow that stratospheric ozone links to stratosphere temperature and solar UV, with sporadic volcanism getting in on the act from time to time. Parts of the solar UV spectrum vary over the solar cycle by ~50% so faced with this, what can be done for The Cause...bury it in TSI (total solar irradiance) using mostly one database which lowballs TSI variation compared to others in use by scientists. Then go all Pygmalion Complex over models which use this cherry picked TSI representation to effectively exclude solar factors. Once done, announce that the data don't matter, just base political policy on inadequate climate models where the tax gas agw approach fails against data as per McKitrick and Christy (2018).
As normal, I cannot remember my comments about the McTrick and Christy paper exactly. But it seemed fundamentally flawed in its approach of linear temperature increase from 1958. Their basis was the increase per decade was linear, which decreased the temperature rise since 1958. It was wholly disingenuous. Obviously no agenda. On several occasions when claims for the "success" of the Montreal Protocol have been baselessly trumpeted in climate threads and elsewhere (mankind controlling nature blah blah bill hooks) I've posted links to news items from the last 15- 25 years, including NASA, about the increasing frequency of record hole size since the Protocol was implemented. Now there's an overview (choose short-term or long-term to taste) showing just how wrong the above claims are. See Kessenich et al in Nature Communications, 2023 (open access).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42637-0
Reality said:
Following indications of early-spring recovery, the October middle stratosphere is dominated by continued, significant ozone reduction since 2004, amounting to 26% loss in the core of the ozone hole.
It was no success story prior to 2004. In plain language, that's flopsville as Montreal goes the way of Paris.It's still too tough to swallow that stratospheric ozone links to stratosphere temperature and solar UV, with sporadic volcanism getting in on the act from time to time. Parts of the solar UV spectrum vary over the solar cycle by ~50% so faced with this, what can be done for The Cause...bury it in TSI (total solar irradiance) using mostly one database which lowballs TSI variation compared to others in use by scientists. Then go all Pygmalion Complex over models which use this cherry picked TSI representation to effectively exclude solar factors. Once done, announce that the data don't matter, just base political policy on inadequate climate models where the tax gas agw approach fails against data as per McKitrick and Christy (2018).
If you plotted co2 concentration increase per decade compared to temperature increase per decade the correlation to models is pretty accurate.
Hat is tax gas? Is that your only concern.
I noted no reply to my previous critique so assume it was correct. And the paper was wrong.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
Why not try guessing instead? You stand a 50% chance of being correct.Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
I'm not sure that would have the policy implications that you seek
The best thing for you to advocate for is that climate sensitivity to GHG forcing is at the low end - the 'lukewarmer' postion.
Basically you should be arguing that the climate system is insensitive to perturbations and not be promoting it's chaotic unpredictable nature
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 27th March 23:26
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
Why not try guessing instead? You stand a 50% chance of being correct.Hence the effort is to constrain the potential *range* of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, and that's what we see in the IPCC reports
I'm not sure that would have the policy implications that you seek
The best thing for you to advocate for is that climate sensitivity to GHG forcing is at the low end - the 'lukewarmer' postion.
Basically you should be arguing that the climate system is insensitive to perturbations and not be promoting it's chaotic unpredictable nature
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 27th March 23:26
Diderot said:
I'm not the one filling their boxer shorts because someone you blindly worship has declared a climate emergency.
Obviously nothing has been posted to even remotely justify this. The closest is this... from you:Diderot said:
...the entire economies of the ‘free world’ and our collective way of life that is at risk from the increasingly deleterious climate policies.
We're all DOOMED.Anyway, no comment your blatant hypocrisy pointed out earlier? Just ignore and move on is it?
durbster said:
Diderot said:
I'm not the one filling their boxer shorts because someone you blindly worship has declared a climate emergency.
Obviously nothing has been posted to even remotely justify this. The closest is this... from you:Diderot said:
...the entire economies of the ‘free world’ and our collective way of life that is at risk from the increasingly deleterious climate policies.
We're all DOOMED.Anyway, no comment your blatant hypocrisy pointed out earlier? Just ignore and move on is it?
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Anyway, no comment your blatant hypocrisy pointed out earlier? Just ignore and move on is it?
I did comment. Maybe you missed the post? Diderot said:
durbster said:
...
Diderot: the entire temperature record is totally invalid because there weren't enough weather stations around the world in 1880
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.
Oh it's a farce alright, that's what we've been saying for years. Diderot: the entire temperature record is totally invalid because there weren't enough weather stations around the world in 1880
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:
Anyway, no comment your blatant hypocrisy pointed out earlier? Just ignore and move on is it?
I did comment. Maybe you missed the post? Diderot said:
durbster said:
...
Diderot: the entire temperature record is totally invalid because there weren't enough weather stations around the world in 1880
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.
Oh it's a farce alright, that's what we've been saying for years. Diderot: the entire temperature record is totally invalid because there weren't enough weather stations around the world in 1880
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.
Diderot said:
I don't need to advocate anything; I'm not the one filling their boxer shorts because someone you blindly worship has declared a climate emergency. And, by the way, it is 'its' that you are looking for not 'it's' which = it is.
lol, you idiots are doing my work for me declaring the climate system chaotic and unpredictable and pointing out abrupt climate shifts in the past.Oh look a spurious apostrophe...
The EU Net Zero retreat is gathering steam - which is derived for the purpose of electricity generation from heat released by burning fossil fuel (gas).
Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of gas plants are being built, as nations realise you cannot power a national grid on solar and wind alone
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
They only just realised...genius not at work, same old climate politics muppetry. There's a long way to go before the madness is exorcised.
Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of gas plants are being built, as nations realise you cannot power a national grid on solar and wind alone
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
They only just realised...genius not at work, same old climate politics muppetry. There's a long way to go before the madness is exorcised.
turbobloke said:
The EU Net Zero retreat is gathering steam - which is derived for the purpose of electricity generation from heat released by burning fossil fuel (gas).
Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of gas plants are being built, as nations realise you cannot power a national grid on solar and wind alone
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
They only just realised...genius not at work, same old climate politics muppetry. There's a long way to go before the madness is exorcised.
Sir Keir Starmer didn't really make the news earlier this week (he really struggles to catch the media eye) when he bet the house or rather his landmark Great British energy proposal on floating wind, he see's the Celtic sea as our next untapped energy source and floating turbines are going to be his green revolution. Industry experts play down his fantasies, I wonder who will prove correct? we probably won't hear about as the country will be in darkness, albeit green, virtue signalling darkness.Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of gas plants are being built, as nations realise you cannot power a national grid on solar and wind alone
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
They only just realised...genius not at work, same old climate politics muppetry. There's a long way to go before the madness is exorcised.
Essarell said:
turbobloke said:
The EU Net Zero retreat is gathering steam - which is derived for the purpose of electricity generation from heat released by burning fossil fuel (gas).
Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of gas plants are being built, as nations realise you cannot power a national grid on solar and wind alone
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
They only just realised...genius not at work, same old climate politics muppetry. There's a long way to go before the madness is exorcised.
Sir Keir Starmer didn't really make the news earlier this week (he really struggles to catch the media eye) when he bet the house or rather his landmark Great British energy proposal on floating wind, he see's the Celtic sea as our next untapped energy source and floating turbines are going to be his green revolution. Industry experts play down his fantasies, I wonder who will prove correct? we probably won't hear about as the country will be in darkness, albeit green, virtue signalling darkness.Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of gas plants are being built, as nations realise you cannot power a national grid on solar and wind alone
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/27/europe...
They only just realised...genius not at work, same old climate politics muppetry. There's a long way to go before the madness is exorcised.
Allegedly nudges and outright pestering will lead to widespread uptake of Smart Meters and that will somehow save us from darkness, though with around 4 million of them operating as Dumb Meters the prospects are bleak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9zqn77ezno
turbobloke said:
WIth luck more people in power will see the light(s are kept on).
Allegedly nudges and outright pestering will lead to widespread uptake of Smart Meters and that will somehow save us from darkness, though with around 4 million of them operating as Dumb Meters the prospects are bleak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9zqn77ezno
i was surprised this story didn't get more traction, i heard it covered on 5 live, must be a decent case for another mass class action? 4m not working correctly? I can well believe it. You'd think the system would be more robust given its vital for our (alleged) transition to EV and encouraging energy usage at what are currently Off peak hours (that'll change faster than a Harry Potter actors loyalty).......Allegedly nudges and outright pestering will lead to widespread uptake of Smart Meters and that will somehow save us from darkness, though with around 4 million of them operating as Dumb Meters the prospects are bleak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9zqn77ezno
Essarell said:
turbobloke said:
WIth luck more people in power will see the light(s are kept on).
Allegedly nudges and outright pestering will lead to widespread uptake of Smart Meters and that will somehow save us from darkness, though with around 4 million of them operating as Dumb Meters the prospects are bleak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9zqn77ezno
i was surprised this story didn't get more traction, i heard it covered on 5 live, must be a decent case for another mass class action? 4m not working correctly? I can well believe it. You'd think the system would be more robust given its vital for our (alleged) transition to EV and encouraging energy usage at what are currently Off peak hours (that'll change faster than a Harry Potter actors loyalty).......Allegedly nudges and outright pestering will lead to widespread uptake of Smart Meters and that will somehow save us from darkness, though with around 4 million of them operating as Dumb Meters the prospects are bleak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9zqn77ezno
As of March 2024 that would be 12.5% of meters going dumb, and according to Which? there's a very decent chance of a smartie becoming a duhmbie if a household switches their power supplier. Ready, fire, aim.
Ordering coal burning to keep the lights on at Glasgow's climate carbonfest was hardly a cryptic clue, and the irony was priceless x2, after that COP-out more than 40 countries pledged to quit coal. They could sell any reserves to China and India, two countries burning all the coal they can get out of the ground (China 4 billion tons+ pa as at Dec 23) with an eye to energy security / quality of life / future prosperity.
Why not; In the Abstract of the paper below, which is no YAD061 loner and comes with open access from a former NOAA climatologist, significant is a good choice of word.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12665...
As of Easter here's a longball suggestion for a Christmas stocking filler, to help with keeping thoughts away from Starmer's floaters.
The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change (2019) Dr Rex Fleming (History Publishing Company).
turbobloke said:
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...
I don't think that disproves anything? Not sure what your inference is on this about failing....https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/disasters-cos...
But if it makes you happy, please carry on.....
By a fluke of the internet I discovered an interview with Dr Rex Fleming, former NOAA climatologist, and more recently the author of a book titled:
The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change
It was one hurdle short of a PH climate thread hat-trick. Ex-NOAA 'denier', interviewed in the era of a previous POTUS by James Delingpole, but apparently not in a GB News studio, which could have launched an unprecedented fallacyfest of messenger shooting. Even so, the Delingpod is likely to get bubbly gill ad hom fallacies from some quarters, we'll see.
With potential grief over Rule 16 and any hint of a transcript, this is a summary in my own words, with a link to Delingpod to check it out. These are in thematic order more than timing in the interview, with one or two comments from me in brackets.
-Dr Fleming is a former managing climatologist at NOAA who managed agw researchers and sought / disbursed funds
-knows individuals who adjusted i.e. fiddled with oceanic and atmospheric data for political reasons, Obama is mentioned
-anyone at NOAA who spoke out against agw / allied alarmism in the Obama era would be sacked
-others still at NOAA are aware that the CO2 idea has failed but keep quiet
-people needing/wanting to keep their jobs tend to speak out after retirement
-there are links to pushing socialist ideas using a manufactured climate calamity for attention and influence
-major US scientific bodies hold no truck with non-alarmist views which go against tax gas ideas, making publication in USA in the past very difficult
-hundreds of papers 2018/afterwards are looking at solar forcing and other non-CO2 aspects more openly
-temperature sensors have been positioned too close to cities
-some of the remaining NOAA scientists don't want to change this situation for reasons given earlier
-people carry on with toes on the line as they find it pragmatically difficult to fight (could be said, to fight 'The Cause')
-salaries and supercomputer cash are and have been a marvellous boondoggle / gravy train for atmospheric scientists
-yet models produce outputs which are way too warm
-the agw in models involves a false 'trapping' of energy, heat is not trapped it gets radiated to space
-paper from Fleming confirms CO2 ideas as a busted flush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz9v2vKSyN8
For another take on this type of situation, look online for comments on what agw thinker Dr James Hansen did at NASA in the words of his former boss, now retired, Dr John Theon - as well as views put in writing to NASA bigwigs by many tens of retired NASA scientists/astronauts/managers who tell in their own words how deeply unimpressed they are by what Hansen's NASA was doing and still is.
The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change
It was one hurdle short of a PH climate thread hat-trick. Ex-NOAA 'denier', interviewed in the era of a previous POTUS by James Delingpole, but apparently not in a GB News studio, which could have launched an unprecedented fallacyfest of messenger shooting. Even so, the Delingpod is likely to get bubbly gill ad hom fallacies from some quarters, we'll see.
With potential grief over Rule 16 and any hint of a transcript, this is a summary in my own words, with a link to Delingpod to check it out. These are in thematic order more than timing in the interview, with one or two comments from me in brackets.
-Dr Fleming is a former managing climatologist at NOAA who managed agw researchers and sought / disbursed funds
-knows individuals who adjusted i.e. fiddled with oceanic and atmospheric data for political reasons, Obama is mentioned
-anyone at NOAA who spoke out against agw / allied alarmism in the Obama era would be sacked
-others still at NOAA are aware that the CO2 idea has failed but keep quiet
-people needing/wanting to keep their jobs tend to speak out after retirement
-there are links to pushing socialist ideas using a manufactured climate calamity for attention and influence
-major US scientific bodies hold no truck with non-alarmist views which go against tax gas ideas, making publication in USA in the past very difficult
-hundreds of papers 2018/afterwards are looking at solar forcing and other non-CO2 aspects more openly
-temperature sensors have been positioned too close to cities
-some of the remaining NOAA scientists don't want to change this situation for reasons given earlier
-people carry on with toes on the line as they find it pragmatically difficult to fight (could be said, to fight 'The Cause')
-salaries and supercomputer cash are and have been a marvellous boondoggle / gravy train for atmospheric scientists
-yet models produce outputs which are way too warm
-the agw in models involves a false 'trapping' of energy, heat is not trapped it gets radiated to space
-paper from Fleming confirms CO2 ideas as a busted flush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz9v2vKSyN8
For another take on this type of situation, look online for comments on what agw thinker Dr James Hansen did at NASA in the words of his former boss, now retired, Dr John Theon - as well as views put in writing to NASA bigwigs by many tens of retired NASA scientists/astronauts/managers who tell in their own words how deeply unimpressed they are by what Hansen's NASA was doing and still is.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff