Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

However, as shown severally in papers which use data aka actual empirical evidence, carbon dioxide isn't capable of causing the significant climate change as seen in models (Fleming, Koutsoyiannis & Vournas, Ollila, Mao et al, Miskolczi, McKitrick & Christy...) so the entire edifice collapses..........

To keep quoting papers from these authors must get embarrassing? Each paper has fundamental flaws, which fall at the first hurdle.

I notice there is no defence of the critique, but the authors names just keep getting repeated ad infinitum.

Please defend the critique rather than blindly quoting and misquoting stuff.

Point out the fundamental flaws that the peer review process missed then. I’m sure the journal editors would welcome your insight.

I have already.....

Where? I must have missed it.

[AW111]

Diderot said:

Where? I must have missed it.

More likely couldn't understand it...

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

That's as seen in PH climate threads for at least 20 years, aka nothing new. Meanwhile...

This is new from Japan, where for the last 40 years there's been an overall trend of winter cooling. Source is JMA. What happened to the global warming...the Pacific island Hachij?-jima has seen no warming in 75 years, well back beyond the red line. They need an airport / building programme and massive decarbonisation, fast. Where's the urban heat island effect when needed (rhetorical question), otherwise this could Do Damage to The Cause.

Primary Source:
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/view/mon...
Secondary source for the graphic is cited in the image:
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/7VjLfPfT.png



Our daft climate politics policy based on inadequate models won't be forgotten for some time, sadly.

Another interesting set of data. In 2004, the primary data source acknowledges there was a change in instrumentation, observation methods and/or site location.

When using my A level skillz (undermining intelligence again?), you can see there is a shift in the data when this change was made. If you look at the 50 years preceding the change (1954 - 2003) and the 20 years (2004 - 2024) after in isolation, there is an upward trend in the temperature in 10 out of the 12 months and more importantly in the annual averages too. How has the 'research' ignored the measurement system change? I would argue that was a GCSE mistake.

How this 'proves' temperatures are not rising is derisory, misleading and quite desperate.

Despite the long and frequent posts it is still garbage being posted....

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 6th April 14:25

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

There's a deadly deep freeze in mongolia being blamed on warming, the material is as embarrassing as the retracted / demolished papers and easily found.

Back to the shiny material behind our (and others') daft climate policymaking:

https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/mongolia

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

Where? I must have missed it.

Check my post at 11am today for another critique about Japanese island cooling......the critique is not of the source paper but the information given. Fundamentally flawed interpretation of data.

Ollila (2023) has created a fantastic model which only looks backwards and compares the historic temp record to their new model. It matches very well, but is not bold enough to look forward, even a couple of years.....

McTricky (2018 I think) compared the global temp increase from 1958 as a singular rate increase until 2018. And then claimed the models used were inaccurate because the rate increase used is higher. If you compare the rate of temp increase to the rate of CO2 increase there is a great correlation between the two. Fraudulent and misleading, despite the facts being correct. The conclusion is completely wrong.

Study of Roman warm period fails to mention Vesuvius erupting. Why?

Antarctic sea ice study claiming that the ice is higher on March 10th than in 1981. Fantastic bit of research showing the Antarctic sea ice from the same dataset as at one of its lowest annual rates this recent summer. Trying to mislead??? Yep....

The papers are shambolic, maybe peer reviewed, but maybe the peers are a little too close......

I am not posting that again......

[J210]

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

[Essarell]

J210 said:

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

I use Apple Weather app and one area that always seems skewed or deliberately obscure is Air Quality Index.
As an example here in the Northeast of England the AQI is described as “2” & “low”, fair enough they have to start somewhere but Shanghai is currently “56” & “good”. Is the PCR really a haven of quality air?

Personally I believe it’s the ongoing weaponisation of weather to further the CC zealots.

[mike9009]

Essarell said:

J210 said:

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

I use Apple Weather app and one area that always seems skewed or deliberately obscure is Air Quality Index.
As an example here in the Northeast of England the AQI is described as “2” & “low”, fair enough they have to start somewhere but Shanghai is currently “56” & “good”. Is the PCR really a haven of quality air?

Personally I believe it’s the ongoing weaponisation of weather to further the CC zealots.

To be pragmatic, I would ask Apple why that is the case rather than speculating on here that it part of 'the' conspiracy. Or just boycott the Apple Weather App if it bothers you.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Edited by mike9009 on Tuesday 9th April 20:22

[mike9009]

J210 said:

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

I assume you were reading this?

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/march...

....although it does not refer to just a day.

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

Essarell said:

J210 said:

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

I use Apple Weather app and one area that always seems skewed or deliberately obscure is Air Quality Index.
As an example here in the Northeast of England the AQI is described as “2” & “low”, fair enough they have to start somewhere but Shanghai is currently “56” & “good”. Is the PCR really a haven of quality air?

Personally I believe it’s the ongoing weaponisation of weather to further the CC zealots.

To be pragmatic, I would ask Apple why that is the case rather than speculating on here that it part of 'the' conspiracy. Or just boycott the Apple Weather App if it bothers you.

So no questions in here then - great idea

[kerplunk]

J210 said:

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

The relentless bds - as if we need reminding that it's spring and next winter is so far away

[mike9009]

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Essarell said:

J210 said:

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

I use Apple Weather app and one area that always seems skewed or deliberately obscure is Air Quality Index.
As an example here in the Northeast of England the AQI is described as “2” & “low”, fair enough they have to start somewhere but Shanghai is currently “56” & “good”. Is the PCR really a haven of quality air?

Personally I believe it’s the ongoing weaponisation of weather to further the CC zealots.

To be pragmatic, I would ask Apple why that is the case rather than speculating on here that it part of 'the' conspiracy. Or just boycott the Apple Weather App if it bothers you.

So no questions in here then - great idea

I am not sure my reply implies no questions can be asked - I know I ask plenty I simply provided an answer which may yield the correct answer. Or we could speculate all day as to the inner workings of the Apple Weather App.

[wc98]

mike9009 said:

Study of Roman warm period fails to mention Vesuvius erupting. Why?

.

That would have been interesting given everything i have read on atmospheric aerosols suggests they are responsible for cooling. Maybe i need to read more.

[dickymint]

mike9009 said:

dickymint said:

mike9009 said:

Essarell said:

J210 said:

Yay as it slowly starts to warm up we get to see the fire red maps again and being told it’s the hottest day of the year (so far) and every other day

I use Apple Weather app and one area that always seems skewed or deliberately obscure is Air Quality Index.
As an example here in the Northeast of England the AQI is described as “2” & “low”, fair enough they have to start somewhere but Shanghai is currently “56” & “good”. Is the PCR really a haven of quality air?

Personally I believe it’s the ongoing weaponisation of weather to further the CC zealots.

To be pragmatic, I would ask Apple why that is the case rather than speculating on here that it part of 'the' conspiracy. Or just boycott the Apple Weather App if it bothers you.

So no questions in here then - great idea

I am not sure my reply implies no questions can be asked - I know I ask plenty I simply provided an answer which may yield the correct answer. Or we could speculate all day as to the inner workings of the Apple Weather App.

How else am I supposed to interpret... "To be pragmatic, I would ask Apple why that is the case rather than speculating on here that it part of 'the' conspiracy."

[mike9009]

wc98 said:

mike9009 said:

Study of Roman warm period fails to mention Vesuvius erupting. Why?

.

That would have been interesting given everything i have read on atmospheric aerosols suggests they are responsible for cooling. Maybe i need to read more.

It is interesting and weird the eruption was not mentioned

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-w...

Short term cooling, longer term warming.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

wc98 said:

mike9009 said:

Study of Roman warm period fails to mention Vesuvius erupting. Why?

.

That would have been interesting given everything i have read on atmospheric aerosols suggests they are responsible for cooling. Maybe i need to read more.

It is interesting and weird the eruption was not mentioned

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-w...

Short term cooling, longer term warming.

Who knew? CF the recent Tonga eruption.

WRT Vesuvius, not sure what your point is. The Roman Warm Period had been uneasy for nearly 300 years by AD79 and lasted another 300 ish years.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

Who knew? CF the recent Tonga eruption.

WRT Vesuvius, not sure what your point is. The Roman Warm Period had been uneasy for nearly 300 years by AD79 and lasted another 300 ish years.

You asked for where I had critiqued papers as you had missed it. It was about six weeks ago, but I cannot be arsed to find it.

But you are correct about the timings.

Any other comments or questions?

[Kawasicki]

Weekend driving bans threatened in Germany to save the climate


https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250...

Article in English

https://www.thelocal.de/20240412/german-minister-t...

Edited by Kawasicki on Saturday 13th April 13:11

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

Weekend driving bans threatened in Germany to save the climate


https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250...

Article in English

https://www.thelocal.de/20240412/german-minister-t...

Although climate crisis liepoop has been out of the donkey for some time and won't be going back, it'll be 5 to 10 years at best before the farce unwinds. This is obvious, even with opinion-type content from Prof Pielke who, being no different to IPCC, isn't infallible. In God We Trust everyone else must bring data...nullius in verba Prof P.

Some well-funded and influential interests have been at work.

Prof Pielke said:

I have updated a piece that I first published at Forbes in January 2020. It tells an very important part of the story of how the most extreme emissions scenario — RCP8.5 — came to dominate climate research, assessment, and policy. It is quite an amazing tale.

Which means that it dominated USA and UK climate politics.

Climate Cooking
How a few billionaires helped push climate science to the extremes

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-cooki...

[johnboy1975]

Solar panels don't like hail:

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1778753...

An expensive (toxic) mess to clear up. That would put a rather chunky dent in the ROI I would imagine?

Presumably this doesn't happen to household rooftop installations here in the UK? (Why not?)