Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
dickymint said:
turbobloke said:
Is there any increased optimism compared to this, frm The Guardian last month:
Join the AA ffs.
No point they can't jump start EV's Pessimistic Article said:
COP26 climate talks will not fulfil aims of Paris agreement, key players warn. Vital United Nations climate talks, billed as one of the last chances to stave off climate breakdown, will not produce the breakthrough needed to fulfil the aspiration of the Paris agreement, key players in the talks have conceded.
Climate Breakdown Join the AA ffs.
Nations to accelerate oil, coal and gas production over the next decade, UN discovers
The Times, 20 October 2021
(no quotation marks)
Fossil fuel production set to soar over the next decade. Shocking. That Hz.
turbobloke said:
Awesome guff.
Nobody on here made predictions of global cooling, some have posted the predictions of cooling from Abdusamatov, Archibald and Landscheidt, when I've done so I've usually said that we must keep looking at the data to see what's happening, up to the point of sufficient repetition. Faith, true belief; they belong with agw.
You in 2007:Nobody on here made predictions of global cooling, some have posted the predictions of cooling from Abdusamatov, Archibald and Landscheidt, when I've done so I've usually said that we must keep looking at the data to see what's happening, up to the point of sufficient repetition. Faith, true belief; they belong with agw.
From this thread
Unfortunately for you, it's really easy to find this stuff. We can simply find a scientist who's climate predictions were wrong, search their name on Pistonheads and invariably there's turboboke, shouting about how right they are.
Because you have been peddling this material so hard, and for so long, it's everywhere. And you can't hide the source - the internet never forgets.
Note: I snipped the first part of the post so the screenshot wasn't massive
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Awesome guff.
Nobody on here made predictions of global cooling, some have posted the predictions of cooling from Abdusamatov, Archibald and Landscheidt, when I've done so I've usually said that we must keep looking at the data to see what's happening, up to the point of sufficient repetition. Faith, true belief; they belong with agw.
You in 2007:Nobody on here made predictions of global cooling, some have posted the predictions of cooling from Abdusamatov, Archibald and Landscheidt, when I've done so I've usually said that we must keep looking at the data to see what's happening, up to the point of sufficient repetition. Faith, true belief; they belong with agw.
In the failed gotcha post where you quoted me, I clearly state that we must "wait for the 'experiment' to roll out in real time" i.e. wait for the data to arrive, which is clearly not in keeping with your, or El s's claim to a faith on cooling. "Once we see"...so, we wait for the 'experiment' to proceed through 2030 to 2050.
If you look into threads you'll see the chain linking to predictions from either Landscheidt or Abdusamatov or Archibald.
In many but not all of the posts just like the one you mined, I mention keeping a watch on the data to see what's happening, including the 2017 example I gave earlier today.
Why didn't you highlight the 'wait for the data' bit in your snip?
Listening to R4 just now, a talking head reckoned these COP shops do not reach agreement, more that they set the agenda for future negotiations...which sort of makes you wonder why they make such a song and dance over it.
Still, I fully expect Bojo to claim a massive new deal out of it, even if it is simply a continuation of the UK’s decline as a manufacturing power.
Still, I fully expect Bojo to claim a massive new deal out of it, even if it is simply a continuation of the UK’s decline as a manufacturing power.
The Don of Croy said:
Listening to R4 just now, a talking head reckoned these COP shops do not reach agreement, more that they set the agenda for future negotiations...which sort of makes you wonder why they make such a song and dance over it.
Still, I fully expect Bojo to claim a massive new deal out of it, even if it is simply a continuation of the UK’s decline as a manufacturing power.
Still, I fully expect Bojo to claim a massive new deal out of it, even if it is simply a continuation of the UK’s decline as a manufacturing power.
Jets ahoy for the carbonfest.
turbobloke said:
El stovey said:
It’s hilarious looking back at old PHs climate threads to see how wrong all our PH ‘experts’ have been.
Straw is doing well atm.The only hilarity arising from experts in error on PH relate to pro-AGW pro-IPCC types with hilarious predictions on non-vanishing arctic summer ice, absence of winter snow, tropical troposphere temperature errors, New York not under water, etc.
The predictionsof solar-eruptivity related cooling from Landscheidt, Abdusamatov and Archibald have approx 10 to 30 years to run (2030 - 2050); your hilarious, over-egged, baselessly smug, serially biased, premature adjudication is showing (again).
No premature adjudication whatsoever for Archibald's 2006 prediction of a little ice age by 2020 however - dead as dodo
Landscheidt's little ice age predictions running very late indeed and temps have gone the wrong way - a stunning temperature plunge now required (which isn't what was predicted)
Abdumasatov's sharp temperature decline 2014 - 2050 has more time but off to a bad start with temps going the wrong way again (and no sign of the solar TSI drop required to make it happen).
turbobloke said:
Quite so, I couldn't have put it better myself. What's more, your n'th "gotcha" post is a fail.
In the failed gotcha post where you quoted me, I clearly state that we must "wait for the 'experiment' to roll out in real time" i.e. wait for the data to arrive, which is clearly not in keeping with your, or El s's claim to a faith on cooling. "Once we see"...so, we wait for the 'experiment' to proceed through 2030 to 2050.
If you look into threads you'll see the chain linking to predictions from either Landscheidt or Abdusamatov or Archibald.
In many but not all of the posts just like the one you mined, I mention keeping a watch on the data to see what's happening, including the 2017 example I gave earlier today.
Why didn't you highlight the 'wait for the data' bit in your snip?
Gawd knows what "keeping a watch on the data to see what's happening" is supposed to mean. The idea of cycle-based predictions is that cycles are err predictable. In the failed gotcha post where you quoted me, I clearly state that we must "wait for the 'experiment' to roll out in real time" i.e. wait for the data to arrive, which is clearly not in keeping with your, or El s's claim to a faith on cooling. "Once we see"...so, we wait for the 'experiment' to proceed through 2030 to 2050.
If you look into threads you'll see the chain linking to predictions from either Landscheidt or Abdusamatov or Archibald.
In many but not all of the posts just like the one you mined, I mention keeping a watch on the data to see what's happening, including the 2017 example I gave earlier today.
Why didn't you highlight the 'wait for the data' bit in your snip?
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by that.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Quite so, I couldn't have put it better myself. What's more, your n'th "gotcha" post is a fail.
In the failed gotcha post where you quoted me, I clearly state that we must "wait for the 'experiment' to roll out in real time" i.e. wait for the data to arrive, which is clearly not in keeping with your, or El s's claim to a faith on cooling. "Once we see"...so, we wait for the 'experiment' to proceed through 2030 to 2050.
If you look into threads you'll see the chain linking to predictions from either Landscheidt or Abdusamatov or Archibald.
In many but not all of the posts just like the one you mined, I mention keeping a watch on the data to see what's happening, including the 2017 example I gave earlier today.
Why didn't you highlight the 'wait for the data' bit in your snip?
Gawd knows what "keeping a watch on the data to see what's happening" is supposed to mean. In the failed gotcha post where you quoted me, I clearly state that we must "wait for the 'experiment' to roll out in real time" i.e. wait for the data to arrive, which is clearly not in keeping with your, or El s's claim to a faith on cooling. "Once we see"...so, we wait for the 'experiment' to proceed through 2030 to 2050.
If you look into threads you'll see the chain linking to predictions from either Landscheidt or Abdusamatov or Archibald.
In many but not all of the posts just like the one you mined, I mention keeping a watch on the data to see what's happening, including the 2017 example I gave earlier today.
Why didn't you highlight the 'wait for the data' bit in your snip?
For those interested, Landscheidt (1of 3, as an example) analysed solar eruptivity patterns and made the prediction at the turn of the century when solar activity was still high, that it would decline and reach a minimum around 2030 and that this would be linked to global cooling. This is what's happened so far.
Given the 2030 date from Landscheidt, and the time lag from forcing to climate, claims that this and other 2050 predictions of cooling are in error, are in error. We don't know yet. We do, however, know that arctic ocean summer ice hasn't disappeared, New York hasn't become submerged, snow isn't a thing of the past in UK nor is it a rare event, etc as the data is in on the series of dates agw supporters in one form or another, from scientists to Al Gore, offered for these non-happenings - several dates, in each case, one after the other as the predictions failed.
PS the latest summer arctic ice punt is 2035.
For those interested here's what Landscheidt actually said in his 2003 "New Little Ice Age Instead Of Global Warming?" paper:
"Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected"
and
"We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development"
bringing up TB's usual link shortfall - http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Imagine if this were a forecast made by the IPCC in 2003 of *extremely* rapid warming to a peak in 2030 - enough to double the warming since the early 19th century - and then there was signicant cooling to 2020.
Hands up who buys it?
"Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected"
and
"We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development"
bringing up TB's usual link shortfall - http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/new-e.htm
Imagine if this were a forecast made by the IPCC in 2003 of *extremely* rapid warming to a peak in 2030 - enough to double the warming since the early 19th century - and then there was signicant cooling to 2020.
Hands up who buys it?
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 20th October 19:43
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 20th October 19:44
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
El stovey said:
It’s hilarious looking back at old PHs climate threads to see how wrong all our PH ‘experts’ have been.
Straw is doing well atm.The only hilarity arising from experts in error on PH relate to pro-AGW pro-IPCC types with hilarious predictions on non-vanishing arctic summer ice, absence of winter snow, tropical troposphere temperature errors, New York not under water, etc.
The predictionsof solar-eruptivity related cooling from Landscheidt, Abdusamatov and Archibald have approx 10 to 30 years to run (2030 - 2050); your hilarious, over-egged, baselessly smug, serially biased, premature adjudication is showing (again).
No premature adjudication whatsoever for Archibald's 2006 prediction of a little ice age by 2020 however - dead as dodo
Landscheidt's little ice age predictions running very late indeed and temps have gone the wrong way - a stunning temperature plunge now required (which isn't what was predicted)
Abdumasatov's sharp temperature decline 2014 - 2050 has more time but off to a bad start with temps going the wrong way again (and no sign of the solar TSI drop required to make it happen).
Tb now making out he didn’t actually make all those predictions on here.
Years of his self congratulatory propaganda, failed predictions and misrepresentation ALL proven to be wrong.
kerplunk said:
Well there's premature adjudication and there's hanging on for grim death to the bitter end isn't there tb
No premature adjudication whatsoever for Archibald's 2006 prediction of a little ice age by 2020 however - dead as dodo
Landscheidt's little ice age predictions running very late indeed and temps have gone the wrong way - a stunning temperature plunge now required (which isn't what was predicted)
An on-message view made up for the moment, we aren't yet posting in the year 2051 so the only dodos around are in the long list of failed agw predictions. No premature adjudication whatsoever for Archibald's 2006 prediction of a little ice age by 2020 however - dead as dodo
Landscheidt's little ice age predictions running very late indeed and temps have gone the wrong way - a stunning temperature plunge now required (which isn't what was predicted)
There are 29 years to 2050 and no stunning anything is needed. The entire agw temperature rise claimed for tax gas over 100 years is around 0.8 deg C. So not stunning it's pedestrian.
Any stunning events that deserve the title are in reality the series of hilarious agw-based predictions which have failed so many times that those still being offered are on their third or fourth date, including but not limited to summer arctic ocean ice not disappearing and New York not going underwater. Warm wet winters from the last century is still being gamely punted after the severe winters between 2009-2017.
El stovey said:
There was loads more too. None happened.
Tb now making out he didn’t actually make all those predictions on here.
Years of his self congratulatory propaganda, failed predictions and misrepresentation ALL proven to be wrong.
Pure fiction and assertion, as usual. The predictions are clearly from scientists such as Abdusamatov and Archibald, and the dates involved are 2030-2050 so nothing has been proven wrong as yet, unlike the many dozens of failed agw predictions. Your transparent and desperate terminological inexactitudes are as obvious as ever, but thanks as always for the flattery of your close attention including the impressive but misguided uppercasery. Tb now making out he didn’t actually make all those predictions on here.
Years of his self congratulatory propaganda, failed predictions and misrepresentation ALL proven to be wrong.
There are many mentions on PH over the years of the work from the aforementioned scientists including the Landscheidt paper in Energy & Environment are based on empirical date not gigo built on assumptions and faith. Empirical approaches engender greater confidence, but nothing warrants faith including in particular agw.
It is indeed a double whammy for COP 26.
Putin was mentioned recently in this thread as not attending and, as I thought, Jinping had also been announced as an absentee.
Jinping
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/china...
Putin
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58977993
With leaders from India and Saudi already reported as staying away, the 25,000 essential travellers will miss thea aforementioned big guns, while missing the updated carbon cutting plans which are still awol along with their various political leaders.
Putin was mentioned recently in this thread as not attending and, as I thought, Jinping had also been announced as an absentee.
Jinping
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/china...
Putin
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58977993
With leaders from India and Saudi already reported as staying away, the 25,000 essential travellers will miss thea aforementioned big guns, while missing the updated carbon cutting plans which are still awol along with their various political leaders.
El stovey said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
El stovey said:
It’s hilarious looking back at old PHs climate threads to see how wrong all our PH ‘experts’ have been.
Straw is doing well atm.The only hilarity arising from experts in error on PH relate to pro-AGW pro-IPCC types with hilarious predictions on non-vanishing arctic summer ice, absence of winter snow, tropical troposphere temperature errors, New York not under water, etc.
The predictionsof solar-eruptivity related cooling from Landscheidt, Abdusamatov and Archibald have approx 10 to 30 years to run (2030 - 2050); your hilarious, over-egged, baselessly smug, serially biased, premature adjudication is showing (again).
No premature adjudication whatsoever for Archibald's 2006 prediction of a little ice age by 2020 however - dead as dodo
Landscheidt's little ice age predictions running very late indeed and temps have gone the wrong way - a stunning temperature plunge now required (which isn't what was predicted)
Abdumasatov's sharp temperature decline 2014 - 2050 has more time but off to a bad start with temps going the wrong way again (and no sign of the solar TSI drop required to make it happen).
Tb now making out he didn’t actually make all those predictions on here.
Years of his self congratulatory propaganda, failed predictions and misrepresentation ALL proven to be wrong.
As an aside are they paying double time for flying in all the COP 26 celebs?
turbobloke said:
It is indeed a double whammy for COP 26.
Putin was mentioned recently in this thread as not attending and, as I thought, Jinping had also been announced as an absentee.
Jinping
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/china...
Putin
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58977993
With leaders from India and Saudi already reported as staying away, the 25,000 essential travellers will miss thea aforementioned big guns, while missing the updated carbon cutting plans which are still awol along with their various political leaders.
Utter piss take.Putin was mentioned recently in this thread as not attending and, as I thought, Jinping had also been announced as an absentee.
Jinping
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/china...
Putin
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58977993
With leaders from India and Saudi already reported as staying away, the 25,000 essential travellers will miss thea aforementioned big guns, while missing the updated carbon cutting plans which are still awol along with their various political leaders.
We are going to cripple ourselves economically and the biggest polluters by a very large margin can't be arsed.
Still, we'll be saving the planet.
dickymint said:
List of these actual predictions please - shouldn't take you long to trawl through your filing cabinet - Durbs will give you a hand as "it's really easy to find this stuff. We can simply find a ........."
As an aside are they paying double time for flying in all the COP 26 celebs?
The collective attempt at a hatchet job from the usual suspects is quite touching. The closer you are to the target, the thicker the flak, and in this case the greater the desperation/panic at agw central. As an aside are they paying double time for flying in all the COP 26 celebs?
Dealing with agw part-time using tax, while in a state of Gretaesque panic - it's a good job our politicians are wiser; cooler heads and all that.
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
Well there's premature adjudication and there's hanging on for grim death to the bitter end isn't there tb
No premature adjudication whatsoever for Archibald's 2006 prediction of a little ice age by 2020 however - dead as dodo
Landscheidt's little ice age predictions running very late indeed and temps have gone the wrong way - a stunning temperature plunge now required (which isn't what was predicted)
An on-message view made up for the moment, we aren't yet posting in the year 2051 so the only dodos around are in the long list of failed agw predictions. No premature adjudication whatsoever for Archibald's 2006 prediction of a little ice age by 2020 however - dead as dodo
Landscheidt's little ice age predictions running very late indeed and temps have gone the wrong way - a stunning temperature plunge now required (which isn't what was predicted)
There are 29 years to 2050 and no stunning anything is needed. The entire agw temperature rise claimed for tax gas over 100 years is around 0.8 deg C. So not stunning it's pedestrian.
"Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253027167...
Maybe it was a typo
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff