Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[kerplunk]

hairykrishna said:

I note the new ABD website has removed the links to 'the electric universe' as one of their science sources

That's a shame - I like a bit of psy-trance

https://www.electricuniverse.de/

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

It's been removed , it was from UEA.

no ref no takey word for it

turbobloke said:

It's 'hotter 30s' so lump it then explain it using much lower carbon dioxide levels (effects are global and dominantremember), an instant fail.

It's not necessary to explain it in CO2 terms. You just need basic understanding of climateology - variabilty increases the further down the spatial/temporal scale you go etc - to know that no conclusions can be drawn from such a comparison. There may be many winters within the 30yr average that were warmer than the winter of 1931/32 for all we know - that would make a good follow up if you cared to look into it (but it still wouldn't tell you much about the arctic as a whole)

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

It's been removed , it was from UEA.

no ref no takey word for it

Fine. You'll see similar if, lacking journal access, you search online using the search terms uk heavy winter daily rainfall university east anglia.

However, based on their post when they popped up earlier today, I suspect one of your fellow pro-agw types has pestered the academics at source, so ask hairykrishna if my computer model (common sense) has made a prediction that works, unlike agw models that don't, and climate model failure has also been established in a 'ref'.

Also you had 50+ references which show inter alia that human emissions don't control temperature in the Earth's climate system, CO2 has no major role in climate change but it's good for plants trees and crops, and models embody a key hypothesis which has been refuted, so you takey those wordeys (wordies?) obviously by your own reckoning.

Today has been interesting to watch, absolutely nothing new from agw central by way of credible, empirical data supporting agw bunk, merely post after post with ad hom logical fallacies aka attempts (failed) at shooting the messenger.

Long may this continue, showing agw as the busted flush it is, with empty vessels making noise while supposedly ignoring ref'd climate science research that in fact can't be ignored, and isn't, look at all the metoo posts today.

[turbobloke]

Climate politics goes on (and on).

BBC insiders: (affirm) their climate editor is more 'campaigner' than reporter
Daily Mail, 16 May 2022


COP26: No countries have delivered on promise to improve climate plans
New Scientist, 16 May 2022


Academy set up by scientists to allow 'free exchange of ideas'
Daily Express, 16 May 2022


Solar farm to cow shed: How Greenpeace’s dream of a solar-powered village fell apart in just a few years
Daily Caller, 15 May 2022


The academy piece refers to scientists who were silenced/censored/slandered over covid issues.
The same unscientific playground approach has been happening for longer with agw.
The wideawoke factor is rife. Science in controversial areas is now politics.
We need a climate politics thread (thanks LongQ wherever you are).

[hairykrishna]

I'm not sure what you're on about. The ref I chased down was the one that your butchered ABD graph came from. It had nothing to do with rate of change of temperature.

It was Osborn & Hulme (2002) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
London series A 360, 1313-1325 DOI:10.1098/rsta.2002.1002.

The actual data it's based on is available online via BADC. It was never removed.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

The ABD campaigns for:

More investment in roads
Lower road taxes
No road pricing or tolls
Reduced traffic congestion
Evidence-based road safety
Improved parking provision

ABD Campaign

A summary of the key issues for drivers:

Our objective is to provide an active, responsible voice to lobby on behalf of Britain’s drivers. We believe that official policies in recent years, both from the national Government and from local authorities have discriminated against drivers by means of misleading information, obstruction, restriction, delay and taxation.

It looks as if a few here are in the wrong place, PistonHeads isn't for you. Have you tried Mums Net ?

If this sounds reasonable to you then crack on with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_British_...

[turbobloke]

Isn't PH culling people from NP&E who in reality are not motoring enthusiasts, purely argumentative types etc, hopefully not from this thread as they're a valuable reminder of the emptiness of pro-agw ideology and lack of credible empirical evidence (but lots of personal attacks and similar nothingness).

More climate politics with an international flavour.

Net Zero by 2050? Be prepared for $100 steaks
Matt Canavan, 15 May 2022

Net Zero will see Australia surrender ‘economic, military’ advantage to China
The Epoch Times, 16 May 2022

Heat pump costs soar because Britain's radiators are 'too small'
The Daily Telegraph, 16 May 2022

Good agw-based plans, all working well

[voyds9]

We've now had 60 years of doom and gloom predicitions

So why aren't we all under water, whilst baking in desert conditions, whilst being swept away with tornadoes and snowed in by the snow that children won't see ever again

What I fear we actually have is scientists saying they were extreme predictions that haven't through their mitigation come to pass.
But their new models say we must do even more and faster or it will be worse than ever.

Sorry I'm not buying it. I would quite like an extra 2C in the UK

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Even so, what rapid warming, you're not referring to the jolly hockey stick splinters surely?

UAH LTT v6 reveals +0.13 deg C / decade, a pedestrian rate (and extent) yet see natural warming in publications from Alley et al, Huber et al, Kindler et al and Stewart, up to 16.5 °C (D-O event 11) with 5 deg C in 40 years common. That's 1.25 deg C / decade, ten times faster than recent modest natural warming you say is "rapid". It's not unprecedented or rapid.

Tell a politician, then panic some more.

Sigh another faulty comparison - those are north atlantic temps from greenland ice cores. Not global

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Even so, what rapid warming, you're not referring to the jolly hockey stick splinters surely?

UAH LTT v6 reveals +0.13 deg C / decade, a pedestrian rate (and extent) yet see natural warming in publications from Alley et al, Huber et al, Kindler et al and Stewart, up to 16.5 °C (D-O event 11) with 5 deg C in 40 years common. That's 1.25 deg C / decade, ten times faster than recent modest natural warming you say is "rapid". It's not unprecedented or rapid.

Tell a politician, then panic some more.

Sigh another faulty comparison - those are north atlantic temps from greenland ice cores. Not global

KP it wasn’t that long ago that Greenland was being held up as the canary in the mine with relation to global warming, as was the Arctic and various glaciers, but now they don't matter. Really?

[dickymint]

kerplunk said:

hairykrishna said:

I note the new ABD website has removed the links to 'the electric universe' as one of their science sources

That's a shame - I like a bit of psy-trance

https://www.electricuniverse.de/

Saved for later ta.

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Even so, what rapid warming, you're not referring to the jolly hockey stick splinters surely?

UAH LTT v6 reveals +0.13 deg C / decade, a pedestrian rate (and extent) yet see natural warming in publications from Alley et al, Huber et al, Kindler et al and Stewart, up to 16.5 °C (D-O event 11) with 5 deg C in 40 years common. That's 1.25 deg C / decade, ten times faster than recent modest natural warming you say is "rapid". It's not unprecedented or rapid.

Tell a politician, then panic some more.

Sigh another faulty comparison - those are north atlantic temps from greenland ice cores. Not global

KP it wasn’t that long ago that Greenland was being held up as the canary in the mine with relation to global warming, as was the Arctic and various glaciers, but now they don't matter. Really?

You're correct about the Greenland situation.

It's not a faulty comparison.

We don't need to go back to D-O events to see how wrong the notion of dominant / controlling carbon dioxide is. NASA data shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, when carbon dioxide levels were much lower than now.

Temperature change rate and extent aren't identical across hemispheres, there's no expectation they should be as there's no symmetry N/S not least in terms of land and sea proportions and heat capacities.

While abrupt climate change (warming) D-O events are associated with Greenland they typically have a global fingerprint, see Voelker et al and Chappellaz et al, while Capron et al looks at a global fingerprint for all but the first-in-sequence rapid warming event. A paper with Voelker as sole author has evidence that D-O events have been globally synchronous. There's a Leuschner and Sirocko paper which notes that while D-O events have signalled rapid change climate variability associated with Greenland and the North Atlantic ocean, the events have been documented in records from the entire northern hemisphere and also South America, New Zealand, Antarctica, the South Atlantic and the Southern Ocean so that related climate forcing "affects both hemispheres". S hemisphere change is somewhat smoother but the changes aren't as geographically restricted as suggested above.

With far lower and slower changing carbon dioxide levels than the 1930s, CO2 was never going to explain rapid climate change events as above; the ocean circulation / salinity basis is offered, not carbon dioxide. The comparisons show carbon dioxide as irrelevant which is why we get the suggestion ^ that there's nothing to see.

[Diderot]

turbobloke said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Even so, what rapid warming, you're not referring to the jolly hockey stick splinters surely?

UAH LTT v6 reveals +0.13 deg C / decade, a pedestrian rate (and extent) yet see natural warming in publications from Alley et al, Huber et al, Kindler et al and Stewart, up to 16.5 °C (D-O event 11) with 5 deg C in 40 years common. That's 1.25 deg C / decade, ten times faster than recent modest natural warming you say is "rapid". It's not unprecedented or rapid.

Tell a politician, then panic some more.

Sigh another faulty comparison - those are north atlantic temps from greenland ice cores. Not global

KP it wasn’t that long ago that Greenland was being held up as the canary in the mine with relation to global warming, as was the Arctic and various glaciers, but now they don't matter. Really?

You're correct about the Greenland situation.

It's not a faulty comparison.

We don't need to go back to D-O events to see how wrong the notion of dominant / controlling carbon dioxide is. NASA data shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, when carbon dioxide levels were much lower than now.

Temperature change rate and extent aren't identical across hemispheres, there's no expectation they should be as there's no symmetry N/S not least in terms of land and sea proportions and heat capacities.

While abrupt climate change (warming) D-O events are associated with Greenland they typically have a global fingerprint, see Voelker et al and Chappellaz et al, while Capron et al looks at a global fingerprint for all but the first-in-sequence rapid warming event. A paper with Voelker as sole author has evidence that D-O events have been globally synchronous. There's a Leuschner and Sirocko paper which notes that while D-O events have signalled rapid change climate variability associated with Greenland and the North Atlantic ocean, the events have been documented in records from the entire northern hemisphere and also South America, New Zealand, Antarctica, the South Atlantic and the Southern Ocean so that related climate forcing "affects both hemispheres". S hemisphere change is somewhat smoother but the changes aren't as geographically restricted as suggested above.

With far lower and slower changing carbon dioxide levels than the 1930s, CO2 was never going to explain rapid climate change events as above; the ocean circulation / salinity basis is offered, not carbon dioxide. The comparisons show carbon dioxide as irrelevant which is why we get the suggestion ^ that there's nothing to see.

YAD06.

[turbobloke]

The most influential tree in the world.

[Diderot]

turbobloke said:

The most influential tree in the world.

Indeed. It wasn’t that long ago when the entire charade revolved around a single tree.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Even so, what rapid warming, you're not referring to the jolly hockey stick splinters surely?

UAH LTT v6 reveals +0.13 deg C / decade, a pedestrian rate (and extent) yet see natural warming in publications from Alley et al, Huber et al, Kindler et al and Stewart, up to 16.5 °C (D-O event 11) with 5 deg C in 40 years common. That's 1.25 deg C / decade, ten times faster than recent modest natural warming you say is "rapid". It's not unprecedented or rapid.

Tell a politician, then panic some more.

Sigh another faulty comparison - those are north atlantic temps from greenland ice cores. Not global

KP it wasn’t that long ago that Greenland was being held up as the canary in the mine with relation to global warming, as was the Arctic and various glaciers, but now they don't matter. Really?

Put it this way - if you believe the observation of up to 16C of abrupt warming in greenland ice cores within a few decades equals an up to 16C GLOBAL temperature increase within a few decades, I've got a bridge to sell you.

D-O abrupt warming events are widely thought to be bipolar see-sawing due to changes in the northward transport of heat by AMOC - see the same refs referred by turbobloke and more

[turbobloke]

Further to the nothing-to-see-unless-it's-Greenland rule, it seemed reasonable in the climate politics thread to avoid the literature and go for The Climate Change Knowledge Portal For Development Practitioners And Policy Makers, easily found. Wanting a Greenland trend and looking for a timescale of several decades rather than merely several years, to match D-O events while avoiding the problems with even smaller microtrends, it came up with +0.2 deg C / decade for Greenland 1951-2020. Comparison with D-O events at +1.2 deg C / decade at the same location (6x) tells its own story about carbon dioxide impotence in the face of natural variation. As do the 1930s in their own way.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Even so, what rapid warming, you're not referring to the jolly hockey stick splinters surely?

UAH LTT v6 reveals +0.13 deg C / decade, a pedestrian rate (and extent) yet see natural warming in publications from Alley et al, Huber et al, Kindler et al and Stewart, up to 16.5 °C (D-O event 11) with 5 deg C in 40 years common. That's 1.25 deg C / decade, ten times faster than recent modest natural warming you say is "rapid". It's not unprecedented or rapid.

Tell a politician, then panic some more.

Sigh another faulty comparison - those are north atlantic temps from greenland ice cores. Not global

KP it wasn’t that long ago that Greenland was being held up as the canary in the mine with relation to global warming, as was the Arctic and various glaciers, but now they don't matter. Really?

You're correct about the Greenland situation.

It's not a faulty comparison.

We don't need to go back to D-O events to see how wrong the notion of dominant / controlling carbon dioxide is. NASA data shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, when carbon dioxide levels were much lower than now.

Temperature change rate and extent aren't identical across hemispheres, there's no expectation they should be as there's no symmetry N/S not least in terms of land and sea proportions and heat capacities.

While abrupt climate change (warming) D-O events are associated with Greenland they typically have a global fingerprint, see Voelker et al and Chappellaz et al, while Capron et al looks at a global fingerprint for all but the first-in-sequence rapid warming event. A paper with Voelker as sole author has evidence that D-O events have been globally synchronous. There's a Leuschner and Sirocko paper which notes that while D-O events have signalled rapid change climate variability associated with Greenland and the North Atlantic ocean, the events have been documented in records from the entire northern hemisphere and also South America, New Zealand, Antarctica, the South Atlantic and the Southern Ocean so that related climate forcing "affects both hemispheres". S hemisphere change is somewhat smoother but the changes aren't as geographically restricted as suggested above.

With far lower and slower changing carbon dioxide levels than the 1930s, CO2 was never going to explain rapid climate change events as above; the ocean circulation / salinity basis is offered, not carbon dioxide. The comparisons show carbon dioxide as irrelevant which is why we get the suggestion ^ that there's nothing to see.

"While abrupt climate change (warming) D-O events are associated with Greenland they typically have a global fingerprint"

No doubt but the vague description "a global fingerprint" doth not equal a globally synchronous *warming* fingerprint.

Nor does the vague description "affects both hemispheres" equal globally synchronous temperature increase

Capron et al 2010 - "In Antarctic ice cores, millennial scale temperature changes are gradual and out of phase with their abrupt north-
ern counterpart"

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Further to the nothing-to-see-unless-it's-Greenland rule, it seemed reasonable in the climate politics thread to avoid the literature and go for The Climate Change Knowledge Portal For Development Practitioners And Policy Makers, easily found. Wanting a Greenland trend and looking for a timescale of several decades rather than merely several years, to match D-O events while avoiding the problems with even smaller microtrends, it came up with +0.2 deg C / decade for Greenland 1951-2020. Comparison with D-O events at +1.2 deg C / decade at the same location (6x) tells its own story about carbon dioxide impotence in the face of natural variation. As do the 1930s in their own way.

wibble

turbobloke said "Kindler et al"

Kindler et al said:

Most of the DO events have an Antarctic analogue
called Antarctic Isotopic Maximum (AIM) (EPICA commu-
nity members, 2006; Blunier and Brook, 2001; Capron et al.,
2010a; Wolff et al., 2010). The slow and quite smooth AIM
temperature increases precede the rapid Greenland warming
by several hundreds to thousands of years (Capron et al.,
2010b). These findings are in line with the concept of the
“thermal bipolar seesaw” where the Southern Ocean is con-
sidered as a heat reservoir which delivers heat via the AMOC
to the North Atlantic and the Northern Sea (Stocker and
Johnsen, 2003)

Blunier and Brook 2014:

A precise relative chronology for Greenland and West Antarctic paleotemperature is extended to 90,000 years ago, based on correlation of atmospheric methane records from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 and Byrd ice cores. Over this period, the onset of seven major millennial-scale warmings in Antarctica preceded the onset of Greenland warmings by 1500 to 3000 years. In general, Antarctic temperatures increased gradually while Greenland temperatures were decreasing or constant, and the termination of Antarctic warming was apparently coincident with the onset of rapid warming in Greenland. This pattern provides further evidence for the operation of a “bipolar see-saw” in air temperatures and an oceanic teleconnection between the hemispheres on millennial time scales.


See how the "bipolar see-saw in air temperatures" fits the description "affects both hemispheres"?

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 17th May 02:18

[Kawasicki]

There are plenty of multi-decade temp increases and decreases many times higher than what we are experiencing now in the ice core records, that are not occurring in DO events.

Are they synchronized between Greenland and the Antarctic? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not.

Look at the raw data yourselves. Even if you can only compare regionally, nothing special is happening now.