Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Kawasicki]

3.

[robinessex]

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

[turbobloke]

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The Eemian interglacial isn't a specific background academic interest of mine but in following the climate science literature for over 35 years it's appeared on my reading list. Checking out what was written when I last looked, information available at that time included Montoya et al (1998) following Alley et al (1995) and precedng Cuffey and Marshall (2000), from which collectively the Milankovic cycles stand out. The claim, not mine, being made is that due to differing orbital characteristics in the Eemian, insolation was greater than today in high northern latitudes, bringing warmer conditions particularly during NH summers, causing ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet. Which fits with higher sea levels occurring without any corresponding large changes in Antarctic ice sheet mass. This also fits with empirical findings from Shaviv more recently in 2008.

If I may ask, was your research more recent or less recent? If more recent I'd be interested to hear of anything which might be called revisionism in terms of the above papers. You may or may not appreciate the term revisionism. I use it cautiously but mindful of the point that data when captured doesn't change of itself, it requires manmade change. Hence an alternative name given to the current interglacial: Holocene = Adjustocene.

[ChevronB19]

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The Eemian interglacial isn't a specific background academic interest of mine but in following the climate science literature for over 35 years it's appeared on my reading list. Checking out what was written when I last looked, information available at that time included Montoya et al (1998) following Alley et al (1995) and precedng Cuffey and Marshall (2000), from which collectively the Milankovic cycles stand out. The claim, not mine, being made is that due to differing orbital characteristics in the Eemian, insolation was greater than today in high northern latitudes, bringing warmer conditions particularly during NH summers, causing ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet. Which fits with higher sea levels occurring without any corresponding large changes in Antarctic ice sheet mass. This also fits with empirical findings from Shaviv more recently in 2008.

If I may ask, was your research more recent or less recent? If more recent I'd be interested to hear of anything which might be called revisionism in terms of the above papers. You may or may not appreciate the term revisionism. I use it cautiously but mindful of the point that data when captured doesn't change of itself, it requires manmade change. Hence an alternative name given to the current interglacial: Holocene = Adjustocene.

Thanks for the queries, although we are getting dangerously towards climate change:the science thread, rather than the political thread, but that’s actually my fault. My academic paid research finished in 2003, but then I discovered the need to buy a house so now work in a slightly connected area, but maintain an interest.

But anyway! Firstly, the massive difference between the Eemian and now is the presence of us, and more particularly the Industrial Revolution onwards. How anyone (not aimed at you) can think that would have no climate impact (large or small, your choice) is absolutely beyond me.

I was a hard rock geologist, became a micropalaeontologist, then grew up (ha) and did some ‘big fossil’ stuff, then became a Quaternary geologist (aka ‘gardener’ in geologist speak), did a PhD in the evolution of the Baltic during the Eemian (Ipswichian in UK, but correlation can get very difficult, try the Saalian). It was based on Greenland ice cores that suggested a very quick change in climate. There was good evidence for it in the Denmark/broader Baltic region, but it turned out that the original GRIP zcwas ice flow that replicated layers.

That notwithstanding, the danish evidence remains, and is well supported. My own opinion is that that area was particularly sensitive - think of a tree line for example - it can descend/rise depending on conditions, but might not necessarily have a clearly visible impact elsewhere.

Anthropogenic impact is real. I personally think it’s not a particularly binary thing, but an awful lot of people think it’s either a or z, rather than what is usually the case, which is somewhere in the middle.

Yes, it is a problem, and I lean towards the ‘z’ aspect of a = no problem, z = massive problem. I’m currently around about ‘s’.

You may well have a reasonable argument, but it would come across an awful lot better of you didn’t use words like ‘indoctrination’ and ‘propaganda’. Again, purely out of interest as you asked me, what research/background do you have - not intended in an aggressive way, just out of interest!

[turbobloke]

ChevronB19 said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The Eemian interglacial isn't a specific background academic interest of mine but in following the climate science literature for over 35 years it's appeared on my reading list. Checking out what was written when I last looked, information available at that time included Montoya et al (1998) following Alley et al (1995) and precedng Cuffey and Marshall (2000), from which collectively the Milankovic cycles stand out. The claim, not mine, being made is that due to differing orbital characteristics in the Eemian, insolation was greater than today in high northern latitudes, bringing warmer conditions particularly during NH summers, causing ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet. Which fits with higher sea levels occurring without any corresponding large changes in Antarctic ice sheet mass. This also fits with empirical findings from Shaviv more recently in 2008.

If I may ask, was your research more recent or less recent? If more recent I'd be interested to hear of anything which might be called revisionism in terms of the above papers. You may or may not appreciate the term revisionism. I use it cautiously but mindful of the point that data when captured doesn't change of itself, it requires manmade change. Hence an alternative name given to the current interglacial: Holocene = Adjustocene.

Thanks for the queries, although we are getting dangerously towards climate change:the science thread, rather than the political thread, but that’s actually my fault. My academic paid research finished in 2003, but then I discovered the need to buy a house so now work in a slightly connected area, but maintain an interest.

But anyway! Firstly, the massive difference between the Eemian and now is the presence of us, and more particularly the Industrial Revolution onwards. How anyone (not aimed at you) can think that would have no climate impact (large or small, your choice) is absolutely beyond me.

I was a hard rock geologist, became a micropalaeontologist, then grew up (ha) and did some ‘big fossil’ stuff, then became a Quaternary geologist (aka ‘gardener’ in geologist speak), did a PhD in the evolution of the Baltic during the Eemian (Ipswichian in UK, but correlation can get very difficult, try the Saalian). It was based on Greenland ice cores that suggested a very quick change in climate. There was good evidence for it in the Denmark/broader Baltic region, but it turned out that the original GRIP zcwas ice flow that replicated layers.

That notwithstanding, the danish evidence remains, and is well supported. My own opinion is that that area was particularly sensitive - think of a tree line for example - it can descend/rise depending on conditions, but might not necessarily have a clearly visible impact elsewhere.

Anthropogenic impact is real. I personally think it’s not a particularly binary thing, but an awful lot of people think it’s either a or z, rather than what is usually the case, which is somewhere in the middle.

Yes, it is a problem, and I lean towards the ‘z’ aspect of a = no problem, z = massive problem. I’m currently around about ‘s’.

You may well have a reasonable argument, but it would come across an awful lot better of you didn’t use words like ‘indoctrination’ and ‘propaganda’. Again, purely out of interest as you asked me, what research/background do you have - not intended in an aggressive way, just out of interest!

I agree that anthropogenic CC is non-zero, where we may differ is in paying different amounts of credence to climate model outputs which have been shown in the peer reviewed literature to exaggerate their sought-after effect significantly. Based on empirical data the actual effect is neither permanent nor dangerous.

This is indeed the politics thread, so I won't cite, again, the 4 or 5 'main' papers since 2018 which provide clear evidence that the agw in models fails against empirical data, and doesn't correspond with claims of a climate crisis. Together with two more - the Resplandy et al oceans paper, withdrawn (somehow the distinguished authors and distinguished reviewers missed systematic error being treated as random error) and the McKitrick 2021 paper in Climate Dynamics successfully refuting the key 1999 attribution study which misapplied statistical methods. IPCC and MSM have been dining out on that for nearly 25 years, and due to organised lack of coverage, still are.

Do take this the right way - it's reassuring (*) to note your geology background, for reasons I won't mention as others (not you) might be offended.

ETA (*) not least because climate science has needed more geologists to be involved, and for decades at that, that's non-controversial hopefully

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 5th April 18:45

[turbobloke]

Before becoming political again, this link is to McKitrick on Curry discussing his paper and the 1999 paper, in case anyone is interested.

https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attri...

[hairykrishna]

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

[turbobloke]

Climate driven Not Zero is again under the spotlight.

A new-ish report "The Cost of Increasing Wind Power: A Reality Check” contains a section addressing the question of energy storage for the UK.

If after the first round of overbuilding, adding new wind generation resources adds little useful energy and most of the added generation ends up getting “curtailed,” then why not just add some batteries or other energy storage to the system?

Windymillophiles suggest that some form of new battery tech will be discovered which can store sufficient excess electricity until needed, and everything will be fine. Is there a problem here? Before the very high cost of storing electricity is considered, another huge hurdle looms large, namely the availability of wind to generate electricity varies with a seasonal pattern. Surplus is needed to store -- how? Broadly, to match electricity supplied to electricity demanded, a storage balance needs to be built up over about a six month period to the required (v high) level, and then discharged over the following six month period.

We know batteries don't currently exist that are up to the task of such storage (see report for full criteria) and If there were sufficient sites in the UK for pumped storage it would cost $2 trillion. We would have to construct 500 pumped storage facilities with the required capacity. Each would be comparable in size to the largest facility in existence at Bath, VA, which needed $4 billion to construct.

More on the astronomically expensive deus ex machina dreamworld of unreliables at the link, where a pdf version can be downloaded.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yssanxsc15vm7ll/The%20Co...

[PRTVR]

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

For added amusement, toss a coin. Then claim a high level of skill when it works out.

When it lands on its edge and stays there for ~14 years get approx 50-60 papers published to explain The Pause between heads and tails. Finally, help Obama by claiming it didn't land on its edge at all. Relieved, believe it never happened.

Just don't expect others to be as gullble.

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

If we limit future warming to that we won't have done too badly

Howabout double that?

or triple?

[J210]

DVSA appear to be pushing there vision for net zero.

Looks like lots of tracking and monitoring

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

If we limit future warming to that we won't have done too badly

Howabout double that?

or triple?

KP, do you really believe that humans can actually limit any warming, whether natural or anthropogenic? How are they going to do that? Or are you expecting some Clark Kent character with his red underpants over his blue tights and a cape to fly around the world counter clockwise enough times to reverse the natural warming since the little ice age?

Also do tell us exactly how much of the very modest warming since the Industrial Revolution is man made and how much is natural.

[turbobloke]

Prof John Christy UAH.

The entire vid is worth the time, but go to 24:50 if time is pressing...'how much warming can reliably be attributed to human activity'. Using data analysis not output from inadequate models.

Then await incoming shoot-the-messenger and other ad hom logical fallacies.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

If we limit future warming to that we won't have done too badly

Howabout double that?

or triple?

KP, do you really believe that humans can actually limit any warming, whether natural or anthropogenic? How are they going to do that? Or are you expecting some Clark Kent character with his red underpants over his blue tights and a cape to fly around the world counter clockwise enough times to reverse the natural warming since the little ice age?

Also do tell us exactly how much of the very modest warming since the Industrial Revolution is man made and how much is natural.

I'm just responding to rob's assertion that the question "will a 1-degree temperature rise in 100 years be of any consequence?" is the important question that we should begin with.

What is that based on? Where do those numbers come from? Any ideas let me know

[robinessex]

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

If we limit future warming to that we won't have done too badly

Howabout double that?

or triple?

Er, you avoided the question. Why ?

[kerplunk]

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

If we limit future warming to that we won't have done too badly

Howabout double that?

or triple?

Er, you avoided the question. Why ?

lol, not really - I'm just asking you to expand on the basis for 'the important question' that you think we should always begin with. Why not 2C or 3C etc?

Have you ruled those numbers out or something?

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

ChevronB19 said:

Would there be any value in a poll as follows, if only to gauge the opinions of people who contribute to this thread, and to a lesser extent, this who read this thread?

Suggested question…

Anthropogenic climate change is real.

Suggested answers…

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes, but it’s over exaggerated

4) any other options for answers (polite at least) welcome

Full disclosure - my academic background is in rapid climate change during the Eemian, and I believe anthropogenic climate change is real and a serious concern

The wrong question, always start at the beginning. The important question, is will a 1-degree temperature ( whatever that is ) rise in 100 years be of any consequence?

If we limit future warming to that we won't have done too badly

Howabout double that?

or triple?

Er, you avoided the question. Why ?

lol, not really - I'm just asking you to expand on the basis for 'the important question' that you think we should always begin with. Why not 2C or 3C etc?

Have you ruled those numbers out or something?

Ok, I'll change it. Does it matter if the world gets a few degrees hotter in the next 100 yrs?

[Randy Winkman]

robinessex said:

PRTVR said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

Notwithstanding future considerations, it would be interesting to see how the numbers have changed compared to the previous occasion on which a survey of threaders was undertaken, albeit in a previous climate thread several years ago. Since then the relentless propaganda aimed at grown-ups, and indoctrination at primary and secondary school llevel, will likely have had an impact on some PHers either still old enough, or now old enough to register on PH and spend a year on the motoring forums before posting in NP&E. The previous result was approx 10 pro-dangerous agw and approx 60 con. Something closer may be expected now.

The fact that the earth continues to get warmer in agreement with the predictions of mainstream climate science, and at variance with the predictions you favour, might have some effect on the numbers too.

So the people who said it would get warmer are the same people who are telling us its getting warmer

I'll say it again, does it matter if we get warmer.? No one knows.

Of course they don't know because it hasn't happened yet. But that doesn't mean that people cant make considered estimations based on best evidence does it? Same way we do on lots of things. In fact, most of what we all do works like that.