Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[turbobloke]

Apparently minister Kwarteng has said it was "not true" to say that the move to low-carbon transport and energy production would not "cost us".




Interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC, Kwarteng also claimed that despite the shift from fossil fuels to renewable (unreliable) energy in the last 10 years "the costs haven't gone up".

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, subsidies to renewables now add approx £10bn per year to consumer electricity costs, and that doesn't include grid expansion or increased system management costs.

[kerplunk]

kerplunk said:

robinessex said:

kerplunk said:

RIP nutty cyclo-maniac

I presume that CC scientists have never made predictions that turned out to be complete bks then ?

Like that doesn't get much airtime on this thread? I think I might post more failed cycle-based cooling predictions seeing as there seems to be a RAM problem occurring, and dickymint has requested he be fed

With thanks to turbobloke for the encouragement I will post more.

This time the cycle-based cooling predictions of geologist Don Easterbrook.

Easterbrook declared to the AGU conference in 2008 that the warming phase since 1977 was over and we were in for 30 years of cooling:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterb...

As we can see his prediction had a simple basis - he looked at the temperature record of the last 100+ years, saw a few up down ups with a roughly 30 year periodicity, and bazinga - it's a 30yr cycle!

12 years later and his 30yr cycle prediction has joined roadside dead:

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 21st October 19:01

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Look up the papers from the three scientists being referred to, and note the dates involved, easy If you have access. As of 2021 the dates are in the future, 2030-2050, so cannot have failed, unlike the myriad of failed agw predictions you acknowledge ^.

Is 2012 in the future too? Because as hairykrishna said, when you were pushing their predictions back then you weren't so cautious. You predicted the cooling would begin in 2012 in this thread

turbobloke said:

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.

Hmm that's strange, because after some internet archaeology digging up some classic climate threads, you are prolific in them and yet I can't find any evidence of this caution you claim here. Funny how we misremember things isn't it.

[Bacardi]

kerplunk said:

Bacardi said:

Plunky, going back a bit, did you ever come to a conclusion as to why that 70% of Lake Oroville water is flushed out to sea?

Yes - output exceeding input

If there is a drought, with the reservoir at 24% capacity, due to global warming, how can the output of water exceed the input? So, you haven't a clue at all as to why... except for your usual evasive sanctimonious one liners...

[dickymint]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Look up the papers from the three scientists being referred to, and note the dates involved, easy If you have access. As of 2021 the dates are in the future, 2030-2050, so cannot have failed, unlike the myriad of failed agw predictions you acknowledge ^.

Is 2012 in the future too? Because as hairykrishna said, when you were pushing their predictions back then you weren't so cautious. You predicted the cooling would begin in 2012 in this thread

turbobloke said:

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.

Hmm that's strange, because after some internet archaeology digging up some classic climate threads, you are prolific in them and yet I can't find any evidence of this caution you claim here. Funny how we misremember things isn't it.

So much time, work and effort you put into trawling through these threads and indeed the internet! How very odd, what a strange and sad way to get your kicks!

Then in your own words you say this...... "when you were pushing THEIR predictions". do you get it? "their predictions"

Get a life Durbs FFS it's fun outside.

[anonymous-user]

Whenever anyone points out turbobloke’s many failed predictions, you jump in asking for evidence. .

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?

Then whenever someone posts the evidence, you try and make out they’re the weirdos . . .

dickymint said:

So much time, work and effort you put into trawling through these threads and indeed the internet! How very odd, what a strange and sad way to get your kicks!

Then in your own words you say this...... "when you were pushing THEIR predictions". do you get it? "their predictions"

Get a life Durbs FFS it's fun outside.

Bit odd isn’t it to spend so much time and effort slavishly defending Turbobloke and asking for evidence and then criticising people for bothering to supply it?

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

With thanks to turbobloke for the encouragement I will post more.

This time the cycle-based cooling predictions of geologist Don Easterbrook.

Easterbrook declared to the AGU conference in 2008 that the warming phase since 1977 was over and we were in for 30 years of cooling:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterb...

As we can see his prediction had a simple basis - he looked at the temperature record of the last 100+ years, saw a few up down ups with a roughly 30 year periodicity, and bazinga - it's a 30yr cycle!

12 years later and his 30yr cycle prediction has joined roadside dead:

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 21st October 19:01

So you are disproving 30 year cycles with a chart that only has 14 years of data on it??

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

With thanks to turbobloke for the encouragement I will post more.

This time the cycle-based cooling predictions of geologist Don Easterbrook.

Easterbrook declared to the AGU conference in 2008 that the warming phase since 1977 was over and we were in for 30 years of cooling:

12 years later and his 30yr cycle prediction has joined roadside dead

That's awesome kerplunk, complete with number salad, how do you manage it.

For starters it wasn't from PH, I didn't make the contribution to WUWT, and you're still suffering from premature adjudication. From your own WUWT link on Easterbrook: "cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035"

Get back to us in 2036. The temperature has gone up and down since Easterbrook's offering, as you will know from UAH LTT 6.0 and we won't know what happened in the interval to 2035 until 2036. A stunning own goal there kerplunk

In passing, Easterbrook's approach isn't the same as e.g. Landscheidt in Energy & Environment, as you will also know.

Back on the politics front, the political consensus is looking a bit ropey. According to the BBC, who say they've seen leaks of IPCC documentation, the inmates are getting uppity.

Saudi: phrases like 'the need for urgent and accelerated mitigation' should be eliminated

Australia: rejects the conclusion that closing coal-fired power plants is necessary

India: coal is likely to remain the mainstay of energy production for decades

and OPEC: delete 'lobby activism, protecting rent extracting business models, prevent political action'

The beeb offers socialist green Figueres and the IPCC Nobel Prize comedy in their own mitigation.

It should be clear that nations commenting above have vested interests, including coal and oil, in addition to the vested interest of public opinion if and when the lights go out (again).

[durbster]

dickymint said:

So much time, work and effort you put into trawling through these threads and indeed the internet! How very odd, what a strange and sad way to get your kicks!

Then in your own words you say this...... "when you were pushing THEIR predictions". do you get it? "their predictions"

Get a life Durbs FFS it's fun outside.

I enjoy research and there's very little effort involved and Pistonhead threads can be an interesting read on pretty much any topic, as they represent a snapshot of views at the time. Since this topic is all about the future, going back to review past thinking is interesting and useful. The fact is, you can't do that without coming across turbobloke being wrong about stuff.

All in all, I would rather spend some of my spare time learning more about something than, say, demeaning myself by shielding an internet stranger from wholly justified criticism because that criticism forces me confront the fact that I've got it all wrong.

It's totally ok to be wrong and change your mind, dickymint.

[anonymous-user]

durbster said:

dickymint said:

So much time, work and effort you put into trawling through these threads and indeed the internet! How very odd, what a strange and sad way to get your kicks!

Then in your own words you say this...... "when you were pushing THEIR predictions". do you get it? "their predictions"

Get a life Durbs FFS it's fun outside.

I enjoy research and there's very little effort involved and Pistonhead threads can be an interesting read on pretty much any topic, as they represent a snapshot of views at the time. Since this topic is all about the future, going back to review past thinking is interesting and useful. The fact is, you can't do that without coming across turbobloke being wrong about everything.

All in all, I would rather spend some of my spare time learning more about something than, say, demeaning myself by shielding an internet stranger from wholly justified criticism because that criticism forces me confront the fact that I've got it all wrong.

It's totally ok to be wrong and change your mind, dickymint.

The problem for dickymint is that he’s based his whole climate science world view on turboblokes propaganda and spent years defending it and now it’s all turned out to be wrong.

A reasonable person looking for facts on a subject wouldn’t start threads asking Turbobloke to tell him how to argue about climate science. They’d gather information from both sides from reputable sources and go from there.

It’s a vivid example of how easily led people get indoctrinated.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

dickymint said:

So much time, work and effort you put into trawling through these threads and indeed the internet! How very odd, what a strange and sad way to get your kicks!

Then in your own words you say this...... "when you were pushing THEIR predictions". do you get it? "their predictions"

Get a life Durbs FFS it's fun outside.

I enjoy research and there's very little effort involved and Pistonhead threads can be an interesting read on pretty much any topic, as they represent a snapshot of views at the time. Since this topic is all about the future, going back to review past thinking is interesting and useful. The fact is, you can't do that without coming across turbobloke being wrong about stuff.

All in all, I would rather spend some of my spare time learning more about something than, say, demeaning myself by shielding an internet stranger from wholly justified criticism because that criticism forces me confront the fact that I've got it all wrong.

It's totally ok to be wrong and change your mind, dickymint.

Fair play to you, good post, quite enlightening and whatever floats your boat. Doesn't alter the fact about where these predictions came from be they right or wrong - in your own words "pushing their predictions".

[dickymint]

El stovey said:

durbster said:

dickymint said:

So much time, work and effort you put into trawling through these threads and indeed the internet! How very odd, what a strange and sad way to get your kicks!

Then in your own words you say this...... "when you were pushing THEIR predictions". do you get it? "their predictions"

Get a life Durbs FFS it's fun outside.

I enjoy research and there's very little effort involved and Pistonhead threads can be an interesting read on pretty much any topic, as they represent a snapshot of views at the time. Since this topic is all about the future, going back to review past thinking is interesting and useful. The fact is, you can't do that without coming across turbobloke being wrong about everything.

All in all, I would rather spend some of my spare time learning more about something than, say, demeaning myself by shielding an internet stranger from wholly justified criticism because that criticism forces me confront the fact that I've got it all wrong.

It's totally ok to be wrong and change your mind, dickymint.

The problem for dickymint is that he’s based his whole climate science world view on turboblokes propaganda and spent years defending it and now it’s all turned out to be wrong.

A reasonable person looking for facts on a subject wouldn’t start threads asking Turbobloke to tell him how to argue about climate science. They’d gather information from both sides from reputable sources and go from there.

It’s a vivid example of how easily led people get indoctrinated.

Of course you're right Stoves

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

So you are disproving 30 year cycles with a chart that only has 14 years of data on it??

Ok fine we can look at it in the context of the data since 1977 too:



Is it ok to screw the lid down yet?

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 22 October 10:16

[turbobloke]

UN chief 'very worried' over possible COP26 failure
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/un-chief...
Oh, Boris.

It's always funny reading about how politicians and their appointees (IPCC) think they can control the planet's complex chaotic coupled non-linear climate system to a decimal point by flying to meetings, making voters pay tax, then wasting it. Some people believe it. Gullibility knows no bounds these days and media coverage is no different.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

With thanks to turbobloke for the encouragement I will post more.

This time the cycle-based cooling predictions of geologist Don Easterbrook.

Easterbrook declared to the AGU conference in 2008 that the warming phase since 1977 was over and we were in for 30 years of cooling:

12 years later and his 30yr cycle prediction has joined roadside dead

That's awesome kerplunk, complete with number salad, how do you manage it.

For starters it wasn't from PH, I didn't make the contribution to WUWT, and you're still suffering from premature adjudication. From your own WUWT link on Easterbrook: "cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035"

Get back to us in 2036. The temperature has gone up and down since Easterbrook's offering, as you will know from UAH LTT 6.0 and we won't know what happened in the interval to 2035 until 2036. A stunning own goal there kerplunk

In passing, Easterbrook's approach isn't the same as e.g. Landscheidt in Energy & Environment, as you will also know.

Back on the politics front, the political consensus is looking a bit ropey. According to the BBC, who say they've seen leaks of IPCC documentation, the inmates are getting uppity.

Saudi: phrases like 'the need for urgent and accelerated mitigation' should be eliminated

Australia: rejects the conclusion that closing coal-fired power plants is necessary

India: coal is likely to remain the mainstay of energy production for decades

and OPEC: delete 'lobby activism, protecting rent extracting business models, prevent political action'

The beeb offers socialist green Figueres and the IPCC Nobel Prize comedy in their own mitigation.

It should be clear that nations commenting above have vested interests, including coal and oil, in addition to the vested interest of public opinion if and when the lights go out (again).

Priceless - turbobloke thinks a 30 year cycle with a turning point around 2008 can somehow still come good.

That's not even 'holding on for grim death until to the bitter end' - it's just obtuse ignoral of the facts

Let's remind ourselves how this got started:

kerlunk said:

fishseller said:

The earth will start getting colder again in a few years its climate cycles

The road is strewn with dead predictions based on 'cycles'.

Meanwhile physics-based modelling is proving quite successful about the direction of travel.

I never said anything about posted on PH, or by turbobloke.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 22 October 11:01

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

In passing, Easterbrook's approach isn't the same as e.g. Landscheidt in Energy & Environment, as you will also know.

Well he waves his arms around about solar cycles and ocean cycles in a mechanism-free way so not that dissimilar to Landscheidt

[kerplunk]

durbster said:

I enjoy research and there's very little effort involved and Pistonhead threads can be an interesting read on pretty much any topic, as they represent a snapshot of views at the time. Since this topic is all about the future, going back to review past thinking is interesting and useful. The fact is, you can't do that without coming across turbobloke being wrong about stuff.

I do it a lot - not just here. It's quite amusing looking at the hubris on display sometimes eg the 2nd comment on the Easterbrook WUWT article:

"How come a schmuck like me could look at these graphs back in the early 2000’s and clearly see we were about to go into a cold spell, yet Nobel Prize winners who invented the Internet couldn’t? One has to be blind not to see the cycles. My guess is Al Snore and his crew could see the cycles too, but they have an agenda that they want to get through and know most people are sheep, so they just disregard it."

His shoes ain't so shiney anymore.

There's a few good sceptics amongst the nodding donkey watties though (or there used to be - it's gone downhill lately)

"To improve the paper, I would have added sections explaining each of the forcings mentioned, with scientific study references. The ocean oscillations and solar irradiance needs more than just correlations but also mechanism theories. There are lots of cyclic things that can occur together but do not have a mechanism that demonstrates plausible cause and effect. For example, people always (or should) winterize before winter sets in. That does not mean that doing so causes winter to set in. Without a plausible and standard scientific treatment to the subject this is an opinion paper, not a scientific review of the literature with corresponding mega analysis."

[turbobloke]

Politicians yakking "let's keep it to 2.5 deg C" spot the decimal place, what a hoot.

For this to be anywhere near realistic, and it's as foolish as it looks, then not only do CO2 levels need to play the very largest of roles in terms of temperature (not so) then in addition any reduction in emissions brought about by politicians must lead to a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide level (also not so)

The global financial crisis showed that this is horse manure as CO2 emissions fell but CO2 levels carried on rising without any thought for what politicians and acrtivists wanted. It's actually worse than horse manure which, like CO2, helps growth of photosynthesising greenery.

We need a comedy movie at this point 'Carry On COPping' if only Sid James was still around to wave a thermometer about.

[turbobloke]

This is what politicians are dealing with, sources L to R: UAH LTT 6.0, NOAA, IEA. All are easily found in their origins.

That's temperature, CO2 levels, CO2 emissions respectively.

Take the temperature interval and compare across R to L. The CO2 emissions (right) must drive CO2 levels (middle) which must drive temperature (left).

No CO2 holidays allowed if CO2 is anywhere near sufficiently dominant for the politicians' needs, decimal places deg C remember. So, spot the (missing) correspondence. Then spot the horse manure.



The vertical lines on the emissions data represent the so-called second oil shock, then the global financial crisis. Then, there's Covid 19. Next, wait for the excuses.

[kerplunk]

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 22 October 14:00