Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
dickymint 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 stuff.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.
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.
Randy Winkman said:
I genuinely don't understand why the word "their" is so important. The predictions were wrong weren't they?
He’s trying to argue the toss about whether Turbobloke actually made the predictions or not. He did on many occasions and has often been quoted as doing so. Because durbster said “their predictions” dickymint thinks that means Turbobloke didn’t make the predictions himself on here.
It comes up every time anyone points out turboblokes failed predictions over the years.
El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
I genuinely don't understand why the word "their" is so important. The predictions were wrong weren't they?
He’s trying to argue the toss about whether Turbobloke actually made the predictions or not. He did on many occasions and has often been quoted as doing so. Because durbster said “their predictions” dickymint thinks that means Turbobloke didn’t make the predictions himself on here.
It comes up every time anyone points out turboblokes failed predictions over the years.
apart from the last load of garbage.El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
I genuinely don't understand why the word "their" is so important. The predictions were wrong weren't they?
He’s trying to argue the toss about whether Turbobloke actually made the predictions or not. He did on many occasions and has often been quoted as doing so. Because durbster said “their predictions” dickymint thinks that means Turbobloke didn’t make the predictions himself on here.
It comes up every time anyone points out turboblokes failed predictions over the years.
El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
I genuinely don't understand why the word "their" is so important. The predictions were wrong weren't they?
He’s trying to argue the toss about whether Turbobloke actually made the predictions or not. He did on many occasions and has often been quoted as doing so. Because durbster said “their predictions” dickymint thinks that means Turbobloke didn’t make the predictions himself on here.
It comes up every time anyone points out turboblokes failed predictions over the years.
Diderot said:
Why would TB himself make the predictions? Did he carry out the research personally?
Why would anyone make predictions on a car forum?Vanity most likely plus some showboating to the easily led and being an Ideologue and just wanting to be right.
When he kept saying something (rapid cooling by x date) will likely happen, that’s a prediction.
If he was just saying x says something might happen then that’s someone else’s prediction.
Do you still think AGW isn’t real and it’s all a “neo marxist” plot? Was that actually your view or were you just repeating someone else’s view?
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
I genuinely don't understand why the word "their" is so important. The predictions were wrong weren't they?
He’s trying to argue the toss about whether Turbobloke actually made the predictions or not. He did on many occasions and has often been quoted as doing so. Because durbster said “their predictions” dickymint thinks that means Turbobloke didn’t make the predictions himself on here.
It comes up every time anyone points out turboblokes failed predictions over the years.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
I genuinely don't understand why the word "their" is so important. The predictions were wrong weren't they?
He’s trying to argue the toss about whether Turbobloke actually made the predictions or not. He did on many occasions and has often been quoted as doing so. Because durbster said “their predictions” dickymint thinks that means Turbobloke didn’t make the predictions himself on here.
It comes up every time anyone points out turboblokes failed predictions over the years.
For one thing, it's encouraging to see these attacks each time, due to what it says about the lack of anything rational on offer from those typing the diversions. This is probably not the reaction sought.
I've carried out a small amount of research into the Sun-Earth interaction, which looked at the eruptivity (not irradiance) aspect of solar-terrestrial impacts in terms of solar storms and their major impact on Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with temperature predictions, and merely caused me to question why the IPCC and their followers forget to consider solar eruptivity appropriately, given it's the major forcing (not irradiance). This was shown by Shaviv, using thermal data, in a JGR paper which demonstrated that "the total radiative forcing" (solar) "is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations" where TSI is total solar irradiance. Eruptivity operates via the associated forcing mechanisms elucidated by Svensmark (CRF/LLC/albedo) and Bucha (auroral oval) as published in peer-reviewed journals, including one recent update from Svensmark.
A major issue with the predictions from solar-based forcings is that we're not there yet, the timescales involved are 2030-2050 which once again shows the desperation of agw supporters when they repeatedly suffer from premature adjudication and claim that Abdusamatov/Archibald/Landscheidt are wrong. We don't know as yet. Even Easterbrook (2035) is still running.
We do however know that there are dozens of failed agw predictions, many repeated failures and thus risible; and that while the idea of politicians controlling emissions is feasible and realistic, the important links from emissions to atmospheric levels, and then on to temperature, are absent. If CO2 was the dominant thermostat as claimed by agw, we're left asking what controlled the temperature in the interval I posted earlier, 22 years. These failures are seen in data, but some don't want to see it. This is the failure of agw.
I've posted about the predictions from Abdusamatov, Archibald (less so) and Landscheidt, because their work engenders more confidence as it's based on empirical data and a credible rationale rather than flawed assumptions generating gigo. This greater confidence as expressed in posts doesn't equate to faith, nor does it make the predictions mine. Where's the politics anyway?
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Pretty sure it's Hadcrut4 which uses a 1961-1990 reference period
Pretty sure? You're getting sloppy KP 
Someone should edit that s
t 
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Pretty sure it's Hadcrut4 which uses a 1961-1990 reference period
Pretty sure? You're getting sloppy KP Someone should edit that s
t Based on recent thread history in this climate politics thread, the wait for COP26 to fail, and then be announced by the COPpers as a success, is going to be interminable.
Meanwhile there's foreign aid, greenwash, Friends of COP, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (ironic, religion meets religion) from the Indy, which is always reliable and on-side with agw at times like this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...
Meanwhile there's foreign aid, greenwash, Friends of COP, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (ironic, religion meets religion) from the Indy, which is always reliable and on-side with agw at times like this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Why would TB himself make the predictions? Did he carry out the research personally?
Why would anyone make predictions on a car forum?Vanity most likely plus some showboating to the easily led and being an Ideologue and just wanting to be right.
When he kept saying something (rapid cooling by x date) will likely happen, that’s a prediction.
If he was just saying x says something might happen then that’s someone else’s prediction.
Do you still think AGW isn’t real and it’s all a “neo marxist” plot? Was that actually your view or were you just repeating someone else’s view?
And it's always amusing to see rabid alarmists carping on about failed predictions when there is a litany of prophecies of doom that have never amounted to anything, and of course never will.
turbobloke said:
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.
Has anyone modelled a (fictious) scenario where we go net zero tomorrow? 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.
What happens to co2, and temperature?
Guess you can model whatever you like, but it would still be interesting....
Same question for 2050 actually, does temperature hold steady at +1.5 from 1880?
(And in a world with no man made co2, how do we carbonate beer, and stun animals for slaughter? Or will we all be drinking water and plant based meat substitutes by then?)
Edited by johnboy1975 on Friday 22 October 16:28
turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
I genuinely don't understand why the word "their" is so important. The predictions were wrong weren't they?
He’s trying to argue the toss about whether Turbobloke actually made the predictions or not. He did on many occasions and has often been quoted as doing so. Because durbster said “their predictions” dickymint thinks that means Turbobloke didn’t make the predictions himself on here.
It comes up every time anyone points out turboblokes failed predictions over the years.
For one thing, it's encouraging to see these attacks each time, due to what it says about the lack of anything rational on offer from those typing the diversions. This is probably not the reaction sought.
I've carried out a small amount of research into the Sun-Earth interaction, which looked at the eruptivity (not irradiance) aspect of solar-terrestrial impacts in terms of solar storms and their major impact on Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with temperature predictions, and merely caused me to question why the IPCC and their followers forget to consider solar eruptivity appropriately, given it's the major forcing (not irradiance). This was shown by Shaviv, using thermal data, in a JGR paper which demonstrated that "the total radiative forcing" (solar) "is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations" where TSI is total solar irradiance. Eruptivity operates via the associated forcing mechanisms elucidated by Svensmark (CRF/LLC/albedo) and Bucha (auroral oval) as published in peer-reviewed journals, including one recent update from Svensmark.
A major issue with the predictions from solar-based forcings is that we're not there yet, the timescales involved are 2030-2050 which once again shows the desperation of agw supporters when they repeatedly suffer from premature adjudication and claim that Abdusamatov/Archibald/Landscheidt are wrong. We don't know as yet. Even Easterbrook (2035) is still running.
We do however know that there are dozens of failed agw predictions, many repeated failures and thus risible; and that while the idea of politicians controlling emissions is feasible and realistic, the important links from emissions to atmospheric levels, and then on to temperature, are absent. If CO2 was the dominant thermostat as claimed by agw, we're left asking what controlled the temperature in the interval I posted earlier, 22 years. These failures are seen in data, but some don't want to see it. This is the failure of agw.
I've posted about the predictions from Abdusamatov, Archibald (less so) and Landscheidt, because their work engenders more confidence as it's based on empirical data and a credible rationale rather than flawed assumptions generating gigo. This greater confidence as expressed in posts doesn't equate to faith, nor does it make the predictions mine. Where's the politics anyway?
None of that low energy = big effect stuff for him so you shouldn't be mentioning him in the same breath.
"This greater confidence as expressed in posts doesn't equate to faith, nor does it make the predictions mine"
Nor does it inspire you to put money on it evidently - not that the bet requires a new little ice age to win or even cooling - just that the 2020s are no warmer than the 2010s. Odd.
Tapping into Geothermal energy is probably the best answer
Lot's of it beneath our feet a bit of drilling and then a;ll that lovely heaty stuff is outs all ours
The only reason it hasn't been done is because of the negative attitude expressed in the movies
Crack in the world my arse more like great loads of lovely energy that can be harvested for us all
Lot's of it beneath our feet a bit of drilling and then a;ll that lovely heaty stuff is outs all ours
The only reason it hasn't been done is because of the negative attitude expressed in the movies
Crack in the world my arse more like great loads of lovely energy that can be harvested for us all
johnboy1975 said:
Has anyone modelled a (fictious) scenario where we go net zero tomorrow?
What happens to co2, and temperature?
Guess you can model whatever you like, but it would still be interesting....
Same question for 2050 actually, does temperature hold steady at +1.5 from 1880?
From a quick search there are loads of articles exploring this online:What happens to co2, and temperature?
Guess you can model whatever you like, but it would still be interesting....
Same question for 2050 actually, does temperature hold steady at +1.5 from 1880?
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-global-doesnt-emissi...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/...
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/11/24/even-if-...
Short version: CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time and today's emissions will take the next few decades to play out. Save for a major natural event that dramatically changes things, we are already committed to continued warming.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff