Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Oliver Hardy]

If June turns out to be colder than normal it will probably be put down to global warming and the variation in weather because of it.

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

I'll edit my original post to give the German weather url.

Prof Pielke's THB has been banned at Facebook, which is odd as he's strong on decarbonisation

Prof P said:

This week, we learned that THB is banned at Facebook, revealing once again why Substack stands head and shoulders above other platforms. When news of the THB Facebook ban spread, THB saw a remarkable increase in subscribers

He is a denier.

[Unreal]

Oliver Hardy said:

If June turns out to be colder than normal it will probably be put down to global warming and the variation in weather because of it.

Whatever happens - must be global warming. That's the way it works. You're in a game of heads they win, tails you lose. The other part of the game is the more lurid predictions will also happen when we're all dead. Highly convenient and it at least partly explains why the cult get so upset if you point back to failed predictions from 30 or 40 years ago. That brings in the third tactic, which is to explain that the reasons the prediction didn't come true is because of actions we took. Bingo!

[Randy Winkman]

I think that some people on here must sit with tartan blankets over their legs when they watch TV in the evening. Possibly when they drive their cars too.

[.:ian:.]

Randy Winkman said:

I think that some people on here must sit with tartan blankets over their legs when they watch TV in the evening. Possibly when they drive their cars too.

Not tartan but I did have a blanket and the dog next to me last night, fecking freezing

[durbster]

The pivot from "it's just weather, meaningless, not relevant" when it's hot, to "this cold spell in the UK absolutely disproves global warming" is always amusing. It happens every single time and they never seem to realise how it undermines their previous position.

That is the advantage of not being tethered by reality, you can change your opinions on a whim

If June turns out to be unusually cold I look forward to them citing the same Met Office data that they were accusing a few weeks ago of being corrupted conspiratorial lies.

Edited by durbster on Friday 14th June 07:49

[robinessex]

durbster said:

That is the advantage of not being tethered by reality, you can change your opinions on a whim

Does the reality you speak of include the 100's off Armageddon CC predictions in the past that never happened?

Edited by robinessex on Friday 14th June 10:09

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

The pivot from "it's just weather, meaningless, not relevant" when it's hot, to "this cold spell in the UK absolutely disproves global warming" is always amusing. It happens every single time and they never seem to realise how it undermines their previous position.

That is the advantage of not being tethered by reality, you can change your opinions on a whim

If June turns out to be unusually cold I look forward to them citing the same Met Office data that they were accusing a few weeks ago of being corrupted conspiratorial lies.

Edited by durbster on Friday 14th June 07:49

Even the met office are not stupid enough to make the same mistake twice, they were a laughing stock.

[Essarell]

Unreal said:

Oliver Hardy said:

If June turns out to be colder than normal it will probably be put down to global warming and the variation in weather because of it.

Whatever happens - must be global warming. That's the way it works. You're in a game of heads they win, tails you lose. The other part of the game is the more lurid predictions will also happen when we're all dead. Highly convenient and it at least partly explains why the cult get so upset if you point back to failed predictions from 30 or 40 years ago. That brings in the third tactic, which is to explain that the reasons the prediction didn't come true is because of actions we took. Bingo!

Scientists of the past were rubbish, that’s why the predictions that they concluded were quite literally garbage, shame on their respective universities and peer reviewed papers.

Today however we have excellent scientists, so good are they that they all agree, strange in a conspicuously unscientific way but true. They’ve managed to re-analyse (recategorise) the data and discovered with the help of computer “modeling” that the facts don’t lie and those Pacific Islanders, Floridian beach dwellers and occupiers of the Netherlands do indeed need to worry………

[turbobloke]

It's perhaps unexpected that results impacting on understanding of climate, providing more insights into how current climate models are so inadequate, would be found here.

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113...

Main takeaways for amending the basis and nature of our wrong-minded climate and energy policymaking - as if there aren't enough already -are as follows.

-atmospheric pressure has varied more in the geological past than previously thought, with pressure variation linked to temperature
-climate models assume a constant mass of atmospheric nitrogen even though there is no basis in evidence for this
-changes in pressure can explain past hot-house and ice-house episodes which ran contrary to carbon dioxide levels
-e.g. high and rising CO2 going into and through an ice age..
-...and periods of high atmospheric CO2 with non-acidic oceans...
-...giving a more accurate and complete picture where CO2 is not the controlling factor
-high CO2 levels have thus been associated with cooling periods, but not with ocean acidification periods, over long timescales
-atmospheric CO2 levels are not the determinant of ocean pH nor global temperature (comment: as, curiously, some people still believe)

A detailed account is at the above link to Cannell (2024) including consequences for bird and animal life which explain past variation not seen today.

[durbster]

Essarell said:

Scientists of the past were rubbish, that’s why the predictions that they concluded were quite literally garbage, shame on their respective universities and peer reviewed papers.

Today however we have excellent scientists, so good are they that they all agree, strange in a conspicuously unscientific way but true. They’ve managed to re-analyse (recategorise) the data and discovered with the help of computer “modeling” that the facts don’t lie and those Pacific Islanders, Floridian beach dwellers and occupiers of the Netherlands do indeed need to worry………

Bizarre. Who tells you this nonsense?

The Charney Report: 40 years ago, scientists accurately predicted climate change
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scient...

Exxon scientists in the 1970s accurately predicted climate change
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2354492-exxon...

[Essarell]

durbster said:

Essarell said:

Scientists of the past were rubbish, that’s why the predictions that they concluded were quite literally garbage, shame on their respective universities and peer reviewed papers.

Today however we have excellent scientists, so good are they that they all agree, strange in a conspicuously unscientific way but true. They’ve managed to re-analyse (recategorise) the data and discovered with the help of computer “modeling” that the facts don’t lie and those Pacific Islanders, Floridian beach dwellers and occupiers of the Netherlands do indeed need to worry………

Bizarre. Who tells you this nonsense?

The Charney Report: 40 years ago, scientists accurately predicted climate change
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scient...

Exxon scientists in the 1970s accurately predicted climate change
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2354492-exxon...

The planet is indeed warming, Exon didn’t really announce anything groundbreaking in that respect. It’s always laid at the feet of humans or to be more accurate “man”, why? Maybe that’s true or maybe it’s a great way to control and tax the fine citizens of our planet.

I’d be more worried, seriously worried if the planet was cooling.

[Tom8]

Unreal said:

Oliver Hardy said:

If June turns out to be colder than normal it will probably be put down to global warming and the variation in weather because of it.

Whatever happens - must be global warming. That's the way it works. You're in a game of heads they win, tails you lose. The other part of the game is the more lurid predictions will also happen when we're all dead. Highly convenient and it at least partly explains why the cult get so upset if you point back to failed predictions from 30 or 40 years ago. That brings in the third tactic, which is to explain that the reasons the prediction didn't come true is because of actions we took. Bingo!

It is one of the many political indoctrinations we have. Climate change is classic.
If it is too cold, "that's weather, not climate". Then you have, say, one very hot day in the middle of the summer (shocker) that is definitely the climate change or more dramatically the global warming/boiling/frying/grilling.

Racism is the same. "You're a racist" "No I'm not" "Then you have sub-conscious bias so you are racist" repeat repeat....

Force thinking and circular referencing for a particular narrative is a very nasty and dangerous trait we seem to have adopted, forcing a problem or division to indoctrinate people to believe it.

[durbster]

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Essarell said:

Scientists of the past were rubbish, that’s why the predictions that they concluded were quite literally garbage, shame on their respective universities and peer reviewed papers.

Today however we have excellent scientists, so good are they that they all agree, strange in a conspicuously unscientific way but true. They’ve managed to re-analyse (recategorise) the data and discovered with the help of computer “modeling” that the facts don’t lie and those Pacific Islanders, Floridian beach dwellers and occupiers of the Netherlands do indeed need to worry………

Bizarre. Who tells you this nonsense?

The Charney Report: 40 years ago, scientists accurately predicted climate change
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-charney-years-scient...

Exxon scientists in the 1970s accurately predicted climate change
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2354492-exxon...

The planet is indeed warming, Exon didn’t really announce anything groundbreaking in that respect.

Good grief. What a ridiculous statement.

[turbobloke]

Tom said:

Force thinking and circular referencing for a particular narrative is a very nasty and dangerous trait we seem to have adopted, forcing a problem or division to indoctrinate people to believe it.

Quite! Following Cannell (2024) here's another "we're OK actually" moment from Zhou and McManus (2024) which will appall climate activists. How dare they say it's OK it cannot be OK grrr, Note the phraseology in the Editor's summary with a lack of explicit attribution (it couldn't last, see Abstract 'but' moment where global warming is raised from the dead) in an overall straight bat, which alone is remarkable for this particular source.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh836...

Did we just have an 'all scientists agree' falsehood ;/ fallacy (that or it's a flock of parrots circling the thread),

[Tom8]

turbobloke said:

Tom said:

Force thinking and circular referencing for a particular narrative is a very nasty and dangerous trait we seem to have adopted, forcing a problem or division to indoctrinate people to believe it.

Quite! Following Cannell (2024) here's another "we're OK actually" moment from Zhou and McManus (2024) which will appall climate activists. How dare they say it's OK it cannot be OK grrr, Note the phraseology in the Editor's summary with a lack of explicit attribution (it couldn't last, see Abstract 'but' moment where global warming is raised from the dead) in an overall straight bat, which alone is remarkable for this particular source.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh836...

Did we just have an 'all scientists agree' falsehood ;/ fallacy (that or it's a flock of parrots circling the thread),

I laugh at the word, "climate scientist" Why would they say anything positive and who pays their wages and research costs? It is like asking the priest to renounce his Catholicism.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Have a read up on the urban heat island effect. UHI is stongest in sunny calm dry weather or when the surrounding countryside is covered in snow - haven't had much of that lately. As I said earlier it's difficult to imagine what station siting issues could've kicked in to produce such anomalously warm mean minimum temps in May across the UK.

I looked at a local rural weather station in the east midlands (Sutton Bonnington). Mean max/min temps in May were higher than the England result - 18.7/10.0 vs 17.8/9.3

It might well be strongest in that scenario but i have seen the temp rise on the car display by up to 3c in the winter upon entering a city often enough to know it's a thing everywhere.

Yes I usually see a degree or so warmer temps in my city compared to where I live on the very outskirts near open countryside. The area is a plain though about 50m higher than the city so that needs to be taken into account too.

wc98 said:

I saw temps down to 3c in the car the last two nights and given the wind direction i doubt the region i was driving was the coldest. I think the record low in Scotland is 2c so every chance that was equalled somewhere. Yes it's only weather but i am having great trouble working out how the instantaneous effect of the anthropogenic component of co2 apparently works on an intermittent basis, if it's as well mixed a gas as is stated in the literature.

This is silly and it looks like you ought to stick to catching fish. What makes you think CO2 is only working on an intermitent basis? That's quite unphysical isn't it. If it's unusually cold in a city centre one day does that mean UHI has switched off or does it mean it would have been colder still without it? You can be sure if the greenhouse effect ever switched off it would be a lot colder.

It's colder than usual at the moment because cold arctic air is being drawn down over the country. Do you think CO2 is like a force field that should prevent that from happening?

[kerplunk]

Oliver Hardy said:

If June turns out to be colder than normal it will probably be put down to global warming and the variation in weather because of it.

Would you like to place a bet on that? I'm game

[kerplunk]

Unreal said:

Oliver Hardy said:

If June turns out to be colder than normal it will probably be put down to global warming and the variation in weather because of it.

Whatever happens - must be global warming. That's the way it works. You're in a game of heads they win, tails you lose.

In that case you can win something back by betting on it. I'm game

[turbobloke]

A new review of data shows that so-called 'green' biofuel refineries are emitting pollution which in some cases exceeds petroleum counterparts.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12062024/ethano...