Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[turbobloke]

110 years ago today, the Great Storm of 1914 which hit Tooting hard, reprised courtesy of NALOPKT. Thank goodness UK extreme weather isn't getting worse with much higher tax gas levels these days (420ppmv) compared to back then (300 ppmv).

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024...

[turbobloke]

Ref Tooting 1914, according to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, and in contrast to wild claims from avtivists and politicians, the IPCC finds no trends in the following weather / climate related phenomena. Hence no trends to attribute to humans. They (IPCC) should stick to data more widely.
heavy rain
river floods
pluvial floods
landslides
hydrological drought
agricultural drought
ecological drought
aridity
fire weather
wind storms
dust storms
hurricanes
snow cover
snow storms
glaciers
ice sheets
ice storms
hail
avalanches
relative sea level
coastal floods
coastal erosion
marine heatwaves
ocean acidity

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Ref Tooting 1914, according to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, and in contrast to wild claims from avtivists and politicians, the IPCC finds no trends in the following weather / climate related phenomena. Hence no trends to attribute to humans. They (IPCC) should stick to data more widely.
heavy rain
river floods
pluvial floods
landslides
hydrological drought
agricultural drought
ecological drought
aridity
fire weather
wind storms
dust storms
hurricanes
snow cover
snow storms
glaciers
ice sheets
ice storms
hail
avalanches
relative sea level
coastal floods
coastal erosion
marine heatwaves
ocean acidity

This is comically desperate. He's not even trying to hide the lies any more.

Here's what the IPCC sixth assessment says, under the Observed Changes and Impacts section:

IPCC said:

... Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since AR5. Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s, including increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts (high confidence).

See for yourself: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

[Diderot]

Likely.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

I showed you that the bloke who made the graph said you are wrong, and you ignored that.

Oh well, have a different one. Or two

[deeps]

kerplunk said:

wc98 said:

That's a fair point, it's just a pity some bods at the Met office are actually pushing a narrative. There is no climate crisis. There is climate variability and we are in an age where there is an anthropogenic element to that change but how much or even if it is significant enough to do anything about, no one has any idea.

Oh that's reassuring - we're pumping billions of tons of climate affectig stuff into the atmosphere with unknown outcomes.

It cracks me up how 'sceptics' think uncertainty is their friend

"Billions of tons" could be stated in a less dramatic and deliberately scaremongering way as an increase of just over 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Global warming theory - trivially true, numerically insignificant.

[durbster]

deeps said:

"Billions of tons" could be stated in a less dramatic and deliberately scaremongering way as an increase of just over 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Global warming theory - trivially true, numerically insignificant.

And in tomorrow's edition of Physics according to deeps - we learn how an atom bomb can't possibly make a big explosion because didn't you know that atoms are really, really small actually.

It's always reassuring to see that this is the level of understanding of people who don't accept the science of climate change.

[deeps]

durbster said:

deeps said:

"Billions of tons" could be stated in a less dramatic and deliberately scaremongering way as an increase of just over 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Global warming theory - trivially true, numerically insignificant.

And in tomorrow's edition of Physics according to deeps - we learn how an atom bomb can't possibly make a big explosion because didn't you know that atoms are really, really small actually.

It's always reassuring to see that this is the level of understanding of people who don't accept the science of climate change.

Don't pass your junk lines on to me. You said it.

It's always reassuring to see that this is the level of manipulation from people who believe in the current bas-tardisation of science.

[turbobloke]

deeps said:

"Billions of tons" could be stated in a less dramatic and deliberately scaremongering way as an increase of just over 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Global warming theory - trivially true, numerically insignificant.

All that tax gas and nothing to show for it - oh dear, how sad? No, thank goodness. And yet for some obvious reason, activists can't cope with their catastrophe ideas being a catastrophe. There'd be no influence over uninformed politicians and the innocently uninformed but relentlessly propagandised public then y'see.

Koutsoyiannis and Vournas (2023) as linked previously in this thread, showed using downwelling longwave radiation data for the post-1900 increase in CO2 atmospheric level from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, that the additional carbon dioxide “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect" which remains dominated by water vapour. The paper also states clearly that the effect of CO2 emissions is too small to detect, "impossible to discern" aka insignificant.

Faith moves politicians and activists, but not the mercury or alcohol in thermometers. The climate crisis is a (supposedly noble) lie.

[deeps]

Seeing as it's graph day, this one is an interesting look at the last four interglacials...

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Ref Tooting 1914, according to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, and in contrast to wild claims from avtivists and politicians, the IPCC finds no trends in the following weather / climate related phenomena. Hence no trends to attribute to humans. They (IPCC) should stick to data more widely.
heavy rain
river floods
pluvial floods
landslides
hydrological drought
agricultural drought
ecological drought
aridity
fire weather
wind storms
dust storms
hurricanes
snow cover
snow storms
glaciers
ice sheets
ice storms
hail
avalanches
relative sea level
coastal floods
coastal erosion
marine heatwaves
ocean acidity

This is comically desperate. He's not even trying to hide the lies any more.

Here's what the IPCC sixth assessment says, under the Observed Changes and Impacts section:

IPCC said:

... Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since AR5. Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s, including increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts (high confidence).

See for yourself: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Trends are observed, attributions to AGW are made - yet when the trends remain within the bounds of natural variation the attribution to AGW becomes questionable.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

deeps said:

"Billions of tons" could be stated in a less dramatic and deliberately scaremongering way as an increase of just over 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Global warming theory - trivially true, numerically insignificant.

And in tomorrow's edition of Physics according to deeps - we learn how an atom bomb can't possibly make a big explosion because didn't you know that atoms are really, really small actually.

It's always reassuring to see that this is the level of understanding of people who don't accept the science of climate change.

I don't believe even you accept that as a reasonable comparison, we are talking about a naturally occurring gas that's needed for life on earth, that properties are inert and colorless, not in anyway the same.

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

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?

Come on man, i know it's difficult to discern the sentiment behind plain text on a screen but these days i tend to read this thread in the spirit of mild piss taking and post in the same manner. I doubt anyone seriously thinks one or two cold nights in June is a sign that every aspect of the MMGW theory is wrong , in the same vein the same goes for a few hot days.

It is worth calling the nonsense like the wild Tuvalu claims out, i am interested to see the response to the link i posted from the poster that mentioned it, maybe you would like to chip in ?

[wc98]

Kawasicki said:

Trends are observed, attributions to AGW are made - yet when the trends remain within the bounds of natural variation the attribution to AGW becomes questionable.

I hope you are not questioning the International Panel on Climate Creativity Can you imagine where we would be without their leaders ? People like Rajendra Pachauri are going to save us from ourselves.

[wc98]

durbster said:

deeps said:

"Billions of tons" could be stated in a less dramatic and deliberately scaremongering way as an increase of just over 1 molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Global warming theory - trivially true, numerically insignificant.

And in tomorrow's edition of Physics according to deeps - we learn how an atom bomb can't possibly make a big explosion because didn't you know that atoms are really, really small actually.

It's always reassuring to see that this is the level of understanding of people who don't accept the science of climate change.

Again there is a good point being made there, as we focus so much on the billions of tonnes of co2 or hiroshimas as some of our more dramatic CAGW friends like to refer to the added energy (they never mention the hiroshimas going the other way due to the huge increase in exposed sea surface with the reduction in Arctic Sea Ice) in the system. It's not the co2 doing most of the warming, it's a runaway increase in water vapour generated by the small warming the co2 theoretically produces.

How's the current atmospheric water vapour situation looking ? I haven't looked for a while.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

Trends are observed, attributions to AGW are made - yet when the trends remain within the bounds of natural variation the attribution to AGW becomes questionable.

Yes change is observed that matches expectations of a warming world, and probabilistic attributions are made, but there is no proof

Uncertainty - yum yum

[kerplunk]

deeps said:

Seeing as it's graph day, this one is an interesting look at the last four interglacials...

So the GISP greenland ice core data (red line) which ends in 1855 and and it's got a big 'we are here' arrow which isn't interesting cos we've seen that done to the GISP data many times before.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenla...

Do you have a point about the comparison with previous interglacials?

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 14th June 20:33

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

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?

Come on man, i know it's difficult to discern the sentiment behind plain text on a screen but these days i tend to read this thread in the spirit of mild piss taking and post in the same manner. I doubt anyone seriously thinks one or two cold nights in June is a sign that every aspect of the MMGW theory is wrong , in the same vein the same goes for a few hot days.

It is worth calling the nonsense like the wild Tuvalu claims out, i am interested to see the response to the link i posted from the poster that mentioned it, maybe you would like to chip in ?

Well you certainly fooled me

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Trends are observed, attributions to AGW are made - yet when the trends remain within the bounds of natural variation the attribution to AGW becomes questionable.

Yes change is observed that matches expectations of a warming world, and probabilistic attributions are made, but there is no proof

Uncertainty - yum yum

Opportunities around every corner. Rub our hands in glee at the money making possibilities.

[272BHP]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/j...

As this is the political debate I guess this should resides here?

This should have been an open and shut case, they admitted doing the crime and the judge instructed the jury to disregard their political and philosophical beliefs when considering a verdict.

200,000 worth of vandalism to windows and they get off scot free.