Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[robinessex]

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/

Durbs. For your attention:-

LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY,

likely
adjective
adjective: likely; comparative adjective: likelier; superlative adjective: likeliest

1.
such as well might happen or be true; probable.
"speculation"

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

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/

Durbs. For your attention:-

LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY, LIKELY,

likely
adjective
adjective: likely; comparative adjective: likelier; superlative adjective: likeliest

1.
such as well might happen or be true; probable.
"speculation"

Exactly, speculation with no causality established beyond belief in the IPCC faith. Thanks to durbster and yourself for confirming that what I posted is accurate.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen has announced plans to invest 60bn euros in the development of new combustion engines at the same time as confidence in electric mobility plummets in Germany and elsewhere. They're well aware of what Not Zero means.

https://blackout-news.de/aktuelles/umdenken-bei-vw...

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Thanks to durbster and yourself for confirming that what I posted is accurate.

Very unlikely

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Thanks to durbster and yourself for confirming that what I posted is accurate.

Very unlikely

Is 'very unlikely' from an IPCC look-up table or an equally meaningless personal equivalent - rhetorial question for the cavalry.

Germany’s Green Party lost nearly half its voter base in last Sunday’s EU election. Fact check that and smell the petrol. People are increasingly sick and tired of being told what to buy and what silly greenblob rules to follow.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Thanks to durbster and yourself for confirming that what I posted is accurate.

Very unlikely

Is 'very unlikely' from an IPCC look-up table or an equally meaningless personal equivalent - rhetorial question for the cavalry.

It's a probabilistic assessment from empirical observation

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Thanks to durbster and yourself for confirming that what I posted is accurate.

Very unlikely

Is 'very unlikely' from an IPCC look-up table or an equally meaningless personal equivalent - rhetorial question for the cavalry.

It's a probabilistic assessment from empirical observation

It's obviously tag team.

As expected following recent events...there's big climate money in turbulence.

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

Snips from NALOPKT said:

Professor Paul Williams, who has written several studies claiming that air turbulence is getting worse because of climate change, was rather put out when his work was exposed as shoddy junk science by Paul Burgess on GB News the other week.

Burgess simply presented the actual data from the FAA, which quite clearly showed there had been no increase in flight turbulence incidents since 1989, despite what Williams’ computer models said.

According to Williams, GB News should not have even invited Burgess on the show, and certainly not given viewers the actual facts. He even labelled the latter as far-right and a supporter of the BNP...there's an awful lot of grant money hanging on Williams’ theories and models, for both himself and Reading University (details at the link).

Attempts at silencing valid opinions based on empirical data that can do damage to The Team and The Cause, name calling, hyperbolic politicisation, that's par for the course - thank goodness PH sees no activism like that

Given the climate crisis is now correctly seen as a (noble) lie there'll be even more censorious whining.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 15th June 13:02

[Oliver Hardy]

A tiny bit off topic, but recently came across figures for CO2 emission per captor, surprised that counties like Belgium and Netherlands where everyone cycles apparently have higher emissions than UK, so has Germany, Norway and Finland, Sweden less. The emissions of Luxemburg are very high. Qatar is the worlds niggest CO2 emitter per captor.

Spain is higher than, Malta and Portugal also higher than UKs

Ireland emits more CO2 than the UK does, France less .

UK emissions are 4.72 metric tones, Luxembourg 11.62, Qatar 37.6

Edited by Oliver Hardy on Saturday 15th June 14:28

[swisstoni]

Oliver Hardy said:

A tiny bit off topic, but recently came across figures for CO2 emission per captor, surprised that counties like Belgium and Netherlands where everyone cycles apparently have higher emissions than UK, so has Germany, Norway and Finland, Sweden less. The emissions of Luxemburg are very high. Qatar is the worlds highest CO2 emitter per captor.

Spain is higher than, Malta and Portugal also higher than UKs

Ireland emits more CO2 than the UK does, France less .

How do they measure what amount of CO2 comes out of which country?

[dickymint]

swisstoni said:

Oliver Hardy said:

A tiny bit off topic, but recently came across figures for CO2 emission per captor, surprised that counties like Belgium and Netherlands where everyone cycles apparently have higher emissions than UK, so has Germany, Norway and Finland, Sweden less. The emissions of Luxemburg are very high. Qatar is the worlds highest CO2 emitter per captor.

Spain is higher than, Malta and Portugal also higher than UKs

Ireland emits more CO2 than the UK does, France less .

How do they measure what amount of CO2 comes out of which country?

"How do countries calculate their emissions?

Countries report their emissions through what is known as a ‘bottom up’ approach, where national emissions are estimated by combining data on types of activity with the emissions typically produced by those activities. So, if you know how much carbon dioxide steelmaking produces, and you know how much steel is produced in your country, you can estimate the total quantity of emissions from the steel sector.

Are those calculations accurate?

There are internationally agreed guidelines developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that specify how this kind of accountancy should be done."

So as it's the IPCC everything is true and accurate likely maybe


https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-do...

[durbster]

If somebody told robinessex that a sandwich was highly likely to give him severe food poisoning, he would see no reason not to eat it. That's the level of thinking from these anti-science folk.

turbobloke said:

Exactly, speculation with no causality established beyond belief in the IPCC faith. Thanks to durbster and yourself for confirming that what I posted is accurate.

Turbogaslighting in full effect. Anyone who understands English* can read what you posted so we can all see that your claim is not true.

*robinessex is excused

[Randy Winkman]

dickymint said:

swisstoni said:

Oliver Hardy said:

A tiny bit off topic, but recently came across figures for CO2 emission per captor, surprised that counties like Belgium and Netherlands where everyone cycles apparently have higher emissions than UK, so has Germany, Norway and Finland, Sweden less. The emissions of Luxemburg are very high. Qatar is the worlds highest CO2 emitter per captor.

Spain is higher than, Malta and Portugal also higher than UKs

Ireland emits more CO2 than the UK does, France less .

How do they measure what amount of CO2 comes out of which country?

"How do countries calculate their emissions?

Countries report their emissions through what is known as a ‘bottom up’ approach, where national emissions are estimated by combining data on types of activity with the emissions typically produced by those activities. So, if you know how much carbon dioxide steelmaking produces, and you know how much steel is produced in your country, you can estimate the total quantity of emissions from the steel sector.

Are those calculations accurate?

There are internationally agreed guidelines developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that specify how this kind of accountancy should be done."

So as it's the IPCC everything is true and accurate likely maybe


https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-do...

Cheers. I'm wondering what cycling has to do with it?

[Oliver Hardy]

dickymint said:

"How do countries calculate their emissions?

Countries report their emissions through what is known as a ‘bottom up’ approach, where national emissions are estimated by combining data on types of activity with the emissions typically produced by those activities. So, if you know how much carbon dioxide steelmaking produces, and you know how much steel is produced in your country, you can estimate the total quantity of emissions from the steel sector.

Are those calculations accurate?

There are internationally agreed guidelines developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that specify how this kind of accountancy should be done."

So as it's the IPCC everything is true and accurate likely maybe


https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-do...

That makes sense now why the emission of Malta is so much lower than Spain for example.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

kerplunk said:

turbobloke said:

Thanks to durbster and yourself for confirming that what I posted is accurate.

Very unlikely

Is 'very unlikely' from an IPCC look-up table or an equally meaningless personal equivalent - rhetorial question for the cavalry.

It's a probabilistic assessment from empirical observation

Statistics !! Toss a coin instead.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

If somebody told robinessex that a sandwich was highly likely to give him severe food poisoning, he would see no reason not to eat it

Oh dear Durbs is desperate again. Having been told "a sandwich was highly likely to give me severe food poisoning", I presume/ expect the remark would've been preceded by some factual evidence.

[Randy Winkman]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

If somebody told robinessex that a sandwich was highly likely to give him severe food poisoning, he would see no reason not to eat it

Oh dear Durbs is desperate again. Having been told "a sandwich was highly likely to give me severe food poisoning", I presume/ expect the remark would've been preceded by some factual evidence.

But do you acknowledge that there are circumstances where it's reasonable to react when something is "highly likely" but not "definite"?

[PRTVR]

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

durbster said:

If somebody told robinessex that a sandwich was highly likely to give him severe food poisoning, he would see no reason not to eat it

Oh dear Durbs is desperate again. Having been told "a sandwich was highly likely to give me severe food poisoning", I presume/ expect the remark would've been preceded by some factual evidence.

But do you acknowledge that there are circumstances where it's reasonable to react when something is "highly likely" but not "definite"?

It would depend if you trusted the source, scientific institutions that repeatedly get things wrong, against massive costs, perhaps not.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

If somebody told robinessex that a sandwich was highly likely to give him severe food poisoning, he would see no reason not to eat it

Oh dear Durbs is desperate again. Having been told "a sandwich was highly likely to give me severe food poisoning", I presume/ expect the remark would've been preceded by some factual evidence.

Make up your mind. Now you're saying the use of the word "likely" is OK when supported by the evidence? That's not been your position at all. Your claim has always been that probability is meaningless, regardless what evidence is behind it.

I don't recall being anywhere near desperation in this thread. I'm not the one trying to argue that maths, statistics, physics and the English language aren't valid.

The side of science and reason continues to be validated by reality, whereas you've just had your argument undone by a sandwich.

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

durbster said:

If somebody told robinessex that a sandwich was highly likely to give him severe food poisoning, he would see no reason not to eat it

Oh dear Durbs is desperate again. Having been told "a sandwich was highly likely to give me severe food poisoning", I presume/ expect the remark would've been preceded by some factual evidence.

But do you acknowledge that there are circumstances where it's reasonable to react when something is "highly likely" but not "definite"?

No, because the basis is false so it's not highly likely that predictions based on CO2 emissions and levels are credible - they will be wrong, except by chance...carbon dioxide is in no way driving climate change / temperatre change. The following papers, cited snd linked to several times in this thread, remain serially ignore by agw activism simply because to do otherwise would be to admit to the climate crisis lie, noble or not, so crisis activists plod on while thinking of The Team and The Cause.

Nelson and Nelson (2024) in "Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change" added to the increasing number of papers demonstrating the inabiity of carbon dioxide to have any significant let alone dangerous effect on temperature.

Cannell 2024 dismissed the claimed primacy of carbon dioxide levels, which cannot explain periods where the planet entered an ice age with high and rising CO2 levels nor times when there were high CO2 levels but with oceans not acidifying, while previously dismissed pressure changes do provide a satisfactory explanation for both, also pointing out corresponsdng errors in climate modelling relating to nitrogen levels...in more detail:
-atmospheric pressure has varied more in the geological past than previously thought, with pressure variation linked to temperature which is not driven by CO2 levels
-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 for planetary temperature...
-...in addition to atmospheric CO2 levels not beingthe determinant of ocean pH, nor is CO2 the determinant of global temperature

Kato and Rose 2024 showed that absorbed shortwave has gone up since 2000 at +0.68 W/m² per decade which explains the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance (increase) as well as the surface imbalance

Ollila 2023 noted "these results mean that there is no climate crisis"

Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023 found from downwelling longwave observations over 100 years that carbon dioxide level increasing from 300 ppmv to 400 ppmv resulted in no discernible alteration to the greenhouse effect

Dagsvik and Moen 2023 found that the effect of manmade CO2 emissions is nosufficient to cause systematic temperature fluctuations

Fleming 2018 confirmed that there is no propensity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect
Fleming 2018 also noted that empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change

This collection of objectivity based on data makes a mockery of gov't policy and renders consideration of IPCC faithful forecasting absolutely pointless.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

robinessex said:

durbster said:

If somebody told robinessex that a sandwich was highly likely to give him severe food poisoning, he would see no reason not to eat it

Oh dear Durbs is desperate again. Having been told "a sandwich was highly likely to give me severe food poisoning", I presume/ expect the remark would've been preceded by some factual evidence.

But do you acknowledge that there are circumstances where it's reasonable to react when something is "highly likely" but not "definite"?

No, because the basis is false so it's not highly likely that predictions based on CO2 emissions and levels are credible - they will be wrong, except by chance...carbon dioxide is in no way driving climate change / temperatre change. The following papers, cited snd linked to several times in this thread, remain serially ignore by agw activism simply because to do otherwise would be to admit to the climate crisis lie, noble or not, so crisis activists plod on while thinking of The Team and The Cause.

Nelson and Nelson (2024) in "Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change" added to the increasing number of papers demonstrating the inabiity of carbon dioxide to have any significant let alone dangerous effect on temperature.

Cannell 2024 dismissed the claimed primacy of carbon dioxide levels, which cannot explain periods where the planet entered an ice age with high and rising CO2 levels nor times when there were high CO2 levels but with oceans not acidifying, while previously dismissed pressure changes do provide a satisfactory explanation for both, also pointing out corresponsdng errors in climate modelling relating to nitrogen levels...in more detail:
-atmospheric pressure has varied more in the geological past than previously thought, with pressure variation linked to temperature which is not driven by CO2 levels
-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 for planetary temperature...
-...in addition to atmospheric CO2 levels not beingthe determinant of ocean pH, nor is CO2 the determinant of global temperature

Kato and Rose 2024 showed that absorbed shortwave has gone up since 2000 at +0.68 W/m² per decade which explains the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance (increase) as well as the surface imbalance

Ollila 2023 noted "these results mean that there is no climate crisis"

Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023 found from downwelling longwave observations over 100 years that carbon dioxide level increasing from 300 ppmv to 400 ppmv resulted in no discernible alteration to the greenhouse effect

Dagsvik and Moen 2023 found that the effect of manmade CO2 emissions is nosufficient to cause systematic temperature fluctuations

Fleming 2018 confirmed that there is no propensity for carbon dioxide to trap and store heat over time to produce a climate change effect
Fleming 2018 also noted that empirical data point to the extreme value of carbon dioxide to life, with no role in any significant climate change

This collection of objectivity based on data makes a mockery of gov't policy and renders consideration of IPCC faithful forecasting absolutely pointless.

So if you've already decided you are on the other side of the argument, you stick to your guns?

[mike9009]

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/202...

Anti-science, anti maths (remember averages are pointless) desperation....

Come on.....