Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

There's no circa, no +/- x degrees; it's always presented as a statement of fact. Politically, this is, of course, an absolutely crucial manoeuvre.

Looks like the WMO didn't get the memo:

"The WMO report confirmed that 2023 was the warmest year on record, with the global average near-surface temperature at 1.45 °Celsius (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.12 °C) above the pre-industrial baseline."

Or Berkeley Earth:

"The global annual average for 2023 in our dataset was estimated as 1.54 ± 0.06 °C (2.77 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the preindustrial period."

Or the Met Office:

"The HadCRUT5 dataset is compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia (UEA), with support from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS). It shows that when compared with the pre-industrial reference period, 2023 was 1.46 ± 0.1 °C above the 1850-1900 average."

Note how the numbers aren't in precise agreement between providers. Your belief that the perception of precision to 2-decimal places is politically crucial is on very flimsy ground

I salute your unshakable belief, prof (not really) but can’t help thinking that you need to pose more questions

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 19th June 15:07

From Copernicus:

2023 is confirmed as the warmest calendar year in global temperature data records going back to 1850

2023 had a global average temperature of 14.98°C, 0.17°C higher than the previous highest annual value in 2016

2023 was 0.60°C warmer than the 1991-2020 average and 1.48°C warmer than the 1850-1900 pre-industrial level



UN said (under the headline “Red Alert”):

Based on data from multiple agencies, the study confirmed that 2023 was the warmest year on record, with the global average near-surface temperature at 1.45°C above the pre-industrial baseline.

Etc.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

There's no circa, no +/- x degrees; it's always presented as a statement of fact.

Last year was about 1.48C warmer than the long-term average before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the EU's climate service says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-678...

[Randy Winkman]

hairykrishna said:

Its the hottest since instrumental records began. It's that simple. You pick whenever you think the coverage is good enough but the people who actually understand this stuff settle on the mid to late 1800's. Generally 1850 for trending or 1880 for average global temp. You can argue that the sampling in the 1800's isn't good enough but if you look at the data later in the record that doesn't appear to be true.

If you want to argue that records only get good enough mid 20th century, that's fine. It's the hottest since then.

For some people, simply saying the numbers aren't good enough is just the get-out for anything. They can just use it whatever happens for the rest of their lives.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

There's no circa, no +/- x degrees; it's always presented as a statement of fact.

Last year was about 1.48C warmer than the long-term average before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the EU's climate service says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-678...

That’s ‘about’ in the sense different sources are claiming different temps, not circa.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/0...

In true Guardian fashion:

The planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis.


Further afield. Here’s NOAA:

The year 2023 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 at 1.18°C (2.12°F) above the 20th-century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.15°C (0.27°F) more than the previous record set in 2016. The 10 warmest years in the 174-year record have all occurred during the last decade (2014–2023)



Sky News:

The global average air surface temperature in 2023 was 14.98C - beating the previous record set in 2016 by a "large margin" of 0.17C.

Copernicus found 2023 was on average 1.48C warmer than levels before industrial times, when humans began burning fossil fuels at scale.



Interesting game of tennis.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

That’s ‘about’ in the sense different sources are claiming different temps, not circa.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/0...

In true Guardian fashion:

The planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis.


Further afield. Here’s NOAA:

The year 2023 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 at 1.18°C (2.12°F) above the 20th-century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.15°C (0.27°F) more than the previous record set in 2016. The 10 warmest years in the 174-year record have all occurred during the last decade (2014–2023)



Sky News:

The global average air surface temperature in 2023 was 14.98C - beating the previous record set in 2016 by a "large margin" of 0.17C.

Copernicus found 2023 was on average 1.48C warmer than levels before industrial times, when humans began burning fossil fuels at scale.



Interesting game of tennis.

The simple fact is, 2023 was warmer than any recorded data for any year previously in the last 100/ 125/ 150 years globally (From multiple sources)

Do you dispute this simple fact? And if so, from your dataset, what was globally the warmest year with recorded data in the last 200 years?

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

That’s ‘about’ in the sense different sources are claiming different temps, not circa.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/0...

In true Guardian fashion:

The planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis.


Further afield. Here’s NOAA:

The year 2023 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850 at 1.18°C (2.12°F) above the 20th-century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This value is 0.15°C (0.27°F) more than the previous record set in 2016. The 10 warmest years in the 174-year record have all occurred during the last decade (2014–2023)



Sky News:

The global average air surface temperature in 2023 was 14.98C - beating the previous record set in 2016 by a "large margin" of 0.17C.

Copernicus found 2023 was on average 1.48C warmer than levels before industrial times, when humans began burning fossil fuels at scale.



Interesting game of tennis.

The simple fact is, 2023 was warmer than any recorded data for any year previously in the last 100/ 125/ 150 years globally (From multiple sources)

Do you dispute this simple fact? And if so, from your dataset, what was globally the warmest year with recorded data in the last 200 years?

Was it warmer? Yes. By how much? We simply cannot know with any degree of certainty . 1) because we can’t due to lacunae of data, and 2) simply look at the variety of guesstimates bandied around to two decimal places about how much warmer it was estimated to be.

Beyond this, there is then the thorny issue of natural variation.

Is there a climate emergency/crisis? Of course not; climate changes and is never ‘normal’ as some publicly funded BBC so-called journalist wrote last year. Are there geopolitical interests at play? Oh yeah baby, you bet. Since the UNIPCC now have admitted openly that they ‘own the science’, and are in cahoots with Google, the so-called science has become irrelevant.

As George Michael once wrote: ‘you gotta have faith’. It seems to be strong in you.

Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 19th June 20:03

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

Interesting game of tennis.

Not really

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Interesting game of tennis.

Not really

I thought so too. Your cherry picked and rather predictably lazy research was easily countered with a brutal but effective top spin backhand, and, ultimately, you lost without scoring a single point. Tant pis. Better luck next time KP. Maybe some more training is in order.

By the way, looks like some warmth might be finally returning to these shores next week. About time since it is mid-summer. Will June prove to be the hottest June evah since almost no records began, or will it be something that no one with vested interests in the political establishment mentions and glosses over? Take your bets.

Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 19th June 22:44

Edited for Apple auto spelling arsery.

Edited by Diderot on Wednesday 19th June 22:46

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

I thought so too. Your cherry picked and rather predictably lazy research was easily countered with a brutal but effective top spin backhand, and, ultimately, you lost without scoring a single point. Tant pis. Better luck next time KP. Maybe some more training is in order.

You've stooped to calling balls out that were in, tangle legs. It's not a pretty sight

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

I thought so too. Your cherry picked and rather predictably lazy research was easily countered with a brutal but effective top spin backhand, and, ultimately, you lost without scoring a single point. Tant pis. Better luck next time KP. Maybe some more training is in order.

You've stooped to calling balls out that were in, tangle legs. It's not a pretty sight

Sore loser I see.

[robinessex]

Back to the fundamental question. So what if the planet gets a degree or so 'warmer/colder' every 100 years? CO2 and the bloody temperature have been random for 4.5 billion years, are we going to manage to control them now?

[turbobloke]

Apparently the IEA has pointed out how climate change is on the decline regarding relevance to voters. This relates to an Ipsos poll in which respondents rate ‘Pollution/Environment/Climate Change’ the least important issue, placing it at the bottom of their monthly issue index, with the NHS, Inflation, Economy and Immigration top. Just 3% of the electorate think it's the most important issue, down from 40% when the UK hosted COP26. Not bad, but 3% is still 3 points too high given what's behind most environ mental activism in 2024.

[Ian Geary]

robinessex said:

Back to the fundamental question. So what if the planet gets a degree or so 'warmer/colder' every 100 years? CO2 and the bloody temperature have been random for 4.5 billion years, are we going to manage to control them now?

Well the "what" in "so what" is I assume this sort of stuff
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czvvqdg8zxno

The co2 content and temperature may well have changed a lot over the aeons, but multiple billions of humans living during those changes? No.

I predict it would not be pleasant.


For balance though, I would like to see the "so what" of humans globally ceasing to extract energy from carbon. My view is it would be pretty bad too.

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

Back to the fundamental question. So what if the planet gets a degree or so 'warmer/colder' every 100 years? CO2 and the bloody temperature have been random for 4.5 billion years, are we going to manage to control them now?

How many years have humans been around? Would humans cope with a +13 degrees C warming?

The world would still undoubtedly exist, but with just a different set of species kicking around......

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

Back to the fundamental question. So what if the planet gets a degree or so 'warmer/colder' every 100 years? CO2 and the bloody temperature have been random for 4.5 billion years, are we going to manage to control them now?

How many years have humans been around? Would humans cope with a +13 degrees C warming?

The world would still undoubtedly exist, but with just a different set of species kicking around......

The point being there's no credible evidence in empirical data to suggest humans have any control over global climate. 13 deg C or indeed any fantasy number is pure hype. The climate crisis isn't. You keep forgetting how UK policy is baseless and so far from the mark it's markless. Try some memory exercises before not reading:

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

McKitrick and Christy 2018 showed that the assumption in climate models (relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects) fail against data.

Mao et al 2019)[ hit the spot: humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/brain-ex...

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

Back to the fundamental question. So what if the planet gets a degree or so 'warmer/colder' every 100 years? CO2 and the bloody temperature have been random for 4.5 billion years, are we going to manage to control them now?

How many years have humans been around? Would humans cope with a +13 degrees C warming?

The world would still undoubtedly exist, but with just a different set of species kicking around......

The point being there's no credible evidence in empirical data to suggest humans have any control over global climate. 13 deg C or indeed any fantasy number is pure hype. The climate crisis isn't. You keep forgetting how UK policy is baseless and so far from the mark it's markless. Try some memory exercises before not reading:

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

McKitrick and Christy 2018 showed that the assumption in climate models (relating to claimed carbon dioxide effects) fail against data.

Mao et al 2019)[ hit the spot: humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth's climate.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/brain-ex...

Any of those paper hypothesize the rising trend in temperature?

[Tom8]

So after 30 years plus of concentrated environmental action, clean energy, net zero, clean fuels and cars blah blah blah compared to times when we were belching fumes like nobody's business, we have not made one jot of difference to temperatures through buying Teslas.

Glad we can agree on that. Can we stop now? And mute High Priest Rollat of the BBC from our lives.

Funnily enough a good environmental story on the BBC today;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxxz51vwz2o

Amazing how this doesn't dare mention the climate change. I wonder why?

[mike9009]

Tom8 said:

Funnily enough a good environmental story on the BBC today;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxxz51vwz2o

Amazing how this doesn't dare mention the climate change. I wonder why?

Just perhaps because the story has nothing to do with climate change?? Or am I due a parrot??

[wc98]

mike9009 said:

How many years have humans been around? Would humans cope with a +13 degrees C warming?

The world would still undoubtedly exist, but with just a different set of species kicking around......

On a planet with a temperature variance of 150c and a 100c plus swing through the seasons where humans live permanently, i'm sure we would manage.

[Randy Winkman]

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

Back to the fundamental question. So what if the planet gets a degree or so 'warmer/colder' every 100 years? CO2 and the bloody temperature have been random for 4.5 billion years, are we going to manage to control them now?

How many years have humans been around? Would humans cope with a +13 degrees C warming?

The world would still undoubtedly exist, but with just a different set of species kicking around......

And it's how we get to that point that matters. If we think there are problems with migration now it's going to get way worse. And we wont have Nigel Farage to sort it out for us either.