Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Sorry Mike, but you seemingly don’t understand what a hypothesis is.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Sorry Mike, but you seemingly don’t understand what a hypothesis is.

So once again the answer is a resounding 'no'. Answering with semantics, is not answering. Sorry. Try answering the core of the question?

CO2 levels rising is the only hypothesis put forward for the rising temps at the moment. There is no alternative proposed, accept those proposed ten years ago predicting another mini ice age.

[mike9009]

Like a squirming politician trying to avoid the question.

[turbobloke]

The effects of Net Zero-friendly turbines on home-owners and the environment are decidedly unfriendly, with ongoing damage to people (who are vacating homes), water supplies, birds, bats, badgers and beef among other victims. Intermittent unreliables can be relied upon to damage the environment.

https://journals.lww.com/endi/fulltext/2024/09010/...vacated_abandoned_homes_study.1.aspx

[turbobloke]

Climate politics scaremongering for The Team and The Cause just took a hit, from data naturally.

Maldives Are Not Being Submerged After All
New York Times 27 June 2024

Apparently, nations like the Maldives seemed doomed to shrink (but) scientists have begun to tell a "surprising new story", Surprising, new, ho ho ho.

Snips from NYT said:

One study that rounded up scientists’ data on 709 islands across the Pacific and Indian Oceans showed that nearly 89 percent either had increased in area or hadn’t changed much in recent decades. Only 11 percent had contracted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/briefing/maldives-atolls-climate-change.html

They still manage to get coral reefs wrong, the outdated dogma will presumably be a subject for the next 'not so after all' article.
'

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

[donkmeister]

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

There is NO SOLID SCIENTIFIC link between CO2/Temperature. Both are Chaotic systems and do their own thing.

I really think you do not understand chaos theory.

Glad you said that, I was scratching my head at that statement as last time I checked chaotic systems are still deterministic over time.

But meh... what would we, mere scientists, know about such things. Everyone knows that the only valid source for "chaos theory" is that bit in Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum drips water onto his hand.

[donkmeister]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

Isn't that essentially what that Scafetta bloke says? The one who all the CC deniers were quoting when they thought he was saying "there's absolutely no link between anthropic causes and climate change", but mysteriously stopped quoting once it was explained that he just thought man's effects were about half?

Conspiracy! The "Greta lives rent free in my head" gang are trying to silence the scientist they thought agreed with their wishful view of the world!

[donkmeister]

turbobloke said:

The effects of Net Zero-friendly turbines on home-owners and the environment are decidedly unfriendly, with ongoing damage to people (who are vacating homes), water supplies, birds, bats, badgers and beef among other victims. Intermittent unreliables can be relied upon to damage the environment.

https://journals.lww.com/endi/fulltext/2024/09010/...vacated_abandoned_homes_study.1.aspx

Nothing to do with the wind turbines, it's purely natural variation.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

The effects of Net Zero-friendly turbines on home-owners and the environment are decidedly unfriendly, with ongoing damage to people (who are vacating homes), water supplies, birds, bats, badgers and beef among other victims. Intermittent unreliables can be relied upon to damage the environment.

https://journals.lww.com/endi/fulltext/2024/09010/...vacated_abandoned_homes_study.1.aspx

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/3/e084074

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

It is true. But each subsequent El Nino is getting warmer as acknowledged by Christy recently. Why?

[turbobloke]

The big climate politics lie, stateside.

Trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet for an energy transition that isn't happening.

WSJ quoted

Article said:

Studies show that when countries add more renewable energy, it does little to replace coal, gas or oil.

It's as though the inevitably intermittent and unreliable nature of trophy windmills and panels wasn't known. An unreliable energy source needs back-up (as per burning coal during the Glasgow COP boondoggle) or the lights go out and politicians get annihilated at the ballot box.

[donkmeister]

turbobloke said:

It's as though the inevitably intermittent and unreliable nature of trophy windmills and panels wasn't known. An unreliable energy source needs back-up (as per burning coal during the Glasgow COP boondoggle) or the lights go out and politicians get annihilated at the ballot box.

Did... Did you just post about the politics of Climate Change in the "Climate Change Political Debate" thread, rather than trying to argue against the entire scientific community?

Bravo sir. Bravo.

[turbobloke]

donkmeister said:

turbobloke said:

It's as though the inevitably intermittent and unreliable nature of trophy windmills and panels wasn't known. An unreliable energy source needs back-up (as per burning coal during the Glasgow COP boondoggle) or the lights go out and politicians get annihilated at the ballot box.

Did... Did you just post about the politics of Climate Change in the "Climate Change Political Debate" thread, rather than trying to argue against the entire scientific community?

Bravo sir. Bravo.

The entire scientific commumity didn't have a representative until now, when were you elected? Rhetorical question. You're talking cobblers on all fronts. In case of parrots launch now, otherwise there's these among many others.

Energy Transition said:

In the case of wind and solar, dispatchable backup power is required for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow.

Reuters said:

Hydrogen as a backup for renewables remains a distant proposition.

Forbes said:

Everyone already knows that wind and solar energy are intermittent fuels. They must be firmed up by energy storage or fast-starting generation...Most often, natural gas is used as the safety net.

Not everyone already knew. Coal was burned to keep the lights on at COP26 in Glasgow.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Not everyone already knew. Coal was burned to keep the lights on at COP26 in Glasgow.

Yeah, that's not good, is it? and I think you may have mentioned it a couple of times before too. Thanks for the reminder though but my memory is not failing. (Yet )

In case you had forgotten, it would be good to have a critique of the Tony Hellers video posted. Why did he resort to such distortion and misleading analysis? Seemed a little desperate to appeal to the less educated??

[turbobloke]

The future's bright, the future's still fossil, with unreliables job losses in the pipeline alongside oil and gas.

BP has announced a company-wide hiring freeze and a pause on new offshore wind projects, as new CEO Murray Auchincloss shifts the company’s focus back to oil and gas.

Article said:

The company is also prioritizing investments in new oil and gas assets, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. shale basins. In addition to the hiring freeze, Auchincloss has hinted at potential job cuts in the renewables sector, though specifics have not been disclosed.

Click

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

It is true. But each subsequent El Nino is getting warmer as acknowledged by Christy recently. Why?

What causes the natural oscillations? Do you have a hypothesis?

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

It is true. But each subsequent El Nino is getting warmer as acknowledged by Christy recently. Why?

What causes the natural oscillations? Do you have a hypothesis?

Personally I have not created a hypothesis. Sorry, however a few natural variations are.......

Day and night, orbit of the earth around the sun, position in milky way, solar flares, cloud cover, volcanic activity, angle of the earth's axis, meteor strikes are a few that are well known and researched, plus no doubt others exist.

However there is no research published (that has been presented on the thread or to my knowledge - fallible, I admit), why we are having the current warming other than CO2 concentrations increasing. It seems to be the only theory that stacks up.

Additionally, I acknowledge the understanding of El Nino is not fully understood, to answer your question more directly (a rare trait on this thread) . But the earth is still warming, in general, in spite of El Nino and with an increasing concentration of CO2.

I would willingly accept otherwise.

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

It is true. But each subsequent El Nino is getting warmer as acknowledged by Christy recently. Why?

What causes the natural oscillations? Do you have a hypothesis?

Personally I have not created a hypothesis. Sorry, however a few natural variations are.......

Day and night, orbit of the earth around the sun, position in milky way, solar flares, cloud cover, volcanic activity, angle of the earth's axis, meteor strikes are a few that are well known and researched, plus no doubt others exist.

However there is no research published (that has been presented on the thread or to my knowledge - fallible, I admit), why we are having the current warming other than CO2 concentrations increasing. It seems to be the only theory that stacks up.

Additionally, I acknowledge the understanding of El Nino is not fully understood, to answer your question more directly (a rare trait on this thread) . But the earth is still warming, in general, in spite of El Nino and with an increasing concentration of CO2.

I would willingly accept otherwise.

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Still no alternate hypothesis though?

Here’s an alternate hypothesis… it’s kind of an obvious one, one that you might think doesn’t need stating.

Part natural variability - What causes El Niño, La Niña and the NAO?
Part human caused - not just CO2 either.

It is true. But each subsequent El Nino is getting warmer as acknowledged by Christy recently. Why?

What causes the natural oscillations? Do you have a hypothesis?

Personally I have not created a hypothesis. Sorry, however a few natural variations are.......

Day and night, orbit of the earth around the sun, position in milky way, solar flares, cloud cover, volcanic activity, angle of the earth's axis, meteor strikes are a few that are well known and researched, plus no doubt others exist.

However there is no research published (that has been presented on the thread or to my knowledge - fallible, I admit), why we are having the current warming other than CO2 concentrations increasing. It seems to be the only theory that stacks up.

Additionally, I acknowledge the understanding of El Nino is not fully understood, to answer your question more directly (a rare trait on this thread) . But the earth is still warming, in general, in spite of El Nino and with an increasing concentration of CO2.

I would willingly accept otherwise.

So known oscillations have an influence on global temperature/climate and we don’t know what drives them. Could oscillations exist that we are not aware of? Could those unknown oscillations strengthen or weaken known oscillations?

Was the earth warming before humans released large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere? What was driving that warming phase? Has that stopped? Has it actually swapped to a natural cooling phase?

Perfectly possible.

But consensus at the moment, in case you had not noticed, is increasing CO2 emissions are driving the temps upwards.

No alternates have been presented for the current warming. And the warming was also predicted, which adds weight to the theory for me.

I would love if it was disproven and I was not taxed for petrol like I have been over the decades, I am on pistonheads after all. It has also probably influenced my car choices (negatively) because of tax classifications.....Smart Roadster anyone??

If proven wrong, I am sure the government would find another way to extract money from something else I enjoy

Posting bks like Tony Hellers video, really is like shooting the denial case in the foot. Posting a research paper which stands up to my individual scrutiny (it is me that needs convincing, after all) which shows another process influencing the warming trend would start me asking questions. But it does not exist....which takes me back to my starting point.

For me the biggest question is whether the models have the sensitivity correct? Which will only be proven or not over decades, by which time it quite possibly be a little late for some folk.

But denying overwhelming evidence and consensus despite individual scrutiny is not something I am willing to support.

Lastly, the evading of questions in this thread is frustrating, as it simply reinforces my current view. If a paper is fundamentally flawed, I would like some debate about it. Silence or misdirection from some claiming to be in academia on here is really galling despite them extolling how educated and esteemed they are. I try not to be a tt, but sometimes my frustration over runs