Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[robinessex]

How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno

More Beeb bks.

"Hurricane Beryl has wreaked havoc in parts of the Caribbean – and put the role of climate change under the spotlight." No, it hasn't, a storm is WEATHER. Scientific link noticeable by its absence, I wonder why?

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno

More Beeb bks.

"Hurricane Beryl has wreaked havoc in parts of the Caribbean – and put the role of climate change under the spotlight." No, it hasn't, a storm is WEATHER. Scientific link noticeable by its absence, I wonder why?

Thanks for posting.

It is the earliest recorded cat 5 hurricane in the Atlantic. I think the Beeb predicted this might occur in March 2024, which met with similar derision. Seemingly the March 2024 story was not bks after all.......

Usually, such strong storms only develop later in the season, after the seas have heated up through the summer.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9r3g572lrno

More Beeb bks.

"Hurricane Beryl has wreaked havoc in parts of the Caribbean – and put the role of climate change under the spotlight." No, it hasn't, a storm is WEATHER. Scientific link noticeable by its absence, I wonder why?

Tragic loss of life happens in those areas for that reason, Cat 4 wasn't it? Good job deaths from extreme weather are far fewer these days. Beeb were bound to get their green grundies in a twist due to weather. It's what they do.

Pielke
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit...

Lomborg
https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/1...

There's an unprecedented Oyster card in play - shell-shocking research shows that early Holocene seas were 4°C to 8°C warmer than today with a CO2 level of 260ppmv. See also Cannell 2024, featured in a recent post, showing that in addition to atmospheric CO2 levels not being the determinant of ocean pH, nor are CO2 levels the determinant of global temperature.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbo...

A knee is bent to inadequate modelling all the same, contrary to advice around (not) using too-hot models...see "UN panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming" and "use of 'too hot' models exaggerates impacts" earlier in the thread.

UK and international climate policy based on inadequate modelling = failing badly.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 6th July 10:50

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

No, they're spurious. They're so easy you'd know already if you'd read the papers. Changes in temperature arise from a known range of natural forcings including low level cloud cover, ocean-atmosphere coupling (ENSO), solar variability in particular solar eruptivity (solar wind), UV (irradiance) and, longer-term, Milankovich cycles. Sporadic changes are linked to volcanism.

Kato and Rose 2024, increasing ToA imbalance caused by increases in absorbed shortwave irradiance (CO2 absorbs longwave i.e. IR).
Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023, water vapour dominates the greenhouse effect which has shown no discernible change from CO2 increasing 300ppmv to 400 ppmv
Ollila 2023, cloud cover changes amplify TSI variation.

Further back in answer to other time-wasting questions e.g. during previous attrition loops I've cited and quoted from Bucha and Bucha (auroral oval forcing from solar eruptivity) and Svensmark (high energy cosmic ray flux - low level cloud cover changes - albedo changes).

As temperature changes are clearly not caused by CO2 levels, the causes have no relation to wrong-minded government climate policy as they cannot be micromanaged by politicians operating p/t via taxes and behaviourak controls.

In any case temperatures are rising and falling, pick your timescale.

First paper I looked at Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023.

This paper presents lots mathematical equations which result in a conclusion that water vapour is more important than CO2.

The first error, it seems to make is the assumption that CO2 always follows temperature. May be in a world without human intervention but pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere undermines this assumption.

Secondly, there is no empirical data to back up the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere versus the temperature increase. In fact, the paper does not look at much empirical data to back up the claims.

Thirdly, if the paper is true, why has the amount of water vapour increased to raise the temperatures??

It is a bit of a theoretical nothingness. Despite lots of equations and waffling.

This link summarises the impact of water vapour nicely.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-cl...


I will take a quick look at the other papers in time.....

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Tragic loss of life happens in those areas for that reason, Cat 4 wasn't it? Good job deaths from extreme weather are far fewer these days. Beeb were bound to get their green grundies in a twist due to weather. It's what they do.

Pielke
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit...

Lomborg
https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/1...

There's an unprecedented Oyster card in play - shell-shocking research shows that early Holocene seas were 4°C to 8°C warmer than today with a CO2 level of 260ppmv. See also Cannell 2024, featured in a recent post, showing that in addition to atmospheric CO2 levels not being the determinant of ocean pH, nor are CO2 levels the determinant of global temperature.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbo...

A knee is bent to inadequate modelling all the same, contrary to advice around (not) using too-hot models...see "UN panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming" and "use of 'too hot' models exaggerates impacts" earlier in the thread.

UK and international climate policy based on inadequate modelling = failing badly.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 6th July 10:50

It was the earliest cat 5 hurricane since records began.

I think the beeb
reporting was quite fair, open and transparent, if you cared to read it.

As for the models failing badly......

If we look at what the IPCC said back in 1990

IPCC 1990 said:

Under the IPC C Business-as-Usual (Scenario A )
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global-mean temperature during the next century of
about 0.3°C per decade.

Temp in the last decade has risen 0.28C. And that is without quoting the uncertainty.....

Models failing?

Deniers flailing, more like.

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 6th July 14:53

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 6th July 15:39

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

turbobloke said:

Tragic loss of life happens in those areas for that reason, Cat 4 wasn't it? Good job deaths from extreme weather are far fewer these days. Beeb were bound to get their green grundies in a twist due to weather. It's what they do.

Pielke
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit...

Lomborg
https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/1...

There's an unprecedented Oyster card in play - shell-shocking research shows that early Holocene seas were 4°C to 8°C warmer than today with a CO2 level of 260ppmv. See also Cannell 2024, featured in a recent post, showing that in addition to atmospheric CO2 levels not being the determinant of ocean pH, nor are CO2 levels the determinant of global temperature.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbo...

A knee is bent to inadequate modelling all the same, contrary to advice around (not) using too-hot models...see "UN panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming" and "use of 'too hot' models exaggerates impacts" earlier in the thread.

UK and international climate policy based on inadequate modelling = failing badly.

It was the earliest cat 5 hurricane since records began.

Chronology has no causality attached, that's for the idoctrinated to add.

mike9009 said:

Models failing?

Deniers flailing, more like.

Your repeated memory loss and/or inability to read and understand content in papers is leading to tedious attrition looping, complete with spurious questions and the usual ad hom surrender signalling. You may or may not get a feeling of deja vu...

McKitrick and Christy 2018 on models v data "The p value of the test of equivalence between the GCM ensemble average trend and that of the observational average is 0.013 (restricted case) and 0.0003 (general case), clearly rejecting the null hypothesis of trend equivalence"..."While the observed analogue exhibits a warming trend over the test interval it is significantly smaller than that shown in models, and the difference is large enough to reject the null hypothesis that models represent it correctly"

Models drive climate policy, which is foolish.

Essex and Tsonis in their 'Model falsifiability' paper (2018) make it plain:
"Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori" and on p556: "While the model results are all converging on a solution, that solution excludes the observed state at a p>0.99 level of confidence."

Who are these deniers? The climate changing isn't disputed, and what the data shows is that any non-zero human element is insignificant and certainly not something requiring rapid CO2 reduction programmes as stated in Ollila 2023, and carbon dioxide doesn't control temperature as per Cannell 2024, so it's pointless.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Your repeated memory loss and/or inability to read and understand content in papers is leading to tedious attrition looping, complete with spurious questions and the usual ad hom surrender signalling. You may or may not get a feeling of deja vu...

McKitrick and Christy 2018 on models v data "The p value of the test of equivalence between the GCM ensemble average trend and that of the observational average is 0.013 (restricted case) and 0.0003 (general case), clearly rejecting the null hypothesis of trend equivalence"..."While the observed analogue exhibits a warming trend over the test interval it is significantly smaller than that shown in models, and the difference is large enough to reject the null hypothesis that models represent it correctly"

Models drive climate policy, which is foolish.

Essex and Tsonis in their 'Model falsifiability' paper (2018) make it plain:
"Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori" and on p556: "While the model results are all converging on a solution, that solution excludes the observed state at a p>0.99 level of confidence."

Who are these deniers? The climate changing isn't disputed, and what the data shows is that any non-zero human element is insignificant and certainly not something requiring rapid CO2 reduction programmes as stated in Ollila 2023, and carbon dioxide doesn't control temperature as per Cannell 2024, so it's pointless.

Why not deal with the questions I posed about Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023. Flailing, deviating and misleading again again? Deal with the questions asked rather than posting more bks

McKiltirck and Spencers paper is fundamentally flawed. As I have posted many times before but I get no response. Just post more bks as a response rather than dealing with it....I expect nothing less.

Deniers have the attention span of a drunk goldfish.

Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 6th July 21:39

[mike9009]

I would love Olillia to use his model to look forwards rather than backwards. Additionally it does not really hypothesis an alternate, just plays with natural forcing to prove a point.....

Hindsight is 20/20. I am sure I could model the temperature backwards to fit 'my' model.

Tomorrow, I will take a look at the final paper quoted, Kato and Rose 2024.

So far, neither Olillia or Koutsoyiannis and Vournas have really proposed an alternate that they are willing to project the model forwards......

[Diderot]

Mike, how is your rebuttal paper going?

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

Mike, how is your rebuttal paper going?

Decided not to bother because I don't know what a hypothesis or consensus is

I will let you know when completed, shame you couldn't answer it yourself.....seems it could be reasonable....

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

Mike, how is your rebuttal paper going?

Decided not to bother because I don't know what a hypothesis or consensus is

I will let you know when completed, shame you couldn't answer it yourself.....seems it could be reasonable....

Well we knew that as you keep confirming it in almost every one of your posts.

Get it finished and submitted.

[turbobloke]

Prior to July 4th, the route to Parliament being given the full story on Net Zero was taking shape.
https://x.com/AvonandsomerRob/status/1807687079918...

The following links are mainly for climate crisis activists with short / convenient memories including the climate crisis 'noble lie' acknowledgement:

Achieving global Net Zero will avert at most 0.28 deg C warming, using the IPCC's CO2 methods. Without their feedback assertions it's 0.07 deg C.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07392

PDF file, the exec summary will do.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/0...

Cost of battery storage min £1.5 trillion, on top of the CCC £1.4trillion lowball for infrastructure type costs, from guest post at NZW by two Oxforf profs.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...

Hydrogen trial project cancelled
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/09/hy...

[wc98]

mike9009 said:

First paper I looked at Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023.

This paper presents lots mathematical equations which result in a conclusion that water vapour is more important than CO2.

The first error, it seems to make is the assumption that CO2 always follows temperature. May be in a world without human intervention but pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere undermines this assumption.

Secondly, there is no empirical data to back up the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere versus the temperature increase. In fact, the paper does not look at much empirical data to back up the claims.

Thirdly, if the paper is true, why has the amount of water vapour increased to raise the temperatures??

It is a bit of a theoretical nothingness. Despite lots of equations and waffling.

This link summarises the impact of water vapour nicely.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-blame-cl...


I will take a quick look at the other papers in time.....

Do you disagree with your first line highlighted in bold ?

Regarding the part in italics while it is hardly a comprehensive dataset given the timescale involved there is indeed some data from Ceres, showing little in the way of increase in atmospheric water vapour in just over 2 decades. I have seen other datasets from similarly respected sources that state an increase. All that tells me is the data on it, like much of climate science is open to a level of interpretation (just like the paper in question) that renders what is claimed as "data" no such thing.

Every time i see claims of measured "data" it always seems to relate to portions of the atmosphere in theoretical stasis at the time of measurement, like the claim that co2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. The first images i saw from the OCO2 project showed anything but a well mixed atmospheric gas but then again words don't seem to mean the same thing in climate science as they do in the rest of life. Have a look and make up your own mind.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Prior to July 4th, the route to Parliament being given the full story on Net Zero was taking shape.
https://x.com/AvonandsomerRob/status/1807687079918...

The following links are mainly for climate crisis activists with short / convenient memories including the climate crisis 'noble lie' acknowledgement:

Achieving global Net Zero will avert at most 0.28 deg C warming, using the IPCC's CO2 methods. Without their feedback assertions it's 0.07 deg C.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07392

PDF file, the exec summary will do.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/0...

Cost of battery storage min £1.5 trillion, on top of the CCC £1.4trillion lowball for infrastructure type costs, from guest post at NZW by two Oxforf profs.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/on-the-stora...

Hydrogen trial project cancelled
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/09/hy...

Why are governments not taking any notice of this. It is a scandal!

It would surely make a governments life much easier.

I have let my new MP know.....

The issue for deniers is the changing narrative and conflicting reports....they all feel a bit desperate. Proclamations of CO2 makes no difference, Co2 is not increasing, the sensitivity is wrong, it will cost far too much, it is solar forcing, the water vapour is the real problem, not much adaptation will be required, it is all natural, it has been this warm before, the world is flat etc etc. The deniers do not have a common consensus, so actually it is easier for the public to follow the one hymn from the IPCC.

Edited by mike9009 on Sunday 7th July 16:16

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

The first error, it seems to make is the assumption that CO2 always follows temperature. May be in a world without human intervention but pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere undermines this assumption.

The idea that pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere undermines any relationship between CO2 levels and temperature is itself an assumption lacking objectivity. That order of events with CO2 following temperature is what the data shows across timescales from glaciation to decadal as detailed in papers from Monnin et al (and others similar) to Humlum et al as cited in PH climate threads over two decades,

The error here is yours,

mike9009 said:

Secondly, there is no empirical data to back up the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere versus the temperature increase. In fact, the paper does not look at much empirical data to back up the claims.

Your point is somewhere between moot and a lost cause. Did you read all parts of the paper?

Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023 said:

This research uses no new data. The datasets used have been retrieved from the sources described in detail in the text.

On what basis are you criticising a paper for something it clarifies for anyone capable of reading basic English?

Following from that:

Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023 said:

To investigate the two research questions posed in the introduction, we use eight datasets. The first is the earliest dataset by Ångström (Citation1916), and is followed by two datasets used by Brunt (Citation1932) to propose his formula (Robitzsch Citation1926, Dines and Dines Citation1927). Then we have three datasets from 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, respectively (Stoll and Hardy Citation1955, Swinbank Citation1963, Aase and Idso Citation1978), two of which were also used by Brutsaert (Citation1991). Finally, we have two datasets of the 21st century (Carmona et al. Citation2014, Li et al. Citation2017), in which the atmospheric CO2 concentration was much higher than in the other six datasets.

The far greater importance of water vapour over CO2 is clear from radiative considerations. If you're tilting at this, give up!
https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/18454/202407...

mike9009 said:

Thirdly, if the paper is true, why has the amount of water vapour increased to raise the temperatures??

"If the paper is true" what's this true about? The authors state clearly that they aren't pushing the 'settled science' nonsense. Did you miss that?

That ^ 'Thirdly' comment isn't what the paper sets out to examine. It gives two questions in the Introduction and after examining/analysing data they provide answers in their Conclusions. The more relevant of the two for this climate politics thread is: has the increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last century modified the greenhouse regime on Earth in a manner that is discernible from radiation measurements?

The authors examime ~100 years of downward longwave radiation datasets and whether the data is consistent with increasing CO2 levels from ca 300ppmv to ca 400 ppmv having an impact on the greenhouse effect. This is the outcome:

Koutsoyiannis and Vournas 2023 said:

The observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to more than 400 ppm has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect

For details on their methodology, re-read the paper - link below.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626...

CO2 is not driving temperature via an enhanced greenhouse effect, contrary to climate models and consistent with Cannell, Dagsvik and Moen, Ollila, Mao et al, Fleming, McKitrick and Christy, and others. A such, basing climate policy on models is foolish.

Clearly you're setting out (and failing) to rubbish evidence you'd prefer didn't exist and wasn't on PH, and It's possible you may be faking bad for some unfathomable tactical reason - otherwise you're not equipped to carry out this type of review based on your post content. It's going to be interesting if you insist on repeatng the exercise.

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

For details on their methodology, re-read the paper - link below.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626...

CO2 is not driving temperature via an enhanced greenhouse effect, contrary to climate models and consistent with Cannell, Dagsvik and Moen, Ollila, Mao et al, Fleming, McKitrick and Christy, and others. A such, basing climate policy on models is foolish.

Clearly you're setting out (and failing) to rubbish evidence you'd prefer didn't exist and wasn't on PH, and It's possible you may be faking bad for some unfathomable tactical reason - otherwise you're not equipped to carry out this type of review based on your post content. It's going to be interesting if you insist on repeatng the exercise.

Completely disagree with your myopic view.

Can't be arsed arguing and tearing apart every detail. But the assumption stated was Co2 follows temperature rises. It is a little different this time .....

[wc98]

oops, messed that up.

Edited by wc98 on Sunday 7th July 19:33

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

Why are governments not taking any notice of this. It is a scandal!

You should ask governments. With 5 Reform UK MPs there won't be an excuse around not hearing realism in climate politics inputs for much longer.

mike9009 said:

It would surely make a governments life much easier.

Less tax fewer excuses for exercising control freakery.

mike9009 said:

The issue for deniers is the changing narrative and conflicting reports....they all feel a bit desperate. Proclamations of CO2 makes no difference, Co2 is not increasing, the sensitivity is wrong, it will cost far too much, it is solar forcing, the water vapour is the real problem, not much adaptation will be required, it is all natural, it has been this warm before, the world is flat etc etc. The deniers do not have a common consensus, so actually it is easier for the public to follow the one hymn from the IPCC.

What changing narrative is this you're referring to, CO2 isn't controlling temperature, models are inadequate and based on a false assumption, UK policy being based on models is foolish and expensive. That hasn't changed,

The IPCC is a political advocacy group and the public only get to hear about its emissions so often as climate information based on empirical data is mostly kept out of sight in MSM circles.

Edited by mike9009 on Sunday 7th July 16:16

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

Why are governments not taking any notice of this. It is a scandal!

You should ask governments. With 5 Reform UK MPs there won't be an excuse around not hearing realism in climate politics inputs for much longer.

mike9009 said:

It would surely make a governments life much easier.

Less tax fewer excuses for exercising control freakery.

mike9009 said:

The issue for deniers is the changing narrative and conflicting reports....they all feel a bit desperate. Proclamations of CO2 makes no difference, Co2 is not increasing, the sensitivity is wrong, it will cost far too much, it is solar forcing, the water vapour is the real problem, not much adaptation will be required, it is all natural, it has been this warm before, the world is flat etc etc. The deniers do not have a common consensus, so actually it is easier for the public to follow the one hymn from the IPCC.

What changing narrative is this you're referring to, CO2 isn't controlling temperature, models are inadequate and based on a false assumption, UK policy being based on models is foolish and expensive. That hasn't changed,

The IPCC is a political advocacy group and the public only get to hear about its emissions so often as climate information based on empirical data is mostly kept out of sight in MSM circles.

Edited by mike9009 on Sunday 7th July 16:16

Reform (campaign mainly about immigration and a failed Tory politics) only have 1 more seat than the resurgent Greens. Most parties seem to accept the IPCC musings. In fact a couple of Reform voters I know, seemed unaware of their climate change narrative.


CO2 is the majority accepted hypothesis for the rising temps and generally accepted to be driving the temperature upwards. Saying the opposite as fact is naive and brazen. Especially since Ice ages have not showed up, squealing does not make any difference.

Oh, interested, what empirical data is mostly been out of sight?

[turbobloke]

NatWet Bank has annoyed farmers by trying to persuade its customers to buy less red meat. A ‘carbon footprint tracker’ on the bank’s mobile app uses transaction data to advise customers on how to reduce their carbon footprint They've got history best forgotten ($32m private jet).