New report on climate change released today

[TSwizzle]

Teh Gruaniad sheds bitter tears of disappointment as Australia election results don’t go the way the climate alarmists wanted;

It was billed as the climate change election, and the climate lost.

Despite enduring its hottest year on record and a series of environmental calamities that have brought the climate emergency into sharp relief, Australia has voted for the centre-right Liberal party and its coalition partner, and against taking forceful action on the climate crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...lition-claims-election-victory-in-major-upset

I can only imagine the effect those bitter tears are having on sea level and ocean acidification.

 

[bilby]

Teh Gruaniad sheds bitter tears of disappointment as Australia election results don’t go the way the climate alarmists wanted;

It was billed as the climate change election, and the climate lost.

Despite enduring its hottest year on record and a series of environmental calamities that have brought the climate emergency into sharp relief, Australia has voted for the centre-right Liberal party and its coalition partner, and against taking forceful action on the climate crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...lition-claims-election-victory-in-major-upset

I can only imagine the effect those bitter tears are having on sea level and ocean acidification.

Yeah, nah. Australia voted AGAINST the Coalition, but also against their main opposition. Due to our Instant Runoff Voting system, the fact that the defectors from the major parties mostly went to hard-right personality cultists, who had done deals with the Coalition, meant that the preference flows favoured the Coalition.

The polls predicted a win for Labor; The actual results won't be known for a week or so, but it looks like either a return to much the same situation as before the election, but with slightly less cross-bench support for the government; or perhaps a one or two seat majority for the LNP, who will be at the mercy of the next defection, by-election or illness on the part of any of their MPs.

The final makeup of the new parliament will look a lot like the old one. It's not a victory for either party - outside the hyperbole stoked by the expectation that it would be a huge defeat for them.

 

[angelo]

After a brief meeting in Nicaea, journalists at Teh Gruaniad have ratified the wording for the coming Rapture;

The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world. Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.

Teh Gruaniad

So we have gone from "global warming" to "climate change" to "global heating".

the real reason they are changing the terms is that the old terms are just not scaring enough people.

And of course, Teh Gruaniad must include a quote from the messiah;

Earlier in May, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who has inspired school strikes for climate around the globe, said: “It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?”

Why any adult would listen to this little girl is beyond me. But that's the mystery of religion I guess.

You left out the other monicker...........Climate Disruption.

 

[angelo]

Teh Gruaniad sheds bitter tears of disappointment as Australia election results don’t go the way the climate alarmists wanted;

It was billed as the climate change election, and the climate lost.

Despite enduring its hottest year on record and a series of environmental calamities that have brought the climate emergency into sharp relief, Australia has voted for the centre-right Liberal party and its coalition partner, and against taking forceful action on the climate crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...lition-claims-election-victory-in-major-upset

I can only imagine the effect those bitter tears are having on sea level and ocean acidification.

Yeah, nah. Australia voted AGAINST the Coalition, but also against their main opposition. Due to our Instant Runoff Voting system, the fact that the defectors from the major parties mostly went to hard-right personality cultists, who had done deals with the Coalition, meant that the preference flows favoured the Coalition.

The polls predicted a win for Labor; The actual results won't be known for a week or so, but it looks like either a return to much the same situation as before the election, but with slightly less cross-bench support for the government; or perhaps a one or two seat majority for the LNP, who will be at the mercy of the next defection, by-election or illness on the part of any of their MPs.

The final makeup of the new parliament will look a lot like the old one. It's not a victory for either party - outside the hyperbole stoked by the expectation that it would be a huge defeat for them.

What a load of sheep manure! I wouldn't expect anything else from leftist and their apologists who conveniently ignore the preference deals as well as a past coalition with loony Greens party who's 80% of preferences go back to Labor. Without the Greens, Labor would be left with a rump of members who could have their next party meeting in a phone box!

 

[angelo]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one. I've asked before for some alarmist here to produce even one single cult like prophecy that has eventuated. Luckily I wasn't holding my breath for a response.

The North Polar ice cap is still there in Summer. It still snows in Winter in the northern hemisphere. The Marshall and Gilbert and other low laying islands including the Maldives haven't been inundated. Neither has New York, Florida a third of Bangladesh or the Nile Delta. Greenland is still covered with ice and there hasn't been the migration of millions of climate refugees.

It must be very frustrating for the cultists and alarmists when nature doesn't cooperate.

 

[Elixir]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one.

Poor Angie...
Summer 2018 saw an unprecedented spate of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires break out across North America, Europe and Asia.

As PREDICTED.
But that special kind of stoopid, unique to alt-whites, enables them to deny what's right in front of them.

 

[George S]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one.

Poor Angie...
Summer 2018 saw an unprecedented spate of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires break out across North America, Europe and Asia.

As PREDICTED.
But that special kind of stoopid, unique to alt-whites, enables them to deny what's right in front of them.

However, those who hold the SUN responsible for climate PREDICTED extreme floods, droughts, record winter cold, and wildfires.
This is not an area of disagreement.

 

[repoman]

George, have you read or read about the 1896 paper by Arrhenius about carbon dioxide and climate?

https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

This paper took him a year of intense work and it worth skimming at least.

Watch this if you have not already:



The only really substantial quibble that can be had is cloud cover, and that can't be that big a mitigator. Where there is no cloud cover carbon dioxide is working all day and night to trap more heat at 408 ppm that it used to at 280 ppm - will you dispute this? Quibbling about the exact where and how of this trapped heat is retarded and below your ability.

Unlike with humans that are malleable with what they do, these gases are locked in to their physics.

There can't be nitrogen and oxygen molecules that "decide" to trap heat, nor carbon dioxide molecules that "decide" to let infrared light pass through. The analogy would be that more peaceful christians can become very murderous and currently more violent muslims can become more peaceful. This statement is more targeted to Angelo.

 

[Elixir]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one.

Poor Angie...
Summer 2018 saw an unprecedented spate of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires break out across North America, Europe and Asia.

As PREDICTED.
But that special kind of stoopid, unique to alt-whites, enables them to deny what's right in front of them.

However, those who hold the SUN responsible for climate PREDICTED extreme floods, droughts, record winter cold, and wildfires.
This is not an area of disagreement.

I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone acknowledges that the sun is the principle source of energy contributing to whatever the temperature may be on the surface of the earth (above zero degrees kelvin). Whether human activity is altering conditions such that more of the sun's heat is captured at the earth's surface, is the area of disagreement. That's not a "however". The vast majority of scientists agree that it is. Fossil fuel interests, whatever scientists they can buy and whatever kooks they can convince, are the main contingents of disagreement. The facts on the ground support the views of the vast majority of scientists.

 

[repoman]

This video at 35 minutes is good:



If you watch you will see that a cucumber does not come with a gallon of water. The simplicity of the sink analogy is great.

 

[George S]

George, have you read or read about the 1896 paper by Arrhenius about carbon dioxide and climate?

https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

This paper took him a year of intense work and it worth skimming at least.

Watch this if you have not already:



The only really substantial quibble that can be had is cloud cover, and that can't be that big a mitigator. Where there is no cloud cover carbon dioxide is working all day and night to trap more heat at 408 ppm that it used to at 280 ppm - will you dispute this? Quibbling about the exact where and how of this trapped heat is retarded and below your ability.

Unlike with humans that are malleable with what they do, these gases are locked in to their physics.

There can't be nitrogen and oxygen molecules that "decide" to trap heat, nor carbon dioxide molecules that "decide" to let infrared light pass through. The analogy would be that more peaceful christians can become very murderous and currently more violent muslims can become more peaceful. This statement is more targeted to Angelo.

Very simply, CO2 is a trace gas and contributes very little to the greenhouse effect, but it does contribute. Most of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. The contribution of CO2 to greenhouse effect has diminishing returns. So, the change from 200 (where plants starve) to 400 let us call a unit amount. The change from 400 to 800 would be that same amount, and from 800 to 1600 the same amount again. The human contribution is real, and really small regarding CO2. Much more significant is the urban heat islands and coal particulate pollution. There is no such thing as really clean coal. We need to go nuclear.

Most of our planet is ocean. It absorbs CO2 when the climate is cold and releases CO2 when it is warm. Water is very hard to heat and very hard to cool. Ocean temperatures lag climate change by about four to eight centuries. We are actually in a CO2 drought. Most plants evolved when the CO2 was double today's levels.

The magnetosphere of our planet is weakening. This leads to more cosmic rays reaching lower atmosphere where they convert the greenhouse gas, water vapor, through nucleation to cooling clouds.

Solar cycle 24 is ending and was smaller than the previous ones. We are now in a minimum of sunspots which are, in effect, thermometers of the sun's temperature. See the NOAA site: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression.

According to a fringe science group, quakewatch.net, there is a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and volcanoes. Volcanic activity at VEI 6 or above (so the volcanic aerosols reach above 50,000 ft) has led to global cooling in the past. See 'the year without a summer' following one such eruption.

Our climate is much too complex to be driven by a single variable like CO2. The IPCC models have not predicted the present correctly. In my opinion this is because their model does not properly factor in proton forcing from CMEs which follow sunspot cycles.

Once again, this is not to say that CO2 has no effect at all. However, even though it has doubled from 200 to 400 parts per million (0.02% to 0.04%) the effect is quite small.

 

[Elixir]

even though it has doubled from 200 to 400 parts per million (0.02% to 0.04%) the effect is quite small.

So this is purely coincidental...



...or can you identify a common cause for variable CO2 levels and global average temperatures? Or perhaps just reject the science altogether?
Note that if the correlation continues, we can look forward to another 6 degrees C in the not-too-distant (geologically speaking) future. In fact though, temperature variance tends to "outrun" levels of CO2 on both the high and low ends, so...

 

[George S]

even though it has doubled from 200 to 400 parts per million (0.02% to 0.04%) the effect is quite small.

So this is purely coincidental...

View attachment 21485

...or can you identify a common cause for variable CO2 levels and global average temperatures? Or perhaps just reject the science altogether?
Note that if the correlation continues, we can look forward to another 6 degrees C in the not-too-distant (geologically speaking) future. In fact though, temperature variance tends to "outrun" levels of CO2 on both the high and low ends, so...

Note the time scale on that graph. 400-800 years is not visible. CO2 lags temperature. Note what happened without people around after each peak. See it? The temperatures dropped followed by CO2 absorption by the oceans.

 

[repoman]

good debunking of the misunderstanding of this aspect:



The leading had to do with the Milankovitch cycle and coming out the last glacial period to our current interglacial period.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one. I've asked before for some alarmist here to produce even one single cult like prophecy that has eventuated. Luckily I wasn't holding my breath for a response.

The North Polar ice cap is still there in Summer. It still snows in Winter in the northern hemisphere. The Marshall and Gilbert and other low laying islands including the Maldives haven't been inundated. Neither has New York, Florida a third of Bangladesh or the Nile Delta. Greenland is still covered with ice and there hasn't been the migration of millions of climate refugees.

It must be very frustrating for the cultists and alarmists when nature doesn't cooperate.

You have been repeatedly asked for an example of a failed prophecy of doom made by a climatologist. You still haven't provided one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Very simply, CO2 is a trace gas and contributes very little to the greenhouse effect, but it does contribute. Most of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. The contribution of CO2 to greenhouse effect has diminishing returns. So, the change from 200 (where plants starve) to 400 let us call a unit amount. The change from 400 to 800 would be that same amount, and from 800 to 1600 the same amount again. The human contribution is real, and really small regarding CO2. Much more significant is the urban heat islands and coal particulate pollution. There is no such thing as really clean coal. We need to go nuclear.

Very simply, you don't understand. Yes, to double the effects of CO2 means you need to double the amount--that's undisputed, thus why point it out? Coal particulate pollution causes cooling, not warming.

Most of our planet is ocean. It absorbs CO2 when the climate is cold and releases CO2 when it is warm. Water is very hard to heat and very hard to cool. Ocean temperatures lag climate change by about four to eight centuries. We are actually in a CO2 drought. Most plants evolved when the CO2 was double today's levels.

Why did the CO2 rise before the oceans started to rise? You've got it exactly backwards--rising temperature increases water vapor and thus the warming from water vapor. H20 follows CO2, not the other way around.

The magnetosphere of our planet is weakening. This leads to more cosmic rays reaching lower atmosphere where they convert the greenhouse gas, water vapor, through nucleation to cooling clouds.

Solar cycle 24 is ending and was smaller than the previous ones. We are now in a minimum of sunspots which are, in effect, thermometers of the sun's temperature. See the NOAA site: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression.

According to a fringe science group, quakewatch.net, there is a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and volcanoes. Volcanic activity at VEI 6 or above (so the volcanic aerosols reach above 50,000 ft) has led to global cooling in the past. See 'the year without a summer' following one such eruption.

Our climate is much too complex to be driven by a single variable like CO2. The IPCC models have not predicted the present correctly. In my opinion this is because their model does not properly factor in proton forcing from CMEs which follow sunspot cycles.

Once again, this is not to say that CO2 has no effect at all. However, even though it has doubled from 200 to 400 parts per million (0.02% to 0.04%) the effect is quite small.

Which gives no explanation for the warming we have been seeing for far longer than the sunspot cycle.

 

[bilby]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one.

Poor Angie...
Summer 2018 saw an unprecedented spate of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires break out across North America, Europe and Asia.

As PREDICTED.
But that special kind of stoopid, unique to alt-whites, enables them to deny what's right in front of them.

However, those who hold the SUN responsible for climate PREDICTED extreme floods, droughts, record winter cold, and wildfires.
This is not an area of disagreement.

Yes, but it's already been shown in this thread that the SUN is not a contender for the cause - solar irradiance has levelled off since the middle of the twentieth century, but warming has continued.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but an absence of correlation certainly does imply an absence of causation.

Whatever the cause is, we can (and if we are going to be intellectually honest, MUST) rule out the sun.



Particularly when we have another hypothesis, where the proposed candidate for the cause DOES correlate with the observable effect:

 

[Elixir]

...we have another hypothesis, where the proposed candidate for the cause DOES correlate with the observable effect:

B-b-b-but George doesn't LIKE that explanation.
Other than that - yes, right.
My apology to George if he is at this moment trying to absorb and understand why he is wrong.

 

[angelo]

For over 3 decades we have endured an endless stream of abysmal climate prediction failures. Not one single prophecy of doom has eventuated, not one. I've asked before for some alarmist here to produce even one single cult like prophecy that has eventuated. Luckily I wasn't holding my breath for a response.

The North Polar ice cap is still there in Summer. It still snows in Winter in the northern hemisphere. The Marshall and Gilbert and other low laying islands including the Maldives haven't been inundated. Neither has New York, Florida a third of Bangladesh or the Nile Delta. Greenland is still covered with ice and there hasn't been the migration of millions of climate refugees.

It must be very frustrating for the cultists and alarmists when nature doesn't cooperate.

You have been repeatedly asked for an example of a failed prophecy of doom made by a climatologist. You still haven't provided one.

Well, both poles are still there, Greenland is still covered under an ice sheet, the low laying islands are still there, in fact some of them have increased in size. The dams on Australia's East coast are still holding record amount of water, and the desalination plants built during the Crudd/Gillard/Crudd government on the advice of a very dodgy Tim Flannery are still in mothballs. The seas haven't increased inanduating Florida, New York and coastal areas of Australia or anywhere else for that matter. Why, even Venice is still there just as it was 200 years ago.

On June 30 1989, only six months after the political IPCC was founded- Associated Press published an article by a Mr Peter Spielmann, predicting a multitude of climate disasters by the year 2000 if we didn't reduce our CO2 emissions. In October 2018, 29 years later, those very same predictions, almost word for word, were trotted out again, but this time the apocalypse is to occur by 2050. The hysteria has risen to a crescendo with claims of a GW/CC/CD some alarmists in the US like that idiot AOC declaring we have only 12 years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable, though the BBC is saying 11 years.

I'm sick of inane sayings such as GW/CC/CD is real. Of course it's real. It is constantly changing because that's what climate does, it changes. What the public has witnessed is the absolute failure of ALL GW/CC/CD predictions. Just how long are we going to to tolerate the IPCC, Green parties, and loony Left and others crying wolf?

 

[George S]

In 2009, The Heartland Institute published a study by Watts exploring problems with NWS’s weather monitoring locations. Watts wrote,

The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

[A (sic) examination of] 860 of these temperature stations … found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.

Working with others, Watts continued examining potential sources of bias at NWS climate monitoring sites, concluding in a 2015 presentation to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, “the 30-year trend of temperatures for the Continental United States (CONUS) since 1979 are [sic] about two thirds as strong as official NOAA temperature trends.”
Watts’ research generated wide media coverage. NOAA felt obligated to respond. By 2012, NOAA researchers had begun an experiment to refute Watts’ claims about the integrity of its weather monitoring system.

The results of NOAA’s experiment are now in, and to the extent it tested Watts’ claims, his concerns were verified. The coauthors of the JAMS paper found “small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum)….”

This extends the area for which temperature recordings by NWS stations are compromised by 66 percent beyond what the agency previously admitted was a problem, leading to the question: How many more monitoring stations’ data are compromised above what Watts previously found?

In particular the JAMS study confirmed what Watts and other researchers have consistently maintained: even relatively modest development near temperature recording devices can skew their measurements, particularly by narrowing the diurnal temperature range—the difference between the daily maximum and minimum temperatures. Anthropogenic heat sources such as motors and exhaust from machinery located near measuring stations, as well as built-up concrete and other types of development, accumulate and store heat during each day’s hottest period and release it only slowly overnight, resulting in higher nighttime lows being recorded, and a smaller diurnal range. Because the vast majority of the much-hyped average global warming of the latter part of the twentieth century stems not from higher high temperatures being recorded but from higher low temperatures usually recorded at night, much of NOAA’s reported temperature rise is likely an artifact of compromised data from poorly sited NWS monitors.

Ground-based temperature measurements, although below those projected by climate models, are still the closest of the three sources of temperature data (ground monitors, satellites, and weather balloons) to matching the models’ projections and trends. Skeptics have long used more accurate satellite and weather balloon data to justify their position that the models’ temperature estimates and projections don’t match real-world measurements. If, as seems to be the case, even the ground-based temperature measurements and trends are lower than NOAA and others have previously claimed, there is little if any reason to trust model projections of temperature. And if this is so, there is even less reason to trust other projections of climate doom spun out by models that are purported to flow from their temperature projections.

The conclusion media pundits, the general public, and politicians alike should draw from this new research is that there is little justification for imposing costly restrictions on fossil fuel use to fight a warming that is, in fact, not severe at all.