Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Farming has to stop.
Yeah, pretty sure that will be fine.
Mick

And mining, and manufacturing, all of it... Ban it all!

 

[mullokintyre]

His comments were in the context of the science of soil hydrology.

Did you read the transcript?
He said nothing about soil hydrology.
And just to add insult to injury, the bloke is a mammalogist.
How does mammology give a bloke any credibility to talk about soil hydrology or climate science?

If you do not get runoff then dams do not fills and rivers do not flow.
Unfortunately the science denial camp does not understand this.

Really? And as I pointed out, after three years of above average rains, we have had rivers flowing, we have full dams, we have subsurface moisture for next years plantings. This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but Collecting real data about dams, about stream flow, about water table levels and sub surface moisture is actually science, real science. Its non refutable. It may not be predictive, but it is real science nonetheless.

That's not relevant to anything as Flannery never mentioned ENSO cycles, and nor were there questions about them.
Nevertheless, Flannery's comments were predicated on El Niño cycles, and these are visibly stressing our natural environment. The reality is that during these cycles major dams are getting critically low and river flows are so poor that irrigators don't always get their allocations.

Once again, did you read the transcript? Flannery never mentioned anything about El Nino, cycles etc. he just made the bald statement. How the hell can you say it was predicated on El Nino cycles? Why did he not say that in the interview?
Because like you and so many others, the Climate Emergency, the doom and gloom, the catastrophic warnings are just part of the bull****.

You mean we don't know which year it will occur in, as distinct from knowing it's predictable because its a cycle.

South American natives knew about the El Ninio and la Nina cycles long before climate change was "a thing". This article goes back to the 1800's , long before "Climate Change". Climate science has added nothing to the predictions, but if they ever do, it will be one of the greatest feats ever.

ESMs are are based on reality - the things you say have "really happened" - and have proven remarkable accurate in predicting future temperature outcomes because they are based on inviolable principles of physics. If you can show how the physics is wrong there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Earth Systems Models, which I presume is what you are referring to when you slip in the TLA, are based on selected variables, that may may not have any bearing on reality. The problem is not the physics, its the programming that purports to simulate what the physics does.
Basic logic says that even if the projections turn out to be reasonably accurate, it does not change the fact that correlation and causation are two separate and distinct functions.
The early humans invoked spirts, deities, planets, and the odd virgin sacrifice to predict seasonal events , but not because they understood all the physics, it was despite of them.
The fact that Flannery got the output of future rainfall events so spectacularly wrong is not because of a lack of understanding physics, (although if he skipped physics classes at Uni it may well be).
It was because he , like everybody else, really does not understand all the variables, the cycles, the relationships between them all, or even how potent they are.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Mick just a heads up higher temps (CC) mean more energy, normal variations mean in some areas that means higher rain fall in others more severe dry periods the cycles of El Nino and La Nina are nothing to do with CC but their severity will be determined by higher temperatures along with many other climate variables if you want to really understand subscribe to a surfing forecast.

Not only will you be surprised at how accurate they are but also gain an understating of the variable's that fall well outside of normal variations.

 

[mullokintyre]

Mick just a heads up higher temps (CC) mean more energy, normal variations mean in some areas that means higher rain fall in others more severe dry periods the cycles of El Nino and La Nina are nothing to do with CC but their severity will be determined by higher temperatures along with many other climate variables if you want to really understand subscribe to a surfing forecast.

The question is, is the higher temperature entirely due man made interventions (Co2, methane, sulphur emitting coal burning etc) or is it partly, due to these factors and the rest due to natural variation? The insolation of the sun varies about +/- 3% during the year , and on a larger scale, the variation is known to exist, but there is so little climate history, there is no way of telling what that is. According to This study
the suns solar activity has increased during the 20th century. The scientists who did the study cannot explain why, nor can they explain if this phenomenon is part of a cycle, a one off event, or a portrayer of some bigger event.
As to the surfing forecast, I think we have already been thru that.

Not only will you be surprised at how accurate they are but also gain an understating of the variable's that fall well outside of normal variations.

On the contrary, i will not be surprised, as the surfing forecasts are short term localised weather events, not necessarily due to anthropogenic climate change.
Mick
Edit: Just to be pedantic, when you say "more "energy", I presume you mean more thermal infra red energy in the atmosphere, not more total energy from the sun.

 

[IFocus]

The question is, is the higher temperature entirely due man made interventions (Co2, methane, sulphur emitting coal burning etc) or is it partly, due to these factors and the rest due to natural variation? The insolation of the sun varies about +/- 3% during the year , and on a larger scale, the variation is known to exist, but there is so little climate history, there is no way of telling what that is. According to This study

Mick the last lines

"He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

There hasn't been for a long time the question of the impact regarding C02.

As to the surfing forecast, I think we have already been thru that.

On the contrary, i will not be surprised, as the surfing forecasts are short term localised weather events, not necessarily due to anthropogenic climate change.



The forecasts actually for the NSW floods were 6 months out and on point.

Mick
Edit: Just to be pedantic, when you say "more "energy", I presume you mean more thermal infra red energy in the atmosphere, not more total energy from the sun.

Pedantic is good IMHO and apologies for the poor explanations, when I say energy its the heating of the climate systems and particularly the oceans.

BTW by variations I mean variations in the effects across the globe and variations out side of the historical mean or extremes of the climate cycles or patterns.


As I have said to Sean ice melt world wide is the horror story long term and its not the rising sea levels we should fear.

 

[Sean K]

New UN scare campaign out last night. Apparently the climate is a "ticking time bomb" and the World is on "thin ice".. The latest synthesis report is a "a survival guide for humanity". Have we heard that before? Maybe 30 years ago? And, wasn't it just a year or so ago that 2030 was the drop dead date? Literally?

Comrade Guterres tells us that Australia must do more and the World needs to get to net zero by 2040, not 2050.

But, China and India can keep building coal and gas plants till 2060... no problems.

You know it makes sense.

 

[wayneL]

New UN scare campaign out last night. Apparently the climate is a "ticking time bomb" and the World is on "thin ice".. The latest synthesis report is a "a survival guide for humanity". Have we heard that before? Maybe 30 years ago? And, wasn't it just a year or so ago that 2030 was the drop dead date? Literally?

Comrade Guterres tells us that Australia must do more and the World needs to get to net zero by 2040, not 2050.

But, China and India can keep building coal and gas plants till 2060... no problems.

You know it makes sense.

View attachment 154709

We know this all has nothing to do with actual climate change, it is about wealth redistribution on ideological grounds. That's when this all makes sense, even if the logic is utterly twisted and evil.

Unsurprisingly, this wealth redistribution includes enriching a select ideological elite who are authorised to have a carbon footprint the size of a small European country each and built palatial waterfront mansions.

 

[Sean K]

According to Adam Bandt, Australia is going to be responsible for "climate collapse".

What is "climate collapse" anyway? The sky falls in, or something?

 

[wayneL]

According to Adam Bandt, Australia is going to be responsible for "climate collapse".

What is "climate collapse" anyway? The sky falls in, or something?

View attachment 154772

View attachment 154771

View attachment 154770

Bandt is clearly mentally ill... seriously.

 

[rederob]

And, wasn't it just a year or so ago that 2030 was the drop dead date? Literally?

No, it was fools that post about things they do not understand and make up compensatory nonsense.
The science has been out there for decades and makes no such pronouncements, so why not use information that is incredible rather rany on hysterically?

But, China and India can keep building coal and gas plants till 2060... no problems.

You have confused "net zero" CO2 emissions with building FF plants.

You know it makes sense.

If you knew about this topic you would realise that China's energy use has taken up the slack from Europe, America and even Australia who have continued to offshore manufacturing.
As shown below, America, the juggernaut of post-war global manufacturing, flatlined in electricity consumption from 1999 onwards:

While it's unfortunate that China has been adding capacity via coal, it is also true that China has overcompensated by providing most of the world's renewable energy capacity additions via wind and solar:

While the above relates to Chinese internal capacity additions, it's also the case that China is now the leading exporter of solar/wind renewable products.

 

[basilio]

Climate denier says it’s suspicious that every single scientist says EXACT same thing

A climate change conspiracy theorist has uncovered a set of strange patterns and repeated terminology in research papers, which he says is highly suspicious.

“If you look back at the research papers from the 1980s and 90s, and then compare it to the papers in the 2000s and more recently, what you’ll notice is a very clear pattern,” climate sceptic Johno Wayne Thompson said.

“They are saying basically the same thing over and over and over again. It’s a pattern. If you’re not looking for it, you won’t notice it. But for those of us adept at identifying patterns and understanding symbology this is pretty clear evidence of a well-coordinated conspiracy”.

Thompson pointed to a report in the 1990s that warned of ‘temperature increases’ and then compared it to a report from last year which used the same terminology. “See there – ‘temperature increases’. You’ll see that term used again and again. Sometimes it will be ‘temperature rises’ or ‘increased temperatures’, but it’s basically the same thing. ‘Man-made’ is another term that we’ve seen used across all reports. This is clearly some sort of sophisticated code or messaging”.

He said the repeated terminology was clear evidence that the reports were linked in some way. “Is this a coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidences. I think the fact that all of these so-called scientists are independently coming up with these same words, these same findings, it’s a message. It is very suspicious. And it stretches back for decades”.

Climate Denier Says It's Suspicious That Every Single Scientist Says EXACT Same Thing — The Shovel

“They're basically saying the same thing over and over and over again. It's a pattern"

www.theshovel.com.au

 

[Sean K]

Climate denier says it’s suspicious that every single scientist says EXACT same thing



View attachment 154805
A climate change conspiracy theorist has uncovered a set of strange patterns and repeated terminology in research papers, which he says is highly suspicious.

“If you look back at the research papers from the 1980s and 90s, and then compare it to the papers in the 2000s and more recently, what you’ll notice is a very clear pattern,” climate sceptic Johno Wayne Thompson said.

“They are saying basically the same thing over and over and over again. It’s a pattern. If you’re not looking for it, you won’t notice it. But for those of us adept at identifying patterns and understanding symbology this is pretty clear evidence of a well-coordinated conspiracy”.

Thompson pointed to a report in the 1990s that warned of ‘temperature increases’ and then compared it to a report from last year which used the same terminology. “See there – ‘temperature increases’. You’ll see that term used again and again. Sometimes it will be ‘temperature rises’ or ‘increased temperatures’, but it’s basically the same thing. ‘Man-made’ is another term that we’ve seen used across all reports. This is clearly some sort of sophisticated code or messaging”.

He said the repeated terminology was clear evidence that the reports were linked in some way. “Is this a coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidences. I think the fact that all of these so-called scientists are independently coming up with these same words, these same findings, it’s a message. It is very suspicious. And it stretches back for decades”.

Climate Denier Says It's Suspicious That Every Single Scientist Says EXACT Same Thing — The Shovel

“They're basically saying the same thing over and over and over again. It's a pattern"

www.theshovel.com.au

Johno looks like a reputable example of a person who wants to understand the facts for himself, check the data and and any corresponding predictions by the scientists to make sure the hypothesis matches the proposed result. Looks like a PhD to me.

 

[basilio]

Johno looks like a reputable example of a person who wants to understand the facts for himself, check the data and and any corresponding predictions by the scientists to make sure the hypothesis matches the proposed result. Looks like a PhD to me.

Indeed. Having done that and checked hundreds/ thousands of climate scientists studies on how our climate is changing what view will he have if he can't fault their data ?

Of course if he can find and prove errors that overturn all these studies he has multiple Nobel prizes waiting for him. So which way does he go ?
______________________________________________
One of the most important elements in decision making in my careers, and I guess most others, is dealing with limited information and taking steps based on the best current knowledge. Military officers for example never have the luxury of full knowledge of a situation. How many enemy forces are there ? What is effective strength ? Who can I really on for local support ? What will the weather be like when we want to attack/defend a position ? How good is our morale ? How much can I expect from my command in a fight ?

No rocket science here. Just reality. In that context it's worth recognizing that the ADF take the reality of climate change and the flow on effects on Australia's security very seriously. They won't say CC is ceratin. They will say we need to be prepared for highly probable eventualities.

 

[Smurf1976]

One of the most important elements in decision making in my careers, and I guess most others, is dealing with limited information and taking steps based on the best current knowledge.

Very true.

I'll always support anyone who wants to properly check the facts, undertake further research into anything where uncertainty exists and so on.

In the meantime though, we need to make decisions based on the information available at the time and that which can be reasonably assumed as most likely.

The trouble though is he whole thing's simply become a political game.

Bob Brown renounces Australian Conservation Foundation life membership over Labor’s climate policy

Conservationist criticises ACF for working to strike a deal on safeguard mechanism and undermining the Greens’ position

www.theguardian.com

Former Greens leader Bob Brown has quit his life membership of the Australian Conservation Foundation in protest after the environment group urged parliament to “strengthen and pass” a signature Albanese government climate policy.

Now I'll try and be neutral and say that Bob deserves plenty of credit for his efforts with conservation and socially progressive politics but I'll pose a question:

Can anyone tell me what, exactly, he's done that seeks to actually fix the climate issue?

If anyone's even slightly surprised that Bob's unhappy at the prospect of emissions actually being cut the they haven't been paying attention. His track record is conservation and social causes, not climate, and it's false to assume that "environment" and "climate change" are interchangeable.

 

[Sean K]

Indeed. Having done that and checked hundreds/ thousands of climate scientists studies on how our climate is changing what view will he have if he can't fault their data ?

Of course if he can find and prove errors that overturn all these studies he has multiple Nobel prizes waiting for him. So which way does he go ?
______________________________________________
One of the most important elements in decision making in my careers, and I guess most others, is dealing with limited information and taking steps based on the best current knowledge. Military officers for example never have the luxury of full knowledge of a situation. How many enemy forces are there ? What is effective strength ? Who can I really on for local support ? What will the weather be like when we want to attack/defend a position ? How good is our morale ? How much can I expect from my command in a fight ?

No rocket science here. Just reality. In that context it's worth recognizing that the ADF take the reality of climate change and the flow on effects on Australia's security very seriously. They won't say CC is ceratin. They will say we need to be prepared for highly probable eventualities.

Indeed, Shellenberger and Lomborg have been pointing out some errors in the hypothesis and better solutions or more practical ways forward for a little while. They're not climate scientists but environmentalists and scientists with more cred than Greta or Gore, using data and evidence to support their positions. Certainly more cred than Tim Flannery.

Another problem is that while there's been so much effort to analyse why emissions cause climate change, there's not a lot going into trying to disprove it or come up with other non man made causes. There's no money in that and research just wouldn't be funded. Roy Spencer is one who has a problem with that, amongst many other climate scientists who have had to leave university positions or be sacked for not towing the party line, such as Judith Curry or Peter Ridd, who has in fact been proven correct on the GBR, for the moment.

While I enjoy the Military analogy, a better one is the Military Appreciation Process. At the center of it, is intelligence or information generated prior to the process and informs it during the process. If new information comes in that doesn't support a course of action, you change your plan to suite the new information. Finally you war game your chosen COA and if the other side comes up with ways to defeat your plan, you tweek and adjust to ensure you have the best chance of winning. Maybe you even start the MAP again. I daresay that's why Global Warming changed to Climate Change a few years ago, because the Earth stopped warming for about 10 years.

My general point is that the catastrophic predictions of global warming are questionable and the language must change or it's going to end up being a boy who cried wolf situation or the public will wake up and take no action that may be required to avert major problems 100 years down the track. Idiotic statements like the 'oceans are going to boil' by Gore at the WEF this year give the movement no credibility.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

Climate change is real but it's not the end of the world. And increasingly extreme statements by activists undermine environmental progress, say climate scientists.

www.forbes.com

Are We Overreacting on Climate Change? (Published 2020)

In “False Alarm,” Bjorn Lomborg argues that the global attention on fighting climate change has been misplaced, and taken resources away from more pressing problems.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Sean K]

Judith Curry gets some air time in The Australian on the latest Synthesis Report. Doubt you'd find anything like this on the ABC, Guardian, or Primary School teaching curriculum, of course. It goes against the narrative.

UN’s climate panic is more politics than science
JUDITH CURRY

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a new Synthesis Report, with fanfare from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

“The climate time bomb is ticking but the latest IPCC report shows that we have the knowledge and resources to tackle the climate crisis. We need to act now to ensure a liveable planet in the future,” Guterres announced over Twitter earlier this month.

The new IPCC Report is a synthesis of the three reports that constitute the Sixth Assessment Report, plus three special reports. This Synthesis Report does not introduce any new information or findings. While the IPCC reports include some good material, the Summary for Policymakers for the Synthesis Report emphasises weakly justified findings on climate impacts driven by extreme emissions scenarios, and politicised policy recommendations on emissions reductions.

The most important finding of the past five years is that the extreme emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, commonly referred to as “business-as-usual” scenarios, are now widely recognised as implausible. These extreme scenarios have been dropped by the UN Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Agreement. However, the new Synthesis Report continues to emphasise these extreme scenarios, while this important finding is buried in a footnote:

“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”

The extreme emissions scenarios are associated with alarming projections of 4-5C of warming by 2100. The most recent Conference of the Parties (COP27) is working from a baseline temperature projection based on a medium emissions scenario of 2.5C by 2100. Since 1.2C of warming has already occurred from the baseline period in the late 19th century, the amount of warming projected for the remainder of the 21st century under the medium emissions scenario is only about one-third of the warming projections under the extreme emissions scenario.

The Synthesis Report emphasises “loss and damage” as a central reason why action is needed. It is therefore difficult to overstate the importance of the shift in expectations for future extreme weather events and sea level rise that is associated with rejection of the extreme emissions scenarios. Rejecting these extreme scenarios has rendered obsolete much of the climate impacts literature and assessments of the past decade, that have focused on these scenarios. In particular, the extreme emissions scenario dominates the impacts that are featured prominently in the new Synthesis Report.

Clearly, the climate “crisis” isn’t what it used to be. Rather than acknowledging this fact as good news, the IPCC and UN officials are doubling down on the “alarm” regarding the urgency of reducing emissions by eliminating fossil fuels. You might think that if warming is less than we thought, then the priorities would shift away from emissions reductions and towards reducing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes. However, that hasn’t been the case.

The IPCC has been characterised as a “knowledge monopoly”, with its dominant authority in the UN climate deliberations. The IPCC claims it is “policy-neutral” and “never policy-prescriptive”.

However, the IPCC has strayed far from its chartered role of assessing the scientific literature in support of policymaking. The entire framing of the IPCC reports is now around the mitigation of climate change through emissions reductions.

Not only has the IPCC increasingly taken on a stance of explicit political advocacy, but it is misleading policymakers by its continued emphasis on extreme climate outcomes driven by the implausible extreme emissions scenarios. With its explicit political advocacy, combined with misleading information, the IPCC risks losing its privileged position in international policy debates.

The impact of these alarming IPCC reports and rhetoric by UN officials is this. Climate change has become a grand narrative in which human-caused climate change has become a dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative leads us to think that if we solve the problem of burning fossil fuels, then these other problems would also be solved.

This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these other problems. The end result is a narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as energy systems, water resources, public health, weather disasters, and national security. The IPCC reports have become “bumper sticker” climate science – making a political statement while using the overall reputation of science to give authority to a politically manufactured consensus.

Judith Curry is president of Climate Forecast Applications Network.

 

[Sean K]

 

[rederob]

Indeed, Shellenberger and Lomborg have been pointing out some errors in the hypothesis and better solutions or more practical ways forward for a little while. They're not climate scientists but environmentalists and scientists with more cred than Greta or Gore, using data and evidence to support their positions. Certainly more cred than Tim Flannery.

Neither Shellenberger nor Lomborg have made any meaningful contributions to climate science beyond the poorly based ideas they have.
It seems the only climate scientists you quote can only express disproven doubts and personal opinions rather than show how the climate is not changing as models suggest.

Another problem is that while there's been so much effort to analyse why emissions cause climate change, there's not a lot going into trying to disprove it or come up with other non man made causes.

This is completely untrue.
It is impossible in science to come up with a valid hypothesis unless you have been unable to discount other possibilities.

My general point is that the catastrophic predictions of global warming are questionable and the language must change or it's going to end up being a boy who cried wolf situation or the public will wake up and take no action that may be required to avert major problems 100 years down the track.

The predictions are proving themselves faster than anticipated by climate scientists so your "wolf" analogy was discounted decades ago. You appear to have some deafness to climate facts which regularly show the severity of events now exacerbated by a warmer atmosphere, while the frequency of "extreme" weather events is increasing.
The other point you overlook because you simply do not understand climate drivers is that the effects of today's high CO2 levels carry into the next few generations. Unless CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere the IPCC's statements remain conservative.

 

[IFocus]

Mean while the worlds ice continues to melt...

 

[mullokintyre]

Mean while the worlds ice continues to melt...

Yeah, they melt every year, just like they have always done.
Trouble is, the damn stuff keeps re freezing, just like it has always done.
The subtle difference now is that it is all due to man made climate change.
No chance that there may be other natural cyclic factors involved, none at all.
Mick