Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

The southern hemisphere does not have disruptions in the polar vortex anywhere near that of the northern hemisphere. Yet we had one at around the beginning of September of 2019. The only other major one was back in 2002. It occurs through sudden stratospheric warming, a drastic change of temperature in the stratosphere. It was predicted back then that it would become warmer and drier for much of Australia from spring to early summer. That is exactly what we saw. It has nothing to do with global warming. The recent weather in Australia was foreseen because of this SSW event. 2002 also saw the exact same effects.

The other factor for the catastrophic fires in Australia that the media is not talking about is poor land management. Most fire fighters will acknowledge this because they are the ones who implement fire control by way of burn offs to control the amount of fire fuel. It has been neglected, probably once again because of government greed. It has also been intensified by flood plain harvesting, the damming of water, denying the river systems water that can alleviate droughts when these things naturally occur. The government is as much to blame as the weather, in fact more so.

While the media is focused on what is happening in Australia with several tragic deaths. At least 50 people have died of extreme cold that is sweeping Bangladesh. Other countries also suffered death due to incredible cold. The parasitic media want to mainly focus on the only thing that can stand in the light of AGW regardless of the other factors that go unmentioned that have contributed to it. That being a corrupt government.

[AT LEAST] 50 DEAD AS SEVERE-COLD SWEEPS BANGLADESH
BANGLADESH
Recently, at least 50 people have died in Bangladesh as extreme cold weather sweeps the country.

Cold-related diseases have affected 5,998 people in the last 24 hours alone, reports unb.com.bd.

Hospitals are struggling to cope with the surge of people suffering from illnesses such as influenza, dehydration and pneumonia, said Ayesha Akhter, a senior official of the government’s health directorate.
UK
The UK’s frigid winter of 2018/19 resulted in an estimated 17,000 ‘cold housing condition’ deaths — almost twice as many as the previous winter.
NORTH AMERICA
While in North America, during the last week of January 2019, a buckling of the jet stream –linked to historically low solar activity– drove brutal Arctic air into the Midwestern United States and Eastern Canada, killing at least 22 people.

And in Cook County alone, a total of 14 cold-related deaths have been officially logged since November 2019.

The CDC estimates that so far this season there have been at least 4.6 million flu illnesses, 39,000 hospitalizations and 2,100 deaths from the flu in the United States.
REPEATING CYCLES, NOT CO2
The cold times are returning for many of us, in line with historically low solar activity.

Australia’s intense droughts and wildfires are returning, too — again on a sun-driven cyclical loop.

Australia’s once in a century ‘megadrought’, which ran from 1891 to 1903, caused an ecosystem collapse affecting more than a third of the country. The drought occurred within weak solar cycles 12 and 14, cycles very similar to the one we’re currently in, the record-deep solar minimum of 24:
https://electroverse.net/at-least-50-dead-as-severe-cold-sweeps-bangladesh/

History repeats. Imagine what could happen if people are unable to afford to pay the electricity bills. While on the other side of the pond if the Agenda 2030 inspired privatization of water, rural destruction and government control of land is to continue. It will be yet more disaster, not caused by global warming but inspired by it.
 
He backs it up with facts Michael. You must have missed the post that is linked below .
The lived experience as you call it was much harsher in the past. Where are all the dead livestock, kangaroos, birds, rabbits and dingo's in the recent heat waves?
During these same periods it was also global.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...e-and-our-illusion-of-control.412/post-137893
The issue isn't facts. Its measurements. We routinely experience temperatures that are higher than is recorded. You'd need a decent, and I suggest, impossible review of historic data.

Besides, is what kills just heatwaves, or droughts as well? I am not denying that there have been hotter periods in the past that are associated with droughts. What we have are long periods of increased temperature that seem to be outside cyclical variations. Who knows how long this will last.

This is the question - is there a climate change underway that marks a long term change as opposed to a periodic or cyclical spike? I have no idea. I do not know whether the trend I have experienced over the past 20+ years is going to continue. The fact that it has been hotter in the comparatively recent past is not meaningful without some sense of why. We know that radical cold spells come from radical volcanic activity. Are there terrestrial events that can trigger hot spells? Are there solar events that can do that?

My point about measurement is that while having a standard measuring method is essential for a disciplined collection of data, it is misleading about the 'experience' of weather. For instance the forecast for Penrith tomorrow is a high of 45 degrees C. But that does not mean that the maximum temperature experience is 45. It could be 55 or higher. It depends were you are in Penrith. So if I read that somebody experienced a temperature of 54 degrees C I do not disbelieve them. I just want to know where they were and how the knew it was that hot. Absent that data, comparison with any other measure is pointless.

The only thing I am sold on is that there is a present trend toward hotter weather, and this has been going on for some time. If this is a long term trend then we need to adapt in myriad ways - and the sooner we do it the better it may be for those of us who can be adversely impacted if the trend continues.

I don't think we are arguing over anything substantive. I get the historic records, but interpreting them in our context isn't that easy.
 
The other factor for the catastrophic fires in Australia that the media is not talking about is poor land management. Most fire fighters will acknowledge this because they are the ones who implement fire control by way of burn offs to control the amount of fire fuel. It has been neglected, probably once again because of government greed. It has also been intensified by flood plain harvesting, the damming of water, denying the river systems water that can alleviate droughts when these things naturally occur. The government is as much to blame as the weather, in fact more so.
I think the fairer assessment is that culturally we see the landscape in a different light, compared to the indigenous people, who, it is claimed, had a fire management regime. There is debate in Australia as to whether the indigenous people managed their landscape in ways that would have actually reduced the kinds of catastrophic fires we are presently experiencing.

But also let's be aware that many folk now have fixed dwellings in the bush and do no active management of their own, leaving it up to bush firies do it on their behalf. This isn't a government issue but a cultural one. We like a bushland untouched by fire, so we like to keep part of our bush unburned.

As we are seeing currently, mix drought and adverse weather [hot with winds and with thunderstorms] and you get fire risk. What we have done is to invite fire into our towns by creating pathways for a natural event to come right up to our properties. Our landscape has evolved to respond to fire. We haven't been as adaptive.

If the government is to blame it is only in failing to impose severe restrictions and conditions on houses built in fire risk areas. I moved to the Blue Mountains in 2001. We had fires that year, at Christmas. We had to think seriously about getting out. I spoke with a neighbour who was a member of the local bush fire crew. He had installed a sprinkler system on his house, with a pump and a dedicated tank. Back then he did that for under $3k. I asked him why that was not mandatory. He said only a few of his fellow firies had bothered.

So why don't we mandate fire safe practices in high risk areas? We mandate lethal airbags in cars with no sweat. But buildings we know are at high risk in a bush fire we allow to be at risk, and even let them be insured. That's bullshit. You can lose your contents insurance if you go out and leave your house unlocked.

Se care crap at risk management. Maybe now things will change? Don't hold your breath.
 
The issue isn't facts. Its measurements. We routinely experience temperatures that are higher than is recorded. You'd need a decent, and I suggest, impossible review of historic data.
Actually no we do not experience temperatures higher than recorded. I have lived here all my life. No way is it any hotter than when I was a kid. We are talking about 0.5 to 1.0 degrees warming during a short period of time and it's over. You must be super natural to notice this shift over more than a decade. It's in your head is all. Well where are those dead animals then? Facts don't matter? That is absurd. Hand wave any harder and you might fly!

Here are some measurements.
Tony Heller has plotted for the temperatures of 26-30th of December for many parts of OZ.
I plotted all December 26-30 temperatures at all long-term rural and urban GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) sites in Australia, going back to the 19th century. Most show cooling, and none show any significant warming.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/12/climate-fraud-could-crush-australias-economy/

There is no evidence what we see is historically significant. It has all happened before. One life time is a fart in the wind and you think this time scale has any significance on the scale of things? Ridiculous!
 
Last edited:
Unsettled: Scientists Find Ocean Heat Change Rate And Earth’s Energy Imbalance In DECLINE Since 2000
According to a new paper, the Earth’s ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has been decreasing (-0.26 W/m²/decade) since 2000, coinciding with a similar deficit in the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). The authors acknowledge such trends are “surprising” considering greenhouse gas emissions have risen.




A new data analysis authored by three Belgian scientists (Dewitte et al., 2019) finds not only has there been more heat energy leaving than accumulating in the Earth’s climate system this century, but ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has likewise been declining since the early 2000s.
Older study.

A cooling global ocean?

Per the IPCC, 93% of “global warming” is manifested by rising trends in 0-2000 m ocean heat content (OHC) (IPCC AR5, Chapter 3).

In 2006 scientists published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters asserting global OHC had rapidly declined from 2003 to 2005.

https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/02...arths-energy-imbalance-in-decline-since-2000/
 
Actually no we do not experience temperatures higher than recorded. I have lived here all my life. No way is it any hotter than when I was a kid. We are talking about 0.5 to 1.0 degrees warming during a short period of time! You must be super natural to notice this shift over more than a decade. It's in your head is all. Well where are those dead animals then? Facts don't matter? That is absurd.
Okay, that's not what I mean. There is a difference between reported and recorded temperatures. Where I live the temperatures have gotten higher in summer and higher in winter. Almost 20 years ago we had a couple of days in summer at 30 or over. Early last year I had an air con unit installed - and even that seemed radical. Now we have 30+ days for a week, several times over summer.

It depends on where you live, I guess. I loathe red to summers and crave cool/cold winters. Now I am to wearing warm clothing in winter. I admit that just about everybody else is walking around in down jackets, but I will not buy one because it would be a waste.

I have no idea what a .5 to 1.0 warming means. I gather it is supposedly catastrophic, but I have no sense as to why this is so. I rely on empirical data - my gas bills, what I wear, how I feel. Also the longer term locals tell me that for them things are getting way milder.

I am not saying facts don't matter, just that interpretation of them does. Where are all the dead animals? No idea. How would I know? Is this drought the worst ever? Maybe not. I routinely travelled through western NSW in the early to mid 1990s and saw shocking drought scenes. I have not had the need to travel in recent times, so I can point to no evidence. What about you?

I know that rain forest areas in Tasmania I walked in my youth have been burned. I know rainfall patterns have changed. I can track changes in weather patterns back to the 1960s. I am prepared to say that's down to climate change. The cause and duration of this change is something I am not qualified to comment on.

Like you I have read the science. But unlike you I do not have the confidence to express an opinion. I know enough about science to know I know enough about science to know when I don't know enough to pass opinion. You could be right in your assertions. The fact that I am not convinced
means only that I am not persuaded, not that you are wrong.
 
From "The Age" way back in 2015

Bushfire scientist David Packham warns of huge blaze threat, urges increase in fuel reduction burns
Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.

Victoria's "failed fire management policy" is an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment, David Packham said in a submission to the state's Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

And he argued that unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, "is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur. The forest and alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people [will be] incinerated."

He said forest fuel levels had climbed to their most dangerous level in thousands of years.

Mr Packham produced his submission in response to a review of bushfire fuel management announced last month by the state government and to be conducted by the Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-in-fuel-reduction-burns-20150312-14259h.html

We were warned! This was a powder keg waiting for the imminent spark.
 
Last edited:
There will be lasting peace for the next week - consider it a warning!
For anybody who missed it, the translation of that in straight talking terms is "I have banned Laird for a week".

That ban has now expired.

While I was banned, I took the opportunity to respond to several posts in this thread on Psience Quest, although I was somewhat limited in what I could respond to given that we have decided there to limit discussion of scientific and political controversies to opt-in member-only forums.

I duplicate that post below, with enhancements for native quotations which this forum software supports:

Rather than directly engaging the issue or just losing the issue. The argument goes like this....

I admit a mistake or even if I didn't, therefore I am wrong about everything.

This is a form of logical fallacy.
Uh, no. The argument is this:

You have proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate. Therefore, you are unqualified to post scientific commentary in this or any other thread.

Just like if somebody flunked out of med school, I would have no interest in their medical opinion, I have no interest in (and nor should anybody else) your opinion as a scientific illiterate on climate science.

Not only have you proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate, you have proven yourself to be:

  1. So illiterate that you failed to realise and correct it for pages and pages of a thread on this forum, even though plenty of people were patiently explaining to you your error.
  2. So illiterate that even when you did realise it, you continued to assert related scientific misunderstandings, not realising that your scientific illiteracy is utterly bedrock.
  3. Rude and arrogant in your illiteracy, vehemently declaring that everybody else was wrong.
You don't do all of that and then get to downplay it with a little "I admit a mistake". No, you didn't just admit your mistake. It took pages and pages of pointing it out to your very belligerent self before you admitted that mistake, and, even then, you continued to make related mistakes.

Settled science?

350 Papers Published Since 2017 Subvert The Claim That Post-1850s Warming Has Been Unusual, Global

In the last 35 months, 350 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published containing documented evidence that undermines the popularized conception of a slowly-cooling Earth followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped recent uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/26...t-post-1850s-warming-has-been-unusual-global/
Steve001 provided the appropriate response to this load of nonsense: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

[An addition over the PQ post: "No tricks" zone? More like "Shameless tricks" zone! This is the sort of crap that led me to stop looking at the musings of climate "skeptics".]

how many people on this site are "qualified"? you?
You need to read a little more closely. You don't need to go back more than a page or two to be able to answer that last question in my own words.

Can you reference any of his discourteous remarks that were worse than he received?
Bingo. He can't. I stated only the fact of LoneShaman's proven scientific illiteracy - that's not discourteous in the context of a discussion which depends upon scientific literacy; it's entirely appropriate. I didn't, as LoneShaman did of me, call him a "cry baby", suggest that he was "triggered", tell him he was "bitch[ing] and moan[ing]", etc etc.

Malf, if you want to use this source as a place to campaign, you may find yourself sharing Laird's fate, but since you have contributed far less than he has, your ban might be a little longer
These are the words of a hypocritical autocrat. All along, you have been urging me to respond to the (supposed) evidence in this thread, yet when malf asks you a totally legitimate question which calls upon you to provide an evidence-based answer, you dodge the question, and threaten - with utterly no cause - to ban him as you have me.

--- End duplication of original post on Psience Quest ---

Additions:

It seems that not only did you threaten to ban malf - without any valid cause whatsoever - you actually went ahead and did it. Is the asking of awkward questions now a banning offence on Skeptiko?

At least malf's ban, too, seems by now to have expired.

Further addition:

NEWLY PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPER TEARS GLOBAL WARMING AND THE IPCC TO SHREDS
These are not my words. Seems I have to firmly establish this now, thanks to strawman claims. The article is here.

The paper is here.
Wow. Just wow.

This article:

  1. Was written by a professor of a field (geography) unrelated to climate science.
  2. Contains no original research.
  3. Is simply a reiteration of various skeptical talking points.
  4. Is essentially just an opinion piece of a standard compatible with a year 10 student.
  5. Was published in a journal ("Journal of Aquatic Sciences and Oceanography") unrelated to its topic (climate science).
  6. Was published in a journal whose publisher, "ScholArena", appears on a list of possibly predatory publishers.
  7. Was accepted for publication based upon the author paying a fee. Think about that. This guy couldn't find a legitimate publisher who would publish his naive opinion piece in a field unrelated to his expertise - he had to resort to paying a predatory publisher to publish it. (To verify: follow the link accessible via "For Authors" at the bottom of the journal's homepage to arrive at a page that informs you that "Article processing charge (APC) are availed to recover range of publication services we provide including review management, article production, and online hosting and archiving, etc., and the charge varies from journal to journal.")
  8. Based on all of the above, was probably not even peer-reviewed, at least not by competent reviewers.

I mean, can climate "skeptics" scrape any lower on the barrel, to present this load of crap as a legitimate scientific challenge to genuine published research?

The presentation of this paper as in any way "firmly establish[ing]" anything at all simply affirms the scientific illiteracy of its advocate.
 
This is what a sane response to climate change looks like when it's not addled by the sort of nonsense pointed out above:

New Zealand passes historic zero carbon bill with near unanimous bipartisan support

The New Zealand parliament has passed landmark legislation that enshrines the country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement into law, and will see the country achieve zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

The legislation establishes New Zealand as one of the few countries in the world with a legislated commitment to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, with the New Zealand bill committing to establishing policies consistent with limiting global warming to just 1.5°C.

The bill was passed with bipartisan support, including from the centre right Nationals
This is why similarly sane responses get addled:

Climate denialism is bought and paid for by a rotten political system

Fossil fuel and energy companies are some of the largest donors in the country; flush with profits from repeated commodity and investment booms, as a sector they rival the big banks (and, in recent years, the four big accounting firms) as the most dominant industry in political donations.

In this decade alone, since 2011, mining and energy companies have given $8.4 million in donations to the Coalition’s state and federal branches, as well as $2.8 million to the ALP’s branches. In comparison, the financial industry gave around $12 million in total to both sides, split roughly $7m/$5m.

That donor list is dominated by major carbon emitters. It is headed by Woodside, one of the most powerful Australian companies, which has been assisted by successive Australian governments, including with the use of ASIS in illegal commercial espionage against Timor-Leste. It has handed over $1 million in donations to the Coalition since 2011 and nearly $900,000 to Labor.

Caltex has handed over $330,000 to the Coalition and another $130,000-odd to Labor; its former parent company Chevron, the 12th-biggest carbon polluter in the world, has given $420,000 to the Coalition and $341,000 to Labor.
 
Straight back on the horse!

Not impressed. Or offended. Or surprised.

I'll just post stuff I think is interesting...

...and you whine OK? That's fine with me but don't expect me to won't waste my time
 
Whiny is a devastating blow next to paragraphs of personal attacks and fallacy across multiple posts . Obviously a release built up over the time out. Something going on with you?

I should be banished and exiled. I am a heathen after all

You have proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate. Therefore, you are unqualified to post scientific commentary in this or any other thread.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody believe this, as opposed to "I'll just post stuff that supports my political agenda"?
I believe it.
As you’re being open here I will post openly too. I have faults too, so anything I’m saying to you could easily be me on the receiving end. It’s just one rubbish opinion. One of my worst faults is judging others, I am guilty. However, one of my redeeming features is that I am as quick to forgive as I am to judge.

This is all just imo.

We ALL have agendas. I think that you are too much at times. You have been too much in this instance. Let it go!

That Lone Shaman has been proven wrong in one thing (pendulum theory) should not mean that he be totally trashed. Every one of us on the forum is likely to be stating dodgy stuff most of the time. Because you have been proven ‘right’ this time, means little to me. LS is no lesser imv post ‘pendulum gate’ than before.

I have been on the receiving end of such a determined, I would say fierce, onslaught from you in a pm exchange we had quite recently. I desperately wanted you to stop, but you kept on. I see such determination not as a strength. I see it as punching a beaten opponent when they’re down, one or two punches might ensure they stay down, but then it’s time to walk away.
 
Not only have you proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate, you have proven yourself to be:

  1. So illiterate that you failed to realise and correct it for pages and pages of a thread on this forum, even though plenty of people were patiently explaining to you your error.
  2. So illiterate that even when you did realise it, you continued to assert related scientific misunderstandings, not realising that your scientific illiteracy is utterly bedrock.
  3. Rude and arrogant in your illiteracy, vehemently declaring that everybody else was wrong.
Clearly ban was not long enough.

David
 
Clearly ban was not long enough.
Another one without discussing things in the open for a bit won’t really help get to the root cause of the issue. It’s all a storm in a tea cup in my opinion. Laird and LS have both been very valuable contributors to this forum in the past, to lose either of them would be a great loss.
 
The thread can stay on track if I don't engage, it's a waste of space. AGW is up there on fever level topics of politics and religion for most people. AGW is a little of both.
I don't care about AGW. This thread has encouraged me to dig deeper about the Sun. This is far more interesting, and the elephant in the room.
 
Another one without discussing things in the open for a bit won’t really help get to the root cause of the issue. It’s all a storm in a tea cup in my opinion. Laird and LS have both been very valuable contributors to this forum in the past, to lose either of them would be a great loss.
My appeal appears to have been in vain. Laird has been banned. :(
 
Probably should let this subject go. So to finish...

This is the subject I started this thread with. And the acceptance of solar particle forcing through the growing number of papers and data released. Most climate scientist don't know anything about solar physics. The biggest factor by far. The Sun and the Earth are electrically connected.


This is what is happening, it should get interesting if these solar cycles are in fact converging.
...not if but when.

Have a play here. Click on Earth in the bottom left to get started. The highest altitude winds show the vortex, it breaks up into cells as it goes down in altitude.
https://earth.nullschool.net/
 
Last edited:
This is what is happening, it should get interesting
It is very interesting, and so beautiful!
So if this, as I think you've been saying, is the reason for th extremes of unstable weather pattern, how or why does that prove that oil-based pollution in the atmosphere is irrelevant? Why do you have to disprove any other theory in favour of yours? I don't see why both atmospheric events cannot co-exist.
For e.g. can you tell me if there is any data on what a combination of this solar-influenced jet stream and a high CO2 content in the atmosphere would do?
 
Top