Bad science, superstition and idiocy: AGW denialism

[HBS Guy]

Very sad cases.

Booby the gullible dickhead believes everything he sees in the videos by a charlatan called Dubyne. The theme is: a grand solar minimum is due so we will have another Little Ice Age. A recent compilation of rubbish: the LIA was caused in part by volcanic eruptions or so it is speculated. Volcanic eruptions do spew out some CO2, hardly anything compared to mankind’s carbon pollution. They also spew aerosols (sulphated) into the top atmosphere where they reflect sunlight, cooling the planet.

The logic is all topsy turvy as you would expect. The last LIA started before the grand solar minimum, the heavy volcanic activity is supposed to have done that, the Solar Minimum just made it a bit worse. But the lying charlatan is trying to imply volcanic activity is happening NOW and that is DUE to the solar minimum.

What happens in the sun does not affect volcanism and orogeny on earth. How could it, this all happens due to events deep in the earths crust. But the charlatan is busy trying to conflate SM & vulcanism. Nuts.

There is no sign that a grand solar minimum (aka Maunder Minimum) is about to happen. No really heavy vulcanism either. Say a LIA did happen. There is 40+% more CO2 (and methane and increasingly NO2) in the atmosphere than in the centuries of the last LIA so any temperature decrease from a GSM would be miniscule.

Why that lying charlatan put these stupid videos I don’t really know except that somehow he is making money from it. I guess someone pays him, he puts together a heap of crap and includes links that are advertisements that he gets paid to put on his videos. It is easy enough, just set up a heap of Google alerts re US & UK food prices (beef cattle, wheat, veges) weather events (snow, hail etc) and jumble them together with the junkiest of junk science and it is all done in an hour or two.

His channel is followed by conspiracy theorists, fruitcakes, nutcases, fantasists, lunatics and all manner of gullible people. Guess it gives them some excitement in their lives. Comments to the video have a theme of “we know what is really going on, that gubberment doesn’t WANT us to know” so the fools get a feeling of superiority they don’t get in the real world.

Fools!

[HBS Guy]

IPA, oh dear!


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/aug/26/institute-of-public-affairs-paper-claim-global-warming-natural-junk-science

[HBS Guy]

Southern Mexico just suffered from a 8.1 earthquake.

Tomorrow all the Ice Age frauds will be claiming that quake is a sign of the coming Ice Age.

Perfect backwards logic: it is postulated that the last Little Ice Age was caused (partly at least) by a high level of vulcanism that sent a high level of aerosols into the upper atmosphere which reflected away a lot of sunlight hitting the upper atmosphere. So now the frauds preaching ice age sort of say it is the ice age (or the quiet sun in a solar minimum) that is causing the vulcanism.

Well, they could not point to heavy vulcanism preceding their fatuous and non existent ice age could they?

[Sir Bobby]

A good video for Jovial to watch:




The Coming Ice Age Cannot be AVOIDED

[HBS Guy]

I see Dame Booby put the link to another ridiculous ice age post in exactly the right place.

[Sir Bobby]

I see Dame Booby put the link to another ridiculous ice age post in exactly the right place.

Just to give you some information about Milankovitch cycles in video form:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

That will help Jovial to get some science behind him for his return to Ozpolitic in a few weeks.

[HBS Guy]

You think I don’t know about Milankovitch cycles, Dame Booby? Look at all the times I mention orbital peturbations as a cause of ice ages. You silly dick!

[Sir Bobby]

You think I don’t know about Milankovitch cycles, Sir Bobby?
Look at all the times I mention orbital perturbations as a cause of ice ages. You silly dick.

So you agree that we're heading for another Ice Age -
at least we're getting somewhere now.

[HBS Guy]

Next ice age is like 80,000 years into the future.

[Sir Bobby]

Massive Growth In Thick Arctic Sea Ice

Posted on February 18, 2017 by tonyheller

Over the past nine years, there has been a huge increase in the area of thick Arctic sea ice. The Chukchi and East Siberian Seas had no thick ice in 2008, but lots of it now.
Government experts of course claim the exact opposite, because they are paid to lie – or at least they were until January 20th. The 1988-2007 decline in Arctic sea ice ended when Barack Obama healed the planet in 2008.


Data Analyses Show Rapid Global Surface Cooling, Growing Arctic Ice Thickness


Global satellite temperature anomaly from the mean measured by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) rebounded a bit after a large March drop.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/massive-growth-in-thick-arctic-sea-ice/

Oh dear where is Monk's Hockey stick?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/08/data-analyses-show-rapid-global-surface-cooling-growing-arctic-ice-thickness/

[HBS Guy]

If there is growth of massive thick Arctic ice how come Arctic Mission, two yachts with no icebreaker support could reach 80°North?

That graph of temperatures is wrong, several years this century have been hotter than 1998.

When you rely on junk science you will look a bigger idiot than you already are, Dame Booby.

August 2017 global temperature is hotter than August 2016 temperature and 2017 is not an El Nino year and 2016 was.

[Sir Bobby]

So when I post a graph it's wrong but when you post one it's right?

Notice there's no hockey stick on the one I posted?

[HBS Guy]

Your graphs are wrong, Dame Booby, because like all deniers you post crap from denialist sites. Lees is much cleverer than you in his denial.

Arctic Mission, two yachts, no icebreaker reached 80°N. Think on that instead of ice age bullshit.

THIS is an accurate graph, GISS:


See how global temperatures are rising? Squeeze the years a bit more tightly and it will look like a hockey stick! Mann was right!

As a consequence of rising temperatures the poles are melting. This is West Antarctica. See how the retreat of the glaciers is increasing?


Global temperatures by month:


See how temperatures have increased? See how Jul 2017 was as hot as July 2016 despite 2017 not being an El Nino year and 2016 was an El Nino year?

[Sir Bobby]

[HBS Guy]

If that photo is from this year that ice off the coast of Newfoundland came from Greenland and was so thick and so infested with polar bears that scientists and fishermen had great trouble getting through the 40Km of floes.

Proves AGW, disproves the ice age idiocy.

[HBS Guy]

Deniers—paid lavishly to spread misinformation about AGW. Dubyne is certainly one tool of fossil fuel interests.

hree decades ago when serious debate on human-induced climate change began globally, a great deal of statesmanship was on display. A preparedness to recognise that this was an issue which transcended nation states, ideologies and political parties. An issue which had to be addressed proactively in the long-term interests of humanity, even if the existential nature of climate risk was far less clear cut than it is today.

Then, as global institutions were put in place to take up this challenge and the extent of change this would impose on the fossil-fuel dominated world became more obvious, the forces of resistance mobilised. Today, despite the diplomatic triumph of the Paris climate agreement, debate around climate change policy has never been more dysfunctional, indeed Orwellian, particularly in Australia.

Yeah, turdfull can’t formulate consistent, evidence based policy, just coal based policy to keep the RWNJs happy and turdfull in the Lodge.

International agreements talk of limiting global warming to 1.5–2°C, but in reality they set the world on a path of 3–5°C. Goals are reaffirmed, only to be abandoned. Coal, by definition, is “clean”. Just 1°C of warming is already dangerous, but this cannot be said. The planetary future is hostage to myopic, national self-interest. Action is delayed on the assumption that as yet unproven technologies will save the day, decades hence. The risks are existential, but it is “alarmist” to say so. A one-in-two chance of missing a goal is normalised as reasonable.

Why isn’t nuclear adopted more readily? Is carbon free once operating and safe enough these days.

The previous norms of statesmanship and long-term thinking have long since disappeared, replaced by an obsession with short-term political and commercial advantage, particularly where climate and energy policy is concerned.

An emergency-scale transition to a post-fossil fuel world is essential to address climate change. But this is considered to be too disruptive. The orthodoxy is that there is time for an orderly economic transition within the current short-termist political paradigm. Discussion of what would be safe – less warming that we presently experience – is non-existent. And so we have a policy failure of epic proportions.

Yeah, involves population control, reforestation, industrial-scale biochemical ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, huge investments in nuclear and renewables, big push on fusion energy etc. No stupid denialism including the incredibly stupid ice age nonsense.

In the magical thinking of Australian policymakers, a pathway of gradual change, constructed over many decades in a growing, prosperous, coal-fired world stretches enticingly before us. The world not imagined is the one that now exists: of looming financial instability; of a global crisis of political legitimacy; of a sustainability crisis that extends far beyond climate change to include all the fundamentals of human existence, and of severe global energy sector dislocation.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the UN in 1988 and charged with regularly assessing the global consensus on climate science as a basis for policy-making. The IPCC assessment reports produced every five to six years play a critical part in the public framing of the climate narrative. The IPCC has done indispensable work in pulling together a periodic consensus of what must be the most exhaustive scientific investigation in history.

Yup, and it is a picture of a warming world where the polar ice is melting and sea levels are rising and the warm air and warm waters feed giant hurricanes.

These limitations were not of overriding importance in earlier years. However, it is now clear that the risks are far greater than previously anticipated. Climate change has moved from the twilight period of much talk but limited impact; it is now turning nasty, as witnessed with Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, in South Asia, and not to forget Cyclone Debbie in Australia earlier this year.

The distinction between climate science and risk is now the critical issue, for the two are not the same. Scientific reticence, the reluctance to spell out the full risk implications of climate science in the absence of perfect information, has become a major problem, allowing politicians to ignore the real dangers we face. But waiting for perfect information means it will be too late to act, as any sensible risk manager or military leader knows only too well. Like an iceberg, there is great danger in ignoring “What lies beneath”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/11/hostage-to-myopic-self-interest-climate-science-is-watered-down-under-political-scrutiny

Clowns like Dame Booby, Lees and roach are helping to prevent action on acceleration anthropogenic global warming, out of cowardice.

[HBS Guy]

Lees continuing his obfuscation. Sometimes his stupidity takes your breath away.

Current in OzPol > Environment

The_Barnacle wrote Today at 10:08am:
So lee, do you agree with this part of the study too? Or do you just cherry pick the parts of the study that suit you?

Of course I agree it is part of the study.

The_Barnacle wrote Today at 10:08am:
"Our findings show that natural geologic emissions of methane -- for example, leakage from oil seeps or gas deposits in the ground -- are much smaller than previously thought," Brook said. "That means that a greater percentage of the methane in the atmosphere today is due to human activities, including oil drilling, and the extraction and transport of natural gas."

Now all they have to do is prove they have identified all the methane seeps in the ocean.

That is not what the study was, the study examined ice cores, or the gas trapped in the ice cores.

Last time temperatures increased methane did not increase rapidly. Now it is, and we are doing it in extracting fossil fuels, “fugitive methane emissions.”

Look at my “What if natural forcings add to AGW?” Now add “Anthropogenic methane emissions are adding to AGW.”

Homo sapiens “Wise Man” what total idiot named our species that?

[HBS Guy]

How fossil fuel lobbies, think tanks, etc etc conspired to turn Ohio legislators against the clean energy Bill they approved 93:1 just a few years previous. This despite the boom in jobs it created:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/10/green_energy_vs_coal_a_secret.html

The stupid videos Dubyne makes are all part of an effort to turn energy back to fossil fuel sources.