I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Roger Bryant: 
 

Although interesting, being the longest measured temperature series, the CET is not very helpful in discussing global warming as it is just 3 points in England which may or may not reflect global conditions. 

It is obviously helpful in discussing climate warming, for the lessons it renders. 

The Karoly-Stott analysis about how the likelihood of such a rise has increased because of anthropogenic factors is obviously generalisable to any situation in which there is enough reliable data. Indeed, it is explained in the Stone-Allen 2005 paper (available in preprint from the Oxford site). Similarlywith  the observations of Stott, Stone and Allen about the 2003 European heatwave.

The point of citing that work is this. If you can show the risk of specific adverse events of a given magnitude has increased because of anthropogenic factors, then that provides an obvious argument for taking measures to mitigate the effect of those factors.

I argue we should be doing that. 

What is your position on that? That those anthropogenic factors aren't really there? 

 

What is the global average temperature? …..

 

IPCC AR5 split there global temperature between land and ocean…… IPCC AR6 presents a much more extreme view. The previous reduction in the rate of rise has disappeared 

I don't see much difference between the data you quote from AR5 and AR6, except for the mode of presentation. Can you tell us why you find AR6 “much more extreme”?

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
I mentioned inter alia the unprecendented California wildfire season and the heatdome that built itself up in July.

Even if that unfortunate California wildfire season was unprecedented, the trend does not seem to be global. Old newspaper articles have suggested that wildfires in US, Australia and Siberia have been of lower magnitudes recently than a century ago, satellite observations shed light on the latest decade:  

"There was a lower-than-average number of wildfires in 2020 despite hotspots such as California and Australia being hit by blazes of unprecedented intensity, the European Union's satellite monitoring service said Monday. A year of data collected by the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) showed that carbon emissions from fires were set to be lower than previous years and that 2020 was one of the lowest years for active fires globally.
globally fires had declined consistently since 2003 when the monitoring service began."
phys.org/.../2020-12-below-average-monster-blazes-eu.html

For the record, I don't think such comments have a place in any rational discussion about whether global warming is real, what the evidence is, and what to do about it.

I do agree with you here - although I meant no insult, I did get jollyer than usually for which I apologize (forgot a smiley). The reason for this was being fed up about the fact that with every hint of climate warming, the media screams "look out of the window at CAGW" while any cold events are explained to be just weather. Since the 60 to 65 year trends observable in climate changes exceed typical personal memory capacity, people lack own dramatic experiences and tend to believe that many weather events are extraordinary.
 
Regarding the "hockey stick season" re-opened by IPCC AR6 SPM graph a) above: one might find analysis of underlying PAGES2K reconstruction by Dr. Stephen McIntyre interesting:

climateaudit.org/.../

Some of the trump cards of the "warmists" have always been the poor melting polar ice caps. At least in case of the Antarctic glaciers, it is proven beyond doubt by now that underwater volcanoes are to blame, not the atmospheric CO2. If of interest, have a look at most recent research about the Pine Island Ice Shelf (2018) and Thwaites Glacier (2021), melting of which has allegedly previously been attributed to human activities by hundreds of reserch reports. Similar issues can be seen in the Arctic - the ice is melting due to warmer waters, not atmospheric heat. The Iceland and Greenland mantle plumes have been recently studied, but the sea ice is not doing as bad as some have forecasted.  

I would suggest an analogy of ground beef handling to describe the situation with widespread CAGW propaganda these days: one does not have to think about poor animals being herded and slaughtered while making meatballs in the comfort of own kitchen; similarly, most of the media figures do not consider how the climate science is made and how much of it is still valid, operating in good faith. What was started based on hypothetical risk assessment as a precautionary principle may be already invalidated by empirical data. I tend to believe in measurement, not modelling, and expect integrity of scientists. 

Although interesting, being the longest measured temperature series, the CET is not very helpful in discussing global warming as it is just 3 points in England which may or may not reflect global conditions. What is the global average temperature?

There are a number of series run by various organisations. The UK Met office used to run a comparison but stopped updating this is 2010 (why?)

There are significant differences between the two hemispheres, the northern hemisphere being similar to the CET with a drop 1950 - 1970, a rise of around 1°C to 2000 and then a flattening off.

IPCC AR5 split there global temperature between land and ocean. This tends to smooth out the drop in the northern hemisphere between 1950 and 1970. Again we have a rise of around 1°C  and they note the flattening off after 1998.

IPCC AR6 presents a much more extreme view. The previous reduction in the rate of rise has disappeared with no obvious explanation other than maybe ‘new datasets and methods’ (fudge the numbers to get what you want). The earlier warm periods and the little ice age are also not there.

I accept that as we learn more and develop new techniques that older data needs to be revisited. I am suspicious when every change moves the data nearer to your prediction and the political goals. Finally a couple of thoughts on FLOP26:

I think:

1. they are scared
2. they don't trust the authorities and corporations
3. as infuriating as we may find it, they are not “just” being difficult; they are genuine and committed (I think the same thing is true of anti-vaxers).

If we don't like their opinion, we can engage with them on an open transparent level which seeks true understanding, but if they (and we) come away with the same opinions, everyone has to respect that and let it go.

Personally, I don't blame them given the destruction humans have wreaked on the planet and that multi-nationals and co-opted governments lie, cheat, steal and blat other folk left right and centre as suites them.  Profit at any cost.  It is unsustainable and abusive.

Peter Bernard Ladkin: 
 

I mentioned inter alia the unprecendented California wildfire season and the heatdome that built itself up in July. 

 

A number of people have been arrested for starting these so called wildfires. Some of these people are said to be scientists. 

The rescent heat dome is one of those incidents where ‘all the planets aline’, perfect storm scenario.

???

[PBL] Look at point 4). Apparently this gentleman doesn't read the newspapers. He wouldn't be ablt to say that in a lecture anywhere in California. Or, I imagine, many places in Louisiana. Or in the Eifel. And it passes in this supposed review also without comment. So there are at least two people not reading newspapers :-)

[AU] With all due respect, I cannot accept grethaesque exclamations based on newspaper articles a hard evidence. 

I mentioned inter alia the unprecendented California wildfire season and the heatdome that built itself up in July. I also mentioned that I lived there for nearly twenty years and have colleagues who still do, with whom I am in touch. Calling that “grethaesque exclamations based on newspaper articles” does suggest the type of discussion you seem comfortable with.

For the record, I don't think such comments have a place in any rational discussion about whether global warming is real, what the evidence is, and what to do about it. 

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?

If you are unable to refute these statements of Dr. Hayden, perhaps they are true? Although my degrees are not in physics, I find his points to be highly likely.

The trouble is, so far you have been pointing to a bunch of dubious sources. At some point, I have to ask why on earth you believe this stuff. If you can't give any reason (despite having been asked) then that tells us you are not able to judge the scientific worth of the material you are pointing us to.

Since we seem to be in the questions game: isn't calling a source "dubious" another form of ad-hominem, disregarding the fact that such sources provide analysis and links to indubitably valid science or peer-reviewed research ?

I am happy to answer the question "why on earth you believe this stuff". As you have rightly pointed out, "nominally-impressive academic title does not necessarily mean much". Nevertheless, having learned many years ago that thousands of dedicated scientists of great integrity question the "scientific consensus" on CO2 as the "climate control knob" as sold by the IPCC, one might develop doubts. Mine were aggravated since several leading scientists in my country explained how their research does not support the IPCC angle, and how their non-conforming research is systematically oppressed by refusing grants and publication. I have learned a lot from the websites that I have shared here.

Another point: every now and then we hear of some scientists or officials publicly deserting from the "climate alarmist" camp and joining the "climate realists", but I cannot remember hearing of a single one jumping in the opposite direction. Even one of the initial pillars of warmism, Dr. Roger Revelle who first mentioned global warming in a government report in 1965, turned to be a sceptic shorthly before his death ("What to Do About Greenhouse Warning: Look Before you Leap", 1991). One might be surprised to see how many sceptical scientists are stepping out from the shadows - have a look at the World Climate Declaration of 2020.

I notice this week's summary discusses a paper by Richard Lindzen, one of the people you have mentioned.

If one has not heard of prominent scientists like Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Legates, Dr. Humlum, Dr. Happer, Dr. Koonin, Dr. Vahrenholt and many others holding up the debate in climate science, one might indeed not have any idea that such debate still exists. This is not an accusation - public media typically avoids referring to scientists or research hinting that the "climate crisis" is not severe enough.

Look at point 4). Apparently this gentleman doesn't read the newspapers. He wouldn't be ablt to say that in a lecture anywhere in California. Or, I imagine, many places in Louisiana. Or in the Eifel. And it passes in this supposed review also without comment. So there are at least two people not reading newspapers :-)

With all due respect, I cannot accept grethaesque exclamations based on newspaper articles a hard evidence. There is enough historic evidence demonstrating that wildfires, floods and heat waves of recent years are of lower magnitude than the ones 100+ years ago, or inbetween. Supporting research is available.

In 2017 I happened to be in beautiful Koblenz where the 2021 flooding caused great damage. Nevertheless, while water level reached 654 cm on July 16'th, I can see on one of my photographs that historic floods have exceeded a 1000 cm mark with many over 800 cm in previous centuries. Some of the floods may certainly be intensified due to human activity - more structures on land, less water absorption capability - but not necessarily CO2.

Talking about Germany: chancellor Merkel may have been a climate sceptic - as Nature notes: 
"Although Merkel maintained close ties with the research world, there is one crucial policy area in which her decisions have not always been backed up by science. Germany is not a leader when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels. In the past, Merkel has even shown irritation at warnings of dangerous climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

I always enjoy a civilized debate based on scientific arguments. Hopefully the climate inquisition shall not be institutionalized in Europe and the debate extends, until the truth comes out and unjustified policies are abandoned.

Roger Bryant: 
 I have had enough of the peer review process. 

Yes, it can be frustrating. However, no better method of quality control has been found than asking a couple of potential readers what they think of a scientific contribution. Most of us have our pals who will just do that for us, before anything goes off to a third party. The discipline is necessary.

Poor reason, BTW. If you can coherently contradict Karoly and Stott, and you make that public claim, ultimately somebody's going to have to look at your reasoning and tell you if it's right or wrong. 

 

It is designed to maintain the status quo of the peer group.

I think “designed” is the wrong word. “Evolved” might be better. 

“Maintaining the status quo of the peer group” seems to me a good thing if it leads to qualified and trustworthy lawyers, doctors, electricians, plumbers, pharmacists and climate scientists. 

The best data for long term low level exposures comes from the Taiwanese apartment blocks that were built with rebar contaminated with Cobalt 60. 

I didn't know that. At the time, I was concerned mainly with exposure of airline pilots to cosmic rays. On some routes, that is likely to be rather more, I suspect. As well as different from the decay of Cobalt-60.

 

The British Green Activist George Monbiot had an interesting experience when he started looking into the anti-nuclear movement. They were mostly making it up as they went along with no scientific basis.

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/

https://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/

Well, I'm glad he checked the basics. Nobody believes the Yablokov estimate, but neither do we necessarily believe UNSCEAR. It sounds as if he was pointed to the right literature, not before time, but it is a bit of a mystery to me why he berates Caldicott for it, rather than thanking her. There is stuff out there, always is. You gotta know what it is and read it. Looks like he hadn't :-(

mapj1: 
 

There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.

At the risk of stirring, I disagree.

You are very welcome to disagree with anything I say. This is off-topic, so if we want to carry on we might want to move to another thread.

operational safety is good 

You refer to historical operational safety. The historical operational safety of nuclear weapons is also good. But the safety is not. Scott Sagan and Eric Schlosser have had their say (both studies very well worth reading). And there is (rather, was) the magnificent Stanislav Petrov, who likely saved the world in 1983. 

The safety of NPPs is not what I would call generally good, although it differs by country. The Union of Concerned Scientists has substantial material on safety incidents in NPPs. Constance Perin's study Shouldering Risks about how the people part works is also eye-opening. Then there is Chick Perrow's last book, The Next Catastrophe. He points out, as did Dave Lochbaum, that the emergency-generation systems of the Westinghouse BWR-I, being located in the basement, are susceptible to flooding, as indeed happened in 2011 at Fukushima Daiichi, which led to core meltdown. Lee Clarke's Worst Cases is also relevant.

The point about NPP safety is that the worst case is so very bad that it falls outside the usual engineering concepts of risk (besides that, there is no reliable way to quantify the probability of a worst-case event). I could probably write a book about it … oh, I did.

Waste - you need a big car park.

You need a big car park, sealed from the environment, and guaranteed to remain so sealed for at least 10,000 years. People have been looking for one for seventy years and have not found one yet. And it's getting bigger all the time (as the Beatles might have said).

Compare to mining accidents or leaks of nasty  chemicals that have killed folk over the same period that seem to have a few a year, (Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez, Probo Koala, Aberfan, Sago mine, Flint Water scandal ..) 

Sure, there are plenty of historical industrial accidents that turned out to be worse than, say, Chernobyl, although there is quite some dispute about how many people died because of Chernobyl. However, had the wind been the way it usually was at the time of the Chernobyl accident, it would likely have wiped out Kiev, which alone would have been an order of magnitude worse than Bhopal, often thought to be the worst to date. That is what I mean about the difference between historical operational safety and safety. We're still here. We might so easily not have been in 1984. That doesn't mean that LOW and MAD have turned out to be OK.