Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Guam said:
Climategate 3 email said:
(climate model) runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the match is a fluke
ETA a recent example from Thursday 20th December 2012 in a reply to hairykrishna.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 16th March 08:31
Which reminds me - true belief has yet to reply to this baker's dozen.
Questions relating to inadequate gigo climate models funded by political patronage remain ideally suited to this thread, as opposed to a thread about science.
Questions relating to inadequate gigo climate models funded by political patronage remain ideally suited to this thread, as opposed to a thread about science.
On 04 December 2012 I said:
The first six:
1. Are the time intervals in global climate modes still between 1 and 3 hours in stepwise evolution, due to lack of computing power and resulting cost? This would be wholly inadequate (see 6 and 13).
2. What's the atmospheric cell size these days, is it less than 100km yet? I doubt it very much. Sandy may have been too big, size matters, and the warming said to have spawned it hasn't existed for 16 years anyway unlike the information pollution emerging from models.
3. Is the ocean cell size even bigger?
4. Do the climate models still treat the planet's hemispheres as identical for symmetry purposes i.e. as a short-cut, when they have such contrasting land-ocean make up?
5. Any progress with rigid paramaterisation and the vertical profile problem?
6. Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't even get surface solar radiation right, with an error more than 20x the claimed forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. What are the modellers doing about that?
Another 7:
7. Drawing partly from Sun et al as above, have errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations been addressed?
8. Is anything happening on underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport?
9. Where have advances in the treatment of poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations got to?
10. How about overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes?
11. The initial value problem, that'll be tricky...
12. How many of the 20+ natural forcings are now modelled and how many have a high LOSU (level of scientific understanding)?
And finally
13. Has computing power suddenly increased by many orders of magnitude recently?
Tick Tock.1. Are the time intervals in global climate modes still between 1 and 3 hours in stepwise evolution, due to lack of computing power and resulting cost? This would be wholly inadequate (see 6 and 13).
2. What's the atmospheric cell size these days, is it less than 100km yet? I doubt it very much. Sandy may have been too big, size matters, and the warming said to have spawned it hasn't existed for 16 years anyway unlike the information pollution emerging from models.
3. Is the ocean cell size even bigger?
4. Do the climate models still treat the planet's hemispheres as identical for symmetry purposes i.e. as a short-cut, when they have such contrasting land-ocean make up?
5. Any progress with rigid paramaterisation and the vertical profile problem?
6. Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't even get surface solar radiation right, with an error more than 20x the claimed forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. What are the modellers doing about that?
Another 7:
7. Drawing partly from Sun et al as above, have errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations been addressed?
8. Is anything happening on underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport?
9. Where have advances in the treatment of poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations got to?
10. How about overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes?
11. The initial value problem, that'll be tricky...
12. How many of the 20+ natural forcings are now modelled and how many have a high LOSU (level of scientific understanding)?
And finally
13. Has computing power suddenly increased by many orders of magnitude recently?
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
Good spot. See also PistonHeads 2002-2013.
ETA a recent example from Thursday 20th December 2012 in a reply to hairykrishna.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Wonder where that Rose character who was banging on about how good the models where and that thee and me were talking crap is today ETA a recent example from Thursday 20th December 2012 in a reply to hairykrishna.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 16th March 08:31
Just a couple of guesses to pass the time :|
Marcott et al is disintegrating over at Climate Audit.
As posted and repeated on WUWT theuptrick uptick 'almost certainly arises' from a statistical processing error involving proxies...'shades of upside down Tiljander'. Who thought the dizziness had gone following upside down Mann...
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/16/marcotts-upt...
They'll never learn it seems.
As posted and repeated on WUWT the
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/16/marcotts-upt...
They'll never learn it seems.
More on data availability.
Steve McIntyre said:
As a caveat to my forthcoming post on Marcott redating, I note that I haven't been able to replicate essential details of the reported reconstructions from the archived spreadsheet. I’m wondering if the archived spreadsheet was precisely the one used in the reconstruction.
Shades of upside down Tiljander already and if Steve's suspicions are correct, now we have shades of Oreskes.And again.
Steve McIntyre said:
Marcott didn't use the “published” dates. The redating is an essential part of what’s going on. Marcott completely rearranged the roster of proxies reporting in 1940. I’ve shown that the phenomenon described in this post can yield the sort of uptick. To reproduce the reported uptick, you need the exact network of proxies with the dates used in the calculation. I’m not convinced that we have that yet. I’ll outline these points tomorrow.
Tomorrow is now today and McIntyre's work must surely lead to retraction of the Marcott et al publication in Science along with the resignation of its Editorial board, and gung-ho useful idiot journalists resigning as well. Let's not hold our breath though.
Above: McIntyre reconstructions from alkenone proxies in Marcott style. Red using published dates, Black using Marcott-Shakun dates.
"The moral of today’s post for ocean cores. Are you an ocean core that is tired of your current date? Does your current date make you feel too old? Or does it make you feel too young? Try the Marcott-Shakun dating service. Ashley Madison for ocean cores. Confidentiality is guaranteed."
Or match.com over here.
WUWT said:
It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.
This is going to get very interesting very fast.
This is going to get very interesting very fast.
Above: McIntyre reconstructions from alkenone proxies in Marcott style. Red using published dates, Black using Marcott-Shakun dates.
Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit said:
The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service
Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)
More to come.Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)
Steve M said:
However, something more than this is going on. In some cases, Marcott et al have re-dated core tops indicated as 0 BP in the original publication. (Perhaps with justification, but this is not reported.) In other cases, core tops have been assigned to 0 BP even though different dates have been reported in the original publication. In another important case (of YAD061 significance as I will later discuss), Marcott et al ignored a major dating caveat of the original publication.
And finally..."The moral of today’s post for ocean cores. Are you an ocean core that is tired of your current date? Does your current date make you feel too old? Or does it make you feel too young? Try the Marcott-Shakun dating service. Ashley Madison for ocean cores. Confidentiality is guaranteed."
Or match.com over here.
Guam said:
Delingpole has an article on Budgie shredding here............ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
At the foot though is this snippet.
"Winter weather has killed a million Brits since the 1980s and will kill a million more by 2050, experts have warned. Age support groups and doctors blame poor housing, high energy bills and pensioner poverty. Many killed by the cold are elderly but the ill, vulnerable and very young also die. A total of 973,000 people died due to winter weather from 1982/83 to 2011/12, Office of National Statistics data for England and Wales shows. ONS data shows another million Brits will be killed by winters by 2050, based on the average of 27,400 cold weather deaths per winter in the last five years."
Eviromentalist my arse, anyone supporting this is truly an Eco Fascist imho!
Crimes against humanity, anyone?At the foot though is this snippet.
"Winter weather has killed a million Brits since the 1980s and will kill a million more by 2050, experts have warned. Age support groups and doctors blame poor housing, high energy bills and pensioner poverty. Many killed by the cold are elderly but the ill, vulnerable and very young also die. A total of 973,000 people died due to winter weather from 1982/83 to 2011/12, Office of National Statistics data for England and Wales shows. ONS data shows another million Brits will be killed by winters by 2050, based on the average of 27,400 cold weather deaths per winter in the last five years."
Eviromentalist my arse, anyone supporting this is truly an Eco Fascist imho!
Let the trials begin!!
odyssey2200 said:
Guam said:
Delingpole has an article on Budgie shredding here............ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
At the foot though is this snippet.
"Winter weather has killed a million Brits since the 1980s and will kill a million more by 2050, experts have warned. Age support groups and doctors blame poor housing, high energy bills and pensioner poverty. Many killed by the cold are elderly but the ill, vulnerable and very young also die. A total of 973,000 people died due to winter weather from 1982/83 to 2011/12, Office of National Statistics data for England and Wales shows. ONS data shows another million Brits will be killed by winters by 2050, based on the average of 27,400 cold weather deaths per winter in the last five years."
Eviromentalist my arse, anyone supporting this is truly an Eco Fascist imho!
Crimes against humanity, anyone?At the foot though is this snippet.
"Winter weather has killed a million Brits since the 1980s and will kill a million more by 2050, experts have warned. Age support groups and doctors blame poor housing, high energy bills and pensioner poverty. Many killed by the cold are elderly but the ill, vulnerable and very young also die. A total of 973,000 people died due to winter weather from 1982/83 to 2011/12, Office of National Statistics data for England and Wales shows. ONS data shows another million Brits will be killed by winters by 2050, based on the average of 27,400 cold weather deaths per winter in the last five years."
Eviromentalist my arse, anyone supporting this is truly an Eco Fascist imho!
Let the trials begin!!
I despise them.
Edited by chris watton on Sunday 17th March 12:31
Guam said:
Delingpole has an article on Budgie shredding here............ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
At the foot though is this snippet.
"Winter weather has killed a million Brits since the 1980s and will kill a million more by 2050, experts have warned. Age support groups and doctors blame poor housing, high energy bills and pensioner poverty. Many killed by the cold are elderly but the ill, vulnerable and very young also die. A total of 973,000 people died due to winter weather from 1982/83 to 2011/12, Office of National Statistics data for England and Wales shows. ONS data shows another million Brits will be killed by winters by 2050, based on the average of 27,400 cold weather deaths per winter in the last five years."
Eviromentalist my arse, anyone supporting this is truly an Eco Fascist imho!
If the average of the last 5 years is 27,400 deaths per year, the average for the 25 years before that was 33,440 so it's gone down. It would be interesting to see the annual data for say the last 10 years. At the foot though is this snippet.
"Winter weather has killed a million Brits since the 1980s and will kill a million more by 2050, experts have warned. Age support groups and doctors blame poor housing, high energy bills and pensioner poverty. Many killed by the cold are elderly but the ill, vulnerable and very young also die. A total of 973,000 people died due to winter weather from 1982/83 to 2011/12, Office of National Statistics data for England and Wales shows. ONS data shows another million Brits will be killed by winters by 2050, based on the average of 27,400 cold weather deaths per winter in the last five years."
Eviromentalist my arse, anyone supporting this is truly an Eco Fascist imho!
Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 17th March 12:30
kerplunk said:
If the average of the last 5 years is 27,400 deaths per year, the average for the 25 years before that was 33,440 so it's gone down. It would be interesting to see the annual data for say the last 10 years.
Is there an acceptable level of deaths and if so what is it and how do you know it is acceptable? Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 17th March 12:30
steveatesh said:
kerplunk said:
If the average of the last 5 years is 27,400 deaths per year, the average for the 25 years before that was 33,440 so it's gone down. It would be interesting to see the annual data for say the last 10 years.
Is there an acceptable level of deaths and if so what is it and how do you know it is acceptable? Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 17th March 12:30
kerplunk said:
Well before you go any further, I think these are total excess winter deaths which can have a variety of causes. The figures of interest (in the context of AGW policy) are fuel-poverty-related deaths - Delingpole doesn't really care to do it right.
The biggest influence is very high fuel prices though.The number one avoidable cause of that is wind subsidy farms and the sick carbon taxes.
Millions of people in the UK have died of high fuel prices (fuel poverty) over the years, militant greenies just kill them more quickly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff