Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Michael Mann on the 2016 USA election said:
This will be a make-or-break presidency as far as our ability to avert a climate change catastrophe.
Not to mention the ability to waste further £trillions on a non-problem that's not down to us. At least the supremacy of politics over science is acknowledged.Satellite data still refusing to obey the models.
Ground datasets consequently diverging and now corrupted beyond all use?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-...
Ground datasets consequently diverging and now corrupted beyond all use?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-...
Mr GrimNasty said:
Prof Brown in the above link said:
This bias is not really surprising, given that every new version of HadCRUT and GISS has had the overall effect of cooling the past and/or warming the present! This is as unlikely as flipping a coin (at this point) ten or twelve times each, and having it come up heads every time for both products. In fact, if one formulates the null hypothesis “the global surface temperature anomaly corrections are unbiased”, the p-value of this hypothesis is less than 0.01, let alone 0.05. If one considers both of the major products collectively, it is less than 0.001. IMO, there is absolutely no question that GISS and HadCRUT, at least, are at this point hopelessly corrupted.
FFS the surface data stables are so full of s
t the whole shebang needs hosing down. Some comments from the readership and the author (rgbatduke):
Jeff
August 14, 2015 at 10:20 am
I don’t think “purposefully changing the data to match their belief” necessarily means fraud (at least not in the sense of advancing a known falsehood). More likely is that these are true believers who understand that science requires that the data match their belief. When it doesn’t, they conclude that it’s the data that must be wrong, not the belief. So they find ways to make the data “right.”
rgbatduke
August 14, 2015 at 12:06 pm
Note well that the total correction is huge. The range above is almost the entire warming reported in the form of an anomaly from 1850 to the present.
. . .
I would assert that the result above is statistically unlikely to arise by random chance or unforced human error. It appears to state that corrections to the temperature anomaly are directly proportional to the atmospheric CO2 at the time, and we are supposed to believe that this — literally — unbelievably good functional relationship arose from unbiased mechanical/electrical error and from unforced human errors in siting and so on. It just so happens that they line up perfectly. We are literally supposed to look at this graph and reject the obvious conclusion, that the corrections were in fact caused by carbon dioxide concentration through selection biases on the part of the correctors.
True Belief knocked out for the count, though rgb apparently suggests that the data manipulators are out to 'bust the pause' presumably in time for Paris.
Finally a link from the same source to enjoy (!):
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014...
Jeff
August 14, 2015 at 10:20 am
I don’t think “purposefully changing the data to match their belief” necessarily means fraud (at least not in the sense of advancing a known falsehood). More likely is that these are true believers who understand that science requires that the data match their belief. When it doesn’t, they conclude that it’s the data that must be wrong, not the belief. So they find ways to make the data “right.”
rgbatduke
August 14, 2015 at 12:06 pm
Note well that the total correction is huge. The range above is almost the entire warming reported in the form of an anomaly from 1850 to the present.
. . .
I would assert that the result above is statistically unlikely to arise by random chance or unforced human error. It appears to state that corrections to the temperature anomaly are directly proportional to the atmospheric CO2 at the time, and we are supposed to believe that this — literally — unbelievably good functional relationship arose from unbiased mechanical/electrical error and from unforced human errors in siting and so on. It just so happens that they line up perfectly. We are literally supposed to look at this graph and reject the obvious conclusion, that the corrections were in fact caused by carbon dioxide concentration through selection biases on the part of the correctors.
True Belief knocked out for the count, though rgb apparently suggests that the data manipulators are out to 'bust the pause' presumably in time for Paris.
Finally a link from the same source to enjoy (!):
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014...
There are 2 other massive issues.
UHI adjustments are no where near adequate.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
And of course the old LiG/thermocouple changeover issue - where the adjustment seems to be the WRONG way entirely i.e. the ludicrous belief that electronic instruments under record cf LiG, which is bks - they have been shown to over-read (German parallel study was it?) and are far more responsive and with continuous data monitoring can pick up ridiculous 'records' like Heathrow July 1st!
UHI adjustments are no where near adequate.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015...
And of course the old LiG/thermocouple changeover issue - where the adjustment seems to be the WRONG way entirely i.e. the ludicrous belief that electronic instruments under record cf LiG, which is b
ks - they have been shown to over-read (German parallel study was it?) and are far more responsive and with continuous data monitoring can pick up ridiculous 'records' like Heathrow July 1st!Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Saturday 15th August 22:56
From the Prof Brown piece at WUWT:
Remember, this is not temperature v carbon dioxide, it's temperature adjustment v carbon dioxide. How could that arise by chance?
Comment over at WUWT:
"There is another way–the False Claims Act. It provides incentives to whistleblowers with knowledge of fraudulent claims made to receive federal grants. The vast majority of “climate researchers” receive federal grants. The FCA allows whistleblowers to bring civil suits, on their own, against the fraudsters, and then to share in funds clawed back. Until the FBI starts making arrests, the False Claims Act is the only way we’ll bust this scam."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Remember, this is not temperature v carbon dioxide, it's temperature adjustment v carbon dioxide. How could that arise by chance?
Comment over at WUWT:
"There is another way–the False Claims Act. It provides incentives to whistleblowers with knowledge of fraudulent claims made to receive federal grants. The vast majority of “climate researchers” receive federal grants. The FCA allows whistleblowers to bring civil suits, on their own, against the fraudsters, and then to share in funds clawed back. Until the FBI starts making arrests, the False Claims Act is the only way we’ll bust this scam."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
turbobloke said:
From the Prof Brown piece at WUWT:
Remember, this is not temperature v carbon dioxide, it's temperature adjustment v carbon dioxide. How could that arise by chance?
Comment over at WUWT:
"There is another way–the False Claims Act. It provides incentives to whistleblowers with knowledge of fraudulent claims made to receive federal grants. The vast majority of “climate researchers” receive federal grants. The FCA allows whistleblowers to bring civil suits, on their own, against the fraudsters, and then to share in funds clawed back. Until the FBI starts making arrests, the False Claims Act is the only way we’ll bust this scam."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
That chart just makes me laugh.Remember, this is not temperature v carbon dioxide, it's temperature adjustment v carbon dioxide. How could that arise by chance?
Comment over at WUWT:
"There is another way–the False Claims Act. It provides incentives to whistleblowers with knowledge of fraudulent claims made to receive federal grants. The vast majority of “climate researchers” receive federal grants. The FCA allows whistleblowers to bring civil suits, on their own, against the fraudsters, and then to share in funds clawed back. Until the FBI starts making arrests, the False Claims Act is the only way we’ll bust this scam."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
As extracted and posted yeaterday...
in the comments section jeff said:
I don’t think “purposefully changing the data to match their belief” necessarily means fraud (at least not in the sense of advancing a known falsehood). More likely is that these are true believers who understand that science requires that the data match their belief. When it doesn’t, they conclude that it’s the data that must be wrong, not the belief. So they find ways to make the data “right.”
And yet there's still no visible human signal in global climate data, with causality established to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. How far will some believers go before Paris?A related blast from the PH past, detailing part of the saga involving McKitrick & Michaels (2004), McKitrick & Michaels (2007), Schmidt (2009), and McKitrick & Nierenberg (2010) then still in train. There's some related material in nearby pages.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
From the above...a bit O/T for this part of the thread but highly relevant on a wide perspective and most certainly political.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
From the above...a bit O/T for this part of the thread but highly relevant on a wide perspective and most certainly political.
IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray said:
The "Earth Summit" resulted in the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), adopted on May 9th 1992. It came into force on 21st March 1994. By that time there were 166 signatures from National Governments, including our own. This Convention initiated a system for compulsory reduction of greenhouse gases by "Annex I" Governments, which has become progressive to the extent that it is now causing major economic disaster in many countries. The procedure has been implemented by a series of “Conferences of the Parties” ((COP 1,2,3, etc), in the different major cities of the world, including subsidiary meetings for implementation of the other campaigns of the environmental movement. These meetings have now reached to COP15 which will take place in Copenhagen in 2009 The IPCC Reports are a major contribution to the progress of the increasing restrictions on economic activity resulting from the main COP meetings, and their Reports have all been prepared in order to influence the successive meetings. The FCCC defined "Climate Change" in Article 1 as follows: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the compositionof the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” This statement is legally binding on the Governments who signed the Convention. It amounts to an assertion that all “change” in the climate is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, even when it is only “attributed, directly or indirectly”, and that “change of climate” that is “natural” is mere “variability”. It provides a license for the wholesale distortion of climate science carried out by the IPCC in its many publications.
I am beginning to think we might need another thread to discuss the economic aspects of the "Climate Change" driven decisions that affect energy prices and security along with infrastructure development proposals and pricing guarantees.
Here we have the chap that runs Legal and General (large investors in such things, apparently) showing very reasonable concerns about the ridiculously expensive proposed deal for the new Nuclear Power plant whilst making seemingly ludicrous claims related to his preferred alternative of "renewables".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/comment/article-3...
I wonder if they will offer a reasonably priced insurance policy against the damage constant power failures could cause to one's personal life and all businesses.
Oh, and there are a few aspects of the text that suggest the Mail's sub-editing and proof reading has falling standards. Starting with the title of the piece.
Here we have the chap that runs Legal and General (large investors in such things, apparently) showing very reasonable concerns about the ridiculously expensive proposed deal for the new Nuclear Power plant whilst making seemingly ludicrous claims related to his preferred alternative of "renewables".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/comment/article-3...
I wonder if they will offer a reasonably priced insurance policy against the damage constant power failures could cause to one's personal life and all businesses.
Oh, and there are a few aspects of the text that suggest the Mail's sub-editing and proof reading has falling standards. Starting with the title of the piece.
There is some confusion in this article between "low carbon" and "renewables".
To make this clear, nuclear is low carbon – virtually zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
With regards to Hinkley C, this was yet another dodgy decision by Davey who failed to consider other options - see http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Somerset-nucle...
Apologies for going off at a tangent to topic.
To make this clear, nuclear is low carbon – virtually zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
Wind and solar can be called "renewables" (which I always put in quotes because energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and are zero carbon in terms of production but not in the context of manufacture, maintenance and installation.
With regards to Hinkley C, this was yet another dodgy decision by Davey who failed to consider other options - see http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Somerset-nucle...
Apologies for going off at a tangent to topic.
turbobloke said:
And yet there's still no visible human signal in global climate data, with causality established to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. How far will some believers go before Paris?
Oh I don't know TB - there's a pretty strong human fingerprint in the adjusted global climate data...IainT said:
turbobloke said:
And yet there's still no visible human signal in global climate data, with causality established to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. How far will some believers go before Paris?
Oh I don't know TB - there's a pretty strong human fingerprint in the adjusted global climate data...DRAFT
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)
EDITED
"Finally we come to the
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 edited Ch 8 Section 8.6)
Lest we forget, they also said this.
IPCC said:
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2) p774.turbobloke said:
IainT said:
turbobloke said:
And yet there's still no visible human signal in global climate data, with causality established to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. How far will some believers go before Paris?
Oh I don't know TB - there's a pretty strong human fingerprint in the adjusted global climate data...IainT said:
turbobloke said:
IainT said:
turbobloke said:
And yet there's still no visible human signal in global climate data, with causality established to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. How far will some believers go before Paris?
Oh I don't know TB - there's a pretty strong human fingerprint in the adjusted global climate data...Ridgemont said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Ireland
current usage of renewables - 7.2%
Well... it's an ambitious idea..
Oh it get's mush better - the equivalent of the UK Grid Watch.current usage of renewables - 7.2%
Well... it's an ambitious idea..
http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/
It get's even better...
Demand today:
Wind Generation:
You can almost hear the press reports... 'Well wind power generation today exceeded all our forecasts!"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff