Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

If I say that NASA/climate scientists/Royal Society say AGW is real,

You need to look into how NASA conducts/has conducted itself.

You need to look a little deeper into the shenanigans of climate scientists.

You need to look into the views of the Royal Society before Sir Paul Nurse turned it into something different.

You need to examine your faith very carefully.

[durbster]

Phud said:

the question was are you after using your version of the motto or the accepted latin translation?

Sorry, what's my version?

[Phud]

Jasandjules said:

durbster said:

Yes, and I've said before that it's grossly misused in this debate.

According to the Royal Society's own definition, it means "don't take anyone's word for it unless they can provide evidence".

And there's loads of evidence here, so it's not applicable.

You'll need to tell them that fella.

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

This one, now old boy please find this experiment you have gone on about that proves AGW, if nothing exists be a good man and accept you are talking rubbish and admit it.

[durbster]

Phud said:

Jasandjules said:

durbster said:

Yes, and I've said before that it's grossly misused in this debate.

According to the Royal Society's own definition, it means "don't take anyone's word for it unless they can provide evidence".

You'll need to tell them that fella.

https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

This one

I paraphrased The Royal Society's own definition, which you can read in that link. Or are you saying their own definition of their motto is wrong?

Phud said:

please find this experiment you have gone on about that proves AGW, if nothing exists be a good man and accept you are talking rubbish and admit it.

As I'm sure you know, there couldn't possibly be a single experiment to prove AGW so that's an impossible request.

Instead, it's made up of testing all the things that are falsifiable (i.e. how science works).

Here are results from Google Scholar. I've tried to find some really early examples in a further attempt to prove how long this topic has been studied and how extensive the research is:

We have known about the greenhouse effect for ages, possibly for almost 200 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier)
We know the heat-absorption properties of the various greenhouse gases (http://search.proquest.com/openview/e50942235b6162c6817edeac5f0b5965/1?pq-origsite=gscholar).
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We can test and measure how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC085iC10p05529/full).
We have a fairly good understanding of ocean absorbtion rates (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5682/367)

You get the idea.

From the above knowledge, we can then make projections about the effects of increased CO2 with reasonable confidence.

We can measure the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, and therefore know it is increasing ( here's one from 1959)

We have observed from all sources that the long-term warming that is in line with those projections (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/)

As far as I'm aware, none of these are scientifically controversial statements, and have supporting evidence going back decades.

Your turn. Which of the above is wrong, and where's your proof?

[plunker]

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

There you go getting all passive aggressive again. You are involved in coding climate models as you stated above and not what you have claimed previously, that you are not connected to the climate change sector.

I updated my post a minute ago so I'll just C&P:

I've no idea what you're on about there.

oh wait - you think I've got my own model and supercomputer don't you, lol! No this is freely available stuff on the internet a mouse-click away.

You wouldn't use such information though cos it's y'know - 'a model' - so I shan't trouble your mouse finger.

Nope. you said

plunker said:

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

The key is in the use of the word "us", and no amount of wriggling and deflection will erase that slip up now. Do you work at UEA or the met office?

lol, check out at the high sceptic stooping to reading ultra-finely between the lines like a paranoid person dripping with confirmation bias would. I'm quite happy with my phrasing so no need to erase ta.

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

This is not nitpicking about how the RSS satellite platforms works, it is straight forward question of how this "signal" was observed.

I don't see a difference.

...actually I already posted a temperature anomaly map from satellite data substantiating what I said about warm arctic/cold siberia so no need for me to do more work. You'll have to manage without me. ttfn

Yes you did, and the temperature anomaly was roughly 5k, a considerably more believable figure than 36 degrees. Do you see that difference? Are you starting to see why intelligent people with a smattering of scientific understanding are sceptical of bloody stupid claims yet?

So how have they measured the temperature of the Arctic? Where are the observatories at the north pole that give us the 36 degree warming signal? In the RSS model, they used a satellite (yes, and a lot of assumptions, calculations and models), in the GFS model, what data are they using? The fact that you have deflected and avoided the question at least 5 times now indicates that either you don't know or you do know that it's a model that's broken.

I already told you I don't know which means I don't know. Just for clarity - I don't know. Hope that clears that up.

Howver you've piqued my interest a little here for a change so here's some points to consider:

- The anomaly scale on the RSS maps only go from -6 to +6 (oops - make that -5 to +5). I don't know why that is (and let me emphasise - I really really don't know) but it's clearly inadequate for showing the full range of possible anomaly values.

- You're comparing a monthly average to daily values - maybe it wasn't that warm all month. [update: worse still - you're comparing the monthly average for October with daily values in November]

- Try not to compare C to F - makes you look sloppy.

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 30th November 18:46

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 30th November 21:52

[don4l]

durbster said:

Phud said:

the question was are you after using your version of the motto or the accepted latin translation?

Sorry, what's my version?

"Don't believe anything unless it supports your existing beliefs".

[Phud]

durbster said:

Snip

Your turn. Which of the above is wrong, and where's your proof?

Sorry, I am not one of the people kneeling at the alter to man-made global warming, I agree with the status quo which has been proven, the world has a chaotic climate and it changes.

As such the scientific method is for the new theory to be proven, sine your favoured models are divergent to the actual climate, not looking good.

[plunker]

Jacobyte said:

plunker said:

So zero contribution to what was being discussed - just big over-arching statements. Dull.

On the contrary, it was a direct response to you stating "pertinent facts" which were, in fact, not facts, but outputs of a computer model. Furthermore, it was distinctly apposite in the context that your wording in general can easily be inferred as being driven by political ideology rather than scientific empirical evidence.

(missed this post)

Well that's a fail because I also posted satellite data showing the warm arctic/cold eurasia pattern, so I guess you weren't following the thread very well. Unsure what you mean by my 'wording in general can easily be inferred as political idealogy... etc etc (yawn).

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

...From the above knowledge, we can then make projections about the effects of increased CO2 with reasonable confidence.

We can measure the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, and therefore know it is increasing

We have observed from all sources that the long-term warming that is in line with those projections ...

Just to summarise how I understand this bit - Using the above, we have constructed a theory. We have tested the theory by running computer simulations which can make predictions (predictions means the same as projections?). Predictions can then be tested by checking them against reality - Yes?

Last time we got close to this point this exchange took place -

durbster said:

wc98 said:

How many of the models accurately reflect temperature variation of the last twenty years ?

I don't think anyone has ever claimed the models would be accurate over relatively short timescales have they?

So my question, as before, is this -

If the models make predictions, which are not found to be accurate compared with actual real measurements taken in the twenty years since the predictions were made - How do we know the models are any use at all?

[LongQ]

So how many politicians understand the strengths and weaknesses of the many scientific positions (even a little) and consider the subject matter and the potential effects from that perspective?

Unless is is a substantial number, which I doubt, one might conclude that science has little to offer the cause of AGW (aka Climate Change because it does so that's not likely to be questioned strongly in the public domain so safe political ground to spout almost anything) as it will be carried forward only by political will.

The politicians, seeking authorities and prestige to support their causes, will offer a few rewards for those who provide them with something to latch on to PROVIDING that "something" involves more control over their serfdom. And more capital resources to enact the control. From this they gain self importance and some localised form of celebrity. Plus options for income development - something perhaps more prevalent in the wider world then in the UK for example.

There is also the question of Common Purpose. The "Cause" can be presented as a force for good as the population of the world is slowly educated to be aware of the need to keep themselves (or of course their as yet non-existent and preferably never to be existent grandchildren and great grandchildren). Tax and spend in order to establish a Hollywood dream (though probably not a reality) of a human world in which everyone respects everyone else and works as a Commune for the good of the planet.

Something seen nowhere else, as far as I am aware, in the rest of nature.

Nothing to do with science.

In fact many of the promoters of the dream would likely not wish scientists (in general) to have a free hand about how and why they promoted their skills and knowledge for the future of humanity and the rest of the natural world. Doing so would erode their control and therefore their life's purpose as they see it.

I mention this as we seem to have ostensibly science discussions drifting over here form the Science thread once again and it is a shame to have that thread denuded of the growth it probably deserves.

[wc98]

durbster said:

wc98 said:

durbster said:

How is that different from my explanation?

lol, he actually used their own data to come to his conclusion. go and ask him on his website, i dare you

So two parties have taken the same data and reached different conclusions. One conclusion is peer-reviewed, one not.

You seem to have decided this version must be correct. Why?

What happened to Nullus in verba?

no, two parties have looked at the data . one party has ignored what the data says and come to a physically impossible conclusion , the other reported only what the data showed. if you had bothered to read the link i posted you would know that.
other scientists that reviewed the data came to the same conclusion as brandon. also remember that paper was a social sciences paper ,not a paper by climate scientists .

i noticed you made a claim up thread that you believe what the worlds top scientists are telling you. from what i understand there are only a handful of those involved in climate science that are regarded as top level scientists in the various fields that make up climate science. it appears to be a field for those that don't quite make the grade in their respected discipline.

[dub16v]

wc98 said:

stuff...

it appears to be a field for those that don't quite make the grade in their respected discipline.

Not wanting to wade into this brick wall of a debate but it appears to be quite the contrary...climate scientists have to be physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians and computer programmers. To understand the complexities of our climate system, and its interaction with a wide range of other systems (e.g. ocean, terrestrial systems etc.), and to attempt to model these interactions sufficiently over long timescales is not a task to be underestimated. It's a very diverse field requiring a wide range of skills.

/$0.02.

[turbobloke]

dub16v said:

wc98 said:

stuff...

it appears to be a field for those that don't quite make the grade in their respected discipline.

Not wanting to wade into this brick wall of a debate but it appears to be quite the contrary...climate scientists have to be physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians and computer programmers. To understand the complexities of our climate system, and its interaction with a wide range of other systems (e.g. ocean, terrestrial systems etc.), and to attempt to model these interactions sufficiently over long timescales is not a task to be underestimated. It's a very diverse field requiring a wide range of skills.

/$0.02.

It's clear enough that what you've said is correct but you've described what's needed rather than what's found, with a few exceptions.

To exert influence it's more important to be a politician.

[dub16v]

turbobloke said:

It's clear enough that what you've said is correct but you've described what's needed rather than what's found, with a few exceptions.

To exert influence it's more important to be a politician.

Sorry, I don't quite follow (I'm not trying to be obtuse). What do you mean re your first sentence? Can you be more specific?

[steveT350C]

From December last year, so sorry if pearoast but I do not recall seeing it before...

'The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever'

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehens...

[XM5ER]

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

Nope. you said

plunker said:

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

The key is in the use of the word "us", and no amount of wriggling and deflection will erase that slip up now. Do you work at UEA or the met office?

lol, check out at the high sceptic stooping to reading ultra-finely between the lines like a paranoid person dripping with confirmation bias would. I'm quite happy with my phrasing so no need to erase ta.

So either you do work in the field OR you pretended that you do in order to make your argument carry more weight (it didn't), either way you're busted pal.

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

This is not nitpicking about how the RSS satellite platforms works, it is straight forward question of how this "signal" was observed.

I don't see a difference.

...actually I already posted a temperature anomaly map from satellite data substantiating what I said about warm arctic/cold siberia so no need for me to do more work. You'll have to manage without me. ttfn

Yes you did, and the temperature anomaly was roughly 5k, a considerably more believable figure than 36 degrees. Do you see that difference? Are you starting to see why intelligent people with a smattering of scientific understanding are sceptical of bloody stupid claims yet?

So how have they measured the temperature of the Arctic? Where are the observatories at the north pole that give us the 36 degree warming signal? In the RSS model, they used a satellite (yes, and a lot of assumptions, calculations and models), in the GFS model, what data are they using? The fact that you have deflected and avoided the question at least 5 times now indicates that either you don't know or you do know that it's a model that's broken.

I already told you I don't know which means I don't know. Just for clarity - I don't know. Hope that clears that up.

Howver you've piqued my interest a little here for a change so here's some points to consider:

- The anomaly scale on the RSS maps only go from -6 to +6 (oops - make that -5 to +5). I don't know why that is (and let me emphasise - I really really don't know) but it's clearly inadequate for showing the full range of possible anomaly values.

- You're comparing a monthly average to daily values - maybe it wasn't that warm all month. [update: worse still - you're comparing the monthly average for October with daily values in November]

- Try not to compare C to F - makes you look sloppy.

Why is the anomoly scale on the RSS data such? Like you, I have no idea, probably to make it look more alarming as that is the general modus operandi of climate alarmism. As for comparison of the two, and the use of differing measurement scales, I'm well aware of it, I'm just playing you at your own game. The question should really be directed at you as you were the one that tried to post alarmist nonsense about 36 degree anomalies.

[Jacobyte]

plunker said:

(missed this post)

Well that's a fail because I also posted satellite data showing the warm arctic/cold eurasia pattern, so I guess you weren't following the thread very well.

No problem.

Having reviewed the thread in detail, I'm still trying to find the data within your pattern which shows that the areas of higher temperature were caused by human-emitted CO2 and, more importantly for the purposes of intergovernmental policy, the consequentially inevitable catastrophic climate change which occurred as a result.

[Northbloke]

dub16v said:

turbobloke said:

It's clear enough that what you've said is correct but you've described what's needed rather than what's found, with a few exceptions.

Sorry, I don't quite follow (I'm not trying to be obtuse). What do you mean re your first sentence? Can you be more specific?

I take it to mean that yes, someone trying to understand the complexity of our climate would necessarily need the skills you have mentioned.

However, what in fact you find is that those who are in fact studying it are found wanting in many areas.

So far example you get Steig, Marcott, Gergis and indeed Mann making the most basic elementary mathematical errors in their peer reviewed papers (so how good are the reviewers too). When true expert mathematicians like Steve McIintyre or William Briggs point this out they are fobbed off as just "bloggers" or "not Climate Scientists".

Similarly in the IT world, the Harry ReadME file and the archiving and security procedures used are laughable and would get you fired from a local software house. Yet we are turning the world economy upside down on the back of their incredibly shoddy output.

This is also true in other areas, engineering, stats, modelling etc. where experts in those fields encounter the Climate Science version. Read RGBDuke at WattsUp for a brilliant analysis of his area of expertise.

So whilst some climate scientists have some expertise in some areas, they are spread too thinly (and seem to reject outside help) with overall very low quality results.

[plunker]

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

Nope. you said

plunker said:

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

The key is in the use of the word "us", and no amount of wriggling and deflection will erase that slip up now. Do you work at UEA or the met office?

lol, check out at the high sceptic stooping to reading ultra-finely between the lines like a paranoid person dripping with confirmation bias would. I'm quite happy with my phrasing so no need to erase ta.

So either you do work in the field OR you pretended that you do in order to make your argument carry more weight (it didn't), either way you're busted pal.

More of the same. I make it a rule never to justify myself to paranoiacs - it's futile. Learned that lesson years ago.

XM5ER said:

Why is the anomoly scale on the RSS data such? Like you, I have no idea, probably to make it look more alarming as that is the general modus operandi of climate alarmism. As for comparison of the two, and the use of differing measurement scales, I'm well aware of it, I'm just playing you at your own game. The question should really be directed at you as you were the one that tried to post alarmist nonsense about 36 degree anomalies.

Your paranoia is in full flow now isn't it. Even a temperature scale that doesn't show extremes is somehow seen as an effort look more alarming! Wow.

I wasn't even making a point about the extremeness of temperature and you only brought that up as a concern in your last post. My point all along has been about a reorganisation of where the warm/cold air is located. That's not even a claim about global warming really is it. Indeed the cold anomaly over eurasia in the GFS map was just as large (-20C) as the warm anomaly over the arctic, but you only take fright and cry 'alarmism!' about the warm part. Well at least I can see where you're coming from now.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 1st December 11:48

[dub16v]

Northbloke said:

I take it to mean that yes, someone trying to understand the complexity of our climate would necessarily need the skills you have mentioned.

However, what in fact you find is that those who are in fact studying it are found wanting in many areas.

So far example you get Steig, Marcott, Gergis and indeed Mann making the most basic elementary mathematical errors in their peer reviewed papers (so how good are the reviewers too). When true expert mathematicians like Steve McIintyre or William Briggs point this out they are fobbed off as just "bloggers" or "not Climate Scientists".

Similarly in the IT world, the Harry ReadME file and the archiving and security procedures used are laughable and would get you fired from a local software house. Yet we are turning the world economy upside down on the back of their incredibly shoddy output.

This is also true in other areas, engineering, stats, modelling etc. where experts in those fields encounter the Climate Science version. Read RGBDuke at WattsUp for a brilliant analysis of his area of expertise.

So whilst some climate scientists have some expertise in some areas, they are spread too thinly (and seem to reject outside help) with overall very low quality results.

Thanks for the explanation.

I think it's worth noting (the consensus argument aside) that for many researchers, including those involved in the CRU email incident, many years were spent working within small research communities and groups until, during the '90s, the evidence (and our understanding about the climate system more generally, including its interactions with other systems) and weight of research got to a point where politicians and governments started to recognise the importance of the information emerging from the field (that had actually been quietly plodding on for some time). Other things aside, many were therefore simply not suitably equipped to expand their research teams (both in terms of depth and breadth) quick enough. In this regard, and bearing in mind my point above regarding the small, disparate, research communities that drove this field to where it is, many of their existing systems were archaic and inherently vulnerable (so applying conventions that are normal in other industries is probably not relevant - although identifying this vulnerability of course should have been a priority upon growth). I guess my point is, it's not the fault of the scientists that governments and politicians started to pick up on their research (or indeed fund more of it) and notice its relevance/importance (remember also that the 'climate change' agenda didn't emerge on its own, recognising the benefits of global sustainable development also augmented it). The funding process is extremely transparent (look up NERC's funding terms and conditions for example), particularly in the UK.

Regarding your last point (low quality results), I've worked with climate scientists both in the UK and abroad and my impression has been quite the opposite. Some of these people have been some of the brightest and most dedicated individuals that I've worked with. I guess, given the disparate nature of the impacts of climate change (or whatever you want to call it - the impacts being the important bit as we're seeing these now, not just in the UK), the field necessitates that the individuals working on its problems have a wide range of experience (they're geographers). Conversely, most will have doctorates meaning that they are specialists in their chosen field which, in my view, carries a lot of weight (and the majority with doctoral training do agree on the weight of evidence). I certainly know where I'd put my money!

Hopefully the above adds something to the discussion that hasn't been noted elsewhere (although after three volumes perhaps not).