Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
plunker said:
XM5ER said:
plunker said:
XM5ER said:
Nope. you said
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. 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?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
You always go for the personal attack when you are floundering don't you Plunker, do you think that is not utterly transparent to even a casual reader of the thread? The thing about the internet Plunker is that you can go back and read what was written and no amount of flannel later on will change it. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Tedious.
dub16v said:
Hopefully the above adds something to the discussion that hasn't been noted elsewhere (although after three volumes perhaps not).
Thanks dub. Well I would certainly value your contribution particularly if you have some knowledge of the inner workings of the "climate machine". That is so much better than the filtered view we often get through the media. If you have examples of good work they do I would be happy to hear it.My quote on the "low quality results" is based on the stuff I mentioned above (dreadful papers and IT standards) and the hopeless predictions (although Durbster seems to think they're good enough to justify changing the world). Evidence to the contrary is always welcome.
Northbloke said:
Thanks dub. Well I would certainly value your contribution particularly if you have some knowledge of the inner workings of the "climate machine". That is so much better than the filtered view we often get through the media. If you have examples of good work they do I would be happy to hear it.
Sure, although there's far too much work to mention (and be able to justify) in a simple post here but a couple of notable examples in my mind are:- UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) (soon to be superseded by UKCP18) - http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/21678... These projections provide a number of outputs that are useful in hypothesising how the future could change and, through their application, what the potential impacts might be. Not least because they present a range of future projections (they are 'probabilistic') so rather than presenting a single 'best guess' we can use a number of different scenarios (that contain projections of future temperatures, precipitation etc.) in combination to assess the likely impacts of long-term changes in our climate (taking account of uncertainty - i.e. the projections are provided via a number of different emissions scenarios and 30-year timeslices). This is particularly important to infrastructure providers/owners or energy companies (to name a few) that want to try to ensure that the assets they're building or maintaining are resilient to change. It used to be the case that infrastructure providers, for example, used to pick a single projection and timeslice/emissions scenario and design/build their infrastructure based on this single viewpoint. Sounds crazy, but this used to happen until very recently. Now infrastructure providers/managers and energy companies, and Multilateral Development Banks (who provide large loans to build a lot of these infrastructure, particularly in developing countries) etc., apply a range of projections and consider the impacts associated with each - this helps to build in resilience of these systems (I'd like my nuclear power station to be very well designed). The above is not the sole application of these projections (for example, water companies use them as well to calculate, via models, future supply/demand curves) and what associated treatment may be required.
- Natural England and RSPB Adaptation manual - http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publicat... Provides a synthesis of the sensitivity, exposure (and resulting vulnerability) of a range of different habitats to climate change and how they can be managed to improve resilience and provide multiple other benefits. Using a simple example, planting trees in floodplains is a well recognised method for reducing flood risk (trees slow the movement of water down allowing downstream waters to naturally move through the system) but doing so can also provide other benefits too (e.g. improving water quality thereby reducing the need for expensive treatment at water treatment works - that affects our water bills!). Also, advocating integrated catchment management where we focus management of the land at coarser spatial scales, rather than individual fields or other 'units', to improve environmental quality and reduce duplicated effort (e.g. a simple example, paying to treat water polluted by pesticides that we could be avoid by identifying where the inputs come from, through modelling, and provide advice to farmers regarding their crop spraying regimes - i.e. don't do it when we've just had heavy rain). All seemingly obvious stuff but this is only now being recognised and applied (probably due to some major issues we've faced recently i.e. summer flooding).
Northbloke said:
My quote on the "low quality results" is based on the stuff I mentioned above (dreadful papers and IT standards) and the hopeless predictions (although Durbster seems to think they're good enough to justify changing the world). Evidence to the contrary is always welcome.
Hopefully the above is useful and/or goes in some way in provoking thought the other way. By way of another example, I've recently been working on a project to identify suitable locations for solar-powered water pumps for rural populations in Africa. Alongside identifying where the sun is likely to shine most (and the energy received at different locations) and how close the water table is to the surface, using projections of how different climate variables (temperature, precipitation etc.) might change in these locations in the future has been pivotal in making sure (to the best of our knowledge) that we're making these systems to last as long as possible, and be as resilient as possible to future change. That's not to say that they will still be pumping in 50/100 years but, using and applying the latest science, should go some way in making sure that they do...unless local militia (ISIS actually) monopolise/vandalise/steal the equipment that is (strangely, this has been an actual problem!). Again, hopefully the above provides some more insight and is interesting/useful to some.
dub16v said:
Sure, although there's far too much work to mention (and be able to justify) in a simple post here but a couple of notable examples in my mind are:
Not sure if serious...- UK Climate Projections (UKCP09) (soon to be superseded by UKCP18) - http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/21678... These projections provide a number of outputs that are useful in hypothesising how the future could change and, through their application, what the potential impacts might be. Not least because they present a range of future projections (they are 'probabilistic') so rather than presenting a single 'best guess' we can use a number of different scenarios (that contain projections of future temperatures, precipitation etc.) in combination to assess the likely impacts of long-term changes in our climate (taking account of uncertainty - i.e. the projections are provided via a number of different emissions scenarios and 30-year timeslices). This is particularly important to infrastructure providers/owners or energy companies (to name a few) that want to try to ensure that the assets they're building or maintaining are resilient to change. It used to be the case that infrastructure providers, for example, used to pick a single projection and timeslice/emissions scenario and design/build their infrastructure based on this single viewpoint. Sounds crazy, but this used to happen until very recently. Now infrastructure providers/managers and energy companies, and Multilateral Development Banks (who provide large loans to build a lot of these infrastructure, particularly in developing countries) etc., apply a range of projections and consider the impacts associated with each - this helps to build in resilience of these systems (I'd like my nuclear power station to be very well designed). The above is not the sole application of these projections (for example, water companies use them as well to calculate, via models, future supply/demand curves) and what associated treatment may be required.
- Natural England and RSPB Adaptation manual - http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publicat... Provides a synthesis of the sensitivity, exposure (and resulting vulnerability) of a range of different habitats to climate change and how they can be managed to improve resilience and provide multiple other benefits. Using a simple example, planting trees in floodplains is a well recognised method for reducing flood risk (trees slow the movement of water down allowing downstream waters to naturally move through the system) but doing so can also provide other benefits too (e.g. improving water quality thereby reducing the need for expensive treatment at water treatment works - that affects our water bills!). Also, advocating integrated catchment management where we focus management of the land at coarser spatial scales, rather than individual fields or other 'units', to improve environmental quality and reduce duplicated effort (e.g. a simple example, paying to treat water polluted by pesticides that we could be avoid by identifying where the inputs come from, through modelling, and provide advice to farmers regarding their crop spraying regimes - i.e. don't do it when we've just had heavy rain). All seemingly obvious stuff but this is only now being recognised and applied (probably due to some major issues we've faced recently i.e. summer flooding).
-----> probabilistic <------ dub16v said:
Hopefully the above is useful and/or goes in some way in provoking thought the other way. By way of another example, I've recently been working on a project to identify suitable locations for solar-powered water pumps for rural populations in Africa. Alongside identifying where the sun is likely to shine most (and the energy received at different locations) and how close the water table is to the surface, using projections of how different climate variables (temperature, precipitation etc.) might change in these locations in the future has been pivotal in making sure (to the best of our knowledge) that we're making these systems to last as long as possible, and be as resilient as possible to future change. That's not to say that they will still be pumping in 50/100 years but, using and applying the latest science, should go some way in making sure that they do...unless local militia (ISIS actually) monopolise/vandalise/steal the equipment that is (strangely, this has been an actual problem!).
Again, hopefully the above provides some more insight and is interesting/useful to some.
So you're making 'pivotal' decisions on science with a worse track record/success rate than the local witch Doctor. Again, hopefully the above provides some more insight and is interesting/useful to some.
What a joke.
Just a reminder, as we keep getting all these scare stories about the Arctic, and now the Antarctic (which was ignored because of the inconvenient record ice levels until this year's dip) - neither is any warmer than the recent past and before the supposed influence of CO2 c.1950!
The temperature in the arctic is currently averaging about -18C, slightly above the -24C average, and ice volume and extent are the same as last year according to DMI.
No one would believe any of this given the garbage in the media at the moment.
The temperature in the arctic is currently averaging about -18C, slightly above the -24C average, and ice volume and extent are the same as last year according to DMI.
No one would believe any of this given the garbage in the media at the moment.
dub16v said:
....
UKCP09 - main points - by 2100 global mean temperatures will be 4 degrees above baseline (not very likely at moment). And the UK will have substantially drier summers and wetter winters....Note: Solar activity and volcanic eruptions are excluded for the same reason (unpredictable even though solar scientists are predicting a quiet patch) .
The are no projections expecting the UK to cool.
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in a report that treats increased water vapour as a significant positive feedback but can't cope with clouds.
Edited by Jinx on Friday 2nd December 11:59
Also...
UKCP09 said:
Some simplifying assumptions
are necessary to make the calculation tractable: for example there is
no obvious reason to expect that errors in emulated estimates of climate model
output would be correlated with errors in observed estimates of the true historical
climate, so we assume these to be independent. On the other hand, our
method relies on the basic assumption that relationships can be found between
variations across parameter space in the modelled values of historical climate
and future changes (e.g. Piani et al. 2005; Knutti et al. 2006), so we would want
to account for these in the calculation.In our Bayesian approach, this is achieved
by calculating weights for different combinations of parameter values according
to how well the model simulates a set of historical observations given those
values. These posterior weights constrain the model parameter space to regions
63
UK Climate Projections science report: Climate change projections — Chapter 3
giving rise to relatively skilful simulations, and thus also constrain projections
of future climate variables, to an extent which depends on how strongly the
future variables are controlled by values of model parameters.
So we assume the errors in the models are independent yet weight them according to how close they match the historic record? Assume independence yet treat them as if they are not. Effectively using the bits of models that match the past and weight them accordingly and then project forwards. So claiming that if someone (a model) was lucky before on a dice roll (independent probability) they are more likely to be lucky again. And whatever they roll will match the your future rolls better? Can anyone else see a problem with this?are necessary to make the calculation tractable: for example there is
no obvious reason to expect that errors in emulated estimates of climate model
output would be correlated with errors in observed estimates of the true historical
climate, so we assume these to be independent. On the other hand, our
method relies on the basic assumption that relationships can be found between
variations across parameter space in the modelled values of historical climate
and future changes (e.g. Piani et al. 2005; Knutti et al. 2006), so we would want
to account for these in the calculation.In our Bayesian approach, this is achieved
by calculating weights for different combinations of parameter values according
to how well the model simulates a set of historical observations given those
values. These posterior weights constrain the model parameter space to regions
63
UK Climate Projections science report: Climate change projections — Chapter 3
giving rise to relatively skilful simulations, and thus also constrain projections
of future climate variables, to an extent which depends on how strongly the
future variables are controlled by values of model parameters.
Trump's environment plans could spark opposition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3816...
This could be fun/interesting !!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3816...
This could be fun/interesting !!!
Jinx said:
UKCP09 - main points - by 2100 global mean temperatures will be 4 degrees above baseline (not very likely at moment). And the UK will have substantially drier summers and wetter winters....
Note: Solar activity and volcanic eruptions are excluded for the same reason (unpredictable even though solar scientists are predicting a quiet patch) .
The are no projections expecting the UK to cool.
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in a report that treats increased water vapour as a significant positive feedback but can't cope with clouds.
The quote that you've attributed to me is not mine, I'd appreciate if you would edit your post. Note: Solar activity and volcanic eruptions are excluded for the same reason (unpredictable even though solar scientists are predicting a quiet patch) .
The are no projections expecting the UK to cool.
I wouldn't put a lot of faith in a report that treats increased water vapour as a significant positive feedback but can't cope with clouds.
Taking your points in turn:
-UKCP09 does not present changes in global temperatures, merely those for the UK. That aside, for the 2080s time slice mean summer temperatures are projected to rise by 4.2C (range: 2.2C to 6.8C) in southern England. Mean daily max temps rise by 2.8C (range: 1C to 5C). Drier summers and wetter winters are likely, as you note.
-Changes in solar activity and volcanic eruptions are difficult to predict so are omitted from the models used (this is clearly noted in the associated reports). Moreover, the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth has changed very little in the last half century and remained relatively constant, so its unlikely recent changes are the cause. Both of these variants are noted as contributing to model uncertainty in the reports. Unless you can propose an alternative source for incorporating these factors into models (you'd probably get a decent research grant to do so) this is the best available science. It's acceptable to the vast majority who work in the field.
-Might be worth you reading the UKCP09 report on how the projections were developed, that will answer your point quite coherently re 'cool' scenarios (see here: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media...
-Clouds, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, are very difficult to capture in models. This is due to a number of reasons, not least because we're also not able (at present) to model changes in wind with great accuracy (i.e. sub-regional scales). Wind is such a large driver of cloud formation and movement that it's nigh on impossible to replicate changes in clouds without unacceptably large uncertainty. Hence their omission.
robinessex said:
Trump's environment plans could spark opposition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3816...
This could be fun/interesting !!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3816...
This could be fun/interesting !!!
Sierra Club bod said:
I think they will try to expand fracking and mining and drilling on public lands.
But that will be pretty fiercely resisted by people who live near those communities, both progressive and conservatives alike.
They don't seem to understand when it's time to shut up and hide in a cupboard, do they?But that will be pretty fiercely resisted by people who live near those communities, both progressive and conservatives alike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
Mr GrimNasty said:
So you're making 'pivotal' decisions on science with a worse track record/success rate than the local witch Doctor.
What a joke.
In your opinion, yes. What would you suggest to be a better method for improving resilience of these assets? What a joke.
The point is that in the past half century, nothing would be done to build in resilience to these assets and/or systems to changes in climate. Perhaps that's preferable.
XM5ER said:
plunker said:
XM5ER said:
plunker said:
XM5ER said:
Nope. you said
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. 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?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
You always go for the personal attack when you are floundering don't you Plunker, do you think that is not utterly transparent to even a casual reader of the thread? The thing about the internet Plunker is that you can go back and read what was written and no amount of flannel later on will change it. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Tedious.
rovermorris999 said:
Good pictures, tripe story...National Geographic bed wetters rule ok
Plank Of The Week...
dickymint said:
plunker said:
More of the same. I make it a rule never to justify myself to paranoiacs - it's futile. Learned that lesson years ago.
When you was just a itsy bitsy telecoms engineer 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff