Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
It's updated in the sense that he's added more data to bring it up to date. He links to the original figure.
I suppose the the modeled temperatures are not perfectly normally distributed.
Here is all CMIP5 models, all emission scenarios, for 2015. Blue is a normal curve with the same mean and SD. Red line is Hadcrut4 so far with dashed representing the +/- 0.1 degree uncertainty, same baseline. Hopefully less 'misleading'.
I suppose the the modeled temperatures are not perfectly normally distributed.
Here is all CMIP5 models, all emission scenarios, for 2015. Blue is a normal curve with the same mean and SD. Red line is Hadcrut4 so far with dashed representing the +/- 0.1 degree uncertainty, same baseline. Hopefully less 'misleading'.
hairykrishna said:
It's updated in the sense that he's added more data to bring it up to date. He links to the original figure.
I suppose the the modeled temperatures are not perfectly normally distributed.
Here is all CMIP5 models, all emission scenarios, for 2015. Blue is a normal curve with the same mean and SD. Red line is Hadcrut4 so far with dashed representing the +/- 0.1 degree uncertainty, same baseline. Hopefully less 'misleading'.
Much betterI suppose the the modeled temperatures are not perfectly normally distributed.
Here is all CMIP5 models, all emission scenarios, for 2015. Blue is a normal curve with the same mean and SD. Red line is Hadcrut4 so far with dashed representing the +/- 0.1 degree uncertainty, same baseline. Hopefully less 'misleading'.
An interesting read here on Dr David Evans' alternative climate model:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-bu...
So, in the true scientific spirit, are there any holes in it?
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-bu...
So, in the true scientific spirit, are there any holes in it?
Quite surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-cel...
I wonder if any of the AGW proponents here are scientific enough to look past the GWPF link and comment on what the man is actually saying?
Including the point about the 100 million billion tons of carbon that have been permanently sequestered in rocks (and therefore permanently unavailable to future life) by crustaceans over geologic time. Carbon that's still being sequestered and will result in the starvation of all life eventually.
Moore's scientific and ecological credentials are exemplary, yet he openly suggests (along with Lovelock, another ecological great), that we may actually be helping the future of life by returning carbon to the atmosphere where it can be used.
Food for thought, and possibly plants......
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-cel...
I wonder if any of the AGW proponents here are scientific enough to look past the GWPF link and comment on what the man is actually saying?
Including the point about the 100 million billion tons of carbon that have been permanently sequestered in rocks (and therefore permanently unavailable to future life) by crustaceans over geologic time. Carbon that's still being sequestered and will result in the starvation of all life eventually.
Moore's scientific and ecological credentials are exemplary, yet he openly suggests (along with Lovelock, another ecological great), that we may actually be helping the future of life by returning carbon to the atmosphere where it can be used.
Food for thought, and possibly plants......
Very nice paper here outlining the actual impact of all the worlds best hoped for climate mitigation policies: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-58...
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/11/10/the-siz...
Snip:
...if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/11/10/the-siz...
Snip:
...if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
His 'best hoped for mitigation policies' figure is 0.17 I think.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
plunker said:
His 'best hoped for mitigation policies' figure is 0.17 I think.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
Seems the criticisms of Lomborg are pretty thin - Lomborg himself used an ECS of 3 degrees which is far higher than observations would suggest (hence any savings are multiplied) . As such to discount his calculations because he assumed China would be China (and not "peak" emissions by 2030 - whatever that promise meant when they refuse any monitoring out of hand) - and given as China has also reversed it's one child program is not a fair criticism. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
C'mon plunks even you must notice that the promised amounts of cuts will not have a measurable effect on global temperatures - even without taking into account population growth, rise of Africa from abject poverty, India promising electricity for all of its citizens and China's rapidly increasing middle class.
Jinx said:
plunker said:
His 'best hoped for mitigation policies' figure is 0.17 I think.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
Seems the criticisms of Lomborg are pretty thin - Lomborg himself used an ECS of 3 degrees which is far higher than observations would suggest (hence any savings are multiplied) . As such to discount his calculations because he assumed China would be China (and not "peak" emissions by 2030 - whatever that promise meant when they refuse any monitoring out of hand) - and given as China has also reversed it's one child program is not a fair criticism. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
C'mon plunks even you must notice that the promised amounts of cuts will not have a measurable effect on global temperatures - even without taking into account population growth, rise of Africa from abject poverty, India promising electricity for all of its citizens and China's rapidly increasing middle class.
plunker said:
Jinx said:
plunker said:
His 'best hoped for mitigation policies' figure is 0.17 I think.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
Seems the criticisms of Lomborg are pretty thin - Lomborg himself used an ECS of 3 degrees which is far higher than observations would suggest (hence any savings are multiplied) . As such to discount his calculations because he assumed China would be China (and not "peak" emissions by 2030 - whatever that promise meant when they refuse any monitoring out of hand) - and given as China has also reversed it's one child program is not a fair criticism. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
C'mon plunks even you must notice that the promised amounts of cuts will not have a measurable effect on global temperatures - even without taking into account population growth, rise of Africa from abject poverty, India promising electricity for all of its citizens and China's rapidly increasing middle class.
As an adjective one might say morals are 'founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom'.
As a noun 'the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.'.
The scientific debate has really dropped below the (our PH) radar to such an extent that these science threads have almost dwindled into nothing. There really isn't much left to say, the 'science' has been rigorously debunked, if ever there was a case study for GIGO, manipulating raw data to support a theory, then MMGW would trump everything else I've ever read about science.
The political debate is still raging, and rightly so, political policy makers who don't know the square root of fvck all about how science should/does work, but are more than happy to shout about a figure 0.087 over 10 years without even probably knowing what a square root even is, but policy advisers advise them and they trust their advisers.
It's become remarkably insane.
The moral debate will come soon enough I think and it won't be pretty, an extreme analogy being 'morally ISIS think they are doing God's work and making the world a better place for God (not for you and me but for God)'.
The MMGW true believers appear to me to be of the same mentality, only they get a research grant and can feed their families, the ISIS crowd they just want to please their God, kill some infidels, get to heaven and claim their five pound reward, and who can really blame either of them?
Morally, well they all stink.
TheExcession said:
plunker said:
Jinx said:
plunker said:
His 'best hoped for mitigation policies' figure is 0.17 I think.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
Seems the criticisms of Lomborg are pretty thin - Lomborg himself used an ECS of 3 degrees which is far higher than observations would suggest (hence any savings are multiplied) . As such to discount his calculations because he assumed China would be China (and not "peak" emissions by 2030 - whatever that promise meant when they refuse any monitoring out of hand) - and given as China has also reversed it's one child program is not a fair criticism. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11...
C'mon plunks even you must notice that the promised amounts of cuts will not have a measurable effect on global temperatures - even without taking into account population growth, rise of Africa from abject poverty, India promising electricity for all of its citizens and China's rapidly increasing middle class.
As an adjective one might say morals are 'founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom'.
As a noun 'the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.'.
The scientific debate has really dropped below the (our PH) radar to such an extent that these science threads have almost dwindled into nothing. There really isn't much left to say, the 'science' has been rigorously debunked, if ever there was a case study for GIGO, manipulating raw data to support a theory, then MMGW would trump everything else I've ever read about science.
The political debate is still raging, and rightly so, political policy makers who don't know the square root of fvck all about how science should/does work, but are more than happy to shout about a figure 0.087 over 10 years without even probably knowing what a square root even is, but policy advisers advise them and they trust their advisers.
It's become remarkably insane.
The moral debate will come soon enough I think and it won't be pretty, an extreme analogy being 'morally ISIS think they are doing God's work and making the world a better place for God (not for you and me but for God)'.
The MMGW true believers appear to me to be of the same mentality, only they get a research grant and can feed their families, the ISIS crowd they just want to please their God, kill some infidels, get to heaven and claim their five pound reward, and who can really blame either of them?
Morally, well they all stink.
However they are but the more evidently extreme influencers du jour.
As I relieved my other half of her supper tray a few minutes ago the BBC, via of all things the very populist "One Show" was delivering a diatribe against the "sugar" industry. Impartial it seemed not to be. Whatever one might feel about "sugar", "diet", "free choice" or whatever what I saw of the segment of the program was in no way an impartial presentation. If, somewhere, it contained a scientific message, proven or otherwise, they were not about to let the opportunity to ram home a single issue fanaticist message slip past them.
If things continues as they are at some point not too far away any pretence of a "moral construct" for our society will fade away. It could be an interesting period in which to be alive. However I would hope not to see it.
TheExcession said:
The scientific debate has really dropped below the (our PH) radar to such an extent that these science threads have almost dwindled into nothing. There really isn't much left to say, the 'science' has been rigorously debunked, if ever there was a case study for GIGO, manipulating raw data to support a theory, then MMGW would trump everything else I've ever read about science.
I think the science thread has dwindled because people are bored of debunking the same old nonsense over and over again. I think this applies to both 'sides' with only a difference of opinion over who's providing the nonsense.hairykrishna said:
TheExcession said:
The scientific debate has really dropped below the (our PH) radar to such an extent that these science threads have almost dwindled into nothing. There really isn't much left to say, the 'science' has been rigorously debunked, if ever there was a case study for GIGO, manipulating raw data to support a theory, then MMGW would trump everything else I've ever read about science.
I think the science thread has dwindled because people are bored of debunking the same old nonsense over and over again. I think this applies to both 'sides' with only a difference of opinion over who's providing the nonsense.
The PH sceptics now mostly prefer to post sciencey stuff unchallenged within the cozy confines of the politics thread where there's only a thin pretence at sticking to policy stuff, and if you dare challenge the science stuff there you're a troll de-railing the thread (because 'Paris'). It's their world and they they don't need no stiinkin' debaters 
plunker said:
hairykrishna said:
TheExcession said:
The scientific debate has really dropped below the (our PH) radar to such an extent that these science threads have almost dwindled into nothing. There really isn't much left to say, the 'science' has been rigorously debunked, if ever there was a case study for GIGO, manipulating raw data to support a theory, then MMGW would trump everything else I've ever read about science.
I think the science thread has dwindled because people are bored of debunking the same old nonsense over and over again. I think this applies to both 'sides' with only a difference of opinion over who's providing the nonsense. The PH sceptics now mostly prefer to post sciencey stuff unchallenged within the cozy confines of the politics thread where there's only a thin pretence at sticking to policy stuff, and if you dare challenge the science stuff there you're a troll de-railing the thread (because 'Paris'). It's their world and they they don't need no stiinkin' debaters I would guess that there is not much new in the pipeline, especially if it might cause any discussion in the public sphere. Public discussion would certainly not fit in with the managed build up to Paris. No doubts allowed - total control required. There may be a sudden rush in the few days before the event if the political and PR efforts seem not to be achieving a good enough result.
But, ignoring those observations, bring something new.
There's little point in engaging - although the occasional wind up to point out the nature of some of the posts/blogs being linked to (esp on the Politics thread) is entertaining. As far as the science being rigorously disproved it really hasn't despite the repeated assertions being made.
It's interesting to see the response following the recent release from the Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015). There's been the usual grumbles about data not being available, being "fixed" etc etc referring back to "climate gate" etc whilst also completely ignoring the fact that post the release of the hacked emails there were several independent inquiries that all confirmed that both the science and data were sound (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf) the criticism being confined to whether or not the team at UEA had complied with the FoI Act. Very little about the "pause" potentially being over...
It's interesting to see the response following the recent release from the Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015). There's been the usual grumbles about data not being available, being "fixed" etc etc referring back to "climate gate" etc whilst also completely ignoring the fact that post the release of the hacked emails there were several independent inquiries that all confirmed that both the science and data were sound (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf) the criticism being confined to whether or not the team at UEA had complied with the FoI Act. Very little about the "pause" potentially being over...
I know - let's import some sciencey stuff from the politics thread...
I guess the amusing/interesting back story to this is the changes have come about via data recovery efforts with lots more land station data being added to the record. A few years ago sceptics were aghast at the large reduction in the number of reporting weather stations in the global indices and many were sure it would bias the record warm (cos a lot of the absent stations were in cold places so it's bound to right?). Turns out though land is generally warming faster than the global average and adding them back in has produced more warming. Oh well.
turbobloke said:
Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit HadCRUT4 and CRUTEM4 Temperature Data Sets Adjusted/Corrected/Updated - Can You Guess The Impact?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/12/met-office-h...
The GWPF need to get their scientists' skates on over their inquiry and report into data adjustments. Paris is approaching, politicians and the BBC will be desperate for independent accurate information.
So updates to Hadcrut4 have produced a little more warming in recent years. Just a tad - nothing science-changing so not very exciting, except for conspiracists of course for whom it's more confirmation of the great fraud.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/12/met-office-h...
The GWPF need to get their scientists' skates on over their inquiry and report into data adjustments. Paris is approaching, politicians and the BBC will be desperate for independent accurate information.
I guess the amusing/interesting back story to this is the changes have come about via data recovery efforts with lots more land station data being added to the record. A few years ago sceptics were aghast at the large reduction in the number of reporting weather stations in the global indices and many were sure it would bias the record warm (cos a lot of the absent stations were in cold places so it's bound to right?). Turns out though land is generally warming faster than the global average and adding them back in has produced more warming. Oh well.
Edited by plunker on Friday 13th November 18:21
Lotus 50 said:
There's little point in engaging - although the occasional wind up to point out the nature of some of the posts/blogs being linked to (esp on the Politics thread) is entertaining. As far as the science being rigorously disproved it really hasn't despite the repeated assertions being made.
It's interesting to see the response following the recent release from the Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015). There's been the usual grumbles about data not being available, being "fixed" etc etc referring back to "climate gate" etc whilst also completely ignoring the fact that post the release of the hacked emails there were several independent inquiries that all confirmed that both the science and data were sound (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf) the criticism being confined to whether or not the team at UEA had complied with the FoI Act. Very little about the "pause" potentially being over...
Which of course is precisely the reason for the Politics thread - or are you too otherworldly to notice? Well no, you are not too otherworldly. You are an accomplished operator in your limited field.It's interesting to see the response following the recent release from the Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015). There's been the usual grumbles about data not being available, being "fixed" etc etc referring back to "climate gate" etc whilst also completely ignoring the fact that post the release of the hacked emails there were several independent inquiries that all confirmed that both the science and data were sound (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf) the criticism being confined to whether or not the team at UEA had complied with the FoI Act. Very little about the "pause" potentially being over...
Widen your horizons. Bring us some new science to consider. Anything. There seems to be a dearth - nothing at all from Plunker or you or whatshisface since I made the suggestion earlier today.
Why not? There must so much out there. Surely Phil Jones has produced something in the past few years?
Or maybe your initial statement was correct. "There is little point in engaging ....". Just your reasoning as to why being wrong. Lack of anything worth engaging about? In fact, lack of anything?
So come on, where is all the new verifiable, testable and open to discussion Science?
LongQ said:
Which of course is precisely the reason for the Politics thread - or are you too otherworldly to notice? Well no, you are not too otherworldly. You are an accomplished operator in your limited field.
Widen your horizons. Bring us some new science to consider. Anything. There seems to be a dearth - nothing at all from Plunker or you or whatshisface since I made the suggestion earlier today.
Why not? There must so much out there. Surely Phil Jones has produced something in the past few years?
Or maybe your initial statement was correct. "There is little point in engaging ....". Just your reasoning as to why being wrong. Lack of anything worth engaging about? In fact, lack of anything?
So come on, where is all the new verifiable, testable and open to discussion Science?
Widen your horizons. Bring us some new science to consider. Anything. There seems to be a dearth - nothing at all from Plunker or you or whatshisface since I made the suggestion earlier today.
Why not? There must so much out there. Surely Phil Jones has produced something in the past few years?
Or maybe your initial statement was correct. "There is little point in engaging ....". Just your reasoning as to why being wrong. Lack of anything worth engaging about? In fact, lack of anything?
So come on, where is all the new verifiable, testable and open to discussion Science?
Well, fundamentally, the effort required to get a point across isn't worth it. But in case you hadn't noticed I had bought along some new science in the recent release from the Met Office...
Have to agree about the effort not being worth it, though perhaps form a different perspective, but I will confess that your Met Office link was somewhat buried in your comments to your colleagues and the reference to other matters that seem to me to be of a more political nature. So I will read it.
Nice to see you ride to the aid of your colleagues who seem to be unable or unwilling to come up with something sensationally new from their own feeds.
Of course I am assuming that you are all real and not just a figment of some excitable person's imagination.
Nice to see you ride to the aid of your colleagues who seem to be unable or unwilling to come up with something sensationally new from their own feeds.
Of course I am assuming that you are all real and not just a figment of some excitable person's imagination.
"Over recent years there has been a slowdown in warming at the Earth's surface. The rate of warming during the period from 1970-1998 was around 0.17°C per decade, while during 1998-2012, the rate slowed to around 0.04°C per decade3. This is due to a number of possible factors, including increased aerosols and an increase of heat taken up by the deep ocean and therefore not manifested as a warming at the surface.
This year, with a pronounced El Niño underway that acts to elevate global average surface temperature, it is looking probable that 2015 will be warmer than any other year in the observational record. Whilst year-to-year climate variability means that future years may not be as warm as 2015 and therefore below 1°C, the long-term warming trend is expected to continue."
Lotus 50 ....
Please, not a Met office Press release as evidence of NEW science.
That document is a scheduled précis of a statement that one would expect to appear just before the political Jamboree that will be Paris. (In fact before the Bonn Pre-Paris meeting I suspect from the timing).
In my view it has a stronger case for a presence in a post on the Politics thread than it does here. Perhaps that is why HK and Plunker have not mentioned it previously?
But I am speculating - just like the Met.
This year, with a pronounced El Niño underway that acts to elevate global average surface temperature, it is looking probable that 2015 will be warmer than any other year in the observational record. Whilst year-to-year climate variability means that future years may not be as warm as 2015 and therefore below 1°C, the long-term warming trend is expected to continue."
Lotus 50 ....
Please, not a Met office Press release as evidence of NEW science.
That document is a scheduled précis of a statement that one would expect to appear just before the political Jamboree that will be Paris. (In fact before the Bonn Pre-Paris meeting I suspect from the timing).
In my view it has a stronger case for a presence in a post on the Politics thread than it does here. Perhaps that is why HK and Plunker have not mentioned it previously?
But I am speculating - just like the Met.
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 14th November 04:10
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff