Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
The way science operates is by hypothesis testing, either by experimentation or waiting over time for a natural phenomenon to proceed with or against predictions based on a hypothesis. That testing may refute a hypothesis as happened with agw several times in the recent past.
Confirmation of any particular result by another group may occur when that other group makes a decision to commit resources in that direction, not having this happen at a given time isn't refutation and doesn't define sound science.
The approach to progress that science makes in terms of contingent truth is lost on you when it suits and forgotten completely when you support evidence-free agw.
This waffle in summary: you saw some results on a blog and blindly accept it because it fits (today's version of) your story, despite it not being reproduced elsewhere.Confirmation of any particular result by another group may occur when that other group makes a decision to commit resources in that direction, not having this happen at a given time isn't refutation and doesn't define sound science.
The approach to progress that science makes in terms of contingent truth is lost on you when it suits and forgotten completely when you support evidence-free agw.
While at the same time, claiming you don't accept anything that isn't proved scientifically.
It looks like that time in a thread when chakras need realigning.
Here's a vid on politics in climate change - how warming and other adjustments diddled into the data increase over time as political desperation increases. It's from a blog too, which is a key part of the realignment.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/new-video-a...
Shooting the messenger scores -100 points and accelerates global cooling.
Here's a vid on politics in climate change - how warming and other adjustments diddled into the data increase over time as political desperation increases. It's from a blog too, which is a key part of the realignment.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/07/new-video-a...
Shooting the messenger scores -100 points and accelerates global cooling.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Because it was drivel as posted. Not in principle but as posted.
Wriggling out of a difficult question more like, which is typical.You presented information from a blog post as fact, while simultaneously declaring you only pay attention to "sound science". If that's really true and this is "sound science", you have to prove the scientific method has been applied. So please do, otherwise your claim that you only pay attention to "sound science" is wrong.
what's your problem?durbster said:
turbobloke said:
That's why unlike you I base my position on uncorrupted data and sound science, not what the IPCC wants me to think as published on the internet.
So why did you ignore this?durbster said:
If you're only convinced by "sound science", no doubt you have seen a second source who could reproduce the findings so can you show us?
kerplunk said:
I don't think I've heard that one before, is it a recognised thing or something he's come up with himself? Any work been done on it to quantify it or anything like that? I guess if there's an effect it would show up in Tmax not Tmin and mostly on sunny days.
the problem is it creates a saw tooth effect in the data and no one, including zeke ,knows if the algorithm picks the change up on the drop or climb part of the data,i think due to how some pairs are dropped out of the final analysis,so in effect a spurious underlying trend could be baked in right at the start of the analysis.below is the reply from zeke to willis eschenbach regarding this issue.
Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) | February 11, 2016 at 10:51 am |
Hi Willis,
I agree that sawtooth patterns are a particularly interesting case. As for CRS darkening, the only empirical studies I’ve seen (e.g. Doesken’s work) suggest that the effect is rather small (on order of ~0.06 C) but still important. I’ll check with the ISTI group creating homogenization benchmarks to see if they are including sawtooth patterns in their synthetically perturbed data, as it would be interesting to see how the different homogenization algorithms perform in practice in the presence of gradual trend biases followed by sharp corrections.
willis then asks again later in the thread. note zekes replies.
Zeke and Mosh, despite being asked repeatedly, you have NEVER answered David’s question. He’s asked it. I’ve asked it. Don’t know a bout him, but I’ll continue to do so. Are you ready?
The “scalpel” algorithm has been demonstrated to convert a sawtooth wave (such as is caused by occasional maintenance of the CRS shelters that David describes) into a totally bogus trend. So I have two questions:
1. How much does this affect the Berkeley Earth results, and
2. Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer this simple question? You’ve been dodging it for over a year now.
Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) | February 11, 2016 at 12:45 pm |
Well, the first challenge is figuring out how sawtooth waves are dealt with by homogenization. The best way to do this would be through testing on synthetic data with sawtooth patterns added, which is why I suggested the ISTI effort (since they are the only group I know of actively working on testing the effectiveness of homogenization approaches under different types of inhomogenities).
An alternative is to go through Berkeley stations and try to identify cases where bogus trends have been added, to get a qualitative sense of the potential impact. However, in most stations I’ve found with sawtooth patterns the Berkeley approach seems to pick out both the gradual rise and the quick drop, e.g. in the Bakersfield case: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Fi...
Let me know if you can find any cases where it looks like the sawtooth was not picked up and a spurious trend was added.
Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) | February 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm |
Looking at a few more, here is one with a sawtooth-like pattern early in the record that might only be partially caught: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Fi...
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/09/assessing-u-s-t...
the other big issue for me highlighted by angech is the claim surrounding raw "data" in the analysis. it is not actually raw due to the processing method. the "raw" record is still using hundreds of stations that no longer exist. the "raw data" for them is synthetically created by infilling ,that is why if you check what the temperature was on a particular day in say august was 20 years ago it will be different to what it was last month, yesterday and today. how can the temperature for a given day decades ago physically change on a daily basis ?
i do not doubt that people like zeke are doing the best they can with what they have. the simple fact is you cannot make a silk purse from a sows ear and when discussing tenths of a degree the notion of any sort of accuracy in the historic global temperature is a nonsense .politicising of the entire climate debate has led to the work of climate scientists being used way beyond the scope it was ever intended for. in any other field most of the work would never have seen the light of day beyond the small groups involved.
nb, it really is worth reading the entire comment thread ,some great information from both sides and only the very odd post straying from the topic. if i am reading anything incorrectly you might be able to pick up on it as well.
LongQ said:
Indeed it may well have absolutely nothing to do with science after becoming overtly political.
Therefore I really don't see the point of discussing science details in this thread.
apologies for posting some of the science debate, i do agree with what you are saying regarding the political thread but i think it is imoportant to establish the huge uncertainty in the so called global temperature record to show how a few "leaders" in the debate have created a false sense of how much is actually known to be able to politicise the debate at the outset.Therefore I really don't see the point of discussing science details in this thread.
scientists don't set policy, it takes politicians ,often with vested interests, to do that.
wc98 said:
LongQ said:
Indeed it may well have absolutely nothing to do with science after becoming overtly political.
Therefore I really don't see the point of discussing science details in this thread.
apologies for posting some of the science debate, i do agree with what you are saying regarding the political thread but i think it is important to establish the huge uncertainty in the so called global temperature record to show how a few "leaders" in the debate have created a false sense of how much is actually known to be able to politicise the debate at the outset.Therefore I really don't see the point of discussing science details in this thread.
scientists don't set policy, it takes politicians ,often with vested interests, to do that.
It won't. The movement is well past that sort of "walking stick" assistance to use as self justification and more than comfortable investing huge amounts of what might pass for "wealth" and "human resource" on something that might turn out to be a mirage or a complete fantasy in terms of the level of "danger" for any point in the future let alone a time in the very near future. They are happy to that because it's not originally their money of effort being used. It's not their "wealth" to mis-spend. It is the wealth of the people who support the politicians, directly or indirectly. In fact the very people that politicians so often accuse of being profligate with their own money rather than allowing politics to take charge of the wasteful spending on their electorate's behalf (where they have an electorate).
On the other hand a discussion on the Science thread with reference link from here where appropriate would seem to be a good way to cover all the angles.
Some climate politics.
"U.S. isolated on climate at summit of world leaders"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-com...
"U.S. isolated on climate at summit of world leaders"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-com...
El stovey said:
Some climate politics.
"U.S. isolated on climate at summit of world leaders"
That's good for the USA and its citizens as the only major nation to get it right."U.S. isolated on climate at summit of world leaders"
While surviving the anti-capitalist protests, world leaders apart from Trump have agreed that something that won't do anything measurable except raise energy prices, hike business costs and therefore hit consumers twice while keeping under-developed nations in poverty for longer is irreversible; the naked emperors must be pleased.
In case breathless faithful types don't know, according to the IPCC's own faith and methods, the Paris deal if implemented fully would lower temperatures by 0.05 deg C by 2100. Near-surface temperatures are good for +/- 0.07 deg C so Paris will be undetectable in the surface datasets at the turn of the century. The UAH LTT satellite trend is good for +/-0.04 deg C per decade but that's no use either as trending due to natural variation is greater, including over shorter and longer timescales. And now it won't be implemented fully. It's hopeless! Another Trenberthian travesty!
World leaders think that's great
some leaders they turned out to be...except it's not all of them as El stovey has pointed out.Mark Twain said:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
One little gem in Putin's speech people might have missed.
"The reasons behind climate change have not been thoroughly researched, nor are we fully aware of the mechanisms of ongoing climate change."
So all the billions spunked on partisan/advocacy research, the UN IPCC's highly prejudiced mission to only consider the human impact, and a confirmation biased fake 97% consensus.
All this effort, and as Putin says, they have failed to research the climate thoroughly or even begin to understand its mechanisms.
Yep, in a nutshell, that's what happens when you politicise science.
"The reasons behind climate change have not been thoroughly researched, nor are we fully aware of the mechanisms of ongoing climate change."
So all the billions spunked on partisan/advocacy research, the UN IPCC's highly prejudiced mission to only consider the human impact, and a confirmation biased fake 97% consensus.
All this effort, and as Putin says, they have failed to research the climate thoroughly or even begin to understand its mechanisms.
Yep, in a nutshell, that's what happens when you politicise science.
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
That's why unlike you I base my position on uncorrupted data and sound science, not what the IPCC wants me to think as published on the internet.
So why did you ignore this?durbster said:
If you're only convinced by "sound science", no doubt you have seen a second source who could reproduce the findings so can you show us?
How is the work of other scientists capable of being controlled by, say, you as a PHer?
Silly questions come easy to you as data and evidence don't really matter to faith considerations.
Which independent research group with their own collider of similar spec has reproduced the work of the Large Hadron Collider?
Latching on to something you don't understand fully is written across your PH AGW life story.
mko9 said:
Your question about the Large Hadron Collider gave me a brainstorm. Isn't there supposed to be an alternate-Earth on the opposite side of the Sun from us? Maybe we could use that as the control as we start monkeying around with our climate system? Then compare notes in about 50 years to see if we did anything good?
Only if you're a sex starved mysoginist called John Norman.The orbits would not be stable, so; no.
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
Mark Twain said:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
durbster said:
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to have an orgasm
Well done on the violin photo. ho ho ho.
Meanwhile, back to the topic rather than an infinite amount of monkeys providing nothing of interest
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-...
That could be good fun if they did it, but sounds like hot air
Meanwhile, back to the topic rather than an infinite amount of monkeys providing nothing of interest
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-...
That could be good fun if they did it, but sounds like hot air
Gandahar said:
Well done on the violin photo. ho ho ho.
Meanwhile, back to the topic rather than an infinite amount of monkeys providing nothing of interest
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-...
That could be good fun if they did it, but sounds like hot air
The CAGW camp has already responded:-Meanwhile, back to the topic rather than an infinite amount of monkeys providing nothing of interest
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-...
That could be good fun if they did it, but sounds like hot air
Mann said (sounding as deranged as ever):-
“They’re looking to use taxpayer funds to run a pro-fossil fuel industry
disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers
over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization.”
“It is frankly unAmerican.”
Kind of hard to have a rational discussion with the CAGW crowd - as this thread always proves.
"Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming."
"Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach."
"Climate Scientists Fear Losing Power, Nothing Else."
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/leading-climat...
You'd think with that weight of evidence and 97% consensus and all, it'd be a walk in the park, the opportunity to settle the argument once and for all.
Bluff called.
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Tuesday 11th July 23:21
t statements you make then, and slope off and hide ?
A supplement to the On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding Abridged Research Report (which was published last month demonstrating the lack of validity) has been released showing that hot summers have been declining for decades. US HCN example follows.
Politicians are unlikely to debate this latest nail, one of so many nails, in the agw coffin.
Politicians are unlikely to debate this latest nail, one of so many nails, in the agw coffin.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff