Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
@ durbster...you appear to have dismissed item 3
It's long been a principle of mine to regard those engaging in discussion as being very well-informed, it helps to keep the debate honest and the approach courteous, but at this point your repetitive habit of mouthing off in sarcy fashion, evidently from a position of knowing the square root of jack, is nothing if not remarkable. It's either that or a masochistic mission to 'fake bad' on a regular basis.
In a recent post I said:
Climate Models A Fundamental Failure
Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190 (etc)
Do you not recognise what that is? You present in your reply as thinking it's from a blog Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190 (etc)
It's long been a principle of mine to regard those engaging in discussion as being very well-informed, it helps to keep the debate honest and the approach courteous, but at this point your repetitive habit of mouthing off in sarcy fashion, evidently from a position of knowing the square root of jack, is nothing if not remarkable. It's either that or a masochistic mission to 'fake bad' on a regular basis.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Buckle up, we're looping 
Lots of graphs...
Err... yeah... have you got anything that isn't taken from an advocacy blog and/or funded by fossil fuel industry? Lots of graphs...
Because I don't really see them as reliable sources. Thanks.
durbster said:
Err... yeah... have you got anything that isn't funded by fossil fuel industry?
Can you link to fossil fuel suppliers funding anti-global warming propaganda?I ask as I work for 'big oil' and we, as staff, get true-belief stuffed down our throats at every opportunity. We're trying to sell gas, seen as the greenest hope for the future outside of nuclear, so have no vested interest in fighting the scam.
Would love to know, as I've mentioned this a few times....
Jasandjules said:
robinessex said:
Can you point us in the direction of a reliable source please, and your reason for why you regard it as reliable?
Perhaps the UEA, because as they are funded by a Govt only if they can show/fabricate AGW, they will be impartial................Pure science, no advocacy, no politics.
durbster said:
don4l said:
Are you really admitting that you think that it is impossible to prove that humans are responsible for global warming?
I'm saying this visible signal requirement sounds like a total red herring so I'm trying to understand what it is. Out in the real world you can only defeat science with science, so I want to know what experiment that would give us this causal human signal visible.
Because it sounds like the only experiment that could show a visible signal human causal is to find a second Earth with identical conditions minus the burning of fossil fuels. It is therefore, impossible to satisfy scientifically.
Consider this statement: the moon affects the tides.
We know something happens to tides, we can see a relationship between the moon, we understand the physics behind it, the observations match predictions and I daresay we can even model it.
But is there a visible lunar causal signal on tides and if so, what does it look like?
The "warming" proposers identified right back at the start that the hypothesis would be unproveable from either direction. There is NO EXPERIMENT that could possibly be considered to cover a broad enough description of the perceived problem.
If they did not work that out right at the start then they were the wrong people to be doing any science on the concept at all.
So this has always been about politics and gaining influence over those who would be our "politicians" because they want power and influence to support their planet sized egos.
The science in recent time has always been irrelevant - hence the constant references to Arrhenius and the "we've known this for a hundred years" syndrome.
However they needed to keep up the charade of "research" to keep the funds going and provide soundbites on which to focus along with fear factor development. People will believe men in white coats but not politicians. Many of the more overt "politicians" amongst the former scientists stopped doing science and wrote books, took up posts with ECO NGOs and lived off past reputations on academic salaries where they could act as recruitment agents for a few generations.
They have known for decades that there was no way to prove AGW and no way that anyone could deny or begin to fully understand the mechanisms for "Climate Change". They did begin to understand the psychology that could be deployed to influence a caucus of people large enough to influence crowds to support their objectives. The crowds probably did not realise that they were being manipulated in the way they were and are.
The "science" is not entirely irrelevant to any decisions that may be about to be taken - especially any concerning "carbon" taxes.
Who is going to become especially wealthy and isolated for any adverse effects of decisions taken by "World Leaders" in the next few years remains to be seen. I think we can be fairly sure that the upward mobility of cash and credit will be used to top out the social pyramid rather than raise it a few centimetres above the allegedly rising floodwaters.
LongQ said:
durbster finally, almost after months if not years of having it pointed out to him, understands why this is a POLITICAL not a science thread.
The "warming" proposers identified right back at the start that the hypothesis would be unproveable from either direction. There is NO EXPERIMENT that could possibly be considered to cover a broad enough description of the perceived problem.
If they did not work that out right at the start then they were the wrong people to be doing any science on the concept at all.
So this has always been about politics and gaining influence over those who would be our "politicians" because they want power and influence to support their planet sized egos.
The science in recent time has always been irrelevant - hence the constant references to Arrhenius and the "we've known this for a hundred years" syndrome.
However they needed to keep up the charade of "research" to keep the funds going and provide soundbites on which to focus along with fear factor development. People will believe men in white coats but not politicians. Many of the more overt "politicians" amongst the former scientists stopped doing science and wrote books, took up posts with ECO NGOs and lived off past reputations on academic salaries where they could act as recruitment agents for a few generations.
They have known for decades that there was no way to prove AGW and no way that anyone could deny or begin to fully understand the mechanisms for "Climate Change". They did begin to understand the psychology that could be deployed to influence a caucus of people large enough to influence crowds to support their objectives. The crowds probably did not realise that they were being manipulated in the way they were and are.
The "science" is not entirely irrelevant to any decisions that may be about to be taken - especially any concerning "carbon" taxes.
Who is going to become especially wealthy and isolated for any adverse effects of decisions taken by "World Leaders" in the next few years remains to be seen. I think we can be fairly sure that the upward mobility of cash and credit will be used to top out the social pyramid rather than raise it a few centimetres above the allegedly rising floodwaters.
Actually, I would say that the hypothesis was pretty well disproved by now, using the models and data as presented by the IPCC et al, since 'actual' measurements, notwithstanding torture, are now well outside of model projections. Anyone who believes to the contrary is in la-la-land conversing with Tinky-Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po, or perhaps even Barry O.The "warming" proposers identified right back at the start that the hypothesis would be unproveable from either direction. There is NO EXPERIMENT that could possibly be considered to cover a broad enough description of the perceived problem.
If they did not work that out right at the start then they were the wrong people to be doing any science on the concept at all.
So this has always been about politics and gaining influence over those who would be our "politicians" because they want power and influence to support their planet sized egos.
The science in recent time has always been irrelevant - hence the constant references to Arrhenius and the "we've known this for a hundred years" syndrome.
However they needed to keep up the charade of "research" to keep the funds going and provide soundbites on which to focus along with fear factor development. People will believe men in white coats but not politicians. Many of the more overt "politicians" amongst the former scientists stopped doing science and wrote books, took up posts with ECO NGOs and lived off past reputations on academic salaries where they could act as recruitment agents for a few generations.
They have known for decades that there was no way to prove AGW and no way that anyone could deny or begin to fully understand the mechanisms for "Climate Change". They did begin to understand the psychology that could be deployed to influence a caucus of people large enough to influence crowds to support their objectives. The crowds probably did not realise that they were being manipulated in the way they were and are.
The "science" is not entirely irrelevant to any decisions that may be about to be taken - especially any concerning "carbon" taxes.
Who is going to become especially wealthy and isolated for any adverse effects of decisions taken by "World Leaders" in the next few years remains to be seen. I think we can be fairly sure that the upward mobility of cash and credit will be used to top out the social pyramid rather than raise it a few centimetres above the allegedly rising floodwaters.
Talking of torturing data, now it's obvious beyond all reasonable doubt that the temperature record is mangled, and the sea level data is mangled, can we even trust the ice data?
When the lowest ever Arctic max. stories were being pushed a short while back I was perplexed that the NSIDC multi-year ice data had not increased as expected. I had a graph from last summer and clearly none of this could have vanished over winter and it would have passed its birthday and aged, but there was no increase. Very peculiar, I had a brief look and NSIDC seemed to have switched how they were calculating it, but I forgot about it until this.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/nsidc-caught...
There's no room for doubt here, this is a deliberate attempt by NSIDC to paint an ever alarming picture, regardless of the facts.
When the lowest ever Arctic max. stories were being pushed a short while back I was perplexed that the NSIDC multi-year ice data had not increased as expected. I had a graph from last summer and clearly none of this could have vanished over winter and it would have passed its birthday and aged, but there was no increase. Very peculiar, I had a brief look and NSIDC seemed to have switched how they were calculating it, but I forgot about it until this.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/nsidc-caught...
There's no room for doubt here, this is a deliberate attempt by NSIDC to paint an ever alarming picture, regardless of the facts.
durbster said:
I'm saying this visible signal requirement sounds like a total red herring so I'm trying to understand what it is.
Sheesh, people give you pointers and they might as well give you flu for all the good it does you.These (below) don't operate in isolation so consider the list as a convenient means of book-keeping. For example the volcanism example sits within centuries of other forcings.
Look at a visible causal volcanism signal e.g. 1991-1993.
Look at a visible causal ENSO signal e.g. 2015, 2010, 1998 and most of all 1939/40/41/42.
Look at a visible causal solar (irradiance and eruptivity) signal e.g. 1645-1715, 1790-1830, 1900-1990, and as there's nothing in the gaps (plus there's The Pause) make that say 1650-2015.
Look at a visible causal Milankovitch signal e.g. every 100,000 years approx for the last 500,000 years.
Now armed with this new-found inductive knowledge, push the boundaries and look for a visible causal human signal anywhere, there isn't one.
Your idols tried and failed to erase the global MWP and LIA, they tried and failed to hide the decline, and you have no alternative but to fail when trying to hide the lack of a visible causal human signal.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Buckle up, we're looping
Lots of graphs...
Err... yeah... have you got anything that isn't taken from an advocacy blog and/or funded by fossil fuel industry? Lots of graphs...
Because I don't really see them as reliable sources. Thanks.
unless we understand every possible interaction that can take place with energy existing on the earth we are just guessing, that really is no basis to plan your energy usage/production on.
turbobloke said:
Buckle up, we're looping
1 Model failures as seen on PH climate threads a number of times already, believers well-versed in climate science will need no commentary (it's in the other loops anyway).
2 Model errors as posted in PH climate threads several times before.
• The models systematically underestimate the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport. As a consequence, there is erroneous warming of the model troposphere. Deep equatorial convective clouds and the overturning atmospheric circulation of the Hadley Cells are critical processes necessary to distribute excess tropical solar radiation through the troposphere.
• The models systematically underestimate the poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations. Although the ocean circulations transport only between 10 and 15 percent of the excess energy of the tropics, the spatial sea surface temperature distribution is dependent on the energy budget in the surface mixed layer and is a crucial determinant of the intensity of the atmospheric circulation.
• The models are inconsistent in their representation of longwave radiation at the earth's surface and, on average, overestimate the exchange in the tropics and underestimate the exchange over high latitudes. Net longwave radiation at the surface is the crucial interaction between greenhouse gases and the energetics of the climate system. The magnitudes of the differences between models and the systemic biases, when compared to the expected radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations, make nonsense of computer projections of future climate.
• The handling of water vapour effects including precipitable water is inadequate at best and wrong at worst
• The evidence is that the projections of more extreme global warming from increased greenhouse gas concentrations emanates from those models that contrive 'positive feedback' processes to amplify the impact.
3 More info as seen on PH several times already in one thread or another.
Climate Models A Fundamental Failure
Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
Background The authors note that "an important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios."
Why is this so? It is because one of the most fundamental features of current climate-model simulations is "a larger warming in the free troposphere than at the surface when forced by increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols."(IPCC 1996, 2001).
This predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world, there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming.
What was done: Chase et al. assessed the likelihood "that such a disparity between model projection and observations could be generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by comparing all possible 22 yr temperature trends [for the years 1979-2000, which were similarly studied by the IPCC and a special committee of the U.S. National Academy of Science] in a series of climate simulations."
What was learned: In the words of the authors at no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation".
Such observations are openly acknowledged to represent the real world in both the IPCC (2001) report and the National Academy Report (2000).
Chase et al. conclude that these "significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations," noting that "such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations."
4 Some links on how badly climate models fail, which have appeared in PH threads more than once, I recently re-read a case in point from 2011.
Computer climate models are at the heart of the problem of global warming predictions:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BALLComputerModels...
Computer climate models are still unreliable, new study warns:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15721/G...
A fundamental failure of current climate models:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091103/p...
The (lack of) validation of IPCC computer climate models:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/IPCCvalid.htm
Backcasting of climate models does not work:
http://www.applet-magic.com/backcasting.htm
Santer et-17-al models fail to be confirmed by observations:
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/not-found-the-...
Both climate models used in the USNA were worse than no model at all, worse than random numbers:
http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/energy/projectregionalc...
The models are the vehicles used to bamboozle the public and create the illusion they know what is going on:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20757
Global Warming Computer Models Seriously Flawed, Studies Show:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15727/G...
5. The post from Le TVR you replied to (and challenged, unsuccessfully) was correct.
this should be a sticky at the top of every page of this thread. would save you a bit of time over the years 1 Model failures as seen on PH climate threads a number of times already, believers well-versed in climate science will need no commentary (it's in the other loops anyway).
2 Model errors as posted in PH climate threads several times before.
• The models systematically underestimate the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport. As a consequence, there is erroneous warming of the model troposphere. Deep equatorial convective clouds and the overturning atmospheric circulation of the Hadley Cells are critical processes necessary to distribute excess tropical solar radiation through the troposphere.
• The models systematically underestimate the poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations. Although the ocean circulations transport only between 10 and 15 percent of the excess energy of the tropics, the spatial sea surface temperature distribution is dependent on the energy budget in the surface mixed layer and is a crucial determinant of the intensity of the atmospheric circulation.
• The models are inconsistent in their representation of longwave radiation at the earth's surface and, on average, overestimate the exchange in the tropics and underestimate the exchange over high latitudes. Net longwave radiation at the surface is the crucial interaction between greenhouse gases and the energetics of the climate system. The magnitudes of the differences between models and the systemic biases, when compared to the expected radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations, make nonsense of computer projections of future climate.
• The handling of water vapour effects including precipitable water is inadequate at best and wrong at worst
• The evidence is that the projections of more extreme global warming from increased greenhouse gas concentrations emanates from those models that contrive 'positive feedback' processes to amplify the impact.
3 More info as seen on PH several times already in one thread or another.
Climate Models A Fundamental Failure
Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
Background The authors note that "an important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios."
Why is this so? It is because one of the most fundamental features of current climate-model simulations is "a larger warming in the free troposphere than at the surface when forced by increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols."(IPCC 1996, 2001).
This predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world, there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming.
What was done: Chase et al. assessed the likelihood "that such a disparity between model projection and observations could be generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by comparing all possible 22 yr temperature trends [for the years 1979-2000, which were similarly studied by the IPCC and a special committee of the U.S. National Academy of Science] in a series of climate simulations."
What was learned: In the words of the authors at no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation".
Such observations are openly acknowledged to represent the real world in both the IPCC (2001) report and the National Academy Report (2000).
Chase et al. conclude that these "significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations," noting that "such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations."
4 Some links on how badly climate models fail, which have appeared in PH threads more than once, I recently re-read a case in point from 2011.
Computer climate models are at the heart of the problem of global warming predictions:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BALLComputerModels...
Computer climate models are still unreliable, new study warns:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15721/G...
A fundamental failure of current climate models:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091103/p...
The (lack of) validation of IPCC computer climate models:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/IPCCvalid.htm
Backcasting of climate models does not work:
http://www.applet-magic.com/backcasting.htm
Santer et-17-al models fail to be confirmed by observations:
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/not-found-the-...
Both climate models used in the USNA were worse than no model at all, worse than random numbers:
http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/energy/projectregionalc...
The models are the vehicles used to bamboozle the public and create the illusion they know what is going on:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20757
Global Warming Computer Models Seriously Flawed, Studies Show:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15727/G...
5. The post from Le TVR you replied to (and challenged, unsuccessfully) was correct.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Talking of torturing data, now it's obvious beyond all reasonable doubt that the temperature record is mangled, and the sea level data is mangled, can we even trust the ice data?
When the lowest ever Arctic max. stories were being pushed a short while back I was perplexed that the NSIDC multi-year ice data had not increased as expected. I had a graph from last summer and clearly none of this could have vanished over winter and it would have passed its birthday and aged, but there was no increase. Very peculiar, I had a brief look and NSIDC seemed to have switched how they were calculating it, but I forgot about it until this.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/nsidc-caught...
There's no room for doubt here, this is a deliberate attempt by NSIDC to paint an ever alarming picture, regardless of the facts.
it will be interesting to see their response, if they give one, to that accusation . it certainly looks very ,very dodgy. could well be yet another case where the method used to estimate the ice has changed and they do not want to highlight it.When the lowest ever Arctic max. stories were being pushed a short while back I was perplexed that the NSIDC multi-year ice data had not increased as expected. I had a graph from last summer and clearly none of this could have vanished over winter and it would have passed its birthday and aged, but there was no increase. Very peculiar, I had a brief look and NSIDC seemed to have switched how they were calculating it, but I forgot about it until this.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/04/nsidc-caught...
There's no room for doubt here, this is a deliberate attempt by NSIDC to paint an ever alarming picture, regardless of the facts.
edit to add follow up post where the original chart has been added , wtf ,climastrology at its finest.https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/nsidc-busted/#comment-579757
Edited by wc98 on Saturday 23 April 09:01
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff