Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
chrispmartha said:
Come on LT, it’s Rob not Robin ;-) who I will add has never answered my questions put to him, when I was genuinely interested in his answer.
He never answers any questions...if you want a chuckle though go back to the first page of this thread and look at the 4th post. It's like robs a 
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.
Go back and look for yourself.
Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists. Go back and look for yourself.
chrispmartha said:
Has it been altered? Can you prove that?
from your source "Updated version of IPCC AR5 Fig. 1.4 showing a comparison of global temperature projections from previous Assessment Reports (FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4) with subsequent observations. Added are the 2013-2015 global temperatures from HadCRUT4.4 with black squares."Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:16
edit,had another look and may well be due you an apology.i initially thought the black squares were 2015,16 and 17 and the graph from ar4.
Edited by wc98 on Thursday 13th September 23:11
wc98 said:
chrispmartha said:
Has it been altered? Can you prove that?
from your source "Updated version of IPCC AR5 Fig. 1.4 showing a comparison of global temperature projections from previous Assessment Reports (FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4) with subsequent observations. Added are the 2013-2015 global temperatures from HadCRUT4.4 with black squares."Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:16
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 23:16
Diderot said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.
Go back and look for yourself.
Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists. Go back and look for yourself.
It’s interesting that you jump on that but not bother one iota when Robinessex claims he has destroyd climate models by posting un sourced graphs and when we find tge source they are just from ... advocacy blogs
wc98 said:
chrispmartha said:
Has it been altered? Can you prove that?
from your source "Updated version of IPCC AR5 Fig. 1.4 showing a comparison of global temperature projections from previous Assessment Reports (FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4) with subsequent observations. Added are the 2013-2015 global temperatures from HadCRUT4.4 with black squares."Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:15
Edited by chrispmartha on Thursday 13th September 22:16
edit,had another look and may well be due you an apology.i initially thought the black squares were 2015,16 and 17 and the graph from ar4.
Edited by wc98 on Thursday 13th September 23:11
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.
Go back and look for yourself.
Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists. Go back and look for yourself.
It’s interesting that you jump on that but not bother one iota when Robinessex claims he has destroyd climate models by posting un sourced graphs and when we find tge source they are just from ... advocacy blogs
Robinessex doesn't need to destroy climate models, as they are always already destroying themselves.
gadgetmac said:
We must be living in different universes because the only porky pies being peddled on AGW are all by the deniers, including on this thread.
Reading into the history of "The Hockey Stick" graph, and the "science" behind the MBH98 paper tells me that AGW proponents are very keen on manipulating raw data (google "short centred principal component analysis") , cherry-picking temperature proxies (google "The Yamal series"), and bullying both fellow scientists and journals that don't subscribe to their AGW theism.Let's not forget Jonathan Overpeck's e-mail to David Deming back in 1995 that stated, 'We must get rid of the medieval warming period'.
Porky pies?
More like Porkus Pious from AGW acolytes.
chrispmartha said:
Apreciated.
i genuinely can't find the official ipcc image with those last 3 years. even sks shows the original without.i was still wrong about the years though so the apology still stands.https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=454
one thing i would highlight on those graphs are the el nino spikes. 2014 and 15 incorporate the last el nino. to my knowledge climate science states enso is neutral over long timescales, so for model comparisons el nino spikes and la nina dips should surely be removed ? there may be an argument for not doing so over say 100 years or 1000 year comparisons, but given there are periods dominated by both phenomena i am not sure a 60 year model run is going to even out. i suppose it could be checked though.
Diderot said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s been said before but your lack of reading and comprehension ability fatally undermines your whole post.
Go back and look for yourself.
Point me to the post where you prove that the models are correct, and there was no 18 year pause for which there never have been 60 plus explanations for its non existence by AGW supporting scientists. Go back and look for yourself.
It’s interesting that you jump on that but not bother one iota when Robinessex claims he has destroyd climate models by posting un sourced graphs and when we find tge source they are just from ... advocacy blogs
Robinessex doesn't need to destroy climate models, as they are always already destroying themselves.
Any comment on the graph I linked to vs the graph rbinessex didnt link to, I’m keen to know why they are different ? Nobody seems to have answered it, and I stress I do not know why they are different, hence the question.
wc98 said:
chrispmartha said:
Apreciated.
i genuinely can't find the official ipcc image with those last 3 years. even sks shows the original without.i was still wrong about the years though so the apology still stands.https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=454
one thing i would highlight on those graphs are the el nino spikes. 2014 and 15 incorporate the last el nino. to my knowledge climate science states enso is neutral over long timescales, so for model comparisons el nino spikes and la nina dips should surely be removed ? there may be an argument for not doing so over say 100 years or 1000 year comparisons, but given there are periods dominated by both phenomena i am not sure a 60 year model run is going to even out. i suppose it could be checked though.
wc98 said:
to be fair i agree on the points around religion. the links to the heartland institute i have no problem with. sceptics receive orders of magnitude less funding from all sources than mainstream science and media promoting the alarmism. would you rather no dissent at all ?
I would rather untainted dissent - that's dissent that isn't funded by the corporate profit motive.The Heartland Institute were looking for independent funding for the Doctor for one of two reasons:
1. Their budget was already allocated but they felt he was 'onside'. (and lets not forget where their own funding comes from
).2. The wanted to put some distance between themselves and Doctor Spencer in case he should spring another surprise on everyone and declare a belief in Pixies and Dragons. "He's nothing to do with us - honest". The irony of their own belief is not lost on me.
Otherwise why didn't they just fund him themselves - they found $90k for Whats Up With That for a "special project".
However, if you agree about the points around religion (and presumably Evolution too) then thats enough in both of our books to make him a deeply flawed Scientist as he's willing to abandon his Scientific principles where his own personal feelings are involved.
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
to be fair i agree on the points around religion. the links to the heartland institute i have no problem with. sceptics receive orders of magnitude less funding from all sources than mainstream science and media promoting the alarmism. would you rather no dissent at all ?
I would rather untainted dissent - that's dissent that isn't funded by the corporate profit motive.I would rather untainted research - research that isn't funded via whim involving the mostly scientifically illiterate and ideologically hidebound political class. However there's a great deal of that public funding available for pro-agw research and very much less for anything else in the same field - in the UK there are no such funds as per the parliamentary reply in Hansard quoted in this and other climate threads many times.
Both sources are tainted. The way forward which has any semblance of balance, integrity and reality about it is to take all research at face value regardless of other factors and judge it on its merits and demerits. That also happens to be the way that science operates when it operates properly.
On what basis is science (and the public interest) served by having such a one-sided funding regime? The fact remains that agw isn't mainstream science or consensus science it's the 'science' which has far superior funding.
Even on the political side, Big Green wins by a wide margin. In the USA in the current election cycle Big Green is outspending Big Oil more than 2:1.
I can see why this wholly unbalanced scenario plays well for agw supporters in terms of the bias conveyed to research and PR activities / media coverage.
Science moves in the direction that the all of the perceived evidence is pointing until other evidence becomes available to show that it's wrong. Both are currently being worked, pro and anti agw research and though it might be 2:1 in favour of agw thats because all of the (perceived) evidence is almost overwhelmingly in favour of the agw viewpoint - and by a far bigger ratio than 2:1
Frankly I'm surprised the ratio is only 2:1 in terms of financing and the anti-agw camp must be spending vast sums of money to achieve that outcome .
To date, none of the scientific institutions or Governments have seen evidence to sway them in another direction. Should you publish some of your 'proof' to peer review then we could expect that to change as the rewards to all concerned would be enormous!
Frankly I'm surprised the ratio is only 2:1 in terms of financing and the anti-agw camp must be spending vast sums of money to achieve that outcome .
To date, none of the scientific institutions or Governments have seen evidence to sway them in another direction. Should you publish some of your 'proof' to peer review then we could expect that to change as the rewards to all concerned would be enormous!
LoonyTunes said:
Science moves in the direction that the all of the perceived evidence is pointing until other evidence becomes available to show that it's wrong.
Evidently not as evidence refuting agw has been available for years.How will science move in a direction when that direction has no funding for research? I fear your response is both naive and biased.
LoonyTunes said:
Both are currently being worked, pro and anti agw research
In what ratio?In the UK there is no public funding for academics to use to carry out non-agw research.
LoonyTunes said:
Frankly I'm surprised the ratio is only 2:1 in terms of financing and the anti-agw camp must be spending vast sums of money to achieve that outcome .
Compared to the 2x bigger sum being spent by Big Green. Aye,LoohnyTunes said:
To date, none of the scientific institutions or Governments have seen evidence to sway them in another direction.
For insitutions you mean their activists. For governments, politicians don't work on the basis of evidence. There are many examples.For the sake of completeness your point isn't accurate, the USA government has moved against agw so on your basis this means they've seen evidence against it.
After all there's plenty out there.
LoonyTunes said:
Should you publish some of your 'proof' to peer review then we could expect that to change as the rewards to all concerned would be enormous!
Nothing is mine, credible empirical data has been 'published' and therefore available and visible for years, unlike any visible causal human contribution to global climate change.chrispmartha said:
Thank you WC, I honestly appreciate a proper reply (sincerely), how does that compare with Robinessexs graph and why the difference?
cheers. there are two issues with the discrepancy involved with the charts. the first is i believe the chart from roy spencers blog is for the troposphere and the other for 2 metre surface air temps, so apples to oranges. given the theory behind agw that the mid troposphere should warm around three times faster than the surface i still think it is a valid comparison and highlights a problem with the theory.the flip side is the problems with the satellite data mean that imo (the imo is important) while there is a significant discrepancy,quantifying it accurately is going to be difficult.
now for the apples to apples discrepancy. the assessment reports from the ipcc take a while to collate and go through several reviews by those involved (you probably know this) and there are first, second etc order drafts that get reviewed by those involved (including people regarded as sceptics, i believe anyone can put themselves forward to be a reviewer) before the final draft is issued.
in the second order draft for ar5 the initial visual depiction of models vs obs was very different to that in the final iteration.some reviewers noticed the large discrepancy and advised on additional comments to explain the issue. none as far as can be made out asked for the chart to be removed,but removed is what happened. then it was replaced with the chart you provided (minus the last three data points marked in black) they were never on any official ipcc chart,again as far as i can make out they have been added at a later date, ed hawkins is the bloke to ask. i am sure he would be happy to state,he has no axe to grind and seems a fair and honest bloke.
the chart that was removed (fig 1.5) showed a very different story to the one that replaced it(fig 1.4). it basically doubled the uncertainty bands on the chart which allowed the observed data points to fall within the range of model output. as with all climate debate there are some reasons given for this. the fact it was not explained at the time is what raises suspicion. it will be up to the reader to decide whether the explanations stand up to scrutiny .some certainly do in terms of which model runs were selected for that spaghetti chart, but still a problem in that ones they didn't like (one in particular) were discarded and the fact remains it was a post hoc alteration to show something different using a method absent in ar4.
some comments from the link for those that don't have the time (most people) or inclination (loony tunes) to read the post and subsequent comments. the comments section has scientists (richard betts is one contributor http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/staff/?web_id=Richar... ) commentating and is really worth a read (90% of the comments anyway) to add info to the post. this is often the case with mcintyre on things that don't interest him all that much,lack of follow up.
AR5 Second Order Draft (SOD) Figures 1.4 and 1.5 showed the discrepancy between observations and projections from previous assessment reports. SOD Figure 1.5 (see below as annotated) directly showed the discrepancy for AR4 without additional clutter from earlier assessment reports. Even though AR4 was the most recent and most relevant assessment report, SOD Figure 1.5 was simply deleted from the report.
Nor can it be contended that IPCC erroneously located the projections in SOD Figure 1.5, as SKS claimed here in respect to SOD Figure 1.4. The uncertainty envelope shown in SOD Figure 1.5 was cited to AR4 Figure 10.26. As a cross-check, I digitized relevant uncertainty envelopes from AR Figure 10.26 (which I’ll show later in this post) and plotted them in the figure below (A1B – red + signs; A1T orange). They match almost exactly. Richard Betts acknowledged the match here.
AR5 Figure 1.4
Having deleted the informative (perhaps too informative) SOD Figure 1.5, IPCC’s only comparison between AR4 projections and actuals is in the revised Figure 1.4, a figure that seems more designed to obscure than illuminate.
In the annotated version shown below, I’ve plotted the AR4 Figure 10.26 A1B uncertainty range in yellow. Unfortunately, Figure 1.4 no longer shows an uncertainty envelope for AR4 projections. Here one has to watch the pea carefully. Uncertainty envelopes are shown for the three early assessments, but not for AR4, though it is the most recent. All that is shown for AR4 are 2035 uncertainty ranges for three AR4 scenarios (including A1B) in the right margin, plus a spaghetti of individual runs (a spaghetti that does not correspond to any actual AR4 graphic.)
The re-stated envelope is about twice as wide as the actual AR4 Figure 10.26 uncertainty envelope that had been used in SOD Figure 1.5. Even with this much expanded envelope, HadCRUT4 observations are at the very edge of the expanded envelope – and well outside the actual AR4 Figure 10.26 envelope.
In the final draft document sent to external reviewers, SOD Figure 1.5 directly compared projections from AR4 Figure 10.26 to observations, a comparison which showed that recent observations were running below the uncertainty envelope. The reference period for the AR4 uncertainty envelope was well-specified (1981-2000) and IPCC correctly transposed the envelope to the 1961-1990 reference period used in SOD Figure 1.5.
https://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-fac...
i really need to learn how to post images, the above post would only have needed one paragraph of my ramblings
. basically the model comparison to observation chart used in the three previous ipcc reports was showing a growing discrepancy between the models and observed data (bearing in mind every single surface data set has adjustments that all go the same way, up, i can see where the concern comes from) the original chart fig1.5 was removed and the new chart fig1.4 with the uncertainty bands twice as wide as those used in three previous ipcc assessment reports. make of that what you will. it looks to me that things like this happen because they just "know" they are right and given time they will be able to show it but in the mean time lets not show anything that could bolster the sceptic view. time will tellturbobloke said:
Dissent? Science doesn't have worth based on concurring or dissenting with any particular viewpoint,
I would rather untainted research - research that isn't funded via whim involving the mostly scientifically illiterate and ideologically hidebound political class. However there's a great deal of that public funding available for pro-agw research and very much less for anything else in the same field - in the UK there are no such funds as per the parliamentary reply in Hansard quoted in this and other climate threads many times.
Both sources are tainted. The way forward which has any semblance of balance, integrity and reality about it is to take all research at face value regardless of other factors and judge it on its merits and demerits. That also happens to be the way that science operates when it operates properly.
On what basis is science (and the public interest) served by having such a one-sided funding regime? The fact remains that agw isn't mainstream science or consensus science it's the 'science' which has far superior funding.
Even on the political side, Big Green wins by a wide margin. In the USA in the current election cycle Big Green is outspending Big Oil more than 2:1.
I can see why this wholly unbalanced scenario plays well for agw supporters in terms of the bias conveyed to research and PR activities / media coverage.
to be clear as loony snipped my post ,i did say "many scientists are deeply flawed in all sorts of ways,it doesn't matter when it comes to the scientific results they produce. they will stand or fall on their own merits." I would rather untainted research - research that isn't funded via whim involving the mostly scientifically illiterate and ideologically hidebound political class. However there's a great deal of that public funding available for pro-agw research and very much less for anything else in the same field - in the UK there are no such funds as per the parliamentary reply in Hansard quoted in this and other climate threads many times.
Both sources are tainted. The way forward which has any semblance of balance, integrity and reality about it is to take all research at face value regardless of other factors and judge it on its merits and demerits. That also happens to be the way that science operates when it operates properly.
On what basis is science (and the public interest) served by having such a one-sided funding regime? The fact remains that agw isn't mainstream science or consensus science it's the 'science' which has far superior funding.
Even on the political side, Big Green wins by a wide margin. In the USA in the current election cycle Big Green is outspending Big Oil more than 2:1.
I can see why this wholly unbalanced scenario plays well for agw supporters in terms of the bias conveyed to research and PR activities / media coverage.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff