Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

turbobloke said:

As no believer scientists have claimed the easy prize, the conclusion is obvious.

As to posting links, when? Why are you delaying the inevitable demolition of your false claim? Hang on that's the reason, imminent demolition.

Post the links here, how difficult is that and it's a reasonable courtesy to do so if you raise the point in this thread and you're clearly inviting a response in this thread.

The climate science thread is a misnomer in any case, it should be the climate junkscience thread as climate these days is political not scientific. Ask Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC or see his quote as posted n times in PH climate threads.

Er no - the links I posted are to scientific papers so any discussion around them should be there. .

Up to you. Each of us can draw their own conclusions.

I already posted the kind of speculation based on bunk that passes as evidence in the type of rentapaper you claim demonstrates a visible causal human signal. There's no such thing,

Try this from an arch-believer whose paper (et al) saying exactly this managed to pass peer, or pal, review.

Mann said:

We find that individual record years and the observed runs of record-setting temperatures were extremely unlikely to have occurred in the absence of human-caused climate change,

http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/

Firstly if there was a visible causal human signal, believer scientists would simply publiish it and that would be it. They don't, because they can't, Because it doesn't exist. Instead we get that carp - the reviewers must have fallen asleep and missed it.

Secondly, note the weasel words which are weasily the most weasel worded claim since the IPCC offerred their 95% faith statement, which masqueraded as a statistical outcome but which was explained in a footnote as mere speculation: "extremely unlikely". Which demonstrates capably that there is no visible causal human signal.

Thirdly the demolition of what passes as the paper's methodology by somebody who understands stats shows that even this speculative weasel wordsmithery has no basis.

Finally, what records...the near surface database is corrupt and unfit for purpose. Using the Adjustocene era diddlied data with a straight face in the company of pals simply won't do.

A typical and total fail.

Feel free to post global climate data showing a visible causal signal, in this thread, It's only been 14 years (min) that this request has been ignored.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

Lotus 50 said:

Er no - the links I posted are to scientific papers so any discussion around them should be there. People get harangued by you and others for posting science in response to the politics that gets posted here so why should I? I've posted the links twice in the other thread recently so they should be easy enough to find and I find it odd that you should suggest I"m lying when all you've got to do is go and have a look.

I'm sure LongQ will support your position since he regularly berates people for posting science in here.

...oh wait, you are posting stuff he disagrees with so no, he'll back up turbobloke instead.

Although to be fair. turbobloke is waaaaay out of his comfort zone in the science thread since none of those pesky scientists will back up his assertions

Edited by durbster on Thursday 4th May 07:36

Dear durbster,

Thank you for your efforts to read my mind.

Last evening I was about to suggest that Lotus 50 could perhaps post a link to his post(s) where the references were provided (in the "Science" thread as I understand it) but other more important (to me) matters intervened at the time.

I think that creating that cross reference would be fine in the context. Either that or a thread and page number reference (assuming a default paging display being applied)

Your comments therefore fail to reflect my opinion and then fail to add anything to the thread.

There was a time when you seemed to have something to offer even though a little light on politics when posting in this thread.

[Lotus 50]

All you've got to do is go back 3 or 4 pages on the science thread and the links to the published papers are there. It seems that the 'believer' scientists did find causality and simply published the work.

Funny how people seem to be trying to use the word believer in a derogatory way - what's wrong with looking at the overwhelming weight of evidence and agreeing with the majority of scientists that it shows there's a problem with CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions? I posted links to 10 papers that I found in a quick rummage through Google Scholar. There will be plenty of others no doubt if you look further - either through Google or the references cited in the papers themselves. If you take issue with them I suggest you respond to source (i.e. the journals that published them and the scientists that did the work in the first place) rather than shooting the messenger.

Re the 'competition' - interesting to read Andrew Gelman's take on it:

http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/09/why-i-decided-n...

[Jinx]

Lotus 50 said:

All you've got to do is go back 3 or 4 pages on the science thread and the links to the published papers are there. It seems that the 'believer' scientists did find causality and simply published the work.

Funny how people seem to be trying to use the word believer in a derogatory way - what's wrong with looking at the overwhelming weight of evidence and agreeing with the majority of scientists that it shows there's a problem with CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions? I posted links to 10 papers that I found in a quick rummage through Google Scholar. There will be plenty of others no doubt if you look further - either through Google or the references cited in the papers themselves. If you take issue with them I suggest you respond to source (i.e. the journals that published them and the scientists that did the work in the first place) rather than shooting the messenger.

Re the 'competition' - interesting to read Andrew Gelman's take on it:

http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/09/why-i-decided-n...

Given as I found something fundamentally wrong with the first 2 links I will at some point get around to reading the rest (note: if the method used concludes that AGW is the cause of the warming since 1850 then the method is completely and totally wrong, AGW cannot of physically been the cause prior to 1950 as the IPCC concluded in all their reports' attribution sections) .

[Lotus 50]

Jinx said:

Given as I found something fundamentally wrong with the first 2 links I will at some point get around to reading the rest (note: if the method used concludes that AGW is the cause of the warming since 1850 then the method is completely and totally wrong, AGW cannot of physically been the cause prior to 1950 as the IPCC concluded in all their reports' attribution sections) .

Do you have a reference for where the IPCC said that? I recently checked this in both the summary and main physical science reports and I think you're assertion is wrong. The latest (2014) IPCC reports state that they are very confident that the warming post 1950 is down to human emissions but they don't say that AGW cannot have been the cause of any warming prior to that. So you can't discount the first two papers on that basis.

Besides which, if you are right and the IPCC did say what you suggest you seem to be using some strange logic here... you don't believe the IPCC but they are right in saying that AGW wasn't the cause of warming prior to 1950?

[Jinx]

Lotus 50 said:

Do you have a reference for where the IPCC said that? I recently checked this in both the summary and main physical science reports and I think you're assertion is wrong. The latest (2014) IPCC reports state that they are very confident that the warming post 1950 is down to human emissions but they don't say that AGW cannot have been the cause of any warming prior to that. So you can't discount the first two papers on that basis.

Besides which, if you are right and the IPCC did say what you suggest you seem to be using some strange logic here... you don't believe the IPCC but they are right in saying that AGW wasn't the cause of warming prior to 1950?

There was not enough A-CO2 in the atmosphere at the point prior to 1950 to have a physical effect. QED

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

Jinx said:

Given as I found something fundamentally wrong with the first 2 links I will at some point get around to reading the rest (note: if the method used concludes that AGW is the cause of the warming since 1850 then the method is completely and totally wrong, AGW cannot of physically been the cause prior to 1950 as the IPCC concluded in all their reports' attribution sections) .

Do you have a reference for where the IPCC said that? I recently checked this in both the summary and main physical science reports and I think you're assertion is wrong. The latest (2014) IPCC reports state that they are very confident that the warming post 1950 is down to human emissions but they don't say that AGW cannot have been the cause of any warming prior to that. So you can't discount the first two papers on that basis.

Besides which, if you are right and the IPCC did say what you suggest you seem to be using some strange logic here... you don't believe the IPCC but they are right in saying that AGW wasn't the cause of warming prior to 1950?

Fake logic there. One point made either correctly or incorrectly by IPCC is no guide with regard to the veracity of other points.

If the advocacy group IPCC says something right, they're righr. Unfortunately it doesn't happen often. For example they said this, and it's correct, I posted it earlier today and not for the first time. Or the last,given the attrition looping habits of believers.

Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)

The year 1950 does indeed crop up in the IPCC's advocacy as some sort of arbitrary rubicon.

AR4 " the seven centuries prior to 1950"

AR5 "the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010"

And yet SAR was drafted in 1995 - SAR is the IPCC report from which the above quote was taken - this is 45 years after 1950 and still no visible causal human signal! Since then we've had The Pause and ENSO but no warming corresponding to a visible causal human signal. What could possibly have gone wrong?!

As of 2017 there's still no visible causal human signal in global climate data and IPCC attribution statements e.g. 90% or 95% masquerafing as statistical are in fact speculation as per IPCC confession.

[plunker]

Jinx said:

Lotus 50 said:

Do you have a reference for where the IPCC said that? I recently checked this in both the summary and main physical science reports and I think you're assertion is wrong. The latest (2014) IPCC reports state that they are very confident that the warming post 1950 is down to human emissions but they don't say that AGW cannot have been the cause of any warming prior to that. So you can't discount the first two papers on that basis.

Besides which, if you are right and the IPCC did say what you suggest you seem to be using some strange logic here... you don't believe the IPCC but they are right in saying that AGW wasn't the cause of warming prior to 1950?

There was not enough A-CO2 in the atmosphere at the point prior to 1950 to have a physical effect. QED

Unsurprisingly you didn't provide a link. There wasn't enough A-CO2 in the atmosphere to explain the temperature increase prior to 1950 would be a more accurate thing to say, but that doesn't mean there was no physical effect from A-CO2 before that time.

From the AR4:

It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/...

[Jinx]

plunker said:

There wasn't enough A-CO2 in the atmosphere to explain the temperature increase prior to 1950 would be a more accurate thing to say, but that doesn't mean there was no physical effect from A-CO2 before that time.

Unicorn farts and Angel burps.

Not measurable = no effect. And Very likely > Likely. Ergo natural causes more likely than AGW prior to 1950.
Check the links to the chapters as well - dear lord how they got "likely" from those chapters for AR4 I will never know.
Hence the point still stands.

[Lotus 50]

Jinx said:

Unicorn farts and Angel burps.

Not measurable = no effect. And Very likely > Likely. Ergo natural causes more likely than AGW prior to 1950.
Check the links to the chapters as well - dear lord how they got "likely" from those chapters for AR4 I will never know.
Hence the point still stands.

No it doesn't - you're plainly wrong in asserting that the IPCC say there's no human influence on climate prior to 1950 and thus you cannot discount the first 2 of the 10 papers that I posted in the science thread as being 'completely and totally wrong'.

[Lotus 50]

turbobloke said:

Fake logic there. One point made either correctly or incorrectly by IPCC is no guide with regard to the veracity of other points.

If the advocacy group IPCC says something right, they're righr. Unfortunately it doesn't happen often. For example they said this, and it's correct, I posted it earlier today and not for the first time. Or the last,given the attrition looping habits of believers.

Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)

The year 1950 does indeed crop up in the IPCC's advocacy as some sort of arbitrary rubicon.

AR4 " the seven centuries prior to 1950"

AR5 "the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010"

And yet SAR was drafted in 1995 - SAR is the IPCC report from which the above quote was taken - this is 45 years after 1950 and still no visible causal human signal! Since then we've had The Pause and ENSO but no warming corresponding to a visible causal human signal. What could possibly have gone wrong?!

As of 2017 there's still no visible causal human signal in global climate data and IPCC attribution statements e.g. 90% or 95% masquerafing as statistical are in fact speculation as per IPCC confession.

OK, the logic in the last point I made may be flawed but so what? The IPCC report saying they don't know when the unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change will occur is now 22 years old. Subsequent reports e.g. the 2014 documents say:

"Evidence of a human influence on climate has grown stronger over the period of the four previous assessment reports of the IPCC. There was little observational evidence for a detectable human in uence on climate at the time of the First IPCC Assessment Report. By the time of the second report there was suf cient additional evidence for it to conclude that ‘the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human in uence on global climate’. The Third Assessment Report found that a distinct greenhouse gas (GHG) signal was robustly detected in the observed temperature record and that ‘most of the observed warming over the last fty years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.’

With the additional evidence available by the time of the Fourth Assessment Report, the conclusions were further strengthened. This evidence included a wider range of observational data, a greater variety of more sophisticated climate models including improved representations of forcings and processes and a wider variety of analysis techniques. This enabled the AR4 report to conclude that ‘most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’. The AR4 also concluded that ‘discernible human in uences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.’"

And your statements re the IPCC's use of information post 1950s seems to show the same as I said in my earlier post - that they were able to show a link between CO2 and temp from 1950 on but it doesn't mean there wasn't one before then.

As for your 'no visible causal human signal', well that's your view. I posted 10 papers in the science thread that show otherwise, I found them in a brief rummage in google scholar so the evidence is readily available and theres more than likely much more (e.g. at the very least the supporting papers referenced in the 10 I found not to mention the 9000+ papers referenced in the 2014 IPCC work).

[turbobloke]

That IPCC advocacy pasted into Lotus 50's post is opinion, speculation, there is no visible causal human signal to be seen in the waffle. The advocacy copied and pasted into the post offered no data and no link to any data or a representatin of it that shows a visible causal human signal. The IPCC doesn't do this as there's no such signal to show. Your post is in essence one long-winded appeal to authority, not to data.

One give-away is in footnotes to IPCC SPMs where the agw advocates explain their approach. In what follows, bold is IPCC.

IPCC SPM Footnotes said:

Levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements

Not to express anything meaningful statistically speaking.

The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%

Naturally the IPCC's advocates describe their speculaton as 'expert judgement' but it still means they looked at the data and saw an invisible signal, a miraculous act for which they claim a spurious 95% certainty.

Another give-away is how the IPCC's certainty in their own faith has increased despite global warming fading away between the most recent two reports.detailing the strength of IPCC belief. The last report claimed 95% (pure speculation, remember) eveb with The Pause decreasing certainty - but never mind - certainty which nevertheless increased from 90% in the previous report in 2007.

How any human being can have “expertise” in attributing temperature trends to any human cause(s) when there is no scientific instrument or procedure capable of verifying the expert attribution beggars belief, but the IPCC and their disciples know all about belief. The rest of us know about data and what the implications of a lack of any visible causal human signal are.

Lotus 50 said:

As for your 'no visible causal human signal', well that's your view. I posted 10 papers in the science thread that show otherwise

No, they don't.

And it's not my view, it's the data that says so.

[Lotus 50]

Perhaps you'd care to expand on your instant dismissal and tell us all where each of the papers is going wrong in a bit more detail then?

[turbobloke]

Lotus 50 said:

Perhaps you'd care to expand on your instant dismissal and tell us all where each of the papers is going wrong in a bit more detail then?

Even better.

As you've read the papers you will understand how the visible causal signal was identified and where it is in the data. After all, you wouldn't be operating under the influence of either faith or tin foil. Here's 1980-on lower troposphere temperatures, LTT is where agw should be seen. The UAH satellite data represented below shows natural variation including three ENSO events.

However if you can indicate where the invisible causal human signal is, using the "science" from those papers you claim gives you certainty that there is one, I suspect there will be a lot of people on this thread who will be very grateful for the free tutelage. After all, the ability to see invisible entities must be extremely useful. Feel free to review any of the papers you claim as the source of your ability to see invisible things, there's no hurry. PH climate threads have waited 14 years up for this moment. So...where is it?

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

Given as I found something fundamentally wrong with the first 2 links

Given you've seen these references, would you consider posting the date from the science thread where these 2, and 8 more links apparently, can be found? It would save a lot of time and I would be grateful.

It's only to be expected that with true belief being so strong that nobody on the faith side will post them here for me to dismantle learn how to see invisible things. TIA.

If in the meantime any of Lotus 50 or durbster or plunker have already seen fit to show the rest of us how to see invisible signals, please disregard this request.

[AshVX220]

I follow the Planet Society on facebook and they put a video up from the March for science and it's great showing them all marching with their placards and some nice words highlighting their views about science and how good it is for the world.

Anyway, one of these statements said science should show "Intense Skeptical Scrutiny", so I put a comment on there about how some fields aren't allowed to show skepticism as they're too politicised. Well, talk about lighting the blue tough paper!! All sorts of frothers came out of the wood work, calling me all sorts of names, apparently "republican" is now a derogatory term, like calling someone a prick, they call you a republican!

Anyway, the usual stuff got thrown about, consensus etc. Eventually I left them to it when it was clear they couldn't see the hypocrisy of the "intense skeptical scrutiny" statement.

Thought you'd like to have a chuckle over that.

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

That IPCC advocacy pasted into Lotus 50's post is opinion, speculation, there is no visible causal human signal to be seen in the waffle. The advocacy copied and pasted into the post offered no data and no link to any data or a representatin of it that shows a visible causal human signal. The IPCC doesn't do this as there's no such signal to show. Your post is in essence one long-winded appeal to authority, not to data.

One give-away is in footnotes to IPCC SPMs where the agw advocates explain their approach. In what follows, bold is IPCC.

IPCC SPM Footnotes said:

Levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements

Not to express anything meaningful statistically speaking.

The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%

Naturally the IPCC's advocates describe their speculaton as 'expert judgement' but it still means they looked at the data and saw an invisible signal, a miraculous act for which they claim a spurious 95% certainty.

Another give-away is how the IPCC's certainty in their own faith has increased despite global warming fading away between the most recent two reports.detailing the strength of IPCC belief. The last report claimed 95% (pure speculation, remember) eveb with The Pause decreasing certainty - but never mind - certainty which nevertheless increased from 90% in the previous report in 2007.

How any human being can have “expertise” in attributing temperature trends to any human cause(s) when there is no scientific instrument or procedure capable of verifying the expert attribution beggars belief, but the IPCC and their disciples know all about belief. The rest of us know about data and what the implications of a lack of any visible causal human signal are.

Lotus 50 said:

As for your 'no visible causal human signal', well that's your view. I posted 10 papers in the science thread that show otherwise

No, they don't.

And it's not my view, it's the data that says so.

only climate wang has has increased confidence in a hypothesis when there is increased divergence from predicted outcomes .

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

Given you've seen these references, would you consider posting the date from the science thread where these 2, and 8 more links apparently, can be found? It would save a lot of time and I would be grateful.

It's only to be expected that with true belief being so strong that nobody on the faith side will post them here for me to dismantle learn how to see invisible things. TIA.

If in the meantime any of Lotus 50 or durbster or plunker have already seen fit to show the rest of us how to see invisible signals, please disregard this request.

tenth post down https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
i wouldn't bother though. he is one of the utter cretins that thinks anyone that has been funded in the past by "big oil" cannot be a scientist. clearly forgetting that "big oil" provides a huge amount of funding toward many warmist organisations and universities with climate science departments . more than they spend on funding sceptics as it happens, but don't tell him, his watermelon like head would explode.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

If in the meantime any of Lotus 50 or durbster or plunker have already seen fit to show the rest of us how to see invisible signals, please disregard this request.

You know it's an impossible demand so whenever I see this (which is on average, four hundred times per page), I just consider it your safe space that you retreat into when you've run out of things to copy and paste from your propaganda handbook.

The effect of CO2 is small and slow, so of course it won't show up as a spike in the data like a volcanic eruption. Nobody ever claimed it would - yet another strawman argument. It's a good job the case for AGW doesn't consist solely of data then.

Besides, there isn't a single organisation that collect and maintains data that supports your position so claiming your position is based on data is comically delusional. In fact, since your position is so unique and incomprehensible, you're basically expecting us to believe that everyone is wrong about everything except you.

What's amazing is that people have fallen for it, and we see your catchphrases echoed as if they have some meaning or value. The power of repetition at work there, but don't expect us all to become believers.

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

tenth post down https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
i wouldn't bother though. he is one of the utter cretins that thinks anyone that has been funded in the past by "big oil" cannot be a scientist. clearly forgetting that "big oil" provides a huge amount of funding toward many warmist organisations and universities with climate science departments . more than they spend on funding sceptics as it happens, but don't tell him, his watermelon like head would explode.

Thanks, points taken, but I'll have a look - though I've almost certainly visited the scene previously in terms of any papers falsely claiming speculation as evidence as per IPCC.

It looks like a bottle of red will need uncorking either way.

I see my request for tuition on spotting invisible signals was rejected by the faithful. Sob