Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

We're already seeing the predicted effects happening around us, which is why I'm curious as to what scientific predictions do you think were wrong?

Like the tropical hotspot, England having a Mediterranean climate, 50 million climate refugees by 2010, ice free arctic and extinct polar bears?

This is the usual strawman nonsense that extremists trot out, which only serves to confuse people (deliberately, usually). You've just written a list of random things. I'm not asking for Daily Express headlines, I'm asking for some proof that these predictions were ever made. Who made them? Where? Please provide sources. If there's research saying this stuff would happen, what was the level of confidence?

Lunar Tick said:

What is this supposed to show?

[Lunar Tick]

In a nutshell: red line = average of climate model predictions; blue circles and green squares = actual temperature observations using two different sets of data samples (weather balloons and satellite observations).

[durbster]

Lunar Tick said:

In a nutshell: red line = average of climate model predictions; blue circles and green squares = actual temperature observations using two different sets of data samples (weather balloons and satellite observations).

Why does the blue line go down at the end?
Why doesn't it show the error bars for the models?
Why does it say "what 20 academics believe"?

Because it's designed to mislead you.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

Lunar Tick said:

In a nutshell: red line = average of climate model predictions; blue circles and green squares = actual temperature observations using two different sets of data samples (weather balloons and satellite observations).

Why does the blue line go down at the end?
Why doesn't it show the error bars for the models?
Why does it say "what 20 academics believe"?

Because it's designed to mislead you.

So at what point did you come to the same conclusion about "the hockey stick" or maybe you still believe it?

[durbster]

Lunar Tick said:

In a nutshell: red line = average of climate model predictions; blue circles and green squares = actual temperature observations using two different sets of data samples (weather balloons and satellite observations).

Here is another version that's more honest, and up-to-date:


And it's worth reminding that nobody expects the models to be perfect. I saw that graph posted by Gavin Schmidt at NASA, who said, "Models are of course wrong, but they aren't that wrong."

The computer models are not what the whole case is built on as the propagandists would have you think. Not at all.

[Lunar Tick]

durbster said:

Why does the blue line go down at the end?
Why doesn't it show the error bars for the models?
Why does it say "what 20 academics believe"?

Because it's designed to mislead you.

If the error bars for the models were sufficiently large to include the observed data sets, they'd be even more worthless in their predictive capacity than they already patently are. How can actual observations be 'misleading'?

Science is about making sense of observations. If your theory doesn't fit with the observations obtained from the real work, the theory either needs adapting or throwing out. Watch this from 16:36 to 17:36 - this is how science works when politics, media and financial interests aren't involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX1EK5IBSdw

[dickymint]

durbster said:

Here is another version that's more honest, and up-to-date:


And it's worth reminding that nobody expects the models to be perfect. I saw that graph posted by Gavin Schmidt at NASA, who said, "Models are of course wrong, but they aren't that wrong."

The computer models are not what the whole case is built on as the propagandists would have you think. Not at all.

You were concerned earlier about error bars

[robinessex]

And still we don't know if the planets very slight (might, possible, maybe, predicted, so on, ad finitum) temperature rise of any consequence. Talk about a crazy solution to a fictious problem !! Never mind, lets keep spending the money to save the planet!!

[zygalski]

robinessex said:

And still we don't know if the planets very slight (might, possible, maybe, predicted, so on, ad finitum) temperature rise of any consequence. Talk about a crazy solution to a fictious problem !! Never mind, lets keep spending the money to save the planet!!

Not a fictitious problem according to the Trump administration.
They just aren't sure how bad the anthropogenic effect is, though they no longer doubt that there is an impact.

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

And still we don't know if the planets very slight (might, possible, maybe, predicted, so on, ad finitum) temperature rise of any consequence. Talk about a crazy solution to a fictious problem !! Never mind, lets keep spending the money to save the planet!!

Not a fictitious problem according to the Trump administration.
They just aren't sure how bad the anthropogenic effect is, though they no longer doubt that there is an impact.

You missed the point. If the planets temperature goes up a minute amount in the next 100 yrs, does it matter? That's the killer question.

[zygalski]

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

And still we don't know if the planets very slight (might, possible, maybe, predicted, so on, ad finitum) temperature rise of any consequence. Talk about a crazy solution to a fictious problem !! Never mind, lets keep spending the money to save the planet!!

Not a fictitious problem according to the Trump administration.
They just aren't sure how bad the anthropogenic effect is, though they no longer doubt that there is an impact.

You missed the point. If the planets temperature goes up a minute amount in the next 100 yrs, does it matter? That's the killer question.

So you also accept AGW is a reality?
Sounds like you're teetering on becoming an apologist with a post like that.

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

And still we don't know if the planets very slight (might, possible, maybe, predicted, so on, ad finitum) temperature rise of any consequence. Talk about a crazy solution to a fictious problem !! Never mind, lets keep spending the money to save the planet!!

Not a fictitious problem according to the Trump administration.
They just aren't sure how bad the anthropogenic effect is, though they no longer doubt that there is an impact.

You missed the point. If the planets temperature goes up a minute amount in the next 100 yrs, does it matter? That's the killer question.

So you also accept AGW is a reality?
Sounds like you're teetering on becoming an apologist with a post like that.

AGW is bks. Even half an ounce of commonsense, and few obvious observations leads to that. Don’t need any crack pot 'scientists' looking into the crystal ball, specially when their entire career ( think of the money ) depends on it!

[dickymint]

dickymint said:

durbster said:

Lunar Tick said:

In a nutshell: red line = average of climate model predictions; blue circles and green squares = actual temperature observations using two different sets of data samples (weather balloons and satellite observations).

Why does the blue line go down at the end?
Why doesn't it show the error bars for the models?
Why does it say "what 20 academics believe"?

Because it's designed to mislead you.

So at what point did you come to the same conclusion about "the hockey stick" or maybe you still believe it?

Bumped in case you missed it........do/did you believe in "the hockey stick graph"?

[grumbledoak]

An interesting article by Clive James, on what to expect next from the alarmists:
https://www.thegwpf.com/clive-james-climate-alarmi...

Hopefully not a repost.

[dickymint]

grumbledoak said:

An interesting article by Clive James, on what to expect next from the alarmists:
https://www.thegwpf.com/clive-james-climate-alarmi...

Hopefully not a repost.

New to me will read the full essay later

[LongQ]

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

And still we don't know if the planets very slight (might, possible, maybe, predicted, so on, ad finitum) temperature rise of any consequence. Talk about a crazy solution to a fictious problem !! Never mind, lets keep spending the money to save the planet!!

Not a fictitious problem according to the Trump administration.
They just aren't sure how bad the anthropogenic effect is, though they no longer doubt that there is an impact.

Did they say it was a problem or a result?

Can you tell us how big the effect it well actually be with any degree of certainty?

Then how certain you are about a way to limit or eliminate the problem without any adverse side effects?

And then how much should be spent on getting that adjustment and the spending on it something like cost effective for the result achieved?

If not then I think it is reasonable to assume that conversations should continue in public rather that favour shutting down all discussion because it suits some to do so.

Perhaps you don't agree with that idea?

If so could you explain why not?

[zygalski]

Trump administration joins the consensus.
AGW is a fact, no matter how much waffle you post.

[durbster]

Lunar Tick said:

If the error bars for the models were sufficiently large to include the observed data sets, they'd be even more worthless in their predictive capacity than they already patently are. How can actual observations be 'misleading'?

See proper version of the graph from credible source above.

Lunar Tick said:

Science is about making sense of observations. If your theory doesn't fit with the observations obtained from the real work, the theory either needs adapting or throwing out. Watch this from 16:36 to 17:36 - this is how science works when politics, media and financial interests aren't involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX1EK5IBSdw

1. The computer models are not the theory, so this reply makes no sense.
2. Observations do match the theory.

[johnfm]

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

And still we don't know if the planets very slight (might, possible, maybe, predicted, so on, ad finitum) temperature rise of any consequence. Talk about a crazy solution to a fictious problem !! Never mind, lets keep spending the money to save the planet!!

Not a fictitious problem according to the Trump administration.
They just aren't sure how bad the anthropogenic effect is, though they no longer doubt that there is an impact.

Well, if that administration say it is a problem it MUST be true. Hard to find a better authority to appeal to than Donald et al...

[johnfm]

zygalski said:

Trump administration joins the consensus.
AGW is a fact, no matter how much waffle you post.

I cannot tell whether you're being serious or just doing this schtick for effect.