Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[robinessex]

turbobloke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

At least there is some awareness in the models. One step ahead I'd say.

Awareness of what - where the next grant cheque will come from and how to expedite it?

Similar to milking wind subsidies.

One step ahead of what - tossing a coin?

IPCC Expert Reviewer Ross McKitrick said:

Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change? I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.

Anything else "you'd say" on climate models, don't hold back

CC Models.

Chaotic mathematical system can never be solved in the sense of an explicit result. Thus any result derived must by inference be an approximation/assumption.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems ( a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect ) rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate. It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic. This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics, environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

You've been wrong on here plenty of times.

At least there is some awareness in the models. One step ahead I'd say.

Paddy,

I suspect that they have nowhere to take the "catastrophic" meme and needed to row back on the message that all hope is lost in order to keep the masses and certain politicians somewhat hooked.

If they truly believed in the "man made usage of stuff" caused the problem and it's really really urgent because of "tipping points" they would be seeking to maximise everything that has already been produced - power stations irrespective of fuels, anything that is long lasting (old vacuum cleaners for example) rather than making new ones thet last 5 minutes having been shipped half way round the world simply because they use less power (though probably for much longer to achieve the same result assuming that is possible) or the classic catastrophic promotion of diesel powered vehicles that could last 20 years or more but now will be scrapped after ten or less (and presumably replaced by new builds whose additional efficiency and "cleanliness" for the environment are unlikely to compensate for the throwaway waste being enforced on the previous generation - itself promoted as the right path to follow to counteract "climate change" due to CO2 emissions.

The waste and excess pollution caused by the policies "imagined" to "fight" the problem look to me like the result of severe cognitive dissonance.

Give it 20 years or so for the evidence to build up and the numbers to be analysed and someone will write a paper pointing out just how counter productive many if not most - perhaps all - of the policies will have been, especially at the scale and speed of introduction.

[Ali G]

telecat said:

The Major Problems with the "Models" are Not enough Data and not enough Processing power to deal with the data if we had it!

If the modelled environment is chaotic in nature, then even an infinite amount of processing power will still only generate pseudo-random gibberish dependant upon minuscule variations in starting conditions.

[jet_noise]

telecat said:

The Major Problems with the "Models" are Not enough Data and not enough Processing power to deal with the data if we had it!

No, that is secondary.
The prime fault is the bias of those designing them - like policy based evidence torturing.
Models have been designed/optimised to produce desired results from increasing CO2.

[XM5ER]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Missing the point of my post completely.

Debating on here, this thread, is utterly futile.
My post was in response to :

dickymint said:

Computer models wrong shock horror..................

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-were-wr...

The audacity to point out and laugh where others have evaluated and changed their mind.

For those who don't pay Murdoch a penny

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...

Paddy, pointing a laughing at these folks is perfectly reasonable. Activists on the warmist side of the argument have (and sometimes still do) called for criminal prosecution of sceptics. That is unreasonable, would you agree?

[XM5ER]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Still missing the point clearly.

I must have missed your point. Perhaps you could clarify, whilst you answer my question?

[Derek Smith]

I’m confused now.

Can I use the scientists ridiculed by so many as stupid and in the pay of the big corporations to support the contention that they are in the pay of the big corporations or do I ridicule them for being wrong yet again and global warming is still going on?

[XM5ER]

Derek Smith said:

I’m confused now.

Can I use the scientists ridiculed by so many as stupid and in the pay of the big corporations to support the contention that they are in the pay of the big corporations or do I ridicule them for being wrong yet again and global warming is still going on?

Weather is unpredictable. Who knew?

[Ali G]

Derek Smith said:

I’m confused now.

Can I use the scientists ridiculed by so many as stupid and in the pay of the big corporations to support the contention that they are in the pay of the big corporations or do I ridicule them for being wrong yet again and global warming is still going on?

If you only listen to mainstream financed meedja, luvvies and politicians, then you will only ever hear "on message" pseudo-scientific claptrap cut down to easily digestible soundbites for the hard of thinking.

Meanwhile, the actual science is very far from settled and perhaps just starting.

[robinessex]

Meanwhile, on planet hopeful:-

Paris climate aim 'still achievable'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4131...

The 2015 Paris agreement's ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C remains within reach, a study suggests.
The study is one of several to address the "carbon budget", which - among other things - determines how much CO2 the planet can emit and still reach a given limit for global warming.
It indicates the 2015 target, perceived by some as tough, could be met with very stringent emissions cuts.
It used computer models that project climate behaviour into the future.................continues

Now, remind me again about climate models !

Almost all the comments about that article dismiss CC as bks

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 19th September 17:56

[Kawasicki]

dickymint said:

Computer models wrong shock horror..................

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-were-wr...

One new paper saying the models are wrong does not change the consensus. Do these scientists really expect us to believe that they are right and tens of thousands of scientists working for multiple independent organisations are wrong.

These scientists are obviously funded by "Big Oil". Their funding should be removed asap, and the word should be spread that they are deniers, with no chance of future careers in Climate Science.

[Ali G]

Obviously, the essential ability of a scientist is to believe in MMGW - and nothing else matters.

Other than looking elsewheres.

[Engineer792]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It is wrong to refute any alternate views.

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

XM5ER said:

Activists on the warmist side of the argument have (and sometimes still do) called for criminal prosecution of sceptics. That is unreasonable, would you agree?

Yes

Kawasicki said:

These scientists are obviously funded by "Big Oil". Their funding should be removed asap, and the word should be spread that they are deniers, with no chance of future careers in Climate Science.

When you lot come to some kind of consensus, let us know

[br d]

Engineer792 said:

When you lot come to some kind of consensus, let us know

A troublesome lack of consensus on the consensus then?
Maybe it needs computer modelling.

[robinessex]

Australia's warmest winter 'driven by climate change'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41316014

Climate change has driven Australia to its warmest winter on record, a leading climate group has said.
Data released this month showed average maximum temperatures in the winter months of June to August were nearly 2C above average.
Climate change made the "exceptionally warm and dry" winter 60 times more likely, the Climate Council said in a report.
The group has linked the record hot winter to "worsening climate change".
The Climate Council is an independent, non-profit organisation that was set up in 2013 to continue the work of its government-funded predecessor, which was abolished by the Tony Abbott government.
According to its report released on Tuesday - Hot and Dry: Australia's Weird Winter - winter warm spells are lasting longer, occurring more frequently and becoming more intense.
More than 260 heat and low rainfall records around Australia were broken this winter, the report said.
It said climate change and the burning of fossil fuels had driven Australia's average winter temperature up by about 1C since 1910. That figure was reported by the CSIRO, the nation's scientific research body, last year......................continues

No proof of that shown though. We do have a "more likely" though, so that'll do then.

[turbobloke]

br d said:

Engineer792 said:

When you lot come to some kind of consensus, let us know

A troublesome lack of consensus on the consensus then?
Maybe it needs computer modelling.

Perfect


An article in today's DM from Labour MP Graham Stringer based on peer-reviewed research shows that even diddled data can't do the deal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4901278/...

Link said:

In a study just published by the respected journal Nature Geoscience, a group of British academics reveals that the immediate threat from global warming is lower than previously thought, because the computer models used by climate change experts are flawed.

Experts clergy would be more accurate.

Deduct the ship intake SST diddle from the joke 0.9 deg C and it's worse for believers (and inadequate IPCC climate models) than previously thought.

[XM5ER]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

XM5ER said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Still missing the point clearly.

I must have missed your point. Perhaps you could clarify, whilst you answer my question?

I did clarify.
Many on here should read Black Box thinking by Matthew Syed. Its not wrong to be open minded and to even change your view.
It is wrong to refute any alternate views.

Sorry but to debate you have to be clear.

Of course it's good to be open minded and to change your view, you talk as if this is something frowned upon in this thread, it isn't.

To be clear Paddy, in 1988 I was a warmist, I believed the hype. Throughout the 90's I still believed. In the early 2000's I started to question the theory as a number of things didn't add up (they still don't) and I took a closer interest. By the mid 2000's I was very sceptical, as the Real Climate crowd behaved like a bunch of religious zealots being questioned about their faith if you dared to ask a difficult question there. The Climate Gate emails sealed my downright disgust at the scientists at the heart of this "consensus". Since then I have seen no evidence that anything has changed to provided solid proof of the CO2 enhanced greenhouse hypothesis. Should that happen, I will review my position. This is just the scientific side, the political side is even worse.

If I'm still missing your point then I can only assume that you don't have one.

[dickymint]

Builder mate of mine came into the pub earlier brandishing his daily read..... "Dicky Dicky you're gonna love this"..............

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4503006/global-warmi...

I'd already seen it from another source but it was sweet to be able to remind him and others in the bar "I've been telling you that for fking years"

[dickymint]

Yes, 'n' how many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I'm perplexed at the meaning of the above - unless a simple stab at myself.

Either way, as usual there is no original thinking but simply glib cut and pasting replication - going with a simple mainstream, rhetoric from 1967.

Matches your outlook, knowledge and understanding I suppose.

Yep - just another tit for tat from your latest stab at me