Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
robinessex said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
And yours? Your don't need a scientific background to see the the claimed AGW is bJust wondering......
ksYou don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just b
ks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo . gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
turbobloke said:
Found the source for my hard drive image...further queries can be addressed to climatologist Dr Roy Spencer of UAH (who works in a building that was shot up in 'Earth Day' jolly japes). Try @RoyWSpencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...
This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.
Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?
Faced with that, Durbs will normally go silent for a few days............we'll see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fai...
This suggests what at least one of the satellite datasets is, but Dr S will confirm or otherwise when contacted. Let us know how you get on.
Now then, what about those 15 questions on the most blatant climate model failings?
Regardless of what’s transpired on this thread before I can find no argument with his (durbs) assertion of the likely credibilty of the source of that graph.
dickymint said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
Been answered many times as you know.Just wondering......
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 5th November 16:31
dickymint said:
"faced with", as you well know, the 15 questions that Durbs will not answer.
Aye probably.To be honest, I didn't see any questions. I've been skipping over turbobloke's posts for a very long time as they're either the same tired assertions made again and again, or a waffling list of soundbites and catchphrases. I'm going to hazard a guess it's all stuff that's been comprehensively dealt with countless times before, so if you're interested in the answers, just search the thread.
And remember, if you ever feel brave enough to take on what I'm saying rather than attack me personally, feel free.
dickymint said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
Been answered many times as you know.Just wondering......
It’s been asked loads but never answered directly. Some kind of science teacher is as near to an answer as I saw last time it came up.
Asking questions about it seems to cause anger in the congregation though and then loads of comments about how we shouldn’t trust (actual) scientists and experts.
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
Been answered many times as you know.Just wondering......
It’s been asked loads but never answered directly. Some kind of science teacher is as near to an answer as I saw last time it came up.
Asking questions about it seems to cause anger in the congregation though and then loads of comments about how we shouldn’t trust (actual) scientists and experts.
durbster said:
LongQ said:
One of the more interesting aspects of the way the Climate catastrophe theme is set up is that it replicates and draws on the familiar "crystal ball" approach to "seeing what is in the future".
There is a complete industry out there with "astrologers" using "science" (planetary motion) to predict people's futures based on the alleged movements of some planets.
Astrology is a very strange thing to use as an example of decisions being made based on a "crystal ball" approach to "seeing what's in the future". Some other - less insane examples - could be:There is a complete industry out there with "astrologers" using "science" (planetary motion) to predict people's futures based on the alleged movements of some planets.
Economic policy, migration policy, military policy, traffic management, interest rates, business rates, tax, food supply, gas supply, electricity supply, financial investments, earthquake monitoring systems, tsunami warning systems, volcano eruption monitoring systems, storm and hurricane monitoring systems, flood monitoring systems, bushfire mitigation, agriculture, the entire concept of stock control...
Likewise, if put into a challenging personal situation, far more people will express a believe in the God of their choice than in their political representatives.
These feelings of faith (in whatever) are often extremely strong or can be induced to be that way.
The strongest associations and the ones that are least likely to be abandoned by their believers are those with the least proof. Usually none at all despite being supported by a great body of "evidence".
That's humanity for you. We mostly love to live in some sort of unrealism based on fantasy if we possibly can - even if we don't like to admit that we think of it that way.
No doubt the stars will provide guidance if we start to flounder as a species.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 5th November 20:52
Gandahar said:
BSc in Astronomy, MSc in computer science.
You don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just bks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo .
Shania wants a wordYou don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just b
ks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo . Ali G said:
Gandahar said:
BSc in Astronomy, MSc in computer science.
You don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just bks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo .
Shania wants a wordYou don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just b
ks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo . LongQ said:
I suspect that there are more people of voting age who have faith in their horoscopes on a daily basis than there are who have any confidence at all in our politicians.
Likewise, if put put into a challenging personal situation, for more people will express a believe in the God of their choice than in their political representatives.
These feelings of faith (in whatever) are often extremely strong or can be induced to be that way.
The strongest associations and the ones that are least likely to be abandoned by their believers are those with the least proof. Usually none at all despite being supported by a great body of "evidence".
That's humanity for you. We mostly love to live in some sort of unrealism based on fantasy if we possibly can - even if we don't like to admit that we think of it that way.
No doubt the stars will provide guidance if we start to flounder as a species.
Erm... as is often the case, I'm afraid I don't know what your point is. Likewise, if put put into a challenging personal situation, for more people will express a believe in the God of their choice than in their political representatives.
These feelings of faith (in whatever) are often extremely strong or can be induced to be that way.
The strongest associations and the ones that are least likely to be abandoned by their believers are those with the least proof. Usually none at all despite being supported by a great body of "evidence".
That's humanity for you. We mostly love to live in some sort of unrealism based on fantasy if we possibly can - even if we don't like to admit that we think of it that way.
No doubt the stars will provide guidance if we start to flounder as a species.
That humans are prone to fantasy and confirmation bias is well known. Thankfully, we invented science to address it.
Are you trying to equate atmospheric physics with astrology?
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Gandahar said:
BSc in Astronomy, MSc in computer science.
You don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just bks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo .
Shania wants a wordYou don't need a scientific background to try and judge a non trivial problem? Really? It's just b
ks? You sound like one of the catholic priests judging Galileo . 
zygalski said:
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
Been answered many times as you know.Just wondering......
It’s been asked loads but never answered directly. Some kind of science teacher is as near to an answer as I saw last time it came up.
Asking questions about it seems to cause anger in the congregation though and then loads of comments about how we shouldn’t trust (actual) scientists and experts.
And as dickymint also pointed out, it's all been done before.
The first time was surely one of the weirdest moments in the back catalogue of PH climate threads. A particularly strange individual called me out publicly as a fantasist grocer or similar and wanted to meet me outside a police station with certificates and publications in-hand(s).
I had no intention of getting up close with such an individual and declined their odd custard test but agreed to send scans of my qualifications (four certificates, a degree certificate in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge) and three post-graduate qualifications also from Cambridge; a reference from my PhD supervisor; and publication references, to a sane and entirely neutral third party PHer who neither of us had met or knew outside PH threads.
The weird one claimed to have some academic credentials themselves and told mister neutral how to check it all out, and it all checked out. At this point the strange one apologised grudgingly and stuck around for a while, but not long after they left PH climate threads and later on they left PH as a whole iirc. Hopefully nobody will depart this time.
My background includes the chemistry and physics of planetary atmospheres. The most recent teaching I've done is teaching climate science to international post-graduate science students. I've read the climate science literature closely for well over 30 years, as will be obvious to any independent-minded observer on PH climate threads.
Nothing more detailed will be forthcoming, wholly in keeping with PH privacy and anti-sleuthing rules, also as a result of one hilarious episode that occurred shortly after the strange one went off on one. A green activist presumably on PH wrote to my boss, exposing my heretical tendencies, aiming to stir up trouble and get me sacked. I read the letter with interest but decided not to sack myself. I have no intention of adding more, so assisting any other strange individuals who may wish to disturb the retirement tranquillity of the eminent scientists who worked with not-eminent me.
Some semblance of balance came as a result of another PHer noting that episode and the later similar but less weird event. Their uni was looking for a p/t lecturer on one of their online master's programmes, and I received an invitation to apply. I applied, and got the job, yay! Shockingly I needed to confirm my credentials, again.
The beauty of episodes like this, when believers have a crisis of not coping on-topic and start a group attempt at shooting messengers, is that it represents confirmation of their impotence in arguing their non-case. The closer you are to the target the thicker the flak.
HTH.
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Sufficient!
You guys really don't appreciate being asked the same questions you'll deride others for answering do you.Number 14 is juicy and hot.
1. Are the stepwise time intervals in global climate modes still between 1 and 2 hours in terms of evolution evolution, due to lack of computing power and resulting cost? This would be wholly inadequate (see 6 and 13).
2. What's the atmospheric cell size these days, is it much less than 100km yet? Is it down to the scale of a thunderhead? The scale on which cloud nucleation operates? In the most complex models of the atmosphere and ocean used to study climate (referred to as atmosphere-ocean general circulation models, or AOGCMs), such quantities have been represented by a three-dimensional (longitude-latitude-height) grid with typical horizontal resolutions of several hundred kilometres.
3. Is the ocean cell size still even bigger?
4. Do the climate models still treat the planet's hemispheres as identical for symmetry purposes i.e. as an easy short-cut, when they have such contrasting land-ocean make up?
5. Any progress with rigid paramaterisation, given that models aren't programmed with the pure undiluted laws of physics but about 100 tuned (!) parameterisations go in - and in particular what about the good old vertical profile problem?
6. Sun et al (2012) showed that climate models can't even get surface solar radiation right, with an error more than 20x the claimed forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. What are the modellers doing about that these days?
7. Drawing partly from Sun et al as above, have errors in precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations been addressed?
8. Is anything happening on underestimating the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport?
9. Where have advances in the treatment of poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations got to?
10. How about overestimates of LW exchange in the tropics and underestimates over high latitudes?
11. The initial value problem, that'll be tricky...
12. How many of the dozens of natural forcings are now modelledh including the Svensmark CRF-LLC-albedo mechanism and the Bucha auroral oval forcing (both peer-reviewed published science) and how many have a high LOSU (level of scientific understanding)?
13. Has computing power suddenly increased my many orders of magnitude recently as required for any realistic climate projection that won't take longer than multiples of the age of the universe?
14. Then there's this rather fundamental problem as expressed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report:
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
15. More follows in these refs for anyone interested:
'Climate Prediction as an Initial Value Problem' (Pielke, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society; "Models that simulate and forecast global climate don’t produce the right wobbles, a new study concludes. Despite immense complexity and sophistication, these computer models fail to capture the fluctuations of atmospheric temperatures over months and years." Nature July 2002).
The rigid paramaterisation problem is examined in Mölders and Kramm (Atmos Res, 2009) where the abstract has this “Simulated near-surface air temperatures as well as dew-point temperatures differ about 4 deg C on average depending on the physical packages used. All simulations have difficulties in capturing the full strength of the surface temperature inversion and in simulating strong variations of dew-point temperature profiles” the same type of inaccurate parameterisations gets used in multi-decadal global climate models as used in IPCC reports.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 5th November 18:52
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Gandahar said:
Turbobloke, can I ask what your scientific background is ?
Just wondering......
Been answered many times as you know.Just wondering......
It’s been asked loads but never answered directly. Some kind of science teacher is as near to an answer as I saw last time it came up.
Asking questions about it seems to cause anger in the congregation though and then loads of comments about how we shouldn’t trust (actual) scientists and experts.
And as dickymint also pointed out, it's all been done before.
The first time was surely one of the weirdest moments in the back catalogue of PH climate threads. A particularly strange individual called me out publicly as a fantasist grocer or similar and wanted to meet me outside a police station with certificates and publications in-hand(s).
I had no intention of getting up close with such an individual and declined their odd custard test but agreed to send scans of my qualifications (four certificates, a degree certificate in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge) and three post-graduate qualifications also from Cambridge; a reference from my PhD supervisor; and publication references, to a sane and entirely neutral third party PHer who neither of us had met or knew outside PH threads.
The weird one claimed to have some academic credentials themselves and told mister neutral how to check it all out, and it all checked out. At this point the strange one apologised grudgingly and stuck around for a while, but not long after they left PH climate threads and later on they left PH as a whole iirc. Hopefully nobody will depart this time.
My background includes the chemistry and physics of planetary atmospheres. The most recent teaching I've done is teaching climate science to international post-graduate science students. I've read the climate science literature closely for well over 30 years, as will be obvious to any independent-minded observer on PH climate threads.
Nothing more detailed will be forthcoming, wholly in keeping with PH privacy and anti-sleuthing rules, also as a result of one hilarious episode that occurred shortly after the strange one went off on one. A green activist presumably on PH wrote to my boss, exposing my heretical tendencies, aiming to stir up trouble and get me sacked. I read the letter with interest but decided not to sack myself. I have no intention of adding more, so assisting any other strange individuals who may wish to disturb the retirement tranquillity of the eminent scientists who worked with not-eminent me.
Some semblance of balance came as a result of another PHer noting that episode and the later similar but less weird event. Their uni was looking for a p/t lecturer on one of their online master's programmes, and I received an invitation to apply. I applied, and got the job, yay! Shockingly I needed to confirm my credentials, again.
The beauty of episodes like this, when believers have a crisis of not coping on-topic and start a group attempt at shooting messengers, is that it represents confirmation of their impotence in arguing their non-case. The closer you are to the target the thicker the flak.
HTH.
turbobloke said:
It looks like you don't appreciate the questions below, on climate model inadequacy / failures.
Why are you asking me? I'm not a climate scientist. Oh I see, you're attempting to re-establish your credibility in front of your followers
And why have you have chosen to put these questions to me instead of qualified climate scientists or physicists? Because you'd be exposed.
turbobloke said:
Presumably you lack ready access to the literature none of the advocacy sites offer anything helpful.
This is turbobloke, who has referenced the advocacy blog wattsupwiththat around 700 times in these threads according to Google, trying to undermine me by saying I get my information from advocacy blogs, which I never cite.
Edited by durbster on Sunday 5th November 19:11
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
It looks like you don't appreciate the questions below, on climate model inadequacy / failures. [/quote
Why are you asking me? I'm not a climate scientist.
Oh I see, you're attempting to re-establish your credibility in front of your followers
And why have you have chosen to put these questions to me instead of qualified climate scientists or physicists? Because you'd be exposed.
This is turbobloke, who has referenced the advocacy blog wattsupwiththat around 700 times in these threads according to Google, trying to undermine me by saying I get my information from advocacy blogs, which I never cite.
Why are you asking me? I'm not a climate scientist.
Oh I see, you're attempting to re-establish your credibility in front of your followers
And why have you have chosen to put these questions to me instead of qualified climate scientists or physicists? Because you'd be exposed.
turbobloke said:
Presumably you lack ready access to the literature none of the advocacy sites offer anything helpful.
This is turbobloke, who has referenced the advocacy blog wattsupwiththat around 700 times in these threads according to Google, trying to undermine me by saying I get my information from advocacy blogs, which I never cite.
Ahem, yer a few formatting controls short of a constructive post there durbs.
Note to durbster, the scientific paper references are now at least 701 
you'll know as you counted them all, just like you counted the wuwt refs. Not.
The thing is, this is PH not an academic journal, another thing is that I don't have to rely on advocacy blogs as believers frequently do, and the other thing is that wuwt often covers peer-reviewed scientific papers - so your latest shoot-the-messenger ad hominem logical fallacy fail is as bad as other recent fails. At least you're good at something
you'll know as you counted them all, just like you counted the wuwt refs. Not.The thing is, this is PH not an academic journal, another thing is that I don't have to rely on advocacy blogs as believers frequently do, and the other thing is that wuwt often covers peer-reviewed scientific papers - so your latest shoot-the-messenger ad hominem logical fallacy fail is as bad as other recent fails. At least you're good at something
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff