Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
kerplunk said:
former researcher and university lecturer said:
Climate Models: A Fundamental Failure
Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompani Being very kioed by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...
It's good to see RealClimate mention that the 'new' results sat within the error bars of the 'old', you pointing that out so prominently was very equitable of you.
What's happening with near-surface gridded data and corrections for LULC changes?
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
former researcher and university lecturer said:
Climate Models: A Fundamental Failure
Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompani Being very kioed by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...
It's good to see RealClimate mention that the 'new' results sat within the error bars of the 'old', you pointing that out so prominently was very equitable of you.
What's happening with near-surface gridded data and corrections for LULC changes?
Mann in the climategate email 1485 said:
<1485> Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
turbobloke said:
Nope. A failed smear which may not go down well with well-qualified PH teachers.
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.
you have more patience than me .how many times is that you have responded to the same dross nonsense over the years on here ? are you sure all of the old trolls have departed for pastures new ? sometimes i wonder.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.
While we're in a model (i.e. climate politics as required) attrition loop, here's something that I've posted previously, so a copy and paste - from myself. It demonstrates, for any believer capable of understanding it, yet another insight into how it is that climate models are doomed to failure.
There are serious solvability issues in manipulation of partial differential equations (in modelling) and the shortage of numerical approaches leading to sufficiently accurate results will remain for fundamental reasons, not least until computing power expands by many orders of magnitude.
The complexity of the climate system under investigation requires a vast number of descriptive equations which must be approximated or estimated or indeed ignored to permit even a GIGO solution. Such drastic over-simplification leads to 'models' which have little to do with reality and thus have no predictability value.
Problems involving partial differential equations entail boundary conditions determining the solutions as much or more so than the differential equations themselves. The use of discretisation is equivalent to the introduction of artificial boundary conditions. Discretisations of continuous variable problems may possibly work if there is a sufficient ability to compute stepwise refinements. That ability is lacking here. In general it's impossible to derive differential equations for averaged functions and averaged non-linear dynamics. As a result there's simply no physical foundation for global climate computer models. Exact discretisation has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis in non-linear systems.
Consequently such models are doomed to fail and can only be made to 'succeed' by refining one particular aspect at the expense of others, i.e. tuning after the fact, aided and abetted by data adjustments if needed. This is suboptimisation for the purpose of fiddlefactoring a better headline temperature appearance that media and agw disciples can point to in ignorance of what's really going on.
There are serious solvability issues in manipulation of partial differential equations (in modelling) and the shortage of numerical approaches leading to sufficiently accurate results will remain for fundamental reasons, not least until computing power expands by many orders of magnitude.
The complexity of the climate system under investigation requires a vast number of descriptive equations which must be approximated or estimated or indeed ignored to permit even a GIGO solution. Such drastic over-simplification leads to 'models' which have little to do with reality and thus have no predictability value.
Problems involving partial differential equations entail boundary conditions determining the solutions as much or more so than the differential equations themselves. The use of discretisation is equivalent to the introduction of artificial boundary conditions. Discretisations of continuous variable problems may possibly work if there is a sufficient ability to compute stepwise refinements. That ability is lacking here. In general it's impossible to derive differential equations for averaged functions and averaged non-linear dynamics. As a result there's simply no physical foundation for global climate computer models. Exact discretisation has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis in non-linear systems.
Consequently such models are doomed to fail and can only be made to 'succeed' by refining one particular aspect at the expense of others, i.e. tuning after the fact, aided and abetted by data adjustments if needed. This is suboptimisation for the purpose of fiddlefactoring a better headline temperature appearance that media and agw disciples can point to in ignorance of what's really going on.
wc98 said:
you have more patience than me .how many times is that you have responded to the same dross nonsense over the years on here ? are you sure all of the old trolls have departed for pastures new ? sometimes i wonder.
Three or four in total, only the first event involved any form of custard test as described.Good point about new PH identities...no, not sure. Irony and hypocrisy at astronomical levels from agw disciples is s.o.p. and has beeb since the off. They have nothing credible to offer.
zygalski said:
Anyway, hands up those who think the universe was created in 7 days, like Turbospam's climate guru does?
Oh no, more abuse from a serial troll, flak alert!
Nobody is my climate guru. I don't appeal to authorities and was citing a source which I located in response to a request (or two) for that source to be cited - you must have missed that aspect, by accident no doubt.
Anyway, back atcha. Hands up those believers who think that climate change is 'a moral issue which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets, and for the public at large to accept the necessary consequences, so that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference.' as per a former (UK) Chair of the IPCC...more than will admit it according to a Google search
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Wow, a web developer! Not exactly the credentials to put faith in that you know anything AGW, other than what you get by Googleing for stuff.
I've never claimed to be an expert. My position is simply that I think peer-reviewed science is better evidence than internet blogs.You regularly claim you know better than the experts, so you're the one who would need to prove your credentials. I don't make such claims, so I don't need to.
2017 'very likely' in top three warmest years on record
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
The year 2017 is "very likely" to be in the top three warmest years on record, according to provisional figures from the World Meteorological Organization.
The WMO says it will likely be the hottest year in the absence of the El Niño phenomenon.
The scientists argue that the long-term trend of warming driven by human activities continues unabated.
They say many of the "extraordinary" weather events seen this year bear the hallmarks of climate change...................continues
A magnifiocent examlpe of CC
"The past three years have all been in the top three years in terms of temperature records. This is part of a long-term warming trend," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. "We have witnessed extraordinary weather, including temperatures topping 50C in Asia, record-breaking hurricanes in rapid succession in the Caribbean and Atlantic, (and) reaching as far as Ireland, devastating monsoon flooding affecting many millions of people and a relentless drought in East Africa. Many of these events - and detailed scientific studies will determine exactly how many - bear the tell-tale sign of climate change caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities," he said.
That's the bloody weather you idiot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
The year 2017 is "very likely" to be in the top three warmest years on record, according to provisional figures from the World Meteorological Organization.
The WMO says it will likely be the hottest year in the absence of the El Niño phenomenon.
The scientists argue that the long-term trend of warming driven by human activities continues unabated.
They say many of the "extraordinary" weather events seen this year bear the hallmarks of climate change...................continues
A magnifiocent examlpe of CC
"The past three years have all been in the top three years in terms of temperature records. This is part of a long-term warming trend," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. "We have witnessed extraordinary weather, including temperatures topping 50C in Asia, record-breaking hurricanes in rapid succession in the Caribbean and Atlantic, (and) reaching as far as Ireland, devastating monsoon flooding affecting many millions of people and a relentless drought in East Africa. Many of these events - and detailed scientific studies will determine exactly how many - bear the tell-tale sign of climate change caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities," he said.
That's the bloody weather you idiot
Joke alert!
COP23 Travel arrangements for Delegates visiting Bonn.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/8774930664579...
COP23 Travel arrangements for Delegates visiting Bonn.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/8774930664579...
Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-...
After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-...
After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field.
robinessex said:
2017 'very likely' in top three warmest years on record
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
The year 2017 is "very likely" to be in the top three warmest years on record, according to provisional figures from the World Meteorological Organization.
The WMO says it will likely be the hottest year in the absence of the El Niño phenomenon.
The scientists argue that the long-term trend of warming driven by human activities continues unabated.
They say many of the "extraordinary" weather events seen this year bear the hallmarks of climate change...................continues
A magnifiocent examlpe of CC
"The past three years have all been in the top three years in terms of temperature records. This is part of a long-term warming trend," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. "We have witnessed extraordinary weather, including temperatures topping 50C in Asia, record-breaking hurricanes in rapid succession in the Caribbean and Atlantic, (and) reaching as far as Ireland, devastating monsoon flooding affecting many millions of people and a relentless drought in East Africa. Many of these events - and detailed scientific studies will determine exactly how many - bear the tell-tale sign of climate change caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities," he said.
That's the bloody weather you idiot
Comments section quite is entertaining to say the least!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4185...
The year 2017 is "very likely" to be in the top three warmest years on record, according to provisional figures from the World Meteorological Organization.
The WMO says it will likely be the hottest year in the absence of the El Niño phenomenon.
The scientists argue that the long-term trend of warming driven by human activities continues unabated.
They say many of the "extraordinary" weather events seen this year bear the hallmarks of climate change...................continues
A magnifiocent examlpe of CC
"The past three years have all been in the top three years in terms of temperature records. This is part of a long-term warming trend," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. "We have witnessed extraordinary weather, including temperatures topping 50C in Asia, record-breaking hurricanes in rapid succession in the Caribbean and Atlantic, (and) reaching as far as Ireland, devastating monsoon flooding affecting many millions of people and a relentless drought in East Africa. Many of these events - and detailed scientific studies will determine exactly how many - bear the tell-tale sign of climate change caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities," he said.
That's the bloody weather you idiot
Without wishing to demonstrate any confirmation bias, it would appear to be a situation similar to a scenario in which the message is not quite getting through?
I guess it will be extra-Harrabin with exploding bears, glaciers aflame and tidal-tornados tonight then!
Can't wait.
zygalski said:
Anyway, hands up those who think the universe was created in 7 days, like Turbospam's climate guru does?
hands up everyone that thinks every issue turbobloke has highlighted with climate models is correct as evidenced by the statement by the ipcc on the the aforementioned models . all models are wrong, some are useful, some are gigo ,like climate models.wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Anyway, hands up those who think the universe was created in 7 days, like Turbospam's climate guru does?
hands up everyone that thinks every issue turbobloke has highlighted with climate models is correct as evidenced by the statement by the ipcc on the the aforementioned models . all models are wrong, some are useful, some are gigo ,like climate models.With all the variables needed, it will never produce an answer. The calculation is due to Dr W Soon (Harvard Smithsonian Centre) and it showed that a full model of the climate system covering relevant variables at all spatial scales used to run a 50 year projection would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputer time as at that date.
This is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the current age of the universe.
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Jeez, I'm a web developer - you'd think I'd get the part I do know about right 
seeing as we are back on the personal digs did you have a hand in the (non) skeptical science website ? Believe it or not, outside of this thread I give this subject very little thought.
I've said before but I'm more interested in the psychology of people who reject science when it reveals something they're uncomfortable with. Bulls
t on the internet, and people's inability to recognise it, is a growing problem and needs addressing.Edited by durbster on Monday 6th November 17:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff