Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
I'll quote an entire paragraph from that link Crispmartha:
"Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
So climate data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold! 2014 is very different from 1992!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
Where does he say they are ‘wrong’, anyway will you accept that one of TBs favourite go to quotes is vastly out of date and highly misleading? "Monitoring of what is happening is clearly essential to see how climate change and variability are unfolding - such as the current observed “pause” or hiatus, now that climate predictions have long been made and need continuously evaluating. Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!.
So climate data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold! 2014 is very different from 1992!"
Interesting reading ... models were wrong then and they're wrong now. Oh and the pause/hiatus gets a mention too; who would have thunk it?
"Thus the observed climate warming “pause” is leading to new insights into climate variability which will likely eventually lead to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions. Not surprisingly, the greatly increased interest and range of applications of global climate data has lead to an explosion in the development of many kinds of such data sets since the mid 1990s, and developments continue to accelerate as the observed data now matter very much!"
Of course the final locution, 'the observed data now matter very much,' is 1. an admission that that was not always the case when the obverse was true and 2. this is their biggest challenge - reconciling the gulf between models and reality.
WRT Turbobloke's quote being vastly out of date, well it's neither here nor there since the repercussions of such practices (i/e the data don't matter) are still being felt (CAGW is a product of model outputs not observed data) and as any fule know the models are wrong. WRT your assertion that its misleading, well, the geezer did actually say it. This was but one among a litany of wilful abuses of science that we're all paying dearly for now.
The Pause confirmed what was known already - from the data not from inadequate modelling - that noisy natural variation overwhelms whatever invisibly small effect carbon dioxide has had. Hence the CO2 long holiday.
The date thing is hilarious. Time wipes out what people admit - no, that's not right. In similar words it's still being said.
The date thing is hilarious. Time wipes out what people admit - no, that's not right. In similar words it's still being said.
El stovey said:
You’re quoting him as evidence (in bold) of being asked to do something dodgy and he’s saying it’s almost as bad as what the sceptics are already doing.
So are the sceptics the accepted standard in dishonesty that the AGW scientists have to avoid stooping to then?
Seems an odd passage for you to quote as evidence of AGW dishonesty, when it clearly states your side are dishonest?
re the bit in bold,it seems odd this is the only part of the quote you respond to ,is that dishonest, or just poor eyesight ?So are the sceptics the accepted standard in dishonesty that the AGW scientists have to avoid stooping to then?
Seems an odd passage for you to quote as evidence of AGW dishonesty, when it clearly states your side are dishonest?
my opinion on that part is he is talking about greenhouse effect sceptics,the small number of people that claim the greenhouse effect doesn't exist at all,but to be certain you would have to ask him, maybe durbs would email him on your behalf ,he is good at that
politics and propaganda indeed.
In this email we get an insight into how the politics of propaganda completely overrode
[/b]the rules of good scientific practice, when it came to publications on “climate science”.[/b]
Steve Schneider of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University in the
United States complains to a number of his international colleagues:
… please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66%
subjective probability range. It will convey a completely different meaning
to lay persons—read decision makers—since that probability range
represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like
“quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as
well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be
misinterpreted on the outside.
In this email we get an insight into how the politics of propaganda completely overrode
[/b]the rules of good scientific practice, when it came to publications on “climate science”.[/b]
Steve Schneider of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University in the
United States complains to a number of his international colleagues:
… please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66%
subjective probability range. It will convey a completely different meaning
to lay persons—read decision makers—since that probability range
represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like
“quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as
well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be
misinterpreted on the outside.
Trump’s main man at NASA turns from Denier to Believer.
Whilst casting off the ideological shackles.
https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-nasa-chief-chan...
But now, just six weeks into his tenure as NASA administrator, Bridenstine stated that he has "evolved" on climate change.
"I don't deny the consensus," Bridenstine said at a NASA town hall meeting. "I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way."
When asked why he changed his mind, Bridenstine told The Washington Post, "I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot. I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere, and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen."
Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.
"We spend over $100 million dollars annually … on carbon monitoring at NASA," Bridenstine told a small group of reporters at NASA's Washington D.C. headquarters. "We're committed to that. And I'm committed to that."
Bridenstine's apparently genuine coming around to the facts of climate change is commendable and makes him a scientific hero of sorts. Too many scientific issues, most notably GMOs and climate change, are viewed through the lens of ideology. It's refreshing to see a politician publicly change his mind to move in line with scientific evidence.
Whilst casting off the ideological shackles.
https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-nasa-chief-chan...
But now, just six weeks into his tenure as NASA administrator, Bridenstine stated that he has "evolved" on climate change.
"I don't deny the consensus," Bridenstine said at a NASA town hall meeting. "I believe fully in climate change and that we human beings are contributing to it in a major way."
When asked why he changed his mind, Bridenstine told The Washington Post, "I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot. I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere, and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen."
Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.
"We spend over $100 million dollars annually … on carbon monitoring at NASA," Bridenstine told a small group of reporters at NASA's Washington D.C. headquarters. "We're committed to that. And I'm committed to that."
Bridenstine's apparently genuine coming around to the facts of climate change is commendable and makes him a scientific hero of sorts. Too many scientific issues, most notably GMOs and climate change, are viewed through the lens of ideology. It's refreshing to see a politician publicly change his mind to move in line with scientific evidence.
This letter from Folland_plus_one in Physics World puts f-the-data in print.
The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
You’re quoting him as evidence (in bold) of being asked to do something dodgy and he’s saying it’s almost as bad as what the sceptics are already doing.
So are the sceptics the accepted standard in dishonesty that the AGW scientists have to avoid stooping to then?
Seems an odd passage for you to quote as evidence of AGW dishonesty, when it clearly states your side are dishonest?
re the bit in bold,it seems odd this is the only part of the quote you respond to ,is that dishonest, or just poor eyesight ?So are the sceptics the accepted standard in dishonesty that the AGW scientists have to avoid stooping to then?
Seems an odd passage for you to quote as evidence of AGW dishonesty, when it clearly states your side are dishonest?
my opinion on that part is he is talking about greenhouse effect sceptics,the small number of people that claim the greenhouse effect doesn't exist at all,but to be certain you would have to ask him, maybe durbs would email him on your behalf ,he is good at that
TBH I only read the bit in bold that you highlighted. None of us with jobs have got time to read all your teams click and paste stuff.
Sometimes people check it out and it’s misrepresented or there are links to papers that actually completely contradict the poster using it as evidence. So perhaps it best if we don’t?
Another “warrior” for the skeptic side who actually looked at the evidence and changed his mind.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/i-...
And this one’s a Libertarian too.
He got paid to go on television to decry the science behind global warming and wrote talking points for conservatives and Republicans to attack those who advocate taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
“As long as you’re telling Republicans and conservatives what they want to hear and you say it with a healthy dose of snarling about Susie Cream Cheese and tree huggers,” said Taylor, “you’re probably just fine.”
Taylor is the only known paid skeptic to change his tune. “Most people aren’t in the business of looking skeptically at things they already agree with,” he said. “I wish I had done the due diligence with the arguments I was trafficking earlier in my career; I do regret that. I feel I have a lot to make up for.”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/i-...
And this one’s a Libertarian too.
He got paid to go on television to decry the science behind global warming and wrote talking points for conservatives and Republicans to attack those who advocate taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
“As long as you’re telling Republicans and conservatives what they want to hear and you say it with a healthy dose of snarling about Susie Cream Cheese and tree huggers,” said Taylor, “you’re probably just fine.”
Taylor is the only known paid skeptic to change his tune. “Most people aren’t in the business of looking skeptically at things they already agree with,” he said. “I wish I had done the due diligence with the arguments I was trafficking earlier in my career; I do regret that. I feel I have a lot to make up for.”
El stovey said:
Ok but we don’t need to email him to ask about the other bits you quoted that you agree with? We just have to email him about the bit where he looks like he’s saying your side are dishonest?
TBH I only read the bit in bold that you highlighted. None of us with jobs have got time to read all your teams click and paste stuff.
Sometimes people check it out and it’s misrepresented or there are links to papers that actually completely contradict the poster using it as evidence. So perhaps it best if we don’t?
ahhh, the usual bait and switch,never gets old with the appeal to authority brigade. too busy with your job? you replying from the left or right seat today. you seem to have plenty time to type a similar thing over and over without adding much ,if anything to the actual debate TBH I only read the bit in bold that you highlighted. None of us with jobs have got time to read all your teams click and paste stuff.
Sometimes people check it out and it’s misrepresented or there are links to papers that actually completely contradict the poster using it as evidence. So perhaps it best if we don’t?
my side dishonest ? if you can find a single quote of mine where i deny the existence of the greenhouse effect (poorly named ,but we would be feckin cold without it) you might have a point, but as usual you have absolutely nothing, nada. you have been shown time and time again where the private opinion of the very scientists you think support your position differs greatly from that which they make public. even the ipcc caveat their claims with terms like possible, likely etc.
if you can manage to squint and read the non bold print from now until cop24 you will see more evidence where some of the experts attempts at actual science are thwarted by a small select group of gatekeepers hell bent on promoting a political narrative.
gadgetmac said:
Another “warrior” for the skeptic side who actually looked at the evidence and changed his mind.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/i-...
And this one’s a Libertarian too.
He got paid to go on television to decry the science behind global warming and wrote talking points for conservatives and Republicans to attack those who advocate taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
“As long as you’re telling Republicans and conservatives what they want to hear and you say it with a healthy dose of snarling about Susie Cream Cheese and tree huggers,” said Taylor, “you’re probably just fine.”
Taylor is the only known paid skeptic to change his tune. “Most people aren’t in the business of looking skeptically at things they already agree with,” he said. “I wish I had done the due diligence with the arguments I was trafficking earlier in my career; I do regret that. I feel I have a lot to make up for.”
Another warrior for climate change but only when he realised just how much money his not for profit organisation could get from the "other side"https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/i-...
And this one’s a Libertarian too.
He got paid to go on television to decry the science behind global warming and wrote talking points for conservatives and Republicans to attack those who advocate taking action to mitigate the effects of climate change.
“As long as you’re telling Republicans and conservatives what they want to hear and you say it with a healthy dose of snarling about Susie Cream Cheese and tree huggers,” said Taylor, “you’re probably just fine.”
Taylor is the only known paid skeptic to change his tune. “Most people aren’t in the business of looking skeptically at things they already agree with,” he said. “I wish I had done the due diligence with the arguments I was trafficking earlier in my career; I do regret that. I feel I have a lot to make up for.”
turbobloke said:
This letter from Folland_plus_one in Physics World puts f-the-data in print.
The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
well the estimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 hasn't changed among the consensus group. wonder how many millions, maybe billions ? have been spent purely on modelling alone since then ? i read somewhere a few years back one run was around a million and a half quid.scratch that, it's worse than i thought The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
https://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/09/whats-the...turbobloke said:
This letter from Folland_plus_one in Physics World puts f-the-data in print.
The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
Still banging on and ignoring the context (or should that be deleting?)The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
That must be the letter that Folland refers to in the doc that chrismarptha posted:
The attached published letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself and one of the then IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators tried to accurately reflect the general view at that time (1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s. This view was soon to change greatly; notice that the letter looks forward at its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate, and to nations' policy actions and concerns.
.....
So climate data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold!
So, clearly below the (ahem) 'unfortunate' snip they'd been discussing the growing importance of the obs in the future.
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
This letter from Folland_plus_one in Physics World puts f-the-data in print.
The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
Still banging on and ignoring the context (or should that be deleting?)The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
That must be the letter that Folland refers to in the doc that chrismarptha posted:
The attached published letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself and one of the then IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators tried to accurately reflect the general view at that time (1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s. This view was soon to change greatly; notice that the letter looks forward at its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate, and to nations' policy actions and concerns.
.....
So climate data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold!
So, clearly below the (ahem) 'unfortunate' snip they'd been discussing the growing importance of the obs in the future.
kerplunk said:
So, clearly below the (ahem) 'unfortunate' snip they'd been discussing the growing importance of the obs in the future.
Well that's a relief KP. 
The damage is already done (trillions wasted on the basis of GIGO) but the problem is of course that if the data do really matter now then the data just serve to demonstrate that the models are systematically and systemically wrong. And the fact that no one saw the pause coming, a pause which he points out will '[lead] to new insights into climate variability ... [and] to improved ability to make decadal to multidecadal predictions', simply demonstrates how little the climate is understood. But of course, fireball earth is a dead cert if we all keep breathing out. You couldn't make it up, but of course they did. Edited by Diderot on Thursday 20th September 19:58
gadgetmac said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
This letter from Folland_plus_one in Physics World puts f-the-data in print.
The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
Still banging on and ignoring the context (or should that be deleting?)The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
That must be the letter that Folland refers to in the doc that chrismarptha posted:
The attached published letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself and one of the then IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators tried to accurately reflect the general view at that time (1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s. This view was soon to change greatly; notice that the letter looks forward at its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate, and to nations' policy actions and concerns.
.....
So climate data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold!
So, clearly below the (ahem) 'unfortunate' snip they'd been discussing the growing importance of the obs in the future.
kerplunk said:
gadgetmac said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
This letter from Folland_plus_one in Physics World puts f-the-data in print.
The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
Still banging on and ignoring the context (or should that be deleting?)The selection chosen for this pic will doubtless get pro-agw trolls back on the trolly path but the content in this long (column cm) letter below the snip is really uninspiring for the faith with lots of ifs, as anyone can see if they wish to dig out the entire piece...if the enhanced greenhouse effect is correct, if the climate models are gospel, basically if our belief in our own faith is justified and so on and so forth.
However the first couple of paragraphs and the closing sentence are very clear and pertinent. After all what’s happened since the letter was written (1993) except three half-decent El Nino events and The Pause. No sell-by date in sight and The Holiday continues.
That must be the letter that Folland refers to in the doc that chrismarptha posted:
The attached published letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself and one of the then IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators tried to accurately reflect the general view at that time (1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s. This view was soon to change greatly; notice that the letter looks forward at its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate, and to nations' policy actions and concerns.
.....
So climate data are now very much key to the climate change debate as the attached published letter foretold!
So, clearly below the (ahem) 'unfortunate' snip they'd been discussing the growing importance of the obs in the future.
Focusing on personal angles and resorting to ad homs is an obsession with agw supporters defeated before the off.
The original statement and the letter content remain s.o.p. (whole letter not found but agw supporters are still making claims..seeing invisible things has never been so good).
There was no discussion of 'the growing importance of the obs in the future' but there were ifs and ifs and more ifs as posted. The 'obs' are sidelined in favour of model gigo as per the final sentence.
The only mention of 'obs' states "Observational evidence of global temperature over the last century shows a rise of approximately half a degree. Not outside the range of natural climate variability but a sizeable rise. However, on its own this evidence proves nothing about the vause of the warming."
We know today from NOAA info that this 'sizeable rise' is 'approximately' equal to the total adjustments in the data, to a very good approximation in fact.
Not outside the range of natural climate variability. Quite right.
Proves nothing about the cause. Spot on, no causality.
Towards the end, rather than assert anything about 'the growing importance of the obs' the letter states "So in the face if such fuzzy evidence, why is global warming being taken so seriously? It comes down to three 'ifs', all of which arise from the models (or the physics, chemistry and biology embodied therein).rather than from the observations."
Fuzzy evidence is a bit fuzzy itself but it's nearly there.
It comes down to the models rather than the observations, indeed.
As to 'physics, chemistry and biology embodied therein' there's an error of omission. Models don't include just physics, chemistry and biology as they contain many tens of paramaterisations where models can't cope with the science not least because of inadequate spatial and temporal resolution, also unmanageable complexity. Don't take my word for it, check out "parameterized processes" sometimes spelt 'parametrized' / 'parametrizations' and similar in readily available information on climate models. Check it out with IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch8.
Clearly the data is important, in fact it's of paramount importance. Consider supposedly meaningful climate model output and fantasy fiction side-by-side. The only means of distinguishing between the climate model output and fantasy fiction is to undertake a comparison between both and the data. As shown in this thread and other PH climate threads many times, the result of such a comparison is that model output does not agree withthe data. 70+ climate models can't get it right about the tropical troposphere temperature trend. Failures occur with feedbacks, vertical profile, ENSO and more besides as per evidence already posted. Fantasy fiction is driving policy.
turbobloke said:
The original statement and the letter content remain s.o.p.
So this is incorrect?“The attached published letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself and one of the then IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators tried to accurately reflect the general view at that time (1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s. This view was soon to change greatly; notice that the letter looks forward at its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate.”
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
The original statement and the letter content remain s.o.p.
So this is incorrect?“The attached published letter written in an Institute of Physics journal by myself and one of the then IPCC Working Group 1 coordinators tried to accurately reflect the general view at that time (1993). It reflects accurately what I was trying to say the year or so before. Please quote these words as appropriate – but they were only appropriate in the early 1990s. This view was soon to change greatly; notice that the letter looks forward at its end to a greatly increased importance of climate data to the climate change debate.”
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff