Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Diderot said:
Your logical and verbal reasonable is appalling. No the but the irony of the closing sentence is not lost on those with two braincells to rub together. And as we know, the models don't match the data because they are inept.
Your input and error checking is attrocious. But then you’re a denier And thats clearly what you meant to say - it’s set in stone now. See Folland for details
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
Your logical and verbal reasonable is appalling. No the but the irony of the closing sentence is not lost on those with two braincells to rub together. And as we know, the models don't match the data because they are inept.
Your input and error checking is attrocious. But then you’re a denier 
Today's what pills are they taking story from the Guardian: Build Walls on the Seafloor to Stop Glaciers Melting
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/2...
Summary: they used models. We're all going to sink or melt or something bad will happen. 2 degrees has now been replaced by 1.5 degrees as the only way we can save something or other from happening perhaps at some unspecified time in the future. But please keep the funding rolling in cos it's important research, honest.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/2...
Summary: they used models. We're all going to sink or melt or something bad will happen. 2 degrees has now been replaced by 1.5 degrees as the only way we can save something or other from happening perhaps at some unspecified time in the future. But please keep the funding rolling in cos it's important research, honest.
turbobloke said:
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.
turbobloke said:
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.
In that case this is a great opportunity for you to prove Folland a liar then isn't it, because he clearly states they did discuss that. All you have to do is post up the unabridged letter which you apparently possess.
Another bunch of scientists join the list. Still not hearing of any scientific institution or Government body arguing against AGW. 
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
LoonyTunes said:
Another bunch of scientists join the list. Still not hearing of any scientific institution or Government body arguing against AGW.
1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society - (sans Hal Lewis - Emeritus Professor at UC Santa Barbara who resigned in disgust over APS's political statement)
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
Resignation letter available here1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society - (sans Hal Lewis - Emeritus Professor at UC Santa Barbara who resigned in disgust over APS's political statement)
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
Jinx said:
Response here:https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201011/me...
Quote:
Callan, in his reply, criticized Lewis’s speculation about the role of financial interest in determining the attitude of physicists to climate change as unacceptably disrespectful of the intellectual integrity of his scientific colleagues. He also noted that Lewis’s statement about the reliance of Callan’s department on climate science funding was wrong, as the actual level of such funding was precisely zero.
In his letter to Lewis, Callan also addressed the issue of the formation of the new topical group, explaining that, far from being rejected, the proposal for a topical group focusing on the physics of climate had met with enthusiastic acceptance and was being implemented (see October APS News). Callan closed his letter by saying that, while he respected Lewis’s decision to resign, it was a pity that, by doing so, he was cutting himself off from participating in the very APS initiative he had called for.
And thats one resignation over 8 years ago.
gadgetmac said:
Response here:
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201011/me...
Quote:
Callan, in his reply, criticized Lewis’s speculation about the role of financial interest in determining the attitude of physicists to climate change as unacceptably disrespectful of the intellectual integrity of his scientific colleagues. He also noted that Lewis’s statement about the reliance of Callan’s department on climate science funding was wrong, as the actual level of such funding was precisely zero.
In his letter to Lewis, Callan also addressed the issue of the formation of the new topical group, explaining that, far from being rejected, the proposal for a topical group focusing on the physics of climate had met with enthusiastic acceptance and was being implemented (see October APS News). Callan closed his letter by saying that, while he respected Lewis’s decision to resign, it was a pity that, by doing so, he was cutting himself off from participating in the very APS initiative he had called for.
And thats one resignation over 8 years ago.
And we all know how that turned out ( climate etc)https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201011/me...
Quote:
Callan, in his reply, criticized Lewis’s speculation about the role of financial interest in determining the attitude of physicists to climate change as unacceptably disrespectful of the intellectual integrity of his scientific colleagues. He also noted that Lewis’s statement about the reliance of Callan’s department on climate science funding was wrong, as the actual level of such funding was precisely zero.
In his letter to Lewis, Callan also addressed the issue of the formation of the new topical group, explaining that, far from being rejected, the proposal for a topical group focusing on the physics of climate had met with enthusiastic acceptance and was being implemented (see October APS News). Callan closed his letter by saying that, while he respected Lewis’s decision to resign, it was a pity that, by doing so, he was cutting himself off from participating in the very APS initiative he had called for.
And thats one resignation over 8 years ago.
TL:DR APS does not come out very well.
gadgetmac said:
Vanden Saab said:
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"
Got a link for that?list of Niskanen centre doners include the Lawrence Linden trust, The Rockefeller brothers fund and the Hewlett foundation.
almost $2 million worth a year with 1 million in salaries and no tax to pay handy really when you are advocating a carbon tax.... worth changing your views for it seems
kerplunk said:
In that case this is a great opportunity for you to prove Folland a liar then isn't it, because he clearly states they did discuss that.
All you have to do is post up the unabridged letter which you apparently possess.
So turbobloke has posted again but not in reply to this - quelle surprise.All you have to do is post up the unabridged letter which you apparently possess.
Chris Folland has been less circumspect though and this morning he sent me an unabridged copy of the letter on request. So to recap:
turbobloke said:
There was no discussion of 'the growing importance of the obs in the future'
The letter below 'the fold' said:
In the future, if the enhanced greenhouse effect is real and significant, then it's signal will begin to become detectable in the observations, hence the considerable effort being invested in international programmes to improve the observational datasets
https://i.imgur.com/B2fLUrv.jpgkerplunk said:
The letter below 'the fold' said:
In the future, if the enhanced greenhouse effect is real and significant, then it's signal will begin to become detectable in the observations, hence the considerable effort being invested in international programmes to improve the observational datasets
https://i.imgur.com/B2fLUrv.jpgSo whilst the effort to improve observational datasets is to be lauded (better data is always a good thing - IMHO (and what my professional life survives on)) this should be the goal in itself not from a misguided belief that the signal is there and it just hasn't been found yet (that's a hockey stick kind of thinking).
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
The letter below 'the fold' said:
In the future, if the enhanced greenhouse effect is real and significant, then it's signal will begin to become detectable in the observations, hence the considerable effort being invested in international programmes to improve the observational datasets
https://i.imgur.com/B2fLUrv.jpgSo whilst the effort to improve observational datasets is to be lauded (better data is always a good thing - IMHO (and what my professional life survives on)) this should be the goal in itself not from a misguided belief that the signal is there and it just hasn't been found yet (that's a hockey stick kind of thinking).
Hey Jinx this is about quote-mining, the removal of context, misrepresentation, and I'm afraid to say, outright lying about what a reputable scientist did/didn't say. Anything to say about that?
turbobloke said:
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."
...
There was no discussion of 'the growing importance of the obs in the future'
...
There was no discussion of 'the growing importance of the obs in the future'
Prof Folland's reply was generously long seeing as I only asked for a copy of the letter with a brief reason for the request. He's given me the nod to share it:
On 21/09/2018 11:43, Folland, Chris wrote:
Hi Philip
I attach the full letter which accurately reflected the position in 1993 but looked forward to the changes - with respect to observations in climate change science - that actually occurred from the 1996 IPCC Report onwards. (bottom para, first column of letter). Models and observations have had comparable weight over about the last 2 decades, partly due to the development of “Optimum Detection” described in detail in the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, with published developments since then and partly due to the great improvements in, length of, and confidence in much observed climate data.
I have recently published a mostly observational paper dissecting the causes of recent global mean surface temperature change since 1891, attached, that reflects the current and recent essential role of observations in the climate change debate. This is an open access paper, available free to all, via the Science Advances journal web site.
A key influence on the observational aspects of the climate change debate since the early 1990s has been the markedly increased warming of the climate since then. I find it difficult to understand why some sceptics persistently don’t accept that science and the world itself continually evolves. 1993 was a quarter of a century ago!
I hope this helps – it would be good to have any feedback you can give when ready.
Best wishes
Chris
On 21/09/2018 11:43, Folland, Chris wrote:
Hi Philip
I attach the full letter which accurately reflected the position in 1993 but looked forward to the changes - with respect to observations in climate change science - that actually occurred from the 1996 IPCC Report onwards. (bottom para, first column of letter). Models and observations have had comparable weight over about the last 2 decades, partly due to the development of “Optimum Detection” described in detail in the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, with published developments since then and partly due to the great improvements in, length of, and confidence in much observed climate data.
I have recently published a mostly observational paper dissecting the causes of recent global mean surface temperature change since 1891, attached, that reflects the current and recent essential role of observations in the climate change debate. This is an open access paper, available free to all, via the Science Advances journal web site.
A key influence on the observational aspects of the climate change debate since the early 1990s has been the markedly increased warming of the climate since then. I find it difficult to understand why some sceptics persistently don’t accept that science and the world itself continually evolves. 1993 was a quarter of a century ago!
I hope this helps – it would be good to have any feedback you can give when ready.
Best wishes
Chris
That's disingenuous: CAGW is largely based on the GIGO that was peddled as science by these people. No sympathy for any remorse now. Yes science evolves - hence why it's never settled. Perhaps you might find a moment to ask him whether he would equate pinning a tail on a donkey with climate modelling.
Diderot said:
That's disingenuous: CAGW is largely based on the GIGO that was peddled as science by these people. No sympathy for any remorse now. Yes science evolves - hence why it's never settled. Perhaps you might find a moment to ask him whether he would equate pinning a tail on a donkey with climate modelling.
I don't see any expression of remorse and none is due.kerplunk said:
Prof Folland's reply was generously long seeing as I only asked for a copy of the letter with a brief reason for the request. He's given me the nod to share it:
On 21/09/2018 11:43, Folland, Chris wrote:
Hi Philip
I attach the full letter which accurately reflected the position in 1993 but looked forward to the changes - with respect to observations in climate change science - that actually occurred from the 1996 IPCC Report onwards. (bottom para, first column of letter). Models and observations have had comparable weight over about the last 2 decades, partly due to the development of “Optimum Detection” described in detail in the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, with published developments since then and partly due to the great improvements in, length of, and confidence in much observed climate data.
I have recently published a mostly observational paper dissecting the causes of recent global mean surface temperature change since 1891, attached, that reflects the current and recent essential role of observations in the climate change debate. This is an open access paper, available free to all, via the Science Advances journal web site.
A key influence on the observational aspects of the climate change debate since the early 1990s has been the markedly increased warming of the climate since then. I find it difficult to understand why some sceptics persistently don’t accept that science and the world itself continually evolves. 1993 was a quarter of a century ago!
I hope this helps – it would be good to have any feedback you can give when ready.
Best wishes
Chris
i think i will email and ask him why after 25 years of climate science advance the estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 hasn't changed ? On 21/09/2018 11:43, Folland, Chris wrote:
Hi Philip
I attach the full letter which accurately reflected the position in 1993 but looked forward to the changes - with respect to observations in climate change science - that actually occurred from the 1996 IPCC Report onwards. (bottom para, first column of letter). Models and observations have had comparable weight over about the last 2 decades, partly due to the development of “Optimum Detection” described in detail in the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, with published developments since then and partly due to the great improvements in, length of, and confidence in much observed climate data.
I have recently published a mostly observational paper dissecting the causes of recent global mean surface temperature change since 1891, attached, that reflects the current and recent essential role of observations in the climate change debate. This is an open access paper, available free to all, via the Science Advances journal web site.
A key influence on the observational aspects of the climate change debate since the early 1990s has been the markedly increased warming of the climate since then. I find it difficult to understand why some sceptics persistently don’t accept that science and the world itself continually evolves. 1993 was a quarter of a century ago!
I hope this helps – it would be good to have any feedback you can give when ready.
Best wishes
Chris
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
Prof Folland's reply was generously long seeing as I only asked for a copy of the letter with a brief reason for the request. He's given me the nod to share it:
On 21/09/2018 11:43, Folland, Chris wrote:
Hi Philip
I attach the full letter which accurately reflected the position in 1993 but looked forward to the changes - with respect to observations in climate change science - that actually occurred from the 1996 IPCC Report onwards. (bottom para, first column of letter). Models and observations have had comparable weight over about the last 2 decades, partly due to the development of “Optimum Detection” described in detail in the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, with published developments since then and partly due to the great improvements in, length of, and confidence in much observed climate data.
I have recently published a mostly observational paper dissecting the causes of recent global mean surface temperature change since 1891, attached, that reflects the current and recent essential role of observations in the climate change debate. This is an open access paper, available free to all, via the Science Advances journal web site.
A key influence on the observational aspects of the climate change debate since the early 1990s has been the markedly increased warming of the climate since then. I find it difficult to understand why some sceptics persistently don’t accept that science and the world itself continually evolves. 1993 was a quarter of a century ago!
I hope this helps – it would be good to have any feedback you can give when ready.
Best wishes
Chris
i think i will email and ask him why after 25 years of climate science advance the estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 hasn't changed ? On 21/09/2018 11:43, Folland, Chris wrote:
Hi Philip
I attach the full letter which accurately reflected the position in 1993 but looked forward to the changes - with respect to observations in climate change science - that actually occurred from the 1996 IPCC Report onwards. (bottom para, first column of letter). Models and observations have had comparable weight over about the last 2 decades, partly due to the development of “Optimum Detection” described in detail in the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, with published developments since then and partly due to the great improvements in, length of, and confidence in much observed climate data.
I have recently published a mostly observational paper dissecting the causes of recent global mean surface temperature change since 1891, attached, that reflects the current and recent essential role of observations in the climate change debate. This is an open access paper, available free to all, via the Science Advances journal web site.
A key influence on the observational aspects of the climate change debate since the early 1990s has been the markedly increased warming of the climate since then. I find it difficult to understand why some sceptics persistently don’t accept that science and the world itself continually evolves. 1993 was a quarter of a century ago!
I hope this helps – it would be good to have any feedback you can give when ready.
Best wishes
Chris
As to the continued focus on opinion rather than data, it can be a beluga. So "science and the world itself constantly evolves" - of course, so the science isn't settled after all. We've got that in writing now.
Moving on to the world aspect, this was a key element of at least two of my recent posts where I pointed out that since the 'data' statement and the letter, what we've seen is three half-decent El Ninos and The Pause.
Models aren't evolving in the sense that spatial and temporal resolution are still inadequate, too many paramaterisations remain, etc and 70+ models still get the tropical troposphere temperature trend wrong.
The world isn't evolving according to the models anyway and associated climate alarmism, yet the IPCC belief in its own faith miraculously increased from 90% to 95% as a result of The Pause (!) and it's worth a shilling on the side for 100% in the next AR with no new data...the data don't matter and as per the IPCC SPM footnote it's conjecture not a statistical or other form of assessment,
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 21st September 21:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff