Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
zygalski said:
I don't believe a word Turbospam posts.
He's already been proven guilty of totally misrepresenting a climate change expert as a means to his own twisted ends.
His reputation (such as it ever was) is in tatters.
He's already been proven guilty of totally misrepresenting a climate change expert as a means to his own twisted ends.
His reputation (such as it ever was) is in tatters.
I’m an astronaut with many hours served aboard the ISS...but don’t ask me to substantiate that or you go against PH anti stalking rules.
Pathetic excuse.
The closer to the target the thicker the flak so your demonstration of how very spot on my post content is, is much appreciated.
The comments section on genuine websites such as WUWT is always highly recommended reading, such as this comment...
Commenter said:
The climate change science industry is now like the charlatans in the financial industry.
Let say there are 9,000 financial analysts (in academia and the finance industry) all working on predictions of how the S&P500 index will move over the next 90 days. Statistically, let’s charitably assume 33% (1/3) gets the overall ups and downs basically correct, or 3,000 analysts. Then over the next 90 days, of those 3,000, 1/3 are again basically correct in their prediction of the market movement or 1,000. Repeat this for 2 more 90 day cycles (a full year), and you’ll have 100 analysts hailed as brilliant financial forecasters. But were they really? Maybe some are, and maybe some just got lucky, because with so many different predictions and some players in the game, there will be some winners by chance.
Substitute “financial analyst” in the above with “climate scientist looking for a hard to get grant funding”, and you can see both how the climate change narrative and climate rentseeking by the climate scientist both advance in lock step.
Statisticians deal with this sort of many test (multiple comparisons) problem with additional special tests (such as the Bonferroni Method), but even those can be fooled. Which is why in particle physics, where many billions or trillions of particle event collisions may be analyzed in searching through collision debris for one unique signature, they commonly demand incredibly small p-values like 10 to the minus 25 or much lower before judging an observation as a confirmed observation of an event or search for an unique particle.
Climate Science of course does none of this. We have so many different “climate scientists” now making such a diverse range of predictions on weather come climate that some will get it right by chance and then be hailed as a skilled climate scientist.
Another way in which Climate Quackery is promulgated by established climate swindlers is to constantly produce new predictions at regular intervals. Eventually one (or two) of those predictions happens. The climate swindler makes sure all their past failures are not considered, only the one or two “hits” get scored. A full analysis of all predictions, both failed and successful, would of course show the climate swindler has no or only little skill that might be deemed to chance itself. This style of Climate Quackery is the prevalent and rampant modus operandi in the “establishment” climate modelling community today.
Let say there are 9,000 financial analysts (in academia and the finance industry) all working on predictions of how the S&P500 index will move over the next 90 days. Statistically, let’s charitably assume 33% (1/3) gets the overall ups and downs basically correct, or 3,000 analysts. Then over the next 90 days, of those 3,000, 1/3 are again basically correct in their prediction of the market movement or 1,000. Repeat this for 2 more 90 day cycles (a full year), and you’ll have 100 analysts hailed as brilliant financial forecasters. But were they really? Maybe some are, and maybe some just got lucky, because with so many different predictions and some players in the game, there will be some winners by chance.
Substitute “financial analyst” in the above with “climate scientist looking for a hard to get grant funding”, and you can see both how the climate change narrative and climate rentseeking by the climate scientist both advance in lock step.
Statisticians deal with this sort of many test (multiple comparisons) problem with additional special tests (such as the Bonferroni Method), but even those can be fooled. Which is why in particle physics, where many billions or trillions of particle event collisions may be analyzed in searching through collision debris for one unique signature, they commonly demand incredibly small p-values like 10 to the minus 25 or much lower before judging an observation as a confirmed observation of an event or search for an unique particle.
Climate Science of course does none of this. We have so many different “climate scientists” now making such a diverse range of predictions on weather come climate that some will get it right by chance and then be hailed as a skilled climate scientist.
Another way in which Climate Quackery is promulgated by established climate swindlers is to constantly produce new predictions at regular intervals. Eventually one (or two) of those predictions happens. The climate swindler makes sure all their past failures are not considered, only the one or two “hits” get scored. A full analysis of all predictions, both failed and successful, would of course show the climate swindler has no or only little skill that might be deemed to chance itself. This style of Climate Quackery is the prevalent and rampant modus operandi in the “establishment” climate modelling community today.
gadgetmac said:
zygalski said:
I don't believe a word Turbospam posts.
He's already been proven guilty of totally misrepresenting a climate change expert as a means to his own twisted ends.
His reputation (such as it ever was) is in tatters.
He's already been proven guilty of totally misrepresenting a climate change expert as a means to his own twisted ends.
His reputation (such as it ever was) is in tatters.
I’m an astronaut with many hours served aboard the ISS...but don’t ask me to substantiate that or you go against PH anti stalking rules.
Pathetic excuse.
But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
dickymint said:
Not “stalking rules” they are sleuthing rules
But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
With this level of daily personal attacks/comments/insults it's easy to see their intended purpose. But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
deeps said:
I wonder if, between the continued personal attacks, I can pop this in...
McKitrick and Christy showed in their 2018 peer reviewed paper via comparison with empirical data that the agw hypothesis has to be rejected with a minuscule probability of false rejection.Article said:
But those “proofs” aren’t science either. Looking backward, climate change the phenomenon has been a constant feature of our planet. Real climate science tells us that temperatures have been much colder and much hotter in the past. (Canada once had a tropical climate.). For the past ten thousand years, we’ve been living in an interglacial period. These pleasant periods have tended to last for ten to fifteen thousand years, so real climate science predicts that we can enjoy about five thousand more years of temperate weather until the next ice age hits.
The theory of “Climate Change” is entirely different. To claim that it has been proven is to entirely misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is ever proven. Theories that appear to accurately describe how nature works — like Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein’s relativity — are assigned the provisional status of not yet disproven, with the understanding that the discovery of a single contrary fact could throw a wrench into the works.
Snip.
To suggest that the scientific validity of “Climate Change” is debatable is to speak charitably. But there’s never been a debate, not for want of trying. Many skeptics have called for debates. In particular, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, journalist, political advisor, inventor, and a skeptic well-versed in the details of climate science, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate. That Al Gore has never replied to these requests is difficult to reconcile with his comments on the CBS “Early Show” (May 31, 2006):
“…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science… Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
These are not the words of a person who understands science. They are the tactics of a person who realises he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/14/why-climate-change-isnt-science/?fbclid=IwAR2p309LN0Ac4bDcItSu9rhIyTUXWAKMb6VmWQY5_K7KbzFq5a7h3316pWMThe theory of “Climate Change” is entirely different. To claim that it has been proven is to entirely misunderstand how science works. No scientific theory is ever proven. Theories that appear to accurately describe how nature works — like Darwin’s theory of evolution or Einstein’s relativity — are assigned the provisional status of not yet disproven, with the understanding that the discovery of a single contrary fact could throw a wrench into the works.
Snip.
To suggest that the scientific validity of “Climate Change” is debatable is to speak charitably. But there’s never been a debate, not for want of trying. Many skeptics have called for debates. In particular, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary peer, journalist, political advisor, inventor, and a skeptic well-versed in the details of climate science, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate. That Al Gore has never replied to these requests is difficult to reconcile with his comments on the CBS “Early Show” (May 31, 2006):
“…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science… Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
These are not the words of a person who understands science. They are the tactics of a person who realises he doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.
In contrast...
The IPCC confirmed (SPM footnote as posted on PH) that the attribution of climate change to human activity is opinion/conjecture and not based on data/stats, despite their misleading use of percentages which appears wilful. Even primary school pupils can understand causality.
We don't need to get into the more/fewer hurricanes, more/less snow (etc) nonscience nor the utter joke of so many falsified predictions based on the 'settled science' ho ho ho.
Jokescience, junkscience, take your pick.
TB, what do you make of this comment from that article, maybe one for the science thread but really I think it's relevant here...
Commenter said:
“There must be something within the theory itself that can be disproved.”
While climate change itself can’t be falsified, significant climate change arising from CO2 emissions can be falsified in many ways since all the prognostications of doom are based on a range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that itself can be falsified in multiple ways.
Consider the lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2 which requires surface emissions to increase by 2.2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing. Even the IPCC acknowledges that if the ECS is less than this, no action against CO2 emissions are necessary and in fact, it was this threshold that set the presumed lower limit in the first place.
Since all solar Joules are equivalent, the atmosphere has no internal source of power and any power in excess of solar forcing returned to the surface making it warmer than it would be otherwise must have originated from the surface sometime in the past. This limits the total amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere to the total amount of energy emitted by the surface.
The atmosphere is semi-transparent where the radiant emissions at TOA are always more than half of the radiant BB emissions of the surface below and this is true even when the coldest cloud tops cover the surface. If the emissions at TOA were as little as 1/2 of the surface emissions below, the maximum possible surface emissions increase per W/m^2 of forcing would be 2 W/m^2 which is already less than the 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing required to support the IPCC’s minimum ECS.
Since all Joules are equivalent, if each of the 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing resulted in 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions, the average surface emissions would be 528 W/m^2 corresponding to an average surface temperature of 311K, which is obviously much too large. Confusion arises as the IPCC considers CO2 to be a forcing influence on its own when in fact, only the Sun forces the system and by their accounting, doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to about 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing keeping CO2 concentrations constant.
Don’t be confused by claims that the system is more complicated than I say. It’s not and claims that it is are only made to misdirect you away from a simple and otherwise unavoidable truth. Any legitimate scientist knows that there’s no law of physics that can override COE or the SB Law, relative to matter absorbing and emitting energy, yet the IPCC requires some kind of unknown and implausible physics to support their position. Any legitimate scientist knows that Joules are Joules and that the planet has no way to distinguish incremental Joules such that the next W/m^2 of forcing can increase surface emissions between 2.2 and 8.6 W/m^2, while all the others only contribute 1.6 W/m^2 to those emissions, yet the IPCC requires the next Joules to be far more powerful at warming the surface than any of the others, even at the presumed minimum ECS.
Don’t be fooled by the fools. The nebulous excess complexity they assert is only there so that they can obfuscate these obvious violations of first principles physics. Challenge alarmists on this unavoidable truth and don’t let them get away with their BS.
While climate change itself can’t be falsified, significant climate change arising from CO2 emissions can be falsified in many ways since all the prognostications of doom are based on a range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that itself can be falsified in multiple ways.
Consider the lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2 which requires surface emissions to increase by 2.2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing. Even the IPCC acknowledges that if the ECS is less than this, no action against CO2 emissions are necessary and in fact, it was this threshold that set the presumed lower limit in the first place.
Since all solar Joules are equivalent, the atmosphere has no internal source of power and any power in excess of solar forcing returned to the surface making it warmer than it would be otherwise must have originated from the surface sometime in the past. This limits the total amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere to the total amount of energy emitted by the surface.
The atmosphere is semi-transparent where the radiant emissions at TOA are always more than half of the radiant BB emissions of the surface below and this is true even when the coldest cloud tops cover the surface. If the emissions at TOA were as little as 1/2 of the surface emissions below, the maximum possible surface emissions increase per W/m^2 of forcing would be 2 W/m^2 which is already less than the 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing required to support the IPCC’s minimum ECS.
Since all Joules are equivalent, if each of the 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing resulted in 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions, the average surface emissions would be 528 W/m^2 corresponding to an average surface temperature of 311K, which is obviously much too large. Confusion arises as the IPCC considers CO2 to be a forcing influence on its own when in fact, only the Sun forces the system and by their accounting, doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to about 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing keeping CO2 concentrations constant.
Don’t be confused by claims that the system is more complicated than I say. It’s not and claims that it is are only made to misdirect you away from a simple and otherwise unavoidable truth. Any legitimate scientist knows that there’s no law of physics that can override COE or the SB Law, relative to matter absorbing and emitting energy, yet the IPCC requires some kind of unknown and implausible physics to support their position. Any legitimate scientist knows that Joules are Joules and that the planet has no way to distinguish incremental Joules such that the next W/m^2 of forcing can increase surface emissions between 2.2 and 8.6 W/m^2, while all the others only contribute 1.6 W/m^2 to those emissions, yet the IPCC requires the next Joules to be far more powerful at warming the surface than any of the others, even at the presumed minimum ECS.
Don’t be fooled by the fools. The nebulous excess complexity they assert is only there so that they can obfuscate these obvious violations of first principles physics. Challenge alarmists on this unavoidable truth and don’t let them get away with their BS.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
"that paper"
The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Or because satellite data does not average two totally different substances (air above ground and water below surface) and has better global coverage?The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Whilst there are issues with the satellite data at least it isn't conceptually flawed.
RSS blog said:
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/But that was a few years ago, and what do they know eh. Appeal to authority, right.
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
http://www.remss.com/blog/lower-tropospheric-tempe...
Oh, it supports AGW.
deeps said:
The comments section on genuine websites such as WUWT is always highly recommended reading, such as this comment...
This is a far more genuine website...
https://wottsupwiththat.com/
deeps said:
dickymint said:
Not “stalking rules” they are sleuthing rules
But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
With this level of daily personal attacks/comments/insults it's easy to see their intended purpose. But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
gadgetmac said:
deeps said:
dickymint said:
Not “stalking rules” they are sleuthing rules
But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
With this level of daily personal attacks/comments/insults it's easy to see their intended purpose. But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
I admire and applaud your honesty
.............. carry on
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
El stovey said:
Why are the cult members constantly asking for people to email the scientists? last time that happened, the scientist said turbobloke was misrepresenting him.
Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.Why don’t the cult members do it themselves or are you too busy being retired or in made up jobs and gaining exaggerated expertise?
Wasn’t it loonytunes that used to actually bother to do it? What happened to him?
Laughable.
Viner isn’t a liar just an utter eejit who believed his own hyperbole. Still, I’m sure his consultancy contract more than compensates him for the egg on his face every single time a snowflake lands on the ground.
Scientists are more and more coming to the conclusion that there never was a pause. 2 new studies were published just a month ago.
https://physicsworld.com/a/pause-in-global-warming...
These aren't the only studies, just the latest and more and more are coming out saying exactly the same thing.
There's only one useful idiot on here and it's the one who thinks he's a professor.
Are you still denying there was a pause/hiatus?
durbster said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
"that paper"
The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Or because satellite data does not average two totally different substances (air above ground and water below surface) and has better global coverage?The linked article is about two papers - one discusses models and the other is a statistical analysis of the obs, but only surface obs and not the satellite obs which sceptics prefer for maximum pausalicousness.
Whilst there are issues with the satellite data at least it isn't conceptually flawed.
RSS blog said:
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/But that was a few years ago, and what do they know eh. Appeal to authority, right.
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
http://www.remss.com/blog/lower-tropospheric-tempe...
Oh, it supports AGW.
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
deeps said:
dickymint said:
Not “stalking rules” they are sleuthing rules
But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
With this level of daily personal attacks/comments/insults it's easy to see their intended purpose. But glad to see you and your mate are acquainting yourselves with them and hopefully abide with them - try sticking to the topic instead of personal point scoring and insults
I admire and applaud your honesty
.............. carry on
You know where the report button is, you use it enough, fill your boots.
Diderot said:
durbster said:
It’s a pretty graph, but do tell me Durbster what is so significant about the baseline. durbster said:
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-glob...
But that was a few years ago, and what do they know eh. Appeal to authority, right.
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
http://www.remss.com/blog/lower-tropospheric-tempe...
Oh, it supports AGW.
Actually it supports the concept of warming - irrespective of cause.But that was a few years ago, and what do they know eh. Appeal to authority, right.
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
http://www.remss.com/blog/lower-tropospheric-tempe...
Oh, it supports AGW.
The concept of averaging water temperatures from various numbers of buckets at varied locations and the median min/max air temperatures from various numbers of weather stations to get a value and then tracking that value to determine "Climate change" is beyond parody. Why no single reviewer pointed out the craziness of this concept in the mixed temperature "reconstructions" (aka datasets) I despair - the law of large numbers does not apply as that requires multiple measurements of the same thing and temperature is an emergent property (remember energy is distributed randomly) in a specific place/conditions.
Temperature of air is not the same conceptually as temperature in a liquid nor a solid - energy is what needs to be measured and temperature can only hint at this.
I would have less objections if at least they treated each measurement type individually and had them as separate indices - some of the objections would still apply (law of large numbers not begin relevant) but at least the concept has some merit.
Recently retired climatologist Prof Tsonis said:
Climate is too complicated to attribute its variability to one cause. We first need to understand the natural climate variability (which we clearly don’t; I can debate anybody on this issue). Only then we can assess the magnitude and reasons of climate change.
Amazingly the science is nowhere near settled.durbster said:
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
There has been significant external pressure on satellite datasets for years.In 2017 (iirc) RSS decided to adjust their satellite data with significant warming introduced from 1998, virtually nothing before, after which an increased warming rate was claimed (!) with The Pause erased as if by
Blue before, red after, black is the difference. RSS data in a graphic from Carbon Brief.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff