Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative?
It's called data from the real world not the fudged, imaginary, fantastical and politically motivated excreta that plops from the hairy arse of inept climate models.Diderot said:
durbster said:
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative?
It's called data from the real world not the fudged, imaginary, fantastical and politically motivated excreta that plops from the hairy arse of inept climate models.prof Dessler actual climatologist said:
Climate skeptics and those opposed to action on climate change make trashing climate scientists a key part of their arguments. They routinely claim that scientists are (pick your favorite): communists, socialists, fascists, Nazis, ivory-tower liberal elitists, corrupt sycophants feasting at the teat of government research funding, evil masterminds, manufacturing data to push their hidden agenda, or incompetent and sloppy scientists who don't understand any physics.
So predictable. Dessler called out cultists some years ago. 
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative?
It's called data from the real world not the fudged, imaginary, fantastical and politically motivated excreta that plops from the hairy arse of inept climate models.jjlynn27 said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative?
It's called data from the real world not the fudged, imaginary, fantastical and politically motivated excreta that plops from the hairy arse of inept climate models.prof Dessler actual climatologist said:
Climate skeptics and those opposed to action on climate change make trashing climate scientists a key part of their arguments. They routinely claim that scientists are (pick your favorite): communists, socialists, fascists, Nazis, ivory-tower liberal elitists, corrupt sycophants feasting at the teat of government research funding, evil masterminds, manufacturing data to push their hidden agenda, or incompetent and sloppy scientists who don't understand any physics.
So predictable. Dessler called out cultists some years ago. jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
jjlynn27 said:
Same guy?
You wasted your time, if you'd read my post more carefully you should have noted that I already looked up other statements and predicted that a pester email to the chap would return a concensus/everyone agrees/science settled type of response. Was that about right? I didn't need a computer model for it either.Please tell me that you are not trying to misrepresent yet another actual scientist.
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative?
It's called data from the real world not the fudged, imaginary, fantastical and politically motivated excreta that plops from the hairy arse of inept climate models.In principal its the same thing.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Models are used in various forms to determine all sorts of policy. What's the alternative?
It's called data from the real world not the fudged, imaginary, fantastical and politically motivated excreta that plops from the hairy arse of inept climate models.In principal its the same thing.
Trouble is of course (pointing out the bleeding obvious), data will only take you to the present; in CAGW's case, models take one on flights of pure speculation, to a fertile land where wild assumptions and extrapolations mise en abîme lead to the formulation of the most spectacular and fantastical Armageddon scenarios, all of which have never come to pass. In case you were not aware, human beings cannot see into the future. Whatever your poison: crystal balls, Mr Fusion and a Delorean, the IPCC or an always already flawed assemblage of climate models, as that venerable sage Rag 'n Bone Man once said, '[you're] only human after all'.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that human beings are capable of controlling the climate?
wc98 said:
re the bold. no they haven't. when we have observed full cycles of amo and pdo then we will have a better idea.
So we wait another few hundred years to rule everything out, before concluding for certain it was human caused after all? 
wc98 said:
re rising co2 levels ,are you saying the increase in atmospheric co2 concentration from 280ppm to just over 400 ppm is all anthropogenic ?
As far as my basic understanding goes, we know how much of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man-made due to makeup of the carbon dioxide. It's only volcanoes and burning fossil fuels that generates a particular signature, and we know volcanoes don't produce anywhere near enough to account for what's up there. The rest is us, for sure.
wc98 said:
if i have picked that up wrong then the small warming is well in line with what is proposed for a warm phase of the amo. this warming also naturally raises co2 levels with a top up of anthropogenic co2.
what drives the amo ? just one natural cycle that appears to not have had the attention it deserves...
Well yeah, and it isn't likely to be better understood any time soon. Maybe in another 300 years you'll have your answer what drives the amo ? just one natural cycle that appears to not have had the attention it deserves...
That hasn't stopped you committing to it though, over and above the explanations that are extensively researched...
wc98 said:
for me the mechanism is as follows...
OK, but the numbers simply don't add up, do they? The amount of warming is in excess of what would be generated by that process, and the AMO may well have influenced the trend but not driven it i.e. if it was purely the AMO it wouldn't keep going up. Besides, as far as I can see, the AMO is a known factor in the climate research but it doesn't override the AGW explanation. The NOAA reference it on their website, for example.
NOAA said:
In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php#faq_10wc98 said:
...for me it doesn't matter what the output of climate models is,they will always be a waste of money due to the absolute fact they do not model all earth systems exactly.
in cfd modeling they get close enough to make educated guesses(most but not all of the time) modeling a far smaller system than climate science is attempting. all the little add ons you see on the surface of commercial jet aircraft wings are due to the fact the modeling didn't come up with the right answer.
This obsession with models is baffling. They are the only tool we have, they've done a reasonably good job so far and they can only get better.in cfd modeling they get close enough to make educated guesses(most but not all of the time) modeling a far smaller system than climate science is attempting. all the little add ons you see on the surface of commercial jet aircraft wings are due to the fact the modeling didn't come up with the right answer.
They don't have to model "all the earth systems exactly", that's an absurd standard to set.
It's like saying it's impossible to predict when the tide will come in unless you can accurately predict the behaviour of every wave. It doesn't really matter which rock gets wet first. You just need to know when to move your towel.
durbster said:
This obsession with models is baffling. They are the only tool we have, they've done a reasonably good job so far and they can only get better.
They don't have to model "all the earth systems exactly", that's an absurd standard to set.
It's like saying it's impossible to predict when the tide will come in unless you can accurately predict the behaviour of every wave. It doesn't really matter which rock gets wet first. You just need to know when to move your towel.
They don't have to model "all the earth systems exactly", that's an absurd standard to set.
It's like saying it's impossible to predict when the tide will come in unless you can accurately predict the behaviour of every wave. It doesn't really matter which rock gets wet first. You just need to know when to move your towel.
No because the moon, sun and planets affect tide not the waves. Which is not quite a chaos system, but us cultist get that.
Also note waves are not chaos but simply modeled which is why that can be used in hull design, no chaos simple process to see cause and affect.
durbster said:
This obsession with models is baffling. They are the only tool we have, they've done a reasonably good job so far and they can only get better.
They don't have to model "all the earth systems exactly", that's an absurd standard to set.
It's like saying it's impossible to predict when the tide will come in unless you can accurately predict the behaviour of every wave. It doesn't really matter which rock gets wet first. You just need to know when to move your towel.
you know tidal predictions are constantly revised as well yes ? even though the phenomena is fairly well understood. re the only tool we have- if all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. for models read if the main forcing parameter is co2 the only output you will get is cagw They don't have to model "all the earth systems exactly", that's an absurd standard to set.
It's like saying it's impossible to predict when the tide will come in unless you can accurately predict the behaviour of every wave. It doesn't really matter which rock gets wet first. You just need to know when to move your towel.
the amo cycle is between 60 and 80 years. we have passed the peak of the warm phase and are heading toward the cool phase. ten years should be enough to detect a temp drop and the following twenty years will show how much we should, or shouldn't be worried about agw. the previous cool phase was when the global cooling scare was at its peak. i don't think that will wash second time around.
durbster said:
This obsession with models is baffling. They are the only tool we have, they've done a reasonably good job so far and they can only get better.
You are the one obsessed by model outputs, without which AGW/CAGW wouldn't exist. They've done feck all thus far except cost trillions of dollars and numerous lives. In the UK alone billions are spunked up the wall every single year in the 'fight' against cwimate cwange. And in the same breath politicians who voted for such f
kwittery assert there's not enough money for the NHS or Education. It's a travesty, pun intended. Your obsession with models is indeed baffling. durbster said:
This obsession with models is baffling. They are the only tool we have, they've done a reasonably good job so far and they can only get better.
.
Memory probems? Tropical troposphere temperature trend fail, vertical profile fail, ENSO fail, feedback vs ERBE satellite data fail, antarctica ice mass fail. On it goes..
The basis for a seemingly endless stream of garbage dressed as predictions is - climate models. Arctic summer sea ice should have gone by...pick a year, but it's still there. New York should be under water by now. Snow in the UK should have become a rare event after the turn of the century such that children wouldn't know what it is. This is all fantasy, complete dreck, but people took it seriously and some still do.
[qiuote=McKitrick and Christy peer reviewed paper]
Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years…shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.
Models that address the climate system ought not to omit relevant forcings, ought not to have inadequate spatial and temporal resolution, ought not to use tens of parameterisations in place of science, and so on, they need to be kept well away from policy.
Hype around the baloney of 'unprecedented' is pure buffoonery.
-Temperature rate of change and extent - not unprecedented, e.g. Alley et al, Dansgaard et al
-Ice mass changes - not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped e.g. Minutes of the Royal Society, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s see Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al
-Hurricanes - not unprecedented and no significant trend in the data, Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
-Floods and Droughts not unprecedented and not intensifying e.g. Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredo
-Wildfires not unprecedented and neither increasing nor intensifying see Doerr and Santin
-Extreme weather not increasing e.g. Goklany, Pielke
-Polar bear numbers have increased not decreased, surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al including studies in the two supposed static or reducing populations (wrong again)
-number of trees on the planet wrong by a wide margin, not that models would know
A reasonably bad job (being generous) for reasons which will soon be conveniently forgotten.
Phud said:
No because the moon, sun and planets affect tide not the waves. Which is not quite a chaos system, but us cultist get that.
Are you being serious?wc98 said:
you know tidal predictions are constantly revised as well yes ? even though the phenomena is fairly well understood. re the only tool we have- if all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. for models read if the main forcing parameter is co2 the only output you will get is cagw
Again, you seem to be suggesting the models are central to the AGW theory, which is wrong. The theory is based on physics, data and backed up by observations over several decades.The models take the theory and use it to project potential outcomes, which you have to do if you're going to decide when or if something needs to be done about it.
Take your CFD example - CFD models weren't created to prove the theory that a wing turned upside down will produce downforce. A CFD system takes what's already known and uses that knowledge to see what happens in different scenarios.
durbster said:
Again, you seem to be suggesting the models are central to the AGW theory, which is wrong. The theory is based on physics, data and backed up by observations over several decades.
The models take the theory and use it to project potential outcomes, which you have to do if you're going to decide when or if something needs to be done about it.
What data and observations? The models are at the beating heart of CAGW. It’s always been about the models because the data didn’t matter. Without the models there would be no CAGW, no alarm, no climate change act, and no money. The models take the theory and use it to project potential outcomes, which you have to do if you're going to decide when or if something needs to be done about it.
zygalski said:
Quite an assertion.
Where can I find your research papers & the subsequent peer review?
You know we are well past the point that any scientists will get a grant for such research,Where can I find your research papers & the subsequent peer review?
Just look at the latest satellite for polar ice measurements, it's looking for the effects of man made climate change, money is available in large amounts, what do you think it will find given its stated objective? But the truth is what it will find is change, without thousands of years of data the changes are meaningless, but I am certain that the results will give conclusive proof via peer reviewed research, that's the way the system works sadly.
durbster said:
Again, you seem to be suggesting the models are central to the AGW theory, which is wrong. The theory is based on physics, data and backed up by observations over several decades.
The models take the theory and use it to project potential outcomes, which you have to do if you're going to decide when or if something needs to be done about it.
Take your CFD example - CFD models weren't created to prove the theory that a wing turned upside down will produce downforce. A CFD system takes what's already known and uses that knowledge to see what happens in different scenarios.
where am i suggesting that ? models are central to policy planning though.tell me exactly what your understanding of the theory is again ? mine is it states increased atmospheric co2 causes a small warming. this small warming cause an increase in a far more powerful greenhouse gas,that being water vapour.in effect a positive feedback loop.The models take the theory and use it to project potential outcomes, which you have to do if you're going to decide when or if something needs to be done about it.
Take your CFD example - CFD models weren't created to prove the theory that a wing turned upside down will produce downforce. A CFD system takes what's already known and uses that knowledge to see what happens in different scenarios.
once again, the theory is fine. what happens in practice is a different story. we do not know the effects of all the natural processes that we know of. it is also a certainty there are numerous effects taking place that we don't even know of yet, the unknown unknowns. a relatively small change in cloud type and or cover annually could wipe out all the "warming" we have seen in the last 100 years,warming that would not exist based on the raw numbers from pristine stations.
i can't think of one single terrestrial data set that hasn't seen adjustments that cooled the past and warmed the present. now those adjustments may or may not all be justifiable,but for anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability the fact those adjustments all went the same way on a variety of different data sets compiled by measuring different phenomena with different equipment should at least raise a questioning eyebrow.
as already mentioned there is nothing remarkable about weather phenomena records, or sea level rise or any other metric that differentiates the behaviour from natural occurrence.
again the cfd models get things wrong because not all phenomena can be modeled correctly in a chaotic process. your wing analogy doesn't address the fact that even with modern computing capability and the vast bank of knowledge on the subject , the model results are still not good enough to design a wing with no flaws.
i don't think we need to talk about the complexity of designing a wing, or f1 car aerodynamics vs modelling the atmosphere and ocean processes,do we.
nb, funny thing when i went to quote your post it showed up a few things that don't appear on the post as it is in the thread,almost like bullet points highlighted . forum been a bit weird for me lately, maybe something to do with that.
Meanwhile another bunch of scientists who disagree with you 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
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Come on, surely somebody can name 1 reputable organisation with no self-interest donors?
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
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Come on, surely somebody can name 1 reputable organisation with no self-interest donors?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff