Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Jabbah said:
robinessex said:
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
I find it strange that you can accept that there are many levels to a system such as the oceans but can't accept the same about our atmosphere. You accept that the oceans have chaotic characteristics (e.g. currents) and that tides whilst predictable are so with noise - the high tide never happens exactly at the predicted time or the level, but are within a certain error range. The causes of the tides (gravitational bodies that affect the Earth) are predictable for many many years, even though they are a chaotic system in themselves. Yet when it comes to the atmosphere you mention that the weather cannot be predicted beyond a few days as it is chaotic so what hope do we have of predicting the climate in 100 years. Does it not occur to you that weather and climate are different levels of a system? If we can't predict the weather accurately next week does that mean we can't predict that it will be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter? You mention noise; has it not occurred to you that the weather is the chaotic noise on the more predictable climatic system? If the climate was as chaotic as the weather we would really be in trouble. One poster has claimed that because the overall temperature of the climate doesn't increase every year then that disproves climate change. Isn't this yearly fluctuation just noise in the system like current flows in the ocean?If the difference between high and low tides suddenly started increasing then we would assume that something is very wrong. We would look towards the major influences of the tides and check if something was changing like the Moon getting closer to the Earth. Some scientists might even try denying the Moon was getting closer.
robinessex said:
Go read this topic from the begining, It's been explained all before.
It doesn’t explain your position though and doesn’t make it right either.You hear this lots in here.
Someone sensible points out something wrong or unlikely in the cult logic and you guys say “it’s been done before” it’s never actually been done, it’s just people repeating the same dogma from advocacy websites and their own misunderstandings.
You keep having to explain your statements on chaotic systems because they’re inconsistent.
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
Trust me you certainly aren't the only one to have noticed yours (in particular) and others fawning over TB's every word. You even mimic his sayings and use his chosen websites to get your information from. It's all a bit pathetic really.
Frankly he's the only one on the denier side on here with half a brain proven by the fact that you try to copy his modus operandi.
At least he has an agenda and it's pretty obvious what that is. He's your cults very own Donald Trump. You on the other hand just come across as sheeple.
However, if you'd care to answer the question of why you think there are zero scientific institutions on the entire planet that agree with your agw argument then I can switch my attention to you.
Why can none of the scientific institutions or scientists in the field see the flaws in the Climate Change argument that are apparently so obvious to your small group on this thread?
Is it a global conspiracy?
Spot on. Frankly he's the only one on the denier side on here with half a brain proven by the fact that you try to copy his modus operandi.
At least he has an agenda and it's pretty obvious what that is. He's your cults very own Donald Trump. You on the other hand just come across as sheeple.
However, if you'd care to answer the question of why you think there are zero scientific institutions on the entire planet that agree with your agw argument then I can switch my attention to you.
Why can none of the scientific institutions or scientists in the field see the flaws in the Climate Change argument that are apparently so obvious to your small group on this thread?
Is it a global conspiracy?
It’s like they’re under some kind of schoolgirl crush, copying TB’s advocacy sites, reporting people on his behalf, fawning after him and defending him.
Then you realise that these are the ONLY sources of facts that back up their view.
They’d love to be quoting proper scientists and scientific institutions but none of them agree with them.
robinessex said:
hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
Great, you now accept that your constant assertion about chaotic systems is a massive oversimplification. Can you give up repeating now?
ks?
You have said it is possible to model chaotic systems; you have said that different aspects of chaotic systems have different levels of complexity and predictability; you have said that a chaotic system will still follow the laws of physics; you have said they can be affected by external forces in predictable ways.
In short, you have, in your own words, explained why your simplistic chaos theory argument doesn't hold water, yet you're still spouting it. If that doesn't prove to you that you're choosing ideology over facts, I don't know what will.
If anybody thinks tides are forecast you are really wrong, there is an estimate bast on the known action of the gravitational pull of objects on the water at a few defined points and then this is interpolated for distances along the coast.
The ranges are based on the moons cycle with regards to the know pull of the moon during it's cycle, these are not absolute and are not forecast as such.
The get out clause for forecasters, storm surge and hydrostatic variation.
So whilst tides are guessed at the chaotic system is not forecast.
The ranges are based on the moons cycle with regards to the know pull of the moon during it's cycle, these are not absolute and are not forecast as such.
The get out clause for forecasters, storm surge and hydrostatic variation.
So whilst tides are guessed at the chaotic system is not forecast.
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
I see you have gone back to personal attacks instead of commenting on the subject matter or posting fake pictures of glaciers,
probably for the best, stick to what you understand,
any comment on the replies to your pretty pictures ?
Which bit of this didn’t you understand?probably for the best, stick to what you understand,
any comment on the replies to your pretty pictures ?
gadgetmac said:
For those deniers who like to post random pictures here’s a couple I’ve just bumped into. THEY PROVE NOTHING but then hey, when has that ever stopped deniers posting them 
I’d tell you to “stick to what you understand” but as you’ve demonstrated here that’s a very limited range. 
Perhaps you can explain why no scientific institutions anywhere on the globe agree with your stance on AGW?
Everyone has failed miserably at this litmus test question or they’ve said its a global conspiracy
What’s YOUR answer?
my view is any change in temperature is part of a normal natural cycle and that CO2 is nothing but a bit player in the climate, in everything I have read nothing has lead me to think differently and actually my view is the most logical, to imagine a trace gas in our atmosphere that is inert ,can by a small addition create large changes in our temperature is illogical, it requires mechanisms that are unprovable in a complex system.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Go read this topic from the begining, It's been explained all before.
It doesn’t explain your position though and doesn’t make it right either.You hear this lots in here.
Someone sensible points out something wrong or unlikely in the cult logic and you guys say “it’s been done before” it’s never actually been done, it’s just people repeating the same dogma from advocacy websites and their own misunderstandings.
You keep having to explain your statements on chaotic systems because they’re inconsistent.
This Brexit lark could be used to reduce the amount of stuff coming in and out and perhaps a return to locally sourced food.
A return to a more simple time when we didn't need a new phone every year, or the latest bmw/audi.
We could forge ahead as a new Britain, a more eco conscious less polluting nation.
We don't need to consume as much as we do, its obscene.
A return to a more simple time when we didn't need a new phone every year, or the latest bmw/audi.
We could forge ahead as a new Britain, a more eco conscious less polluting nation.
We don't need to consume as much as we do, its obscene.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
Great, you now accept that your constant assertion about chaotic systems is a massive oversimplification. Can you give up repeating now?ks?You have said it is possible to model chaotic systems; you have said that different aspects of chaotic systems have different levels of complexity and predictability; you have said that a chaotic system will still follow the laws of physics; you have said they can be affected by external forces in predictable ways.
In short, you have, in your own words, explained why your simplistic chaos theory argument doesn't hold water, yet you're still spouting it. If that doesn't prove to you that you're choosing ideology over facts, I don't know what will.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within THE APPARENT RANDOMNESS OF CHAOTIC COMPLEX SYSTEMS, THERE ARE UNDERLYING PATTERNS, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.
SMALL DIFFERENCES IN INITIAL CONDITIONS, SUCH AS THOSE DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS IN NUMERICAL COMPUTATION, YIELD WIDELY DIVERGING OUTCOMES FOR SUCH DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS, RENDERING LONG-TERM PREDICTION OF THEIR BEHAVIOR IMPOSSIBLE IN GENERAL. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DETERMINISTIC NATURE OF THESE SYSTEMS DOES NOT MAKE THEM PREDICTABLE. THIS BEHAVIOR IS KNOWN AS DETERMINISTIC CHAOS, OR SIMPLY CHAOS. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.
In February it will be the 15th anniversary of this superb relic of the hot-cold war which was faifhfully parroted by the wet weekend version of The Guardian.
Pentagon Report: Climate Catastrophe Due by 2020
That's next year. AGW supporters really should get on the phone to Laddy's or BillHill's specials dept to bet the farm on this settled science.
The above reporting of fantasy fiction then claims that the findings will embarrass the climate-denying Potus of the time and gives a tipping point.
Two leading UK climate scientists, Sir John Houghton, formerly of Met Office fame and IPCC co-chair, plus former IPCC chair Bob Watson, were all over it like a rash with gushing endorsements and shrill climageddonisms. Hilarious!
Great entertainment, and like all the other tipping points and daft predictions from government sponsored outfits based on agw fairytales, total nonsense. We need more of this.
Pentagon Report: Climate Catastrophe Due by 2020
That's next year. AGW supporters really should get on the phone to Laddy's or BillHill's specials dept to bet the farm on this settled science.
The above reporting of fantasy fiction then claims that the findings will embarrass the climate-denying Potus of the time and gives a tipping point.
Soothsayer said:
By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Two leading UK climate scientists, Sir John Houghton, formerly of Met Office fame and IPCC co-chair, plus former IPCC chair Bob Watson, were all over it like a rash with gushing endorsements and shrill climageddonisms. Hilarious!
Great entertainment, and like all the other tipping points and daft predictions from government sponsored outfits based on agw fairytales, total nonsense. We need more of this.
hairykrishna said:
You probably shouldn't plagarise stack exchange comments to cover for your own ignorance.
You keep insisting that the climate is chaotic so predictions of it are nonsense yet now you've acknowledged two systems, the moons orbits and ocean currents, where useful predictions of future behaviour can be made even though they are chaotic.
useful and accurate are two completely different things. if a tidal prediction is out by two minutes,two feet or two inches it makes little difference in the big scheme of things. if predictions of 2 degrees c plus of warming are wrong it will have cost trillions in tax payers money not to mention higher energy costs for us all and huge changes to our way of life.You keep insisting that the climate is chaotic so predictions of it are nonsense yet now you've acknowledged two systems, the moons orbits and ocean currents, where useful predictions of future behaviour can be made even though they are chaotic.
that level of change requires absolute proof for me,particularly when mitigation would achieve similar results should warming become "dangerous".
gadgetmac said:
By and Dr Ross McKitrick is, by and large, your go to guy for almost all of your links that aren’t to some faux scientific institution like the GWPF or WUWT.
Doesn’t it bother you that you are hemmed in on all sides to choosing from a select few sources???
Looney had a list of the deniers sources on here and you never seem to deviate from it. Every name thats linked to by deniers was and still is on it as they are reposted ad infinitum.
Why not one Scientific Institute from around the globe.
As for the 97% it seems to me obvious that the papers you quote disputing it originate from the 3% ie Dr Ian Plimmer
He who was humbled on Aussie TV and is a fav of, yes you’ve guessed it, the GWPF Yet a fking again.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonb...
Most attrition loops on here start and end with your quoting of these types of source.
You’ll do it again tomorrow and the next day and the next.
who made you the arbiter of what is and is not valid source of information ? typical warmist tactic that won't work outside the skeptical science echo chamber. Doesn’t it bother you that you are hemmed in on all sides to choosing from a select few sources???
Looney had a list of the deniers sources on here and you never seem to deviate from it. Every name thats linked to by deniers was and still is on it as they are reposted ad infinitum.
Why not one Scientific Institute from around the globe.
As for the 97% it seems to me obvious that the papers you quote disputing it originate from the 3% ie Dr Ian Plimmer
He who was humbled on Aussie TV and is a fav of, yes you’ve guessed it, the GWPF Yet a f
king again.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonb...
Most attrition loops on here start and end with your quoting of these types of source.
You’ll do it again tomorrow and the next day and the next.
durbster said:
Therefore, by your rules it's impossible to predict the tides, ocean currents, sea levels, and it's impossible to know what will happen if you apply additional forces e.g. gravity, pollution, temperature changes, ice melt etc.
Is that correct?
to what degrees of accuracy and precision will you be making these predictions ? as long as they are fit for purpose they will do. no one will be betting the global economy on accurate tidal prediction height to the tenth of millimetre or hundredth of second any time soon.Is that correct?
El stovey said:
Its is a good question though. Why do you think the scientific community hasn’t noticed that the climate is chaotic and completely unpredictable (according to you) but they’re all wrong in thinking there’s elements of it that are actually predictable.
Are you actually still a stressman?
to be fair the organisation representing the science already have and have admitted so in print in one of their reports. i b elieve tb has posted the link on several occasions. you may have missed it. if you ask him nicely he might kindly provide the link again Are you actually still a stressman?
zygalski said:
Indeed.
How do you debate with people who on one hand say that AGW consensus within the scientific community does not exist, but when you ask for the name of a single organisation which doesn't back the IPCC, they cannot name any?
I'm not so sure about these deniers having a mental illness par se, rather a blindness or deliberately ignoring the obvious, brought about by extreme right wing dogma.
quite a few organisations told us just a vote to leave the eu, not actually leaving would result in catastrophe for the uk. how are their predictions stacking up now ?How do you debate with people who on one hand say that AGW consensus within the scientific community does not exist, but when you ask for the name of a single organisation which doesn't back the IPCC, they cannot name any?
I'm not so sure about these deniers having a mental illness par se, rather a blindness or deliberately ignoring the obvious, brought about by extreme right wing dogma.
Edited by zygalski on Saturday 19th January 18:38
A very interesting read on Chaotic Climate
Chaos in the Atmosphere
https://history.aip.org/climate/chaos.htm
Chaos in the Atmosphere
https://history.aip.org/climate/chaos.htm
turbobloke said:
"no scientific organistions oppose the IPCC's stance = scientific consensus"
Complete rubbish. Firstly it's activists on committees not the memberships that issue statements. This is amply demonstrated by the 'not in our name' open letter from Fellows of the Royal Society pointing out to the RS that the organisation's stance on manmadeup warming is baslcailly unscientific and contrary to 'nullius in verba'.
Secondly there are several scientific organsations that don't back permanent dangerous manmade warming, I've posted these before at which time one or two are selected for some messenger shooting, so it's not even all scientific organisations and a translation of the above false claim would include 'activists on committees in organisations approved of by agw supporters'.
Thirdly there is disagreement within the IPCC itself as witnessed and evidenced by an IPCC Lead Author present at the meetings (Christy) so the idea that there's no disagreement outside that political advocacy group is risible.
Finally the Oreskes, Cook and Doran 97% (etc) claims have been demolished many times.
If only science operated via consensus rather than hypothesis testing using empirical data, all those wasted pixels would be worth it. The (non-)consensus brigade will doubtless carry on with this nonsense, nothing has prevented it so far - faith after all is impervious to objective evidence as it's a matter of faith. That's agw summed up in four words, a matter of faith.
Can we have a link to the ‘not in our name’ letter to the RS so that we can check out the sources/signatories. I have a funny feeling there is some misrepresentation going on (for the gazillionth time) but will retract if thats not true and its entirely as you portray it.Complete rubbish. Firstly it's activists on committees not the memberships that issue statements. This is amply demonstrated by the 'not in our name' open letter from Fellows of the Royal Society pointing out to the RS that the organisation's stance on manmadeup warming is baslcailly unscientific and contrary to 'nullius in verba'.
Secondly there are several scientific organsations that don't back permanent dangerous manmade warming, I've posted these before at which time one or two are selected for some messenger shooting, so it's not even all scientific organisations and a translation of the above false claim would include 'activists on committees in organisations approved of by agw supporters'.
Thirdly there is disagreement within the IPCC itself as witnessed and evidenced by an IPCC Lead Author present at the meetings (Christy) so the idea that there's no disagreement outside that political advocacy group is risible.
Finally the Oreskes, Cook and Doran 97% (etc) claims have been demolished many times.
If only science operated via consensus rather than hypothesis testing using empirical data, all those wasted pixels would be worth it. The (non-)consensus brigade will doubtless carry on with this nonsense, nothing has prevented it so far - faith after all is impervious to objective evidence as it's a matter of faith. That's agw summed up in four words, a matter of faith.
Second, please let us have your list of scientific institutions that don’t agree with MMGW. Again, just to check that we aren’t talking about the GWPF or The Heartland Institute or Breitbart etc
Nor do I mean some Libertarian think tank like the Fraser Institute.
Thanks.
wc98 said:
who made you the arbiter of what is and is not valid source of information ? typical warmist tactic that won't work outside the skeptical science echo chamber.
Classic denier argument when there are bugger all Scientific Organisations supporting your cause...move to query who is qualified to judge.Who do you suggest should be qualified to judge on AGW? The GWPF? WUWT?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff