Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[deeps]

Article said:

EVERY future climate catastrophe and related study, from threats to the coffee industry to bizarre studies like ‘Global Warming Will Likely Cause A Noticeable Shift In Our Appearance | NBC News’, are based entirely on the assumptions made from UN CMIP5 predictive climate models, not observed reality.

THESE 102 UN IPCC climate models drive not only the billions consumed by enormous government climate bureaucracies and lucrative grants and funding, but also give licence to the extreme climate alarmism that the mainstream media bombards you with 24/7/365.

THIS is not ‘science’, it is crystal-ball zealotry and opportunism run amok. And, YOU are paying the piper!

[deeps]

Article said:

FOR all the economic pain and social upheaval that inevitably ensues when draconian climate policy is enacted, it is only fair and reasonable for the taxpayer to ask one simple question about a climate which demands so much of their hard-earned money – “what is broken?”.

THE best way to answer this is to look at the current state of a set of common environmental metrics and analyse their relationship with carbon dioxide – the colourless, odourless, tasteless trace gas at the centre of the supposed “climate crisis”.

CLIMATE CHANGE METRICS

ARCTIC
ANTARCTIC
EXTREME WEATHER (Heatwaves, Cyclones, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Drought, Floods)
SEA LEVELS
SNOW
POLAR BEARS
GLOBAL GREENING
GLOBAL FOOD PRODUCTION
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

IN the interests of “cherry-picking”, there are a myriad of environmental metrics that make up the climate system. The examples cited for the purpose of this report are the more common associations picked up by the press and interest groups to facilitate climate change discussion and ‘debate’.

• THE empirical evidence featured in this post is taken from the latest data supplied by government scientific agencies and peer-reviewed studies. Hyper and direct links supplied per sample.

https://climatism.blog/2019/01/17/climatism-2019-s...

[hairykrishna]

wc98 said:

hairykrishna said:

Probably best to look at the report yourself given that whenever turbobloke posts it he cuts off half the paragraph, completely misrepresenting what they actually say.

i did, maybe my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours ,a brief summation of your interpretation might help.

Ok, the full quote;

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

I interpret this as saying that given a set of starting conditions and projected future forcings it's not possible to build a model to say, for example, what the average global temperature will be on a given day in 2050. It is however possible to produce a probability distribution of temperatures i.e. to predict how likely it is to be within a given temperature range.

In the context of CO2 and future temperatures we can predict the long term trend but the 'wiggles' in the trend from year to year are not currently predictable (and probably never will be).

[anonymous-user]

hairykrishna said:

wc98 said:

hairykrishna said:

Probably best to look at the report yourself given that whenever turbobloke posts it he cuts off half the paragraph, completely misrepresenting what they actually say.

i did, maybe my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours ,a brief summation of your interpretation might help.

Ok, the full quote;

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

I interpret this as saying that given a set of starting conditions and projected future forcings it's not possible to build a model to say, for example, what the average global temperature will be on a given day in 2050. It is however possible to produce a probability distribution of temperatures i.e. to predict how likely it is to be within a given temperature range.

In the context of CO2 and future temperatures we can predict the long term trend but the 'wiggles' in the trend from year to year are not currently predictable (and probably never will be).

Exactly but in a few weeks, all we'll read again is the clipped quote from TB saying.

ipcc said:

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Classic misrepresentation but the fans all fall for it.

[turbobloke]

"Global Warming" latest: Montreal’s Fête Des Neiges (Winter Snow Festival) cancelled due to cold weather.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-s...

Cold is the new warm, more snow less snow, children won't know what the Fête Des Neiges is.

Repent and believe.

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

https://climatism.blog/2019/01/17/climatism-2019-s...

Oooo a link to an anti AGW BLOG...not a scientist working in the field or a scientific institution specialising in Climate Change but an actual, bona fide, climate denier blog.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

"Global Warming" latest: Montreal’s Fête Des Neiges (Winter Snow Festival) cancelled due to cold weather.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-s...

Cold is the new warm, more snow less snow, children won't know what the Fête Des Neiges is.

Repent and believe.

As expected, Global warming leading to more occasions of extreme weather.

Good of you to keep giving examples of it.

[turbobloke]

With a Red Moon waning, today is supposedly 'Blue Monday' when everybody is just so excited at having overspent in the warm winter weather - so here's a fun competition based on USA Today content from December relating to global warming.

Complete the following;

A cold snap that will encompass nearly the entire U.S. this week will be followed by a potentially disruptive [?]

a) rare and exciting thing
b) event that children won't recognise
c) warm wet winter
d) belief statement in the media

Keep the faith.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

hairykrishna said:

wc98 said:

hairykrishna said:

Probably best to look at the report yourself given that whenever turbobloke posts it he cuts off half the paragraph, completely misrepresenting what they actually say.

i did, maybe my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours ,a brief summation of your interpretation might help.

Ok, the full quote;

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

I interpret this as saying that given a set of starting conditions and projected future forcings it's not possible to build a model to say, for example, what the average global temperature will be on a given day in 2050. It is however possible to produce a probability distribution of temperatures i.e. to predict how likely it is to be within a given temperature range.

In the context of CO2 and future temperatures we can predict the long term trend but the 'wiggles' in the trend from year to year are not currently predictable (and probably never will be).

Exactly but in a few weeks, all we'll read again is the clipped quote from TB saying.

ipcc said:

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Classic misrepresentation but the fans all fall for it.

Like you just have? The bit you left out:-

In the context of CO2 and future temperatures we can predict the long term trend but the 'wiggles' in the trend from year to year are not currently predictable (and probably never will be).

The 'wiggles' is the minute temperature rise your trying tell us will result in planet Armageddon. PS. CO2 and planet temperature (whatever that is) aren't related either. And statistical derived answers, you might as well guess.

[PRTVR]

El stovey said:

hairykrishna said:

wc98 said:

hairykrishna said:

Probably best to look at the report yourself given that whenever turbobloke posts it he cuts off half the paragraph, completely misrepresenting what they actually say.

i did, maybe my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours ,a brief summation of your interpretation might help.

Ok, the full quote;

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential"

I interpret this as saying that given a set of starting conditions and projected future forcings it's not possible to build a model to say, for example, what the average global temperature will be on a given day in 2050. It is however possible to produce a probability distribution of temperatures i.e. to predict how likely it is to be within a given temperature range.

In the context of CO2 and future temperatures we can predict the long term trend but the 'wiggles' in the trend from year to year are not currently predictable (and probably never will be).

Exactly but in a few weeks, all we'll read again is the clipped quote from TB saying.

ipcc said:

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Classic misrepresentation but the fans all fall for it.

Not really, some of us just believe that the ability to predict anything that has any credibility is remote, they admitted that there was a pause in warming, did the models predict it ? Then the heat went into the deep ocean, was that factored into the models, remember we are looking for the effects of a small increase in a trace gas in the atmosphere, how many more unknowns are out there that are not included in the models.
Here is one from NASA.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-article...

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

- so here's a fun competition

Looks like another false statement.

[turbobloke]

More good news!

Tuvalu, which is said to be disappearing due to the unmissable global warming we're experiencing, grew by 3% over the 40 years to 2014, with over 70 hectares of 'new' habitable land. Other islands increased in size by berween 20% and 30%. Don't take my word for it, check it out. This fits with actual science relating to the pacific atoll island context, where overtopping sediments deposited along the coast and inland lead to growth not sinkage. Despite being only a few metres above sea level, these islands have survived a cumulative sea level rise of many tens of metres within the last 20,000 years. Gosh! Check that out as well. Amazingly, IPCC modelled scenarios affecting Tuvalu are worse than decades of reality so far, therefore we must remain in a state of panic and pay much more in taxes. No need to check that out, just believe.

[LittleBigPlanet]

Diderot said:

Here’s the thing. Every single GCM model is fatally flawed from the outset and as a result every single prediction that has ever plopped out of the arse of any climate scientist or activist (at once an oxymoron and a tautology) or politician has never come to pass. None of their fairy tales has been born out by any data. The Arctic should have been ice free years ago, we should x metres under water and at the same time enjoying a Mediterranean climate by now apart from the billions of climate refugees displaced.

Show me a model, just one model that is consonant with the data. Or are you all still keeping faith with a government who made you believe in WMD? 45 minutes my hairy arse.

See p.98 where you didn't respond.

LittleBigPlanet said:

Diderot said:

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.

I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not but this is simply untrue. Carbon Brief wrote an article about this last year (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming):
- Sawyer's (1973) model projected an increase in global average temperature of 0.6 C between 1969-2000 and atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25% (to 375-400 ppm). The reality was an observed warming between 0.51 C and 0.56 C and 370 ppm.
- The first IPCC report (1990) used a BAU scenario of C02 emissions hitting 418 ppm in 2016, the observed rate was 404 ppm. The model overestimated warming between 1976 and 2016 by 17% in the BAU scenario (equivalent to a warming of 1 C with observed warming at 0.85 C)
- The second IPCC report (2001) A2 projection predicted an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 406 ppm (observed was 404 ppm). The rate of warming projected was 14% lower than observations.
- The fourth IPCC report (2007) (A1B scenario) projections were close to observations, at 8% higher
- The first IPCC report (2013) projections showed warming ~9 to 16% faster than observations since 1970.

I take your point though, the models have not been bang on. I guess we need Robinessex's understanding of chaos theory to fine tune things.

[turbobloke]

PS on Tuvalu: as it turns out, climate scientists were already surprised back in 2010 (below) so they must have been completely astonished by 2014.

[PRTVR]

turbobloke said:

PS on Tuvalu: as it turns out, climate scientists were already surprised back in 2010 (below) so they must have been completely astonished by 2014.

But is not the problem again that if you start with a false premise that the world is warming and ice caps are melting you will end up with sinking islands (A good scary story) ,instead of doing research into what is actually happening. Another prediction bites the dust.

[gadgetmac]

New study from actual scientists in the field (and not bloggers, blaggers and charlatans you'll find linked to on here) finds that the world's permafrost soils are warming at the same rate as the global climate.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08240-4

The usual caveats apply. If Anthony Watts says it's not true then dismiss it immediately, obviously.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

New study from actual scientists in the field (and not bloggers, blaggers and charlatans you'll find linked to on here) finds that the world's permafrost soils are warming at the same rate as the global climate.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08240-4

The usual caveats apply. If Anthony Watts says it's not true then dismiss it immediately, obviously.

The models of the global permafrost temperature agree with the models of the climate temperature.....................
I especially like this part.
Despite this, permafrost change is not yet adequately represented in most of the Earth System Models14 that are used for the IPCC projections for decision makers. One major reason for this was the absence of a standardized global data set of permafrost temperature observations for model validation.
Obviously not getting enough grant money , need to have models for that, it's the future and we can predict it.

[Diderot]

LittleBigPlanet said:

Diderot said:

Here’s the thing. Every single GCM model is fatally flawed from the outset and as a result every single prediction that has ever plopped out of the arse of any climate scientist or activist (at once an oxymoron and a tautology) or politician has never come to pass. None of their fairy tales has been born out by any data. The Arctic should have been ice free years ago, we should x metres under water and at the same time enjoying a Mediterranean climate by now apart from the billions of climate refugees displaced.

Show me a model, just one model that is consonant with the data. Or are you all still keeping faith with a government who made you believe in WMD? 45 minutes my hairy arse.

See p.98 where you didn't respond.

LittleBigPlanet said:

Diderot said:

Yeah but nothing anyone has ever predicted with any GCM has ever come to pass. Nothing. All the models are always already wrong. So you should ask yourself why do you believe in this litany of abject failure? The simple answer is that it suits your political view and you are easily influenced. You are as gullible as those people in drab suits who knock on doors peddling the Watchtower and predicting the second coming any time soon in the near future honest.

Every single GCM model is fundamentally flawed. The whole CAGW edifice is elaborated on the output of these flawed models that have never predicted anything that has ever been borne out by the data and yet you have blind faith. As I say to the Jehovahs when they darken my door, come back when something you predict actually happens, until then it’s all blind faith, hyperbole and good old fashioned snake oil.

I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not but this is simply untrue. Carbon Brief wrote an article about this last year (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming):
- Sawyer's (1973) model projected an increase in global average temperature of 0.6 C between 1969-2000 and atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25% (to 375-400 ppm). The reality was an observed warming between 0.51 C and 0.56 C and 370 ppm.
- The first IPCC report (1990) used a BAU scenario of C02 emissions hitting 418 ppm in 2016, the observed rate was 404 ppm. The model overestimated warming between 1976 and 2016 by 17% in the BAU scenario (equivalent to a warming of 1 C with observed warming at 0.85 C)
- The second IPCC report (2001) A2 projection predicted an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 406 ppm (observed was 404 ppm). The rate of warming projected was 14% lower than observations.
- The fourth IPCC report (2007) (A1B scenario) projections were close to observations, at 8% higher
- The first IPCC report (2013) projections showed warming ~9 to 16% faster than observations since 1970.

I take your point though, the models have not been bang on. I guess we need Robinessex's understanding of chaos theory to fine tune things.

I didn't think it needed a response as your closing sentence and the IPCC report conclusions you posted amply demonstrated the abject failure of the models and the predictions/projections based on them.

[LittleBigPlanet]

Diderot said:

I didn't think it needed a response as your closing sentence and the IPCC report conclusions you posted amply demonstrated the abject failure of the models and the predictions/projections based on them.

Please do explain with specific reference to the information that I posted and your interpretation of the IPCC's conclusions. I'm also interested to get your thoughts on the "abject failure" of the models, given the information that I presented; this is evidently not true.

[Diderot]

LittleBigPlanet said:

Diderot said:

I didn't think it needed a response as your closing sentence and the IPCC report conclusions you posted amply demonstrated the abject failure of the models and the predictions/projections based on them.

Please do explain with specific reference to the information that I posted and your interpretation of the IPCC's conclusions. I'm also interested to get your thoughts on the "abject failure" of the models, given the information that I presented; this is evidently not true.

The stats you cite are out of kilter with observations. I do note with interest that you claim that 8% out of kilter is 'close'. It's a game of pin the tall on the donkey. And just as scientific.