Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
That's the first Institute in my list, let's move on to the next, I've got literally hundreds to choose from 
NASA.
Let's not, let's see you actually admit that you were wrong in suggesting that TATA had no horse in the race. You listed it, you wrongly suggested they were donors without any self-interest when clearly they have. NASA.
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Let's not, let's see you actually admit that you were wrong in suggesting that TATA had no horse in the race. You listed it, you wrongly suggested they were donors without any self-interest when clearly they have.
What exactly is their self interest? El stovey said:
dickymint said:
'the CONsensus' was only made up because the science has not been proved!.................Doh i've allowed myself to be dragged into another attrition loop.
Actually the consensus is because it’s the accepted theory with widespread agreement and very little controversy. AGW remains the scientific consensus until it has been disproved. Your theory isn’t the consensus because people who know what they’re talking about don’t agree with you.
That’s why you resort to suggesting respected scientific institutions and scientists are wrong or lying or on the take.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Let's not, let's see you actually admit that you were wrong in suggesting that TATA had no horse in the race. You listed it, you wrongly suggested they were donors without any self-interest when clearly they have.
What exactly is their self interest? As usual.
dickymint said:
You obviously have no idea what a consensus and a theory mean.
What do you think consensus and theory means? I think a consensus is a general agreement in a scientific community regarding a particular aspect of science.
A scientific theory is an explanation widely accepted by the scientific community.
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Well yes but your theory isn’t the consensus and hasn’t changed the consensus.
Is that because all the scientists and scientific institutions that make up the consensus are lying or wrong or actually, as is more likely, because you’re wrong?
you must have missed this question earlier in the thread.Is that because all the scientists and scientific institutions that make up the consensus are lying or wrong or actually, as is more likely, because you’re wrong?
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Because I don’t want to live in a federal Europe brought about by creeping integration.
Proof though that I don’t just automatically follow experts as you keep saying.
My politics have made me ignore the advice of experts as you and the rest of the cult have decided to do with climate change. Unlike you though I’m not saying the experts and the scientific consensus is wrong or that I know more than nasa or making up stuff about science to make a political point.
I think the financial experts are probably right about brexit with some short term economic damage on the horizon, it’s certainly damaging my area.
similar reason to myself. however,are you saying you believed what the chancellor said would happen immediately after a vote to leave and you ignored it ? you really expected an emergency budget and immediate recession ?Proof though that I don’t just automatically follow experts as you keep saying.
My politics have made me ignore the advice of experts as you and the rest of the cult have decided to do with climate change. Unlike you though I’m not saying the experts and the scientific consensus is wrong or that I know more than nasa or making up stuff about science to make a political point.
I think the financial experts are probably right about brexit with some short term economic damage on the horizon, it’s certainly damaging my area.
wc98 said:
bump.
Why are you constantly banging on about the chancellor and Brexit? It’s nothing to do with this thread. No I didn’t think the chancellors predictions would come true.
The chancellor’s pre Brexit warnings are not the same as the scientific consensus over climate change.
El stovey said:
What do you think consensus and theory means?
I think a consensus is a general agreement in a scientific community regarding a particular aspect of science.
A scientific theory is an explanation widely accepted by the scientific community.
Spot on. It is when we are told that the Science is settled and there is no doubt that alarm bells ring. As far as we know E=MC2. What you don't see is anybody saying there are no circumstances in which it will not apply. Just that we have not found any yet. A scientific theory is only valid until another scientist comes along with proof that it does not apply in certain circumstances. I think a consensus is a general agreement in a scientific community regarding a particular aspect of science.
A scientific theory is an explanation widely accepted by the scientific community.
What is more worrying are the attacks on anybody who tries to bring forward alternatives or points out the flaws in the existing theory and the apparent hiding of errors that have been made. Without skeptics or anybody trying to disprove these theories it really isn't science at all.
Vanden Saab said:
Spot on. It is when we are told that the Science is settled and there is no doubt that alarm bells ring.
Please read what actual scientists say. Pretty much the only people who say the science is settled are those who dispute AGW when concocting a straw man argument.The basic physics involved are well understood and nobody is disputing them, just as with evolution, the earth being spherical and water ice melts when heated. In that sense you could say the science is "settled" because those aspects are not disputed or scientifically controversial at all.
But there's still loads of research going into the effects of AGW and new papers are coming out all the time. There are still loads of unknowns and no scientist would say otherwise.
Vanden Saab said:
El stovey said:
What do you think consensus and theory means?
I think a consensus is a general agreement in a scientific community regarding a particular aspect of science.
A scientific theory is an explanation widely accepted by the scientific community.
Spot on. It is when we are told that the Science is settled and there is no doubt that alarm bells ring. As far as we know E=MC2. What you don't see is anybody saying there are no circumstances in which it will not apply. Just that we have not found any yet. A scientific theory is only valid until another scientist comes along with proof that it does not apply in certain circumstances. I think a consensus is a general agreement in a scientific community regarding a particular aspect of science.
A scientific theory is an explanation widely accepted by the scientific community.
What is more worrying are the attacks on anybody who tries to bring forward alternatives or points out the flaws in the existing theory and the apparent hiding of errors that have been made. Without skeptics or anybody trying to disprove these theories it really isn't science at all.
, personal blogs, very right wing 'think tanks' and institutes that the vast majority of scientists shun. They have no part in current mainstream AGW scientific discourse and desperately need a 'win' of some description to make themselves feel credible again - something they haven't really had for the last 15 to 20 years now.
Nit picking models isn't it and never will be.
A scientific theory has to be supported by the data, which is why agw is a hypothesis and one that's been refuted already. It survives because of political patronage and funding largesse. Under those conditions carbon dioxide can afford a long holiday.
Folland already pointed out only the other day that the science evolves rather than settles and with McKitrick and Christy having already supplied ample "informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models" there are nails in the nails in the coffin but with so much money at stake there's room for more nails yet.
Folland already pointed out only the other day that the science evolves rather than settles and with McKitrick and Christy having already supplied ample "informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models" there are nails in the nails in the coffin but with so much money at stake there's room for more nails yet.
More details from McKitrick and Christy 2018 for those unwilling or unable to look for any reason.
Anyone wanting p-values can always go the mile and check it out for themselves, rather than rely on anyone's word for it, particularly in the form of percentages representing conjecture around faith which are presented as remarkably like a statistical assessment (IPCC).
The last para cited is what some of us have been noting for quite a while: model suboptimisation to get a headline variable on-message while screwing the rest / chance not skill.
McKitrick and Christy said:
We make use herein of the latest releases of three radiosonde data sets, the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate
(RATPAC-A v2, Durre & Yin, 2011), as well as the University of Wien’s RAdiosonde Observation Correction
using Reanalyses (RAOBCORE v1.5) and Radiosonde Innovation Composite Homogenization (RICH v1.5,
Haimberger et al., 2012). All data begin in 1958 when radiosonde coverage expanded around the globe for
the International Geophysical Year and continue to the end of 2017. These series are compared against
the complete ensemble of 102 model runs prepared for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project
Number 5 (CMIP5) used in the most recent IPCC report (see Flato et al., 2013). The model output was obtained and used as-is from the Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch instituut Climate Data Explorer site (van Oldenborg, 2016). Since autocorrelation structures in climate data can be complex and may differ among data types (see, e.g., Varotsos et al., 2013) we use a variance estimation methodology robust to general forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (McKitrick & Vogelsang, 2014; Vogelsang & Franses, 2005). We also allow for a possible break term at 1979 associated with the Pacific climate shift (see Seidel & Lanzante, 2004; Tsonis et al., 2007; Powell & Xu, 2011, and extensive references therein).
...
As we will show, all 102 model runs warm more rapidly than observations, whether or not we allow for a break term. Most of the divergences are individually significant. We reject the hypothesis that the average model trend matches the average observed trend, regardless of the inclusion of a break. Thus, the observed data are inconsistent with the major hypothesis of GCMs as represented by the selected target variable.
...
Swanson (2013) noted that the changes in model output between CMIP3 and CMIP5 improved the fit to Arctic warming but worsened it everywhere else, raising the possibility that the models were getting the Arctic right for the wrong reasons. In the same vein we argue that to the extent GCMs are getting some features of the surface climate correct as a result of their current tuning, they are doing so with a flawed structure. If tuning to the surface added empirical precision to a valid physical representation, we would expect to see a good fit between models and observations at the point where the model predicts the clearest and strongest thermodynamic response to greenhouse gases. Instead, we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic.
That's what refutation looks like. Policy on this? Joke.Atmospheric Administration’s Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate
(RATPAC-A v2, Durre & Yin, 2011), as well as the University of Wien’s RAdiosonde Observation Correction
using Reanalyses (RAOBCORE v1.5) and Radiosonde Innovation Composite Homogenization (RICH v1.5,
Haimberger et al., 2012). All data begin in 1958 when radiosonde coverage expanded around the globe for
the International Geophysical Year and continue to the end of 2017. These series are compared against
the complete ensemble of 102 model runs prepared for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project
Number 5 (CMIP5) used in the most recent IPCC report (see Flato et al., 2013). The model output was obtained and used as-is from the Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch instituut Climate Data Explorer site (van Oldenborg, 2016). Since autocorrelation structures in climate data can be complex and may differ among data types (see, e.g., Varotsos et al., 2013) we use a variance estimation methodology robust to general forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (McKitrick & Vogelsang, 2014; Vogelsang & Franses, 2005). We also allow for a possible break term at 1979 associated with the Pacific climate shift (see Seidel & Lanzante, 2004; Tsonis et al., 2007; Powell & Xu, 2011, and extensive references therein).
...
As we will show, all 102 model runs warm more rapidly than observations, whether or not we allow for a break term. Most of the divergences are individually significant. We reject the hypothesis that the average model trend matches the average observed trend, regardless of the inclusion of a break. Thus, the observed data are inconsistent with the major hypothesis of GCMs as represented by the selected target variable.
...
Swanson (2013) noted that the changes in model output between CMIP3 and CMIP5 improved the fit to Arctic warming but worsened it everywhere else, raising the possibility that the models were getting the Arctic right for the wrong reasons. In the same vein we argue that to the extent GCMs are getting some features of the surface climate correct as a result of their current tuning, they are doing so with a flawed structure. If tuning to the surface added empirical precision to a valid physical representation, we would expect to see a good fit between models and observations at the point where the model predicts the clearest and strongest thermodynamic response to greenhouse gases. Instead, we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic.
Anyone wanting p-values can always go the mile and check it out for themselves, rather than rely on anyone's word for it, particularly in the form of percentages representing conjecture around faith which are presented as remarkably like a statistical assessment (IPCC).
The last para cited is what some of us have been noting for quite a while: model suboptimisation to get a headline variable on-message while screwing the rest / chance not skill.
El stovey said:
Well yes but your theory isn’t the consensus and hasn’t changed the consensus.
Is that because all the scientists and scientific institutions that make up the consensus are lying or wrong or actually, as is more likely, because you’re wrong?
My theory is that H2O is the dominant GHG (which is in line with the consensus) and the CO2 is a weak bit player that cannot cause "run-away" warming on a planet that has a surface of 2/3rds liquid H2O. Is that because all the scientists and scientific institutions that make up the consensus are lying or wrong or actually, as is more likely, because you’re wrong?
You will find all of the above is supported by the current science and it is only the predicted warming with feedbacks (which hasn't been shown anywhere outside of the failed models) that support the catastrophic meme.
So I may be wrong but so might the "catastrophic" consensus (and if you investigated you will find that the catastrophe is not part of the consensus) .
Vanden Saab said:
Spot on. It is when we are told that the Science is settled and there is no doubt that alarm bells ring. As far as we know E=MC2. What you don't see is anybody saying there are no circumstances in which it will not apply. Just that we have not found any yet. A scientific theory is only valid until another scientist comes along with proof that it does not apply in certain circumstances.
What is more worrying are the attacks on anybody who tries to bring forward alternatives or points out the flaws in the existing theory and the apparent hiding of errors that have been made. Without skeptics or anybody trying to disprove these theories it really isn't science at all.
Sure we need scepticism and people asking questions, that’s how the science changes and consensus develops. The sceptics haven’t changed the AGW consensus though. What is more worrying are the attacks on anybody who tries to bring forward alternatives or points out the flaws in the existing theory and the apparent hiding of errors that have been made. Without skeptics or anybody trying to disprove these theories it really isn't science at all.
Is that because they’re wrong or because science is somehow broken with scientists lying for grants and institutions publishing false positions etc?
Meanwhile, the Beeb is still on the case
Climate change kills Antarctica's ancient moss beds
Emerging from the ice for a brief growing season every Antarctic summer, the lush green mosses of East Antarctica are finally succumbing to climate change.
That is according to a study of the small, ancient and hardy plants - carried out over more than a decade.
This revealed that vegetation in East Antarctica is changing rapidly in response to a drying climate.
The findings are published in the journal Nature Climate Change..........continues
Climate change kills Antarctica's ancient moss beds
Emerging from the ice for a brief growing season every Antarctic summer, the lush green mosses of East Antarctica are finally succumbing to climate change.
That is according to a study of the small, ancient and hardy plants - carried out over more than a decade.
This revealed that vegetation in East Antarctica is changing rapidly in response to a drying climate.
The findings are published in the journal Nature Climate Change..........continues
El stovey said:
Sure we need scepticism and people asking questions, that’s how the science changes and consensus develops. The sceptics haven’t changed the AGW consensus though.
Is that because they’re wrong or because science is somehow broken with scientists lying for grants and institutions publishing false positions etc?
What's the difference physically between the results of natural climate change and anthropogenic climate change Stovey? CAGW believers are saying the climate is changing because of CO2 - skeptics have adopted the null hypothesis that the climate is changing because it always changes and has changed before - which one do you think the burden of proof should be on?Is that because they’re wrong or because science is somehow broken with scientists lying for grants and institutions publishing false positions etc?
And this is science so they both can be wrong.
The CO2 argument is the same as the God of gaps argument - look it up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff