Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

hairykrishna

13,159 posts

202 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
deeps said:
What has temperature rise got to do with causality? How can anyone be that dumb? I don't mean to sound rude in any way, I really don't, but temperature will go one way or the other, it's more or less a 50/50 shout.
That's not an answer to the question of exactly what you're looking for in terms of evidence.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There's been a large increase over the last century that's directly attributable to human activity. Calculations tell us what we should expect the temperature to rise by. The temperature has risen in line with the prediction.

So if that's not good enough evidence, what is? What would demonstrate causality to you?

hairykrishna

13,159 posts

202 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
Diderot said:
Pause/hiatus? Did the models predict that? (Rhetorical question). And you know how many papers were published attempting to explain why.
Models predict long term trends. For a while it looked like perhaps there was something significant happening in terms of a 'pause'. This was compounded by there being no real definition of what a 'pause' constitutes and a variety of start dates for the 'pause' being suggested. People are obviously going to publish speculating on what that something was.

Retrospective statistical analysis suggests that there was no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. If yo're actually interested try reading Lewandowsky et al https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-93...

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
deeps said:


Interestingly, there's been about an inch of global warming in Las Vegas for the first time since 1937.
Interestingly, it's February and expected to be 18 degrees in the UK over the next few days. No comment on that?

Diderot

7,264 posts

191 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
Diderot said:
Pause/hiatus? Did the models predict that? (Rhetorical question). And you know how many papers were published attempting to explain why.
Models predict long term trends. For a while it looked like perhaps there was something significant happening in terms of a 'pause'. This was compounded by there being no real definition of what a 'pause' constitutes and a variety of start dates for the 'pause' being suggested. People are obviously going to publish speculating on what that something was.

Retrospective statistical analysis suggests that there was no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. If yo're actually interested try reading Lewandowsky et al https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-93...
But the science is settled HK. So no 60 plus speculative papers needed for something that was never going to happen. rolleyes Yes the Lewandowsky paper, I’ve already ploughed through it thanks. Models still bear no relation to reality.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
It's intersting to note that swapping less accurate and more heat contaminated ship engine intake temperatures for more accurate less heat contaminated scientific buoy temperatures is now seen as "retrospective statistical analysis". Righto.

What sits behind concerted Team efforts, whether it's ship engine intakes (or jet exhausts and airports 'CRUTAR') or the need for team action as per attacks on other scientists, was revealed 15 years ago. Additional explanatory remarks are in brackets,

Team member said:
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.
Team member said:
I can't see either of these papers (recently published in the journal Climate Research) being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.
Team member said:
If you think that (Yale professor James) Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official channels to get him ousted (as Editor of Geophysical Research Letters journal)."
music that's entertainment teamwork music

Phud

1,262 posts

142 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
durbster said:
Interestingly, it's February and expected to be 18 degrees in the UK over the next few days. No comment on that?
The same as 175 ish years ago, prior to the touted AGW, anything to say about that?


Is this weather or climate then?

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
It's quite an experience reading through Lewandowsky et al (with historian Naomi Oreskes in the author team), The first sentence of the abstract as agw supporters will recall is this:

Recent public debate and the scientific literature have frequently cited a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming.

Indeed the scientific literature is like that. The Pause has had numerous attempts to explain it away when Hey Presclott it never existed! Over 50 excuses - all that time wasted. Lew et al goes on as follows.

In the public sphere, the claim that global warming has “stopped” has long been a contrarian talking point.

Contrarian?! This group resembles advocates with phraseology like that.

Us and them! Kill the beast, spill its blood!

What the authors miss is motivation to find out what is going on, not to be contrarian. Team IPCC don't know what's happening in the climate system, as we were told in Climategate email. We were also told by Trenberth (additional info in brackets):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

Data wrong? Data trumps donald duck models every day. Accounting changes needed?! See the ships' captains about that.

Recall that it was only when global temps did not increase by 0.3°C / decade as most climate models had predicted that the weasel words begain to appear. Natural decadal variability was offered as an explanation for the missing expected temperature rise even though this explicitly demotes carbon dioxide as being impotent in the face of natual variability and subservient to it.

Following the claim that an anthropogenic signal was being obscured by decadal climatic variability, sayers of sooth said it would be several decades before the invisible signal became visible (Meehl et al in Nature Climate Change). As John Daly would have said, still waiting. Any sniff of a Pause or Hiatus at 15+ years "could really do some damage".Team, ten shun!

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
durbster said:
Interestingly, it's February and expected to be 18 degrees in the UK over the next few days. No comment on that?
Yes already explained as weather way back on Monday.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

On Monday I said:
More fun...is the UK heading for the hottest Feb temperature eeeeeevvvvvvvaaaaaaaaaaah? Or at least since the meaninglessly short temp record began. We're not talking Minoan Warm Period here.

Met Office said:
There is a ‘small chance’ the nation could bake in the warmest conditions ever seen for the time of year.
Spot the weather bit:
High pressure over the continent and low pressure northwest of Britain look set to bring a stream of unseasonably hot air from Morocco and the Sahara over the UK (seasonal for Morocco and the Sahara).

Spot the global warming bit:
As the jet stream element involves movement away from the pole (warm weather will be driven in part by the jet stream dipping down over the southern atlantic before moving across the UK) whereas agw predictions had movement towards the pole, there's no global warming bit.

Such fun, it's like Australia all over again.

It's also bringing back memories of F1 'winter' testing at the Jerez de la Frontera circuit in the first week of Feb at 30 deg C all for 5 euros a day.
cloud9
That followed an explanation of the recent weather in Australia which has also been mistouted as global warming.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
Bump! For anyone in particular who may have missed it.

On Monday I also said:
More hinky hanky panky on the agw front.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been putting itself about with over 20 mentions of a January 'record' within the meaninglessly short historical record. Here's a pic of the scene.



As has been pointed out elsewhere and on more than one occasion, the thing about global warming is that it's meant to be global. The thing about weather variation is that it's more local.

Or as Dr Roy Spencer puts it in picture form:



Note the cooler low pressure regions near and off the coasts which happen to have rising air and precipitation. The science behind the warmth is latent heat from this process transferring downwards in sinking air over land (high pressure).
Presumably agw supporters know what latent heat is.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
deeps said:
hairykrishna said:
deeps said:
What would it take to convince...

Commenter said:
All it would take for me is for someone, anyone, to provide objective, repeatable, verified evidence that changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on climate metrics, and by how much, with error bands.

I won’t accept playing with unverified, unvalidated computer games, running them without and then with “CO2 Forcing” as objective evidence of any thing.
But we have that. We predict a temperature rise, we've seen a temperature rise. If the global temperature records aren't enough for you, exactly what are you asking for? Spell it out. What, for you, is the evidence you're looking for?
What has temperature rise got to do with causality? How can anyone be that dumb? I don't mean to sound rude in any way, I really don't, but temperature will go one way or the other, it's more or less a 50/50 shout.
Are you able to answer the question - what, for you, is the evidence you're looking for? Can you describe what that evidence would look like? Just curious if your evidential demands are actually deliverable. Is it the duration of the warming trend so far that's inadequate, or is it inadequate regardless of how long it continues and you need 'something else'?

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
Models predict long term trends. For a while it looked like perhaps there was something significant happening in terms of a 'pause'. This was compounded by there being no real definition of what a 'pause' constitutes and a variety of start dates for the 'pause' being suggested. People are obviously going to publish speculating on what that something was.

Retrospective statistical analysis suggests that there was no statistically significant change in the rate of warming. If yo're actually interested try reading Lewandowsky et al https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-93...
why would you read a paper from a psychologist on the statistics of global warming (not forgetting the old adage that if your theory needs statistics to explain it you need a better theory, or something like that smile ) ? i have been told time and time again on here that i shouldn't be listening to anything from non climate scientists as they are the experts in the field, well not all climate scientists , just those on the approved list from el stovey and gadgetmac.

a bit o/t but mr lewandowsky is a bit of a nasty prick apparently , not well liked by colleagues. personally one for the "faces i would never tire of punching" thread.

hairykrishna

13,159 posts

202 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
why would you read a paper from a psychologist on the statistics of global warming (not forgetting the old adage that if your theory needs statistics to explain it you need a better theory, or something like that smile ) ? i have been told time and time again on here that i shouldn't be listening to anything from non climate scientists as they are the experts in the field, well not all climate scientists , just those on the approved list from el stovey and gadgetmac.

a bit o/t but mr lewandowsky is a bit of a nasty prick apparently , not well liked by colleagues. personally one for the "faces i would never tire of punching" thread.
It's co-authored by climate scientists. Mann and Rahmstorf are both experts in the field.

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
wc98 said:
why would you read a paper from a psychologist on the statistics of global warming (not forgetting the old adage that if your theory needs statistics to explain it you need a better theory, or something like that smile ) ? i have been told time and time again on here that i shouldn't be listening to anything from non climate scientists as they are the experts in the field, well not all climate scientists , just those on the approved list from el stovey and gadgetmac.

a bit o/t but mr lewandowsky is a bit of a nasty prick apparently , not well liked by colleagues. personally one for the "faces i would never tire of punching" thread.
The approved list is basically just those scientists not linked to or on the payroll of Exxon.

As for your side note, we don't know that you haven't got one of those faces too. biggrin

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
Are you able to answer the question - what, for you, is the evidence you're looking for? Can you describe what that evidence would look like? Just curious if your evidential demands are actually deliverable. Is it the duration of the warming trend so far that's inadequate, or is it inadequate regardless of how long it continues and you need 'something else'?
that's an easy one for me. amo and pdo in cool phases and global temps continue to rise. don't see it happening mind, specific heat capacity of the oceans trumps that of atmospheric gasses every time. given ocean cycles of 800 years and longer and the oceans being the planets energy store (would be fecking cold without them) i am not worried at all about atmospheric heat content, well unless it drops significantly. my wife doesn't like cold so if we have to fly further south for more holiday warmth it leaves me less money to spend on fishing. first world problems, eh smile

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
The approved list is basically just those scientists not linked to or on the payroll of Exxon.

As for your side note, we don't know that you haven't got one of those faces too. biggrin
i might well have, it certainly got punched a lot at the local boxing club back in the day, the odd brick, bottle and 4x2 have added some character to it as well.the joys of a misspent youth biggrin

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
It's co-authored by climate scientists. Mann and Rahmstorf are both experts in the field.
rahmstorf fair enough (though i fear history will not look kindly upon him given the association with mann) but i am afraid i won't be placing any credence in a proven fraud.

stew-STR160

8,006 posts

237 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
why would you read a paper from a psychologist on the statistics of global warming (not forgetting the old adage that if your theory needs statistics to explain it you need a better theory, or something like that smile ) ? i have been told time and time again on here that i shouldn't be listening to anything from non climate scientists as they are the experts in the field, well not all climate scientists , just those on the approved list from el stovey and gadgetmac.

a bit o/t but mr lewandowsky is a bit of a nasty prick apparently , not well liked by colleagues. personally one for the "faces i would never tire of punching" thread.
The approved list is basically just those scientists not linked to or on the payroll of Exxon.

As for your side note, we don't know that you haven't got one of those faces too. biggrin
Do you have such a list of the actual scientists? Not the organisations they are employed or associated with.

gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
stew-STR160 said:
gadgetmac said:
wc98 said:
why would you read a paper from a psychologist on the statistics of global warming (not forgetting the old adage that if your theory needs statistics to explain it you need a better theory, or something like that smile ) ? i have been told time and time again on here that i shouldn't be listening to anything from non climate scientists as they are the experts in the field, well not all climate scientists , just those on the approved list from el stovey and gadgetmac.

a bit o/t but mr lewandowsky is a bit of a nasty prick apparently , not well liked by colleagues. personally one for the "faces i would never tire of punching" thread.
The approved list is basically just those scientists not linked to or on the payroll of Exxon.

As for your side note, we don't know that you haven't got one of those faces too. biggrin
Do you have such a list of the actual scientists? Not the organisations they are employed or associated with.
Not really. A quick check on the source is always simple enough though.

turbobloke

103,744 posts

259 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
The disapproved list - that'll be scientists funded by big government and under its spell as well as its largesse? Big Geen climate spend approx x2 Big Oil spend from last year (figures from IRS forms), see previous posts on this. Big Gov't funded scientists in IPCC thrall, according to an IPCC Lead Author not appointed by a gov't, tend to consider it a good thing when big centralised solutions are needed from big gov't. We really need a climate politics thread wink

Diderot

7,264 posts

191 months

Friday 22nd February 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
The disapproved list - that'll be scientists funded by big government and under its spell as well as its largesse? Big Geen climate spend approx x2 Big Oil spend from last year (figures from IRS forms), see previous posts on this. Big Gov't funded scientists in IPCC thrall, according to an IPCC Lead Author not appointed by a gov't, tend to consider it a good thing when big centralised solutions are needed from big gov't. We really need a climate politics thread wink
And as we know in the UK, a new round of big government funding mayhem for Universities has already started in earnest with preparations well underway for REF 2021. Impact is way up the agenda this time - even more than in 2014 - and as ever careers on the line.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED