Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
As mentioned, a shuddering thought or two from this CNN report on global warming's cold weather. Thank goodness for temperature measurements near airport tarmac, busy highways, aircon outlets and of course the data adjustments, or it could be worse.

-Hundreds of million of people freezing from Weds
-Arctic blast grips the eastern two-thirds of the US and brings record-breaking cold
-Freeze warnings continue into the Deep South, with freezing temperatures in Florida
-More than 232 million people were in areas @ 32 degrees F or lower.
-Hundreds of temperature records set
-The deep freeze has contributed to at least five deaths so far

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/13/us/winter-weath...

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Things are looking bad up north in the UK

This is Cockermouth.




The local Morrisons is apparently running low on Walls Cornettos after a run by panicking buyers.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
On keeping science that could do damage out of IPCC reports:
Climategate anniversary reprise of a Phil Jones message on how inclusive IPCC reports are said:
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!.
I’m not going to go through each quote as they are all out of context and used by you to sow doubt where there is none but on top of the demolition of the HIDE THE DECLINE quote I’ll pick one at random that has been dismissed by everybody who’s investigated it...

“The Review asked Jones about the MM2004 allegations. He stated that the “keep them out” email was “sent on the spur of the moment and quickly forgotten”, but there were good scientific reasons for his intention to exclude MM2004. (Namely, it did not account for signals like El Niño; and in any case its conclusions about the land temperature record are at odds with the independent lines of evidence provided by the ocean and satellite records.) Jones also denied having written the paragraph in question, saying the inclusion of MM2004 was a collective decision by the Chapter 3 writing team. IPCC records confirm that MM2004 was discussed by the group.

The inquiry also took evidence from one of the three Review Editors for Chapter 3, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins. He “was very impressed by Jones’ attention to detail, and the rigour of the Chapter 3 process.” He pointed out the writing group had joint responsibility for the text and it was unlikely for one voice to have dominated.

The Review found the rebuttal of MM2004 does not appear to have been “invented”. Instead there has been “a consistence of view amongst those who disagree with MM2004 that has been sustained over the last 6 years”. Overall, the Review found no more than “mere speculation” that MM2004 was unfairly excluded”




Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 17:30

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
I haven't watched the BBC program on Climategate so cannot comment on it's analysis.

The interesting thing is of course how much goes on behind the scenes with scientists compared to published papers and then public statements.

If we roll back 100 years the scientists had a great battle between themselves over the atom and the new "quantum mechanics" . Even in 2019 quantum mechanics is not for science "softies". Back then it was the old guard, Einstein et al, v the new guard, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac etc.

It was more than 20 years of letters being sent backwards and forwards and papers produced in journals. Such was the advancement in a short period the scientists suffered stress.

I am just thankful that took place without social media. The science got sorted without some dumbfeck from Swindon adding his tuppence worth on this that and the other he did not understand.

Ironically quantum mechanics allows us all to chew the fat about about things weather wise without breaking a sweat.....


Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Wayoftheflower said:
turbobloke said:
TTmonkey said:
What if........ climate scientists are right, and PH experts are wrong....?
Climate scientists don't all agree. PH experts is another misdirection - with regard to science as opposed to gigo models, PH posts often contain peer-reviewed paper citations and links where possible to published papers from climate scientists that show agw is junkscience.

The essence of the matter is that climate models are inadequate but are used to set political policy. Actual science based on empirical data, rather than assumptions fed into a computer, is a different matter.

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) show that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

Mao et al in Atmospheric and Climate Sciences (2019) show that 1880-2013 temperature changes fit extremely well into a calculation utilizing periodic functions of natural climate variation, this link is to a pdf version of the paper which relegates any anthropogenic factor to a minor secondary role given that natural cycles are so dominant.

Links to these and several other papers were provided earlier in the thread.
McKitrick is a typical Heartland stooge but Varotsos is more interesting as he appears at first glance to have some credibility. His Paper does state

"Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory." So he appears to be countering an expected part of the global warming model, fair enough if the data backs this up.
We discussed this one on the science thread not long ago. There's a misrepresentation here of the expectation of 'polar amplification'. Wherever you look in the IPCC reports since the first report in 1990 you'll find the expectation of amplification at the north pole but reduced warming at the south pole. You'd never know that from reading this paper. The amplification at the north pole is there, as expected, in Table 1.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.
Can you back up that last paragraph please.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 12:17

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Bacardi said:
I’m just curious as to what you see as your future career, to provide for your family? Hemp weaving, yogurt knitting? OK, I’m taking the piss a bit, but, seriously, if the ICE, aviation, central heating etc. has to be killed in order to save the planet, how do you see your future ‘job'?
People will still need/want to travel and the fastest way will continue to be by air and it will continue to be done by using increasing efficient and environmentally friendly technologies. It will possibly become more expensive and thus less accessible due to increased taxation and environmental offsets though.

Why what do you think will happen?
People wanting to travel is, in most cases, simply a selfish exercise in wasting resources.

Ask Greta - although why she apparently feels the need to travel the earth to give a simple 5 minute speech (or less less) is unclear.

Most forms of travel and now pretty awful experiences compared to only 2 or 3 decades ago and I would not be surprised if the upcoming generations lost interest, at least for a while. If they lose interest for long enough the infrastructure will most likely erode and change the travel model anyway.

That would fit with your addition of extended taxation to discourage participation in travel - all sorts of travel, not just flying.

I'm not sure that the "increasing efficient and environmentally friendly technologies." will happen, absent a remarkable breakthrough for some sort of Unicorn technicology and its passage through green and Health and Safety concerns in record time.

For that to happen would require some form of genuine miracle and perhaps the overturning of most or the laws of physics as they are currently understood.

To eke out further efficiencies from what knowledge is currently around seems unlikely to offer the huge leap in benefits and efficiencies that would be required to even begin to satisfy the zero carbon demands. The easier gains in known methods are likely to have been achieved by now. From here on in, as with all developments of existing technologies, things get more costly and time consuming for every fraction of a percentage gained. And sometime the perceived gains and benefits are overshadowed and lost by unforeseen problems that their development introduced.

Even if miraculous developments appear we are told by the "influencers", like Greta and ER according to the various types of media, that there is no time to wait before taking drastic action. So the idea of waiting around until some remarkable development leads to carbon neutral travel by air simply does not apply.

The only realistic approach to solve the air travel carbon problem today, according to the experts, is to eliminate the source. The simple way to prevent 'big airlines' perpetuating their pollution would be to ban most flying immediately with a view to total elimination as soon as possible.

That is unlikely to be politically acceptable so a more personal approach would be for those who are concerned to stop flying (or using any form of carbon emitting travel but to discuss that would be to extend the discussion beyond the immediate subject response.) and to stop any form of support for the very idea of using air transport.

In the absence of autonomous flying options if pilots were to withdraw their services en masse it would send a powerful message and force a number of issues in a way that would be timely for the plan of changes required that some people feel are vital and must be started immediately.

To wait around encouraging the masses to carry on as usual until some remarkable new technology has been developed and approved would seem to be morally questionable for the airlines and thus also for the people they employ. It also helps to keep 'big oil' in business.

From a personal angle I have no problem if people wish to carry on submitting themselves to the vagaries of modern era air travel although I have recently had conversations with a small number of frequent travellers who seem to be less and less enamoured of the experience at all levels. Neither airlines nor Airports are doing much to encourage them it seems. Maybe interest will wane naturally somewhere between the pressures of personal economics and the standard of service experience offered.

However if one wished to improve the level of certainty that the air travel industry would provide a worthwhile response to the Global Emergency that has been declared taking personal action from within the industry seems to be the most obvious and direct approach. The moral high ground is there to be claimed for those committed to the message.



kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.
Can you back up that last paragraph please.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 12:17
The field of historical temperature reconstructions clearly hasn't ceased, scientific enquiry continues. Ignore Mrr T's 'don't want to know' sentiment.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.
Can you back up that last paragraph please.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 12:17
The field of historical temperature reconstructions clearly hasn't ceased, scientific enquiry continues. Ignore Mrr T's 'don't want to know' sentiment.
Did I say the field of temperature reconstructions had ceased? I said no serious climate scientist would use the M Mann hockey stick today.

While research on temperature reconstructions continues I doubt its going to provide much useful information.


Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.
Can you back up that last paragraph please.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 12:17
The field of historical temperature reconstructions clearly hasn't ceased, scientific enquiry continues. Ignore Mrr T's 'don't want to know' sentiment.
Did I say the field of temperature reconstructions had ceased? I said no serious climate scientist would use the M Mann hockey stick today.

While research on temperature reconstructions continues I doubt its going to provide much useful information.
That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of. biggrin

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.
If you have not seen the program how can you possibly comment on the “deletion of the graph which disagrees with your conclusion”.

It was clearly explained why it was removed and has been upheld by various enquiries as not being anti-science or anything else of a nefarious nature.

Watch the program - then comment - because at this point you clearly look like you do not have all of the facts. It’s still available on iPlayer.

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.
Can you back up that last paragraph please.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 12:17
The field of historical temperature reconstructions clearly hasn't ceased, scientific enquiry continues. Ignore Mrr T's 'don't want to know' sentiment.
Did I say the field of temperature reconstructions had ceased? I said no serious climate scientist would use the M Mann hockey stick today.

While research on temperature reconstructions continues I doubt its going to provide much useful information.
That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of. biggrin
The study in Berkeley sponsored by the fossil fuel bigwigs?

Nickgnome

8,277 posts

88 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
zygalski said:
The study in Berkeley sponsored by the fossil fuel bigwigs?
Yes that one and the came to exactly the same conclusion.

The programme was quite interesting and worth watching.

Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Nickgnome said:
zygalski said:
The study in Berkeley sponsored by the fossil fuel bigwigs?
Yes that one and the came to exactly the same conclusion.

The programme was quite interesting and worth watching.
Yep. The Koch brothers must have been beside themselves having paid for that bunch of sceptical scientists to disprove the hockey stick using the same raw data as the CRU only for them to arrive at a hockey stick themselves hehe


Randy Winkman

16,021 posts

188 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
Nickgnome said:
zygalski said:
The study in Berkeley sponsored by the fossil fuel bigwigs?
Yes that one and the came to exactly the same conclusion.

The programme was quite interesting and worth watching.
Yep. The Koch brothers must have been beside themselves having paid for that bunch of sceptical scientists to disprove the hockey stick using the same raw data as the CRU only for them to arrive at a hockey stick themselves hehe
The programme reinforced my view that there is far more motivation for business and most governments to show that human-made climate change isn't happening. In fact, when they saw an opening, that's what they did. But it came to nothing.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
If you have not seen the program how can you possibly comment on the “deletion of the graph which disagrees with your conclusion”.

It was clearly explained why it was removed and has been upheld by various enquiries as not being anti-science or anything else of a nefarious nature.

Watch the program - then comment - because at this point you clearly look like you do not have all of the facts. It’s still available on iPlayer.
I can comment on the research because I have followed the hockey stick discussion for many years. I have even read the reports which mainly ignored the science.

It's not hard the reconstruction used a proxy then thermometer readings. The data sets overlapped for a period. The proxy data showed a decline in temperature the thermometer a rise. They chose to remove the proxy data for that period.

Please explain to me why that is justified. The difference must mean one data set is wrong. If they believed the thermometer data was correct you have to delete all the proxy data not just in the period of the cross over.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Gadgetmac said:
That wasn’t the point though was it. It was about the raw data at the time creating a hockey stick. The same raw data which the sceptical scientists couldn’t help but also make a hockey stick out of. biggrin
You do understand the statistical technique Mann used to create the hockey stick?

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
Did you not watch the program last night...the HIDE THE DECLINE...was fully explained and why it was said at the time including the graphs and what exactly was hidden and why.

Even after that you’re still rolling out this bks?

rolleyes
I have not seen the program but have followed the hockey stick.

If you have two data sets covering the same period and they show very different results in a scientific paper you do not delete the one which disagrees with your conclusion.

The hockey stick was broken many years ago and few climate scientists play hockey any more.
Can you back up that last paragraph please.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 12:17
The field of historical temperature reconstructions clearly hasn't ceased, scientific enquiry continues. Ignore Mrr T's 'don't want to know' sentiment.
Did I say the field of temperature reconstructions had ceased? I said no serious climate scientist would use the M Mann hockey stick today.
No you didn't, and your claim appears contrary to Mann's citation index.







Gadgetmac

14,984 posts

107 months

Saturday 16th November 2019
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
Gadgetmac said:
If you have not seen the program how can you possibly comment on the “deletion of the graph which disagrees with your conclusion”.

It was clearly explained why it was removed and has been upheld by various enquiries as not being anti-science or anything else of a nefarious nature.

Watch the program - then comment - because at this point you clearly look like you do not have all of the facts. It’s still available on iPlayer.
I can comment on the research because I have followed the hockey stick discussion for many years. I have even read the reports which mainly ignored the science.

It's not hard the reconstruction used a proxy then thermometer readings. The data sets overlapped for a period. The proxy data showed a decline in temperature the thermometer a rise. They chose to remove the proxy data for that period.

Please explain to me why that is justified. The difference must mean one data set is wrong. If they believed the thermometer data was correct you have to delete all the proxy data not just in the period of the cross over.
Again, watch the program as you’re not commenting from a position of knowledge. The reason for the deletion of the data is explained. I’m not even sure you know where the data which was deleted was from as you haven’t mentioned it yet and if you did know where it was from you’d presumably know why it was deleted.

To quote from another source as I can’t rewatch the program now to find it...

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

The program explains why tree rings from this location might be prone to variation from recorded temps.

There are other explanations...Trees are biological entities and as such are susceptible to many influences and a strong contender is global dimming in the second part of the 20th Century:

https://www.newsweek.com/climategate-revisited-new...




Edited by Gadgetmac on Saturday 16th November 20:58

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED