Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
durbster said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
And I appreciate your attempts to spin it as a failure but the truth is, being accurate to within 0.022C is incredible for a system as complex as this.
I mean, they've been significantly more accurate than Dr Roy Spencer so far...
That's 10% out per decade - so no not incredible.I mean, they've been significantly more accurate than Dr Roy Spencer so far...
Edited by durbster on Friday 4th June 16:56
ALL models are wrong. Simple as that. FACT. No human being can see into the future; and the models have enormous difficulty hind casting too.
Do the 'math' Durbster, after all you is an evangelist of da faith innit.
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
And I appreciate your attempts to spin it as a failure but the truth is, being accurate to within 0.022C is incredible for a system as complex as this.
I mean, they've been significantly more accurate than Dr Roy Spencer so far...
That's 10% out per decade - so no not incredible.I mean, they've been significantly more accurate than Dr Roy Spencer so far...
Edited by durbster on Friday 4th June 16:56
ALL models are wrong. Simple as that. FACT. No human being can see into the future; and the models have enormous difficulty hind casting too.
Do the 'math' Durbster, after all you is an evangelist of da faith innit.
maths:
Global warming trend for the last 50 years - 0.2C per decade, or 2C per century.
Diderot said:
What's so significant about 1979-1983, and using it as a baseline?
Just a guess, but in late 1978 they began banning the use of CFC refrigerants. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all?And in 1977 the EPA had already started the phase out of leaded petrol and the introduction of vehicle exhaust emissions control equipment as standard.
There may be a correlation.
NMNeil said:
Diderot said:
What's so significant about 1979-1983, and using it as a baseline?
Just a guess, but in late 1978 they began banning the use of CFC refrigerants. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all?And in 1977 the EPA had already started the phase out of leaded petrol and the introduction of vehicle exhaust emissions control equipment as standard.
There may be a correlation.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
Apologies for using NASA as a source of information, I know deniers prefer the more reliable sources like Turbobloke, mybrainhurts and dickymint.
El stovey said:
NMNeil said:
Diderot said:
What's so significant about 1979-1983, and using it as a baseline?
Just a guess, but in late 1978 they began banning the use of CFC refrigerants. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all?And in 1977 the EPA had already started the phase out of leaded petrol and the introduction of vehicle exhaust emissions control equipment as standard.
There may be a correlation.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
Apologies for using NASA as a source of information, I know deniers prefer the more reliable sources like Turbobloke, mybrainhurts and dickymint.
El stovey said:
NMNeil said:
Diderot said:
What's so significant about 1979-1983, and using it as a baseline?
Just a guess, but in late 1978 they began banning the use of CFC refrigerants. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all?And in 1977 the EPA had already started the phase out of leaded petrol and the introduction of vehicle exhaust emissions control equipment as standard.
There may be a correlation.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
Apologies for using NASA as a source of information, I know deniers prefer the more reliable sources like Turbobloke, mybrainhurts and dickymint.
I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
kerplunk said:
But no satellite data used so I think not.
I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
Spencer uses it a lot. Start of UAH.I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
hairykrishna said:
kerplunk said:
But no satellite data used so I think not.
I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
Spencer uses it a lot. Start of UAH.I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
kerplunk said:
El stovey said:
NMNeil said:
Diderot said:
What's so significant about 1979-1983, and using it as a baseline?
Just a guess, but in late 1978 they began banning the use of CFC refrigerants. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all?And in 1977 the EPA had already started the phase out of leaded petrol and the introduction of vehicle exhaust emissions control equipment as standard.
There may be a correlation.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
Apologies for using NASA as a source of information, I know deniers prefer the more reliable sources like Turbobloke, mybrainhurts and dickymint.
I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
NASA hasn't ever tripped up then?
Edited by Diderot on Sunday 6th June 21:52
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
El stovey said:
NMNeil said:
Diderot said:
What's so significant about 1979-1983, and using it as a baseline?
Just a guess, but in late 1978 they began banning the use of CFC refrigerants. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all?And in 1977 the EPA had already started the phase out of leaded petrol and the introduction of vehicle exhaust emissions control equipment as standard.
There may be a correlation.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
Apologies for using NASA as a source of information, I know deniers prefer the more reliable sources like Turbobloke, mybrainhurts and dickymint.
I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
NASA hasn't ever tripped up then?
Edited by Diderot on Sunday 6th June 21:52
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
El stovey said:
NMNeil said:
Diderot said:
What's so significant about 1979-1983, and using it as a baseline?
Just a guess, but in late 1978 they began banning the use of CFC refrigerants. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to kill us all?And in 1977 the EPA had already started the phase out of leaded petrol and the introduction of vehicle exhaust emissions control equipment as standard.
There may be a correlation.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-plane...
Apologies for using NASA as a source of information, I know deniers prefer the more reliable sources like Turbobloke, mybrainhurts and dickymint.
I think it's just the start time of the model runs (1979) and if you're going to compare to obs you need to normalize the model/obs data to a common baseline. An average of the first 5 years seems a reasonable choice.
NASA hasn't ever tripped up then?
Edited by Diderot on Sunday 6th June 21:52
Diderot said:
Not confused Plunky. 30 years as putatively significant in terms of climate change.
climate *change* - exactly. So that's a matter of TREND analysis eg is a 15 year flat period significant and justify claims that global waming has 'stopped' and all that. Normalizing two datasets to a common baseline isn't the same thing. The main concern there would be that the obs are noisier than the model mean so when normalizing you also need need to smooth the obs to match the model mean and 5 year seems adequate for that to me (to see someone taking advantage of yearly ups and downs in the obs to make the model look worse see Lordship Monckton on Hansen's 1988 model predictions on WUWT - he normalizes the data to a single year)
Diderot said:
My question is why not use 1978-to date when we have the data, or as is conventional a 30 year average?
There is no reason not to that I'm aware of. The only question of any importance is - does it change the result of the model/obs comparison?Real Climate use a 20yr baseline in their model obs comparisons - https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-mode...
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 7th June 10:22
Surprisingly good climate politics news ahead...
OPEC leaders mock IEA’s “La-La Land” 2050 Net Zero roadmap
Bloomberg, 03 June 2021
China, India & US spur rebounding global CO2 output (Economic Times of India adds Russia and Australia to the list)
E&E News, 02 June 2021
G7 nations invest more in fossil fuels than green energy despite lofty pledges
OilPrice.com, 02 June 2021
Biden climate goals to take backseat, coal ftw
Bloomberg News, 01 June 2021
OPEC leaders mock IEA’s “La-La Land” 2050 Net Zero roadmap
Bloomberg, 03 June 2021
China, India & US spur rebounding global CO2 output (Economic Times of India adds Russia and Australia to the list)
E&E News, 02 June 2021
G7 nations invest more in fossil fuels than green energy despite lofty pledges
OilPrice.com, 02 June 2021
Biden climate goals to take backseat, coal ftw
Bloomberg News, 01 June 2021
turbobloke said:
Surprisingly good climate politics news ahead...
G7 nations invest more in fossil fuels than green energy despite lofty pledges
OilPrice.com, 02 June 2021
You have always claimed to be against using taxpayers money to support industry, so what are you cheering exactly?G7 nations invest more in fossil fuels than green energy despite lofty pledges
OilPrice.com, 02 June 2021
article said:
The Group of Seven most industrialized nations—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the U.S.—committed between January 2
020 and March 2021 more than US$189 billion to support coal, oil, and gas, while clean forms of energy received only $147 billion, the analysis showed.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/G7-Nations-Invest-More-In-Fossil-Fuels-Than-Clean-Energy-Despite-Pledges.html020 and March 2021 more than US$189 billion to support coal, oil, and gas, while clean forms of energy received only $147 billion, the analysis showed.
University of East Anglia 'Climategate' scandal to be turned into film
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-5740...
The "Climategate" computer hacking scandal that rocked the scientific world is to be made into a BBC film.
Hackers stole thousands of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Norwich in 2009.
Line of Duty actor Jason Watkins is to star in The Trick playing climate change scientist Prof Philip Jones.
Watkins said it was a "privilege to play the brilliant scientist... whose own world was so threatened".
The Trick will tell the story of the professor, who was director of the Climatic Research Unit.
Prof Jones became the victim of cyber terrorism with stolen emails used by human-induced climate change deniers to promote their view of global warming ahead of an international conference.
An independent inquiry was held after the false claims circulated that the unit's scientists had manipulated data to exaggerate evidence of human-induced climate change.
The claims that the unit acted dishonestly were dismissed, but the scientists were criticised for a lack of openness............continues
I suspect the final whitewash of this episode. Already the Beeb is showing its colours in this small paragraph.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-5740...
The "Climategate" computer hacking scandal that rocked the scientific world is to be made into a BBC film.
Hackers stole thousands of emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Norwich in 2009.
Line of Duty actor Jason Watkins is to star in The Trick playing climate change scientist Prof Philip Jones.
Watkins said it was a "privilege to play the brilliant scientist... whose own world was so threatened".
The Trick will tell the story of the professor, who was director of the Climatic Research Unit.
Prof Jones became the victim of cyber terrorism with stolen emails used by human-induced climate change deniers to promote their view of global warming ahead of an international conference.
An independent inquiry was held after the false claims circulated that the unit's scientists had manipulated data to exaggerate evidence of human-induced climate change.
The claims that the unit acted dishonestly were dismissed, but the scientists were criticised for a lack of openness............continues
I suspect the final whitewash of this episode. Already the Beeb is showing its colours in this small paragraph.
I suppose we older people shouldn’t be too hard on the climate alarmists ,
Our generation believed we were going to be wiped out by nuclear Armageddon , and built thousands of bunkers
The windmills etc are just the same sort of thing really
I would guess it will be fear of something else in a few years time maybe viruses ? when we have forgotten and moved on from the climate stuff .
Our generation believed we were going to be wiped out by nuclear Armageddon , and built thousands of bunkers
The windmills etc are just the same sort of thing really
I would guess it will be fear of something else in a few years time maybe viruses ? when we have forgotten and moved on from the climate stuff .
Ivan stewart said:
I suppose we older people shouldn’t be too hard on the climate alarmists ,
Our generation believed we were going to be wiped out by nuclear Armageddon , and built thousands of bunkers
The windmills etc are just the same sort of thing really
I would guess it will be fear of something else in a few years time maybe viruses ? when we have forgotten and moved on from the climate stuff .
Keeps them busy.Our generation believed we were going to be wiped out by nuclear Armageddon , and built thousands of bunkers
The windmills etc are just the same sort of thing really
I would guess it will be fear of something else in a few years time maybe viruses ? when we have forgotten and moved on from the climate stuff .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff