Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

All previous computer model sea ice predictions now timed out have been duff.

If you want to talk about predictions, you still haven't commented on your claims from 2015 as above, that we would see global cooling within ten years. We've had record warm years then including the hottest ever recorded. With a few months to go before 2025, do you stand by that prediction?

You described this scenario as "clear and testable". Is it going to pass the test?

Remind us. All those predictions that the Arctic would be ice free in summer by 2015, how did they turn out? Ah yes that particular can has been kicked down the road to 2035 and beyond now. It’s just one of a very long list of failures.

I'm sure you can find predictions of pretty much anything on the internet if all you want is to feed an ideological bias.

I'm more interested in what's actually happening though so I tend to go with what the weight of the research suggests. If you cared enough to spend a moment learning anything about this topic you'd know that is that the Arctic is expected to be ice free in summer towards the end of the late 21st century. That's been the case for as long as I've been reading about the topic so no can-kicking necessary.

But speaking of predictions, how's this one working out so far? Do you still believe?

Edited by durbster on Friday 22 March 14:56

So you don't even acknowledge the failure. Ok. I am talking about well published and acknowledged predictions from climate scientists that the Arctic would be ice free in summer by 2015. It wasn't. As I said it's just one failure in a litany of failures.

Wrong. I have no problem acknowledging these claims if they are real. Out of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning decades, the idea that a few would have taken a punt on Arctic ice doing something dramatic isn't a surprise.

You are attempting at drawing an equivalence here. There's no equivalence - it changes nothing about my stated views if I acknowledge that a random person predicted 2015 as you claim (no evidence provided of course). I have never put much stock in outlier views like that. I've always said I'll follow the weight of evidence and there's never been a consensus for those claims.

And that's where your equivalence fails. I can acknowledge that kind of thing because it doesn't change anything for me, but you and turbobloke can't acknowledge your own failed predictions because doing so would threaten your whole ideology. There's nothing else for you to believe but the truth.

So it's your turn - do you accept you got it wrong about global cooling?

What 'weight of evidence' are you talking about other than model projections (which tun too hot)? What has my post about possible cooling from 2011 got to do with anything? I am not a climate scientist, my views do not influence climate policy or get picked up by the media and disseminated widely. The fact remains that the history of climate science is littered with failed predictions that have never come to pass, but these predictions do influence policy.

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

Before more climate politicking with the BBC climate bubble, it would do no harm - given inadequate climate models are still driving UK climate policy - to add to the Essex and Tsonis a priori model falsification reminder, that researchers have gone beyond 'a priori' (which establishes by first principles not requiring empirical observation) to falsify using empirical observation.

McKitrick and Christy (2018) as cited several times on this thread, showed by comparison with measurements that climate model outputs fail to represent temperature data adequately, with the discrepancy large enough to reject the null hypothesis that models represent it correctly. In essence, unfit for the purposes of both policymaking and future climate state prediction - which in the latter case IPCC have also acknowledged as not possible when dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system...and no excuse was added regarding ensembles.

NALOPKT on the Beeb Bubble: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024...

I'm really at a loss to understand your concerns about AGW models-with-faults being used for policymaking.

What's wrong with that?

After all, you clearly think policymakers should be taking note of solar-driven global cooling models and we can all see how chronically out of whack they've been - no studies required

[turbobloke]

Part of Steyn's appeal (pdf) where, as expected, Mann comes across really well.

https://www.steynonline.com/documents/14133.pdf

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

Before more climate politicking with the BBC climate bubble, it would do no harm - given inadequate climate models are still driving UK climate policy - to add to the Essex and Tsonis a priori model falsification reminder, that researchers have gone beyond 'a priori' (which establishes by first principles not requiring empirical observation) to falsify using empirical observation.

McKitrick and Christy (2018) as cited several times on this thread, showed by comparison with measurements that climate model outputs fail to represent temperature data adequately, with the discrepancy large enough to reject the null hypothesis that models represent it correctly. In essence, unfit for the purposes of both policymaking and future climate state prediction - which in the latter case IPCC have also acknowledged as not possible when dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system...and no excuse was added regarding ensembles.

NALOPKT on the Beeb Bubble: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024...

I have finally got round to reading the paper McTrick and Christy paper. Thanks for mentioning it again in the political thread.

It is interesting they do not claim that AGW does not exist but simply the modeling has the sensitivity wrong.

I believe there is a fundamental flaw in their methodology of critique. Their datasets go back to 1958 for temperature observations, thus the temperature change per decade is assumed to be a linear trend. However this does not account for the increasing trend in atmospheric co2 concentration.

Mine are rough calcs but directionally correct. So from 1963 until 1993, Co2 concentration increased at a rate of 12.6 ppm per decade. From 1993 until 2023, co2 concentration increased at nearly double the rate at 21.3ppm per decade.

Analysing the temp change per decade over the same time period gives 0.12C per decade and 0.23C per decade respectively. This seems to align within the error bars used within the models, admittedly at the lower end though.

I also acknowledge the temperatures I used for the correlation were surface temps from NASA and co2 levels from statistical. So real data.

I realise this is the political thread, but scientific papers are continually quoted as the basis for political credence.

The weird thing I found is there seemed to be a close correlation between the rate of co2 concentration increase and the rate of temperature increase.......

[mike9009]

Also, I would like to echo the previous poster who predicted it would get cooler today. Luckily I took a jumper to work....

I presume the prediction was based upon the accurate met office models.

Thanks

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Phud said:

mike9009 said:

It is strange that when challenged on 'facts' and extrapolating facts to prove a position, there is no acknowledgement from deniers.

The silence is telling. The change of subject is telling. The misrepresentation and seeking to influence is telling.

But the political and scientific position being held is somewhat fragile, so I am hardly surprised. An acknowledgement would be seen as a in the armour. I would see it somewhat differently though....and not lead me to suspicion on everything posted....

Mike9009, please can you point out anybody you know who says the climate is not changing. Then point out to me where the climate has remained steady for a period of time, any period over a decade

Climate has always changed from chaotic short term variations to longer term trends. Not sure I have stated differently in my post? The concern at present is the rate of change in a short space of time. The issue for denialists is there is no data supporting an assignable cause for the rapid rate of change....in fact in this thread it has been hypothesized there would be cooling now due to reducing solar activity.

Phud said:

Could you explain the changing titles with regards what is going on, yet with such settled sicence the deep currents, upwelling and combining layers, as well as deep salinity lakes are not understood.

I am afraid I don't understand what you are talking about. Care to provide a link?

Your claim that the current rate of climate change is especially high needs data to support it. Without data it’s just an empty claim.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

There’s no data in that link to support your assertion.

Check my link again. Check the reference to the statement on rate of change, number 1 reference. Click the link. Check page 69 at the top.

Where has Phud gone??

Edited by mike9009 on Friday 22 March 17:20

Following your instructions leads here…

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

Following your instructions leads here…

Try this link, page 69.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/repor...

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Following your instructions leads here…

Try this link, page 69.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/repor...

Thanks, that works for me. I can find no mention of unprecedented rate of climate change on page 69.

Have I missed it?

[Diderot]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

All previous computer model sea ice predictions now timed out have been duff.

If you want to talk about predictions, you still haven't commented on your claims from 2015 as above, that we would see global cooling within ten years. We've had record warm years then including the hottest ever recorded. With a few months to go before 2025, do you stand by that prediction?

You described this scenario as "clear and testable". Is it going to pass the test?

Remind us. All those predictions that the Arctic would be ice free in summer by 2015, how did they turn out? Ah yes that particular can has been kicked down the road to 2035 and beyond now. It’s just one of a very long list of failures.

I'm sure you can find predictions of pretty much anything on the internet if all you want is to feed an ideological bias.

I'm more interested in what's actually happening though so I tend to go with what the weight of the research suggests. If you cared enough to spend a moment learning anything about this topic you'd know that is that the Arctic is expected to be ice free in summer towards the end of the late 21st century. That's been the case for as long as I've been reading about the topic so no can-kicking necessary.

But speaking of predictions, how's this one working out so far? Do you still believe?

Edited by durbster on Friday 22 March 14:56

So you don't even acknowledge the failure. Ok. I am talking about well published and acknowledged predictions from climate scientists that the Arctic would be ice free in summer by 2015. It wasn't. As I said it's just one failure in a litany of failures.

Wrong. I have no problem acknowledging these claims if they are real. Out of hundreds of thousands of scientists spanning decades, the idea that a few would have taken a punt on Arctic ice doing something dramatic isn't a surprise.

You are attempting at drawing an equivalence here. There's no equivalence - it changes nothing about my stated views if I acknowledge that a random person predicted 2015 as you claim (no evidence provided of course). I have never put much stock in outlier views like that. I've always said I'll follow the weight of evidence and there's never been a consensus for those claims.

And that's where your equivalence fails. I can acknowledge that kind of thing because it doesn't change anything for me, but you and turbobloke can't acknowledge your own failed predictions because doing so would threaten your whole ideology. There's nothing else for you to believe but the truth.

So it's your turn - do you accept you got it wrong about global cooling?

What 'weight of evidence' are you talking about other than model projections (which tun too hot)? What has my post about possible cooling from 2011 got to do with anything? I am not a climate scientist, my views do not influence climate policy or get picked up by the media and disseminated widely. The fact remains that the history of climate science is littered with failed predictions that have never come to pass, but these predictions do influence policy.

Just a quick follow up on Durbster’s ‘I have no problem acknowledging these claims if they are real’ rebuttal.

The claims were real and well documented and disseminated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/1...

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/feed/study-h...

https://cpo.noaa.gov/Study-Helps-Reduce-Uncertaint...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/1...

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/

[Diderot]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Following your instructions leads here…

Try this link, page 69.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/repor...

Thanks, that works for me. I can find no mention of unprecedented rate of climate change on page 69.

Have I missed it?

Nor me. Or was this a Squirrel Mike?

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Following your instructions leads here…

Try this link, page 69.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/repor...

Thanks, that works for me. I can find no mention of unprecedented rate of climate change on page 69.

Have I missed it?

I can find no mention of an unprecedented rate of climate change in mike9009's posts.

I'm quite happy to call +1C in 50yrs rapid myself, especially in the context of a likelihood for that rate of change to continue leading to +3C in just 150yrs which would be a profound change in a very short period of time.

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 22 March 21:34

[Kawasicki]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Following your instructions leads here…

Try this link, page 69.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/repor...

Thanks, that works for me. I can find no mention of unprecedented rate of climate change on page 69.

Have I missed it?

[mike9009]

Kawasicki said:

Thanks, that works for me. I can find no mention of unprecedented rate of climate change on page 69.

Have I missed it?

Damn, sorry. That was the fastest rate of co2 increases in 800k years. Serves me right for skim reading.

I think I used the words 'concern' and 'rapid' rather than 'unprecedented'. I think this backs up my claim of rate of warming increasing.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understandin...

Not sure it satisfies your quest for data?

I think my post critiquing Christy and McTricky has a similar theme, but showing correlation between rate of co2 concentration change and the rate of temperature change. I might need to expand that a little and compare the r squared number and p value between the two rates of change. ( two data points is not strong enough really, even though it covers data of two 30 year periods)

I might debunk to the science thread, not visited that for a long time.

Once again, sorry if my post was misleading - not intentional.

Just trying to explain to phud what the worry is based on the fact the climate has always changed in the past.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

Thanks, that works for me. I can find no mention of unprecedented rate of climate change on page 69.

Have I missed it?

Damn, sorry. That was the fastest rate of co2 increases in 800k years. Serves me right for skim reading.

I think I used the words 'concern' and 'rapid' rather than 'unprecedented'. I think this backs up my claim of rate of warming increasing.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understandin...

Not sure it satisfies your quest for data?

I think my post critiquing Christy and McTricky has a similar theme, but showing correlation between rate of co2 concentration change and the rate of temperature change. I might need to expand that a little and compare the r squared number and p value between the two rates of change. ( two data points is not strong enough really, even though it covers data of two 30 year periods)

I might debunk to the science thread, not visited that for a long time.

Once again, sorry if my post was misleading - not intentional.

Just trying to explain to phud what the worry is based on the fact the climate has always changed in the past.

Mike, Google Younger Dryas.

[mike9009]

I've just rechecked the Antarctic sea ice extent for 21 Mar 2024 compared to the last 45 years on the same day. It is the lowest excepting 2022, 2023 and 2017.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

I've just rechecked the Antarctic sea ice extent for 21 Mar 2024 compared to the last 45 years on the same day. It is the lowest excepting 2022, 2023 and 2017.

So it’s grown again then?

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

Mike, Google Younger Dryas.

Thanks. Interesting why such a temp change in a short period of time in a different geographic locations happened. I suspect we would probably know if we had the same satellite data and observation at the time.

Genuinely appreciated!! Good to learn more....

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

I've just rechecked the Antarctic sea ice extent for 21 Mar 2024 compared to the last 45 years on the same day. It is the lowest excepting 2022, 2023 and 2017.

So it’s grown again then?

Correct. Why it has grown from the day before is a complete mystery though.... Or is it?

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

Mike, Google Younger Dryas.

Thanks. Interesting why such a temp change in a short period of time in a different geographic locations happened. I suspect we would probably know if we had the same satellite data and observation at the time.

Genuinely appreciated!! Good to learn more....

Always good to learn more. I do every day.

What we can deduce from the Younger Dryas event is it wasn't due to humans. Moreover, the very modest and slow rate of change since the Little Ice Age is not unprecedented in its scale or speed, nowhere near it. No need to be alarmed.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

Mike, Google Younger Dryas.

Thanks. Interesting why such a temp change in a short period of time in a different geographic locations happened. I suspect we would probably know if we had the same satellite data and observation at the time.

Genuinely appreciated!! Good to learn more....

Always good to learn more. I do every day.

What we can deduce from the Younger Dryas event is it wasn't due to humans. Moreover, the very modest and slow rate of change since the Little Ice Age is not unprecedented in its scale or speed, nowhere near it. No need to be alarmed.

Obviously, I have a different takeaway from reading about it. Other than Younger Dryas was not caused by humans. But you knew that and I don't think I used the word unprecedented.... Yamaha did.