Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[durbster]

Diderot said:

I know what the hypothesis is. You have deluded yourself that it is something akin to scientific law.

If you’d bothered to read the links I posted you would have seen that it wasn’t just Wadhams (who the Guardian suggested was: “one of the world’s leading ice experts”), it was also Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski, who actually predicted 2013, plus others. As I said this is but one of a litany of failed predictions.

Are you so naive as to not understand how policy is made? And did you not realise that Wadhams was an IPCC contributor?

Righto. Either you haven't understood my counterpoints or you're choosing to ignore them but meh, I'm not really interested which. It's clear you're not going to respond with anything beyond mindlessly repeating the same dumb headline point over and over so I'm out.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Please note that Edward Lorenz was one of the scientist you worship, he's on your side of the fence, and he's said:

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

One of the scientists I worship. That did make me laugh.

Oh robinessex, you haven't realised what you've said here have you.

If Lorenz - who actually published the work on chaos theory - accepted climate science, doesn't that slightly undermine your claim that chaos theory disproves it?

But then, you have read the Wikipedia description so perhaps you understand the theory better than the bloke who came up with it.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Please note that Edward Lorenz was one of the scientist you worship, he's on your side of the fence, and he's said:

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

One of the scientists I worship. That did make me laugh.

Oh robinessex, you haven't realised what you've said here have you.

If Lorenz - who actually published the work on chaos theory - accepted climate science, doesn't that slightly undermine your claim that chaos theory disproves it?

But then, you have read the Wikipedia description so perhaps you understand the theory better than the bloke who came up with it.

What does 'accepted climate science' mean? Is it like accepting biological science, with the implication that it could be accepted or rejected as an entire body of knowledge and understanding? Climate science exists as an area of study, the issue is which approaches to climatic change and its causes can best explain events. This requires empirical data, not trust in the beliefs of anyone (nullius in verba) nor the outputs from models with tuned parameterisations in place of science. Parameterisations are simplified numerical representations of complex science which can only be accommodated in models via this approximation process, there are many.

What a scientist accepts in one area of enquiry doesn't necessarily support or contradict what they choose to accept in any other area, related or not, and shouldn't influence others in either case. Newton was pivotal in establishing laws of motion in classical physics, while working as an alchemist. His physics couldn't and didn't confer any credibility to alchemy, nor did his pursuit of the philosopher's stone to convert base metal into gold negate the validity of what he found and wrote about in terms of forces and optics. Empirical evidence is fundamental to scientific inquiry, beliefs held by individuals (consistent or otherwise) are not.

IPCC published content notes that the earth's climate system is a complex coupled non-linear chaotic system and that as such the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible, no exception being made for ensembles. This is reasonable as empirical evidence supports it. Other IPCC statements e.g. around the role of CO2 are not supported by empirical evidence but by opinion. In recent work, LW radiative data in peer-reviewed science shows that 100 years of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have had no discernible impact on the greenhouse effect - and other peer-reviewed science shows in other ways that carbon dioxide emitted by humans isn't doing what's claimed and that humans do not exert control over climate. See papers previously cited, from Fleming / Mao et al / Ollila.

Climate models driving political policy happens, but there's a very strong basis for not using them in that way.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

If Lorenz - who actually published the work on chaos theory - accepted climate science, doesn't that slightly undermine your claim that chaos theory disproves it?

But then, you have read the Wikipedia description so perhaps you understand the theory better than the bloke who came up with it.

What does 'accepted climate science' mean?

It means Lorenz didn't think that chaos theory disproved climate science, which is what robinessex claims.

turbobloke said:

This requires empirical data, not trust in the beliefs of anyone (nullius in verba) nor the outputs from models with tuned parameterisations in place of science.

You say this a lot but it rings hollow. The data tracks with climate science.

However, it does not support your global cooling science at all but you refuse to accept that fact. Despite the data not supporting it, and all the failed predictions, you still believe.

[mike9009]

kerplunk said:

deeps said:

This new film is doing the rounds, although I think Youtube has shadow banned it so it's not appearing in their search results.


Climate The Movie (The Real Truth)


https://vimeo.com/924719370?fbclid=IwAR039bgUfnaYt...

It's back on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM

A nice balanced and emotionally driven piece.

So many questions.

Co2 'usually' follows temperature, but what happens when co2 is artificially driven in front of temperature? The hypothesis seemed to indicate that temperature is driving the Co2 increase and therefore should not be worried about.

What would happen if the temperature was +13 degrees now as witnessed when the dinosaurs were kicking around? The film seemed to present this as normal and therefore no consequence for humans.

Human life seems to have developed and spawned/ flourished during the period of lower co2 emissions in the recent past. Why?

Why have the Kenyans not been helped in the last 5 decades by the oil rich nations to get out of energy poverty? Why the sudden concern now for the poor? Politics at work from the film makers, perhaps?

Plenty more questions during the course of the film, but as you all know my memory is not the best

Good to see that the professors in the piece still seem to have their jobs too.

[turbobloke]

I've now had time to relocate a couple of references cited earlier in terms of the faux climate crisis (noble lie, as per Prof Hulme) and resulting policy snafus arising from the role of inadequate climate models in political policymaking. Here are two short quotes with citation in keeping with PH Rule 16.

"The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."
Fleming (2018) An updated review about carbon dioxide and climate change, in Environmental Earth Sciences
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7438-y

"These results mean that there is no climate crisis and a need for prompt CO2 reduction programs."
Ollila (2023) Natural Climate Drivers Dominate in the Current Warming, in Science of Climate Change
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uplo...

Something for the weekend, related to this issue, from all-party GWPF: "So why are the models not taken out of the public discourse until they are fit for purpose?"
PDF pagination 3/11
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/09/gw...

[mike9009]

mike9009 said:

kerplunk said:

deeps said:

This new film is doing the rounds, although I think Youtube has shadow banned it so it's not appearing in their search results.


Climate The Movie (The Real Truth)


https://vimeo.com/924719370?fbclid=IwAR039bgUfnaYt...

It's back on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM

A nice balanced and emotionally driven piece.

So many questions.

Co2 'usually' follows temperature, but what happens when co2 is artificially driven in front of temperature? The hypothesis seemed to indicate that temperature is driving the Co2 increase and therefore should not be worried about.

What would happen if the temperature was +13 degrees now as witnessed when the dinosaurs were kicking around? The film seemed to present this as normal and therefore no consequence for humans.

Human life seems to have developed and spawned/ flourished during the period of lower co2 emissions in the recent past. Why?

Why have the Kenyans not been helped in the last 5 decades by the oil rich nations to get out of energy poverty? Why the sudden concern now for the poor? Politics at work from the film makers, perhaps?

Plenty more questions during the course of the film, but as you all know my memory is not the best

Good to see that the professors in the piece still seem to have their jobs too.

The other weird thing was that various scientists in the film proposed different reasons for the climate changing over different periods of time. From the ones I remember

1. Cloud cover is the dominant driver.
2. Supernova events causing variations
3. Solar flares
4. Volcanic events

I am unsure if there was consensus and these factors probably do influence the climate. But none of them seemed to have predicted the current warming with their hypotheses or presented data to support a correlation to the current warming. It would have been good to see a correlation between global cloud cover and global temps, for example. So, to me, it seemed like a red herring against the current trend and leaves me with the only correlated data is co2 concentrations.

Additionally much was made of the warming in the 1930's and 1940's being as hot as it is today. Yet I cannot find any temperature records supporting this on a global ( or even local) scale. Which is a little odd.

[turbobloke]

Censorious cancel culture is needed to keep The Cause going atm, open debate is its kryptonite, ad homs and fallacies are usually added to play to the gulled gallery.

To save the planet, let them eat snake. https://abcnews.go.com/International/python-farmin...

[robinessex]

durbster said:

It means Lorenz didn't think that chaos theory disproved climate science, which is what robinessex claims.

Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

QED

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

QED

You do not understand chaos theory.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

It means Lorenz didn't think that chaos theory disproved climate science, which is what robinessex claims.

Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

QED

I'll be honest, I'm inclined to believe the brilliant mathematician who established chaos theory understands it rather better than somebody who has to look up what it means on Wikipedia.

Therefore I'm going to go with Lorenz rather than you on this one, sorry.

Edited by durbster on Sunday 24th March 13:05

[durbster]

mike9009 said:

Additionally much was made of the warming in the 1930's and 1940's being as hot as it is today. Yet I cannot find any temperature records supporting this on a global ( or even local) scale. Which is a little odd.

I had a glance at the video and it looked like the same old propaganda we've seen countless times before.

I saw the bit where the voice over claimed temperatures today are the same as the 1940s (it's around 19m in). The graph stops in the year 2000 so somehow when they say "today", they ignore all data from the laster quarter of a century. They coincidentally zoom in and crop out the year on the graph just before he says the word "today".

Once you know all their tricks they're pretty easy to spot. That was enough for me to know it's not worth wasting any more time on.

[robinessex]

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

QED

You do not understand chaos theory.

Is the climate system chaotic?
The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.

Myself. I've had 'fun' with CFD turbulent flow and other areas of engineering that exhibit chaotic or unpredictable, widely variable, results.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

durbster said:

I had a glance at the video and it looked like the same old propaganda we've seen countless times before.

I saw the bit where the voice over claimed temperatures today are the same as the 1940s (it's around 19m in). The graph stops in the year 2000 so somehow when they say "today", they ignore all data from the laster quarter of a century. They coincidentally zoom in and crop out the year on the graph just before he says the word "today".

Once you know all their tricks they're pretty easy to spot. That was enough for me to know it's not worth wasting any more time on.

So are you saying then that the climate deniers are using selective data?

God forbid!

[mike9009]

For fun, whilst taking a look for data correlating cloud cover and temperature, I came across a website called climate4you.

It is hosted by a danish professor called Ole Humlum who has published paper with Willie Spoon, from the recently posted YouTube epic. (I note no retort to my questions on this which did involve the politics and the science). Or is it science, not quite sure.....

Anyway, I might not be a climate scientist but I understand statistics to quite a high level. I have written to Ole Humlum about his understanding of R-squared values and their relevance in linear regression models. Pretty shocking the interpretations of the data he makes based on limited understanding of what R-squared actually means and statistics in general.

Not really worried, but makes it easier to shoot the fish in the barrel.... In fact, I explained it to my 14 year old daughter, who understood it.

I await a response to my email......

[mike9009]

durbster said:

mike9009 said:

Additionally much was made of the warming in the 1930's and 1940's being as hot as it is today. Yet I cannot find any temperature records supporting this on a global ( or even local) scale. Which is a little odd.

I had a glance at the video and it looked like the same old propaganda we've seen countless times before.

I saw the bit where the voice over claimed temperatures today are the same as the 1940s (it's around 19m in). The graph stops in the year 2000 so somehow when they say "today", they ignore all data from the laster quarter of a century. They coincidentally zoom in and crop out the year on the graph just before he says the word "today".

Once you know all their tricks they're pretty easy to spot. That was enough for me to know it's not worth wasting any more time on.

I would argue it is worth spending time on.

A) I find it quite fun, especially when you get zero response on here to anything pointing out the misleading data or erroneous assumptions. Basically, undefendable
B) it helps anyone from PH who may read the articles or watch the videos but miss the misleading or erroneous data/ assumptions.

It begins to become embarrassing on a grand scale, especially without retort.

I would encourage anyone wishing to respond to this to also respond to my previous posts about the video in particular.

The silence is ...... Yawn

[turbobloke]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

durbster said:

I had a glance at the video and it looked like the same old propaganda we've seen countless times before.

I saw the bit where the voice over claimed temperatures today are the same as the 1940s (it's around 19m in). The graph stops in the year 2000 so somehow when they say "today", they ignore all data from the laster quarter of a century. They coincidentally zoom in and crop out the year on the graph just before he says the word "today".

Once you know all their tricks they're pretty easy to spot. That was enough for me to know it's not worth wasting any more time on.

So are you saying then that the climate deniers are using selective data?

God forbid!

Agreed it's unedifying wherever anything selective like that happens, including the impact of a single tree YAD061, or the use of a few decades rather than 100 years for a wildfire trend, or the selection of one TSI database which lowballs an aspect of solar variation leaving the door open for CO2. There's been some more work on that last point by what climatologist Dr Judith Curry may call non-federal-scientists (an apt nod to climate politics). A post covering developments and implications for climate models and therefore political policy will emerge when work quietens down a bit on the sunlit and moonlit uplands. For now, on the topic of dates and selectivity, there's a temperature plot to ruminate over. 2023 summer (June) was scorchio but not as much as 1846 or 1676. To see the data, try an online image search for 'CET temperature June 2023 University of Reading' and click the first result.

Incidentally does anybody with an iota of knowledge and awareness deny that the climate changes - can't recall seeing that on PH - or that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide level involves some radiative processes that wouldn't have occurred without the increase? As well as an ad hom fallacy "denier" is therefore also a strawman fallacy. The issues are around orders of magnitude and causality, at which point data denies a manmade climate crisis, now acknowledged by several climatologists. I suspect this is more widely known, there's little sign of panic in the joshing from crisis activists including on PH.

[turbobloke]

mike9009 said:

For fun, whilst taking a look for data correlating cloud cover and temperature, I came across a website called climate4you.

It is hosted by a danish professor called Ole Humlum who has published paper with Willie Spoon, from the recently posted YouTube epic. (I note no retort to my questions on this which did involve the politics and the science). Or is it science, not quite sure.....

Anyway, I might not be a climate scientist but I understand statistics to quite a high level. I have written to Ole Humlum about his understanding of R-squared values and their relevance in linear regression models. Pretty shocking the interpretations of the data he makes based on limited understanding of what R-squared actually means and statistics in general.

Not really worried, but makes it easier to shoot the fish in the barrel.... In fact, I explained it to my 14 year old daughter, who understood it.

I await a response to my email......

Very interesting.

On the subject of stats and climate politics, it's a pity someobody with an appropriate stats background wasn't there to peer review the AT99 paper claiming to attribute climate impacts to humans. The stats was shown, many years later, to be lacking in some regards, which may less kindly be referred to as a stats dog's breakfast. One of two M people in the world of online climate discussions, Prof McKitrick (the other being McIntyre) showed just how bad uin a paper which was sent to the AT99 authors for peer review. AT99 had been trumpeted for over 20 years by the political advocacy outfit IPCC and activists, all was for nought. A two sentence quotation with citation tells all.

Prof McKitrick in the 2022 Climate Dynamics paper titled Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting A comment said:

AT99 stated the GM Theorem incorrectly, omitting a critical condition altogether, their GLS method cannot satisfy the GM conditions, and their variance estimator is inconsistent by construction. Additionally, they did not formally state the null hypothesis of the RCT nor identify which of the GM conditions it tests, nor did they prove its distribution and critical values, rendering it uninformative as a specification test.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05913-7

What happened to peer review...rhetorical question.

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

Climate is a chaotic system. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[12]

Chaos: When the present determines the future but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

QED

You do not understand chaos theory.

Is the climate system chaotic?
The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.

Myself. I've had 'fun' with CFD turbulent flow and other areas of engineering that exhibit chaotic or unpredictable, widely variable, results.

How did chaos theory help you resolve the issues?

[mike9009]

turbobloke said:

mike9009 said:

For fun, whilst taking a look for data correlating cloud cover and temperature, I came across a website called climate4you.

It is hosted by a danish professor called Ole Humlum who has published paper with Willie Spoon, from the recently posted YouTube epic. (I note no retort to my questions on this which did involve the politics and the science). Or is it science, not quite sure.....

Anyway, I might not be a climate scientist but I understand statistics to quite a high level. I have written to Ole Humlum about his understanding of R-squared values and their relevance in linear regression models. Pretty shocking the interpretations of the data he makes based on limited understanding of what R-squared actually means and statistics in general.

Not really worried, but makes it easier to shoot the fish in the barrel.... In fact, I explained it to my 14 year old daughter, who understood it.

I await a response to my email......

Very interesting.

On the subject of stats and climate politics, it's a pity someobody with an appropriate stats background wasn't there to peer review the AT99 paper claiming to attribute climate impacts to humans. The stats was shown, many years later, to be lacking in some regards, which may less kindly be referred to as a stats dog's breakfast. One of two M people in the world of online climate discussions, Prof McKitrick (the other being McIntyre) showed just how bad uin a paper which was sent to the AT99 authors for peer review. AT99 had been trumpeted for over 20 years by the political advocacy outfit IPCC and activists, all was for nought. A two sentence quotation with citation tells all.

Prof McKitrick in the 2022 Climate Dynamics paper titled Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting A comment said:

AT99 stated the GM Theorem incorrectly, omitting a critical condition altogether, their GLS method cannot satisfy the GM conditions, and their variance estimator is inconsistent by construction. Additionally, they did not formally state the null hypothesis of the RCT nor identify which of the GM conditions it tests, nor did they prove its distribution and critical values, rendering it uninformative as a specification test.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05913-7

What happened to peer review...rhetorical question.

I found lack of statistical understanding is rife in universities and research establishments, at quite high levels too. It is a little scary the lack of understanding of what I consider 'basics'. This includes research my sister was studying in social politics and another paper in fluid dynamics as example to back up it is rife. I suspect if I took a look at other areas it would be used incorrectly.

Weirdly I hated the subject at school and uni and didn't see the relevance but I quite enjoy it now. I use it frequently in foundry simulations and even electronics.