Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Lotus 50]

deeen said:

@ Lotus, I take your point about the difference between statistical and numerical models. However, a pure statistical model does not say anything about cause and effect, hence the argument that increased CO2 is caused by increased temperatures. The example I remember from school is that the number of babies born in the UK correlates closely with the number of domestic fridges, but this does not prove that babies come from fridges.

My point is that they might be able to find a combination of other factors that together would also correlate, (I don't remember them mentioning cloud cover, for example?), but because of their pre-conceived ideas, they found the correlation they described, and stopped looking. This seems to me to be un-scientific, as in not open minded.

Anyway, I think I'll read the same paper again, in the light of your comments.

Don't forget this paper was by way of a relatively simple, skeptical, check on the work of the IPCC rather than a first principles check on anything/everything that might influence global surface temps, the IPCC report (well the papers referenced in it) to go through the detail of what the IPCC used in their assessment then you'd need to wade through:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141126061207/https:/...

I take your point re the statistical work and, although the level of explanation of the temp change provided by greenhouse gas emissions plus volcanism is rather damming, the other links I added in my original post go beyond the Berklee summary to papers that show causality - hence me putting them in there.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

deeen said:

@ Lotus, I take your point about the difference between statistical and numerical models. However, a pure statistical model does not say anything about cause and effect, hence the argument that increased CO2 is caused by increased temperatures. The example I remember from school is that the number of babies born in the UK correlates closely with the number of domestic fridges, but this does not prove that babies come from fridges.

My point is that they might be able to find a combination of other factors that together would also correlate, (I don't remember them mentioning cloud cover, for example?), but because of their pre-conceived ideas, they found the correlation they described, and stopped looking. This seems to me to be un-scientific, as in not open minded.

Anyway, I think I'll read the same paper again, in the light of your comments.

Don't forget this paper was by way of a relatively simple, skeptical, check on the work of the IPCC rather than a first principles check on anything/everything that might influence global surface temps, the IPCC report (well the papers referenced in it) to go through the detail of what the IPCC used in their assessment then you'd need to wade through:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141126061207/https:/...

I take your point re the statistical work and, although the level of explanation of the temp change provided by greenhouse gas emissions plus volcanism is rather damming, the other links I added in my original post go beyond the Berklee summary to papers that show causality - hence me putting them in there.

Well, Durbster doesn't seem to want/need the $100,000, so why don't you pop off and claim it then?

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Well, Durbster doesn't seem to want/need the $100,000, so why don't you pop off and claim it then?

Because I'm not the one doing the modelling and I'm not inclined to start spending time doing analysis (and working out how to do the analysis) on data where I have no guarantee that there is really a prize to be won, especially given the provenance of the supposed competition itself.

Why don't you read the papers, understand the science and have a crack at it yourself?

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Well, Durbster doesn't seem to want/need the $100,000, so why don't you pop off and claim it then?

Because I'm not the one doing the modelling and I'm not inclined to start spending time doing analysis (and working out how to do the analysis) on data where I have no guarantee that there is really a prize to be won, especially given the provenance of the supposed competition itself.

Why don't you read the papers, understand the science and have a crack at it yourself?

Just skimmed through the reference you provided. Not much more than an IPCC bible for believers. No causality proved, lots of referenced documents for ‘we have stuff that says so.’ And the inevitable useless models. Shown to be utter crap many times.

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

Well, Durbster doesn't seem to want/need the $100,000, so why don't you pop off and claim it then?

What $100k are you banging on about?

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

Well, Durbster doesn't seem to want/need the $100,000, so why don't you pop off and claim it then?

What $100k are you banging on about?

Er, Google !!!!!!

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/11/18/...

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

Er, Google !!!!!!

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/11/18/...

That closed 4 months ago so it's going to be a bit tricky for anyone to claim.

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Just skimmed through the reference you provided. Not much more than an IPCC bible for believers. No causality proved, lots of referenced documents for ‘we have stuff that says so.’ And the inevitable useless models. Shown to be utter crap many times.

As I've now said at least twice and will repeat for a third time you need to read the subsequent papers i posted that showed causality - I also specifically said that the first paper provided a rough summary of the IPCC's point re changes in temp being linked to CO2 and volcanism. And yes there are lots of referenced documents - why don't you go and have a read?

That said if you're still dismissing statistical links at 95% significance as utter crap and useless there's little point in you bothering nor is there any point in anyone else bothering to try and have a rational discussion with you.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 13th April 17:09

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Just skimmed through the reference you provided. Not much more than an IPCC bible for believers. No causality proved, lots of referenced documents for ‘we have stuff that says so.’ And the inevitable useless models. Shown to be utter crap many times.

As I've now said at least twice and will repeat for a third time you need to read the subsequent papers i posted that showed causality - I also specifically said that the first paper provided a rough summary of the IPCC's point re changes in temp being linked to CO2 and volcanism. And yes there are lots of referenced documents - why don't you go and have a read?

That said if you're still dismissing statistical links at 95% significance as utter crap and useless there's little point in you bothering nor is there any point in anyone else bothering to try and have a rational discussion with you.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 13th April 17:09

Link to the killer document then?

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Link to the killer document then?

Suggest you go back a few pages to my post of the 31st March at roughly 17.00 in answer to one of your earlier questions - I managed to find half a dozen or so papers showing causality in half an hour or so of rummaging in Google scholar.

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

Link to the killer document then?

Suggest you go back a few pages to my post of the 31st March at roughly 17.00 in answer to one of your earlier questions - I managed to find half a dozen or so papers showing causality in half an hour or so of rummaging in Google scholar.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/from-90-to-95-confidence-level-how-ipcc-claims-can-be-at-the-same-time-consistent-and-absurd/

https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

And, finally, I'm convinced it's 95% bks. To good to be true and all that. Any chance they can give me the winning lottery numbers as well?

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 13th April 19:00

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/from-90-to-...

https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 13th April 18:54

Yawn. The 95% confidence I'm talking about in the papers I've referenced are the statistical results of the analysis in the papers itself. I'm not referring to the IPCC reports here so your references to WUWT and Judith Curry are irrelevant.

What evidence have you got that convinced you it's bks? And given you're convinced why are you bothering to troll around in this forum?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 13th April 19:03

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/from-90-to-...

https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 13th April 18:54

Yawn. The 95% confidence I'm talking about in the papers I've referenced are the statistical results of the analysis in the papers itself. I'm not referring to the IPCC reports here so your references to WUWT and Judith Curry are irrelevant.

What evidence have you got that convinced you it's bks? And given you're convinced why are you bothering to troll around in this forum?

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 13th April 19:03

Because anyone who thinks that 0.0000000000000000000000000001% extra of a perfectly natural gas, that we need for photosynthesis is going to cause global Armageddon must be right up the bloody looney tree. CO2 has been all over the place in earths 4.5billion years, so has the bloody temperature. Dinosaurs existed for 50,000,000 with CO2 5x’s higher. The ice age was here when CO2 was higher. And finally:-





Explain those !

PS. CO2 Levels at dangerously low levels

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 13th April 19:23

[Lotus 50]

robinessex said:

Because anyone who thinks that 0.0000000000000000000000000001% extra of a perfectly natural gas, that we need for photosynthesis is going to cause global Armageddon must be right up the bloody looney tree. CO2 has been all over the place in earths 4.5billion years, so has the bloody temperature. Dinosaurs existed for 50,000,000 with CO2 5x’s higher. The ice age was here when CO2 was higher. And finally:-



Explain that! No CO2 v Temp correlation at all

Again, read the papers I posted earlier and my replies to your other posts. Yes CO2 levels have been higher so have global temperatures, and for that matter sea levels. Over time CO2 has been shown to increase as a result of temp rises (i.e. follow it) due to other factors (e.g. changes in the Earth's orbit) causing the release of CO2 from biomass etc but has also been shown to lead temp rises as is the case at present. As I've explained before the problem is not that it's going to wipe life off the Earth but it will cause significant impacts to people living in low-lying areas at risk of sea level rise (the last time CO2 levels were the same as they are now sea level was 6-9m higher than it is now - note sea level change lags behind temp changes so the impacts are likely to happen over the next 2-300 years). The other point that may have escaped you is that at the time of the dinosaurs the location of the continents was significantly different so there's a strong chance of comparing apples and pears. If anyone is right up the bloody looney tree it's the person that discounts the vast amount of data and thousands of academic papers that demonstrate the issue and it's potential impacts.

Oh and re your assertion that CO2 levels were higher in the ice-age than they are now, you might want to have a closer look at your second graph (clue Ice age = Pleistocene)

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 13th April 19:37

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 13th April 19:41

[Globs]

Lotus 50 said:

And at the end of the day, pretty much all science and every development behind modern-day technology is based on modelling so your point is?

You can't model a climate system when you have no idea of the incoming energy or its variation.
It's like sticking a potato into something that may be warmer or colder than the potato and then modelling the potato temperature.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

[Lotus 50]

Globs said:

You can't model a climate system when you have no idea of the incoming energy or its variation.
It's like sticking a potato into something that may be warmer or colder than the potato and then modelling the potato temperature.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

But we do have a good idea of the incoming energy (i.e. the energy being received from the sun and how it varies over time) if that's what you mean. If you're referring to the effects of cloud cover/water vapour then yes they are one of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate modelling but it doesn't stop modelling being carried out provided you are clear on the associated uncertainties. That's why the various teams carrying out climate modelling run hundreds/thousands of projections to assess how variations in these parameters may affect change and show uncertainty in the projections.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

[robinessex]

Lotus 50 said:

Globs said:

You can't model a climate system when you have no idea of the incoming energy or its variation.
It's like sticking a potato into something that may be warmer or colder than the potato and then modelling the potato temperature.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

But we do have a good idea of the incoming energy (i.e. the energy being received from the sun and how it varies over time) if that's what you mean. If you're referring to the effects of cloud cover/water vapour then yes they are one of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate modelling but it doesn't stop modelling being carried out provided you are clear on the associated uncertainties. That's why the various teams carrying out climate modelling run hundreds/thousands of projections to assess how variations in these parameters may affect change and show uncertainty in the projections.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

And you obviously chosing to ignore a previous posting that shows that a computer model that is of any use regarding accuracy, thus predictions, can never happen. With all the variables needed, it will never produce an answer. The calculation is due to Dr W Soon (Harvard Smithsonian Centre) and it showed that a full model of the climate system covering relevant variables at all spatial scales used to run a 50 year projection would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputer time as at that date.

This is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the current age of the universe.

[PRTVR]

Lotus 50 said:

Globs said:

You can't model a climate system when you have no idea of the incoming energy or its variation.
It's like sticking a potato into something that may be warmer or colder than the potato and then modelling the potato temperature.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

But we do have a good idea of the incoming energy (i.e. the energy being received from the sun and how it varies over time) if that's what you mean. If you're referring to the effects of cloud cover/water vapour then yes they are one of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate modelling but it doesn't stop modelling being carried out provided you are clear on the associated uncertainties. That's why the various teams carrying out climate modelling run hundreds/thousands of projections to assess how variations in these parameters may affect change and show uncertainty in the projections.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

That any modelling can have any credibility when the major drivers are not fully understood, GIGO, and on this basis we plan our future energy needs usage, a totally insane option based on flawed models.

[Globs]

Lotus 50 said:

Globs said:

You can't model a climate system when you have no idea of the incoming energy or its variation.
It's like sticking a potato into something that may be warmer or colder than the potato and then modelling the potato temperature.

What exactly don't you understand about that?

But we do have a good idea of the incoming energy (i.e. the energy being received from the sun and how it varies over time) if that's what you mean. If you're referring to the effects of cloud cover/water vapour then yes they are one of the biggest sources of uncertainty in climate modelling but it doesn't stop modelling being carried out provided you are clear on the associated uncertainties.

The current earth albedo estimates I've seen range from 0.30 to 0.37, i.e about 20x the effect of any AGW theory according to IPCC's AR4, and clearly show we have no idea of the incoming energy.

When the uncertainty is twenty times bigger than the effect you are claiming you are no longer modelling, you are guessing.

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

And you obviously chosing to ignore a previous posting that shows that a computer model that is of any use regarding accuracy, thus predictions, can never happen. With all the variables needed, it will never produce an answer. The calculation is due to Dr W Soon (Harvard Smithsonian Centre) and it showed that a full model of the climate system covering relevant variables at all spatial scales used to run a 50 year projection would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputer time as at that date.

This is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the current age of the universe.

I remember that the first time I saw you post this 'fact' you had misremembered and claimed that an accurate climate model required 2^500 variables. It stuck in my mind because it made it fairly obvious that you were incapable of recognising total nonsense statements.

Do you know where Soon made that statement? Was it a paper? The only places I can find it are turbobloke posts, your word for word copy and pastes, and the 'ABD' site that TB either got it from or published it on.