Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[XM5ER]

kerplunk said:

You ain't no sceptic bruv.

Really? What am I then?

After you've answered that, perhaps you could tell my why those papers should be dismissed out of hand, referring to the science rather than the alleged character of the authors. They could be total bks, has anyone in the cause rebutted them scientifically?

[durbster]

XM5ER said:

... I tend to view hit pieces done on scientist as more of an indication that they might be on to something

But presumably you don't include the accusations of corruption, fraud, "junk science" etc. directed towards climate scientists with this statement?

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

But presumably you don't include the accusations of corruption, fraud, "junk science" etc. directed towards climate scientists with this statement?

By some blokes on a forum, no.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.

Be that as it may,it is a real paper is it not?

Have you, (or plunker or gandahar) actually read the paper that was mentioned?

Do any of you have any comment on the science contained within the paper?

Or are you all content to just complain about the website that mentioned it?

I know of at least ten papers have been posted on No Tricks Zone where the authors have said their work has been misrepresented (which is 100% of the scientists who got back to me). I don't feel inclined to waste time debunking another.

NTZ relies on people not doing their own research. You'll need to find a better source if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

So a scientific paper gets published, but as soon as NTZ mentions it, it becomes worthless because that website has lied before?

Or do you actually have a scientific objection to the paper?

No, you've completely missed the point. The science may be perfectly fine, it's just nothing to do with what NTZ says it is.

So, you have not read the paper, just assume that it says the opposite of whatever NTZ presents it as.

And then complain about "people not doing their own research"

And still using that deliberatly vague term "100% of the scientists who got back to me" instead of the actual number that agreed with your (so far unspecified here) statement

OK

[kerplunk]

XM5ER said:

kerplunk said:

You ain't no sceptic bruv.

Really? What am I then?

Lacking appropriate caution when it comes to people making BIG claims that overturn a well established theory? You're wanting it too much ...they must be over the target! ...this is just the start now that Trump's in the whitehouse! And then you say 'I'm more sceptical than thou'.

XM5ER said:

After you've answered that, perhaps you could tell my why those papers should be dismissed out of hand, referring to the science rather than the alleged character of the authors. They could be total bks, has anyone in the cause rebutted them scientifically?

Ahh some appropriate scepticism at last - it could be total bks. Do you mean a submitted response to a journal? I don't think so but I haven't looked very hard.

[hairykrishna]

XM5ER said:

Hey Hairy, feel free to critique the paper, I'd be interested in your scientific opinion.

If you're talking about Nikolov and Zeller I'm not sure there's much point in me critiquing it in detail, unless there's something in particular you've not seen elsewhere? Various commentators have ripped it to pieces. Eli Rabett has or, if you prefer the kicking to come from a 'sceptic', Willis Eschenbach did a good job too.

[mondeoman]

Moon

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

So, you have not read the paper, just assume that it says the opposite of whatever NTZ presents it as.

Correct.

Silver Smudger said:

And then complain about "people not doing their own research"

You've done your own comparable research into NTZ then? Please elaborate.

Silver Smudger said:

And still using that deliberatly vague term "100% of the scientists who got back to me" instead of the actual number that agreed with your (so far unspecified here) statement

OK

It's very weird that you are attempting to criticise me for not falling for a clickbait headline.

How would you like me to word it?

Random email to strangers achieves impressive 30% response rate
A third of papers on NTZ list said to misrepresented bullst by their authors
Science claims made by turbobloke proven to be bullst by the actual scientists he cites
NTZ proven to be a load of bks by everyone who looks into it
Bloke criticised on forum for demonstrating critical thinking skills

[ultraweasel]

I've been following this thread with some interest.

There's an overwhelming discussion about the validity of various 'scientific' and academic papers and their conclusions, etc.

One of the things that has been bothering me is that these papers / graphs / results predicting future warming / cooling / extinction are based on computer climate models.

A quick Google finds that there appears to be around 30 research groups, all with their own 'version' of a global climate model, with obvious bias towards their own areas of interest, it being atmospheric, ocean, land surface or sea ice, etc.

My question is: who 'peer reviews' the individual climate models for both correct 'climate science' methodology and also accurate software algorithm implementation?

Another thought is: With having so many disparate models, are they all standalone models, generating academic papers in their own, limited field, or are they somehow combined into one 'super model' to provide the results that our esteemed leaders are using to generate Global Policy ?

Is there any international / global *scientific* body that monitors these things? If not, why not?

Would really appreciate any enlightenment you can provide.

Thanks,

Ultraweasel.

[Gandahar]

ultraweasel said:

I've been following this thread with some interest.

There's an overwhelming discussion about the validity of various 'scientific' and academic papers and their conclusions, etc.

One of the things that has been bothering me is that these papers / graphs / results predicting future warming / cooling / extinction are based on computer climate models.

A quick Google finds that there appears to be around 30 research groups, all with their own 'version' of a global climate model, with obvious bias towards their own areas of interest, it being atmospheric, ocean, land surface or sea ice, etc.

My question is: who 'peer reviews' the individual climate models for both correct 'climate science' methodology and also accurate software algorithm implementation?

Another thought is: With having so many disparate models, are they all standalone models, generating academic papers in their own, limited field, or are they somehow combined into one 'super model' to provide the results that our esteemed leaders are using to generate Global Policy ?

Is there any international / global *scientific* body that monitors these things? If not, why not?

Would really appreciate any enlightenment you can provide.

Thanks,

Ultraweasel.

A quick google?

What journals did you see these articles in? Have you emailed the editor(s) to ask about their peer review process?

That would be a good starting point to answer your question rather than asking a web forum based on cars. That's what is called applying a bit of science to a question

Give me one periodical and the model and I will approach them on your behalf. No charge.....


PS how can a quick google give you information on obvious bias for 30 groups? Surely you have spent time coming to that conclusion?

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 30th September 00:42

[robinessex]

ultraweasel said:

I've been following this thread with some interest.

There's an overwhelming discussion about the validity of various 'scientific' and academic papers and their conclusions, etc.

One of the things that has been bothering me is that these papers / graphs / results predicting future warming / cooling / extinction are based on computer climate models.

A quick Google finds that there appears to be around 30 research groups, all with their own 'version' of a global climate model, with obvious bias towards their own areas of interest, it being atmospheric, ocean, land surface or sea ice, etc.

My question is: who 'peer reviews' the individual climate models for both correct 'climate science' methodology and also accurate software algorithm implementation?

Another thought is: With having so many disparate models, are they all standalone models, generating academic papers in their own, limited field, or are they somehow combined into one 'super model' to provide the results that our esteemed leaders are using to generate Global Policy ?

Is there any international / global *scientific* body that monitors these things? If not, why not?

Would really appreciate any enlightenment you can provide.

Thanks,

Ultraweasel.

CC Models.

Chaotic mathematical system can never be solved in the sense of an explicit result. Thus any result derived must by inference be an approximation/assumption.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems ( a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect ) rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate. It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic. This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics, environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.

Conclusion. You'll never be able to model the climate and predict its future.

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 30th September 08:28

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

CC Models.

I'm not really sure what your cut and paste of a chunk of the wikipedia article on chaos theory adds to the thread. As has been pointed out a number of times chaos theory does not tell you that you can't predict future trends in climate just that you can't predict a single future state. The classic analogy is that you can't predict the path of a pinball through a pinball table but you can predict an increase in score if the table is tilted.

Talk to someone who actually understands what chaos means or do some reading outside of sceptic blogs.

[hairykrishna]

ultraweasel said:

Is there any international / global *scientific* body that monitors these things? If not, why not?

The IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) pulls together the various current research and presents the findings in summary reports. It's made up largely of climate scientists. Is that what you mean? Otherwise, the research tends to go through peer review and there's an increasing tendency for all data and code to be publicly available so anyone with sufficient knowledge (and a lot without...) can comment.

[hairykrishna]

mondeoman said:

Moon

My reading of the Kramm et al 'moon' paper is that they've made the same mistake Kramm and various others have done in the past when calculating the 'no atmosphere' temperature of the moon. The moon rotates slowly and has a low heat capacity surface. The earth rotates quickly and has a very high heat capacity surface. This means that various simplifying assumptions/shorcuts for the 'no atmosphere' calculation mean that you end up very close to the right answer for earth and >100K off for the moon.

They've obscured this with a lot of word salad and applied various more complex, nonsense, calculations from Gerlich and Tscheuschner and others but that's the root of it.

On the "Raving loony"->"Interesting research" scale of skeptic papers this is firmly on the loony end.

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

CC Models.

I'm not really sure what your cut and paste of a chunk of the wikipedia article on chaos theory adds to the thread. As has been pointed out a number of times chaos theory does not tell you that you can't predict future trends in climate just that you can't predict a single future state. The classic analogy is that you can't predict the path of a pinball through a pinball table but you can predict an increase in score if the table is tilted.

Talk to someone who actually understands what chaos means or do some reading outside of sceptic blogs.

Predict an increase? Wow!! How much, and how accurate ? Do tell

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

Predict an increase? Wow!! How much, and how accurate ? Do tell

It was an analogy. Strangely enough I don't have any pinball table data to hand.

The idea that because the climate has some chaotic elements we can't make accurate predictions of stuff like future temperature trends is incorrect. It's born of a fundamental misunderstanding of chaos theory and it's implications.

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

Predict an increase? Wow!! How much, and how accurate ? Do tell

It was an analogy. Strangely enough I don't have any pinball table data to hand.

The idea that because the climate has some chaotic elements we can't make accurate predictions of stuff like future temperature trends is incorrect. It's born of a fundamental misunderstanding of chaos theory and it's implications.

Trends maybe. Values, no. And when the supposed trend is minute, useless. Like the planet temperature (whatever that actually is) is going +0.7 degree in 100 yrs !! So what if it does? The bloody planet is either going to get warmer or colder. Which is best, given that there’s sod all we can do about it ?

[hairykrishna]

It's going to go up quite a lot more than that over the next 100 years. Probably somewhere between about 2 and 4.5 degrees depending on the emission scenario.

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

It's going to go up quite a lot more than that over the next 100 years. Probably somewhere between about 2 and 4.5 degrees depending on the emission scenario.

That's what the models say. So a mathmatical guess then. As I said, trend maybe, value, no bloody idea

[mondeoman]

hairykrishna said:

mondeoman said:

Moon

My reading of the Kramm et al 'moon' paper is that they've made the same mistake Kramm and various others have done in the past when calculating the 'no atmosphere' temperature of the moon. The moon rotates slowly and has a low heat capacity surface. The earth rotates quickly and has a very high heat capacity surface. This means that various simplifying assumptions/shorcuts for the 'no atmosphere' calculation mean that you end up very close to the right answer for earth and >100K off for the moon.

They've obscured this with a lot of word salad and applied various more complex, nonsense, calculations from Gerlich and Tscheuschner and others but that's the root of it.

On the "Raving loony"->"Interesting research" scale of skeptic papers this is firmly on the loony end.

My read on it was that the earth assumptions ignore the high heat capacity oceans hence ending up with the "wrong" number, and they'd allowed for the differing rotational velocities to do the comparison.