Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
mko9 said:
The real answer is it was probably the hottest year since comprehensive satellite records began in the early 1970s, but that isn't anywhere near as impressively catastrophic sounding.
mko9 snatches the lead in the deeply unconvincable stakes. Diderot will need to up his gamekerplunk said:
mko9 said:
The real answer is it was probably the hottest year since comprehensive satellite records began in the early 1970s, but that isn't anywhere near as impressively catastrophic sounding.
mko9 snatches the lead in the deeply unconvincable stakes. Diderot will need to up his game
Remind us all KP what was (exactly to two decimal places and demonstrate your workings out from actual data), the average global temperature in 1880. Or in 1850. Or in 1891. Or in 1904. We need actual data, from actual weather stations globally. Ahh, yes, you don’t have any data from most of the global land mass do you? And you cannot ever have any data because it does not exist. You’ve already admitted this. You’ve already conceded that there is major uncertainty and estimation mise en abîme at the heart of all these claims of the hottest ever recorded temps. So quite why you are keeping on going with the pretence is rather odd.
PRTVR said:
Climate sensitivity.
Something we have known about for a while but still it goes on as part of the scare story.
Interesting. This is about the latest generation CMIP6 models which, as mentioned a few pages back, has produced a subset of models that stand out as running 'too hot'. Most of the discussion I've seen about it has been how to go about 'ignoring' this subset because, if included in the range of model climate sensitivities, it raises the 'model mean' to higher than it has been in the past, which is used as the basis for a lot of other research Something we have known about for a while but still it goes on as part of the scare story.
Sabine Hossenfelder however sees reasons to take them seriously - and is very worried.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 31st January 13:12
kerplunk said:
Interesting. This is about the latest generation CMIP6 models which, as mentioned a few pages back, has produced a subset of models that stand out as running 'too hot'. Most of the discussion I've seen about it has been how to go about 'ignoring' this subset because, if included in the range of model climate sensitivities, it raises the 'model mean' to higher than it has been in the past, which is used as the basis for a lot of other research
Sabine Hossenfelder however sees reasons to take them seriously - and is very worried.
Some of you (and for example Diderot) would never work in the oil industry, given how you hate uncertainty or extrapolation of data. The entire industry would basically not exist if we applied your view on how data should be used. For example we tend to apply the properties to a reservoir and spend a billion dollars developing it often off one well around 8” wide and apply that over several square miles despite knowing it might be very different just a few metres away. Sabine Hossenfelder however sees reasons to take them seriously - and is very worried.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 31st January 13:12
Our models tend to have at least +\- 30% uncertainty on volumes and quite often we see that was not enough once we start production. Yet we spend billions each year trusting these models enough because they work overall despite the uncertainty. If someone has climate models that never had a range where SOME of the results were too high I’d say it was likely a bad model. The biggest economic problems in the oil industry often occur when people were way too narrow on their uncertainty range and all the runs were a narrow band.
It’s just very interesting to see how some people doubt the methodology behind how we develop oil and gas and the huge sums of money spend there, just because it’s used for climate.
NRS said:
Some of you (and for example Diderot) would never work in the oil industry, given how you hate uncertainty or extrapolation of data. The entire industry would basically not exist if we applied your view on how data should be used. For example we tend to apply the properties to a reservoir and spend a billion dollars developing it often off one well around 8” wide and apply that over several square miles despite knowing it might be very different just a few metres away.
Our models tend to have at least +\- 30% uncertainty on volumes and quite often we see that was not enough once we start production. Yet we spend billions each year trusting these models enough because they work overall despite the uncertainty. If someone has climate models that never had a range where SOME of the results were too high I’d say it was likely a bad model. The biggest economic problems in the oil industry often occur when people were way too narrow on their uncertainty range and all the runs were a narrow band.
It’s just very interesting to see how some people doubt the methodology behind how we develop oil and gas and the huge sums of money spend there, just because it’s used for climate.
I disagree, what is happening is they are using a wide range and picking the highest result as to increase the possible outcome, the first video I posted explains it. Our models tend to have at least +\- 30% uncertainty on volumes and quite often we see that was not enough once we start production. Yet we spend billions each year trusting these models enough because they work overall despite the uncertainty. If someone has climate models that never had a range where SOME of the results were too high I’d say it was likely a bad model. The biggest economic problems in the oil industry often occur when people were way too narrow on their uncertainty range and all the runs were a narrow band.
It’s just very interesting to see how some people doubt the methodology behind how we develop oil and gas and the huge sums of money spend there, just because it’s used for climate.
PRTVR said:
NRS said:
Some of you (and for example Diderot) would never work in the oil industry, given how you hate uncertainty or extrapolation of data. The entire industry would basically not exist if we applied your view on how data should be used. For example we tend to apply the properties to a reservoir and spend a billion dollars developing it often off one well around 8” wide and apply that over several square miles despite knowing it might be very different just a few metres away.
Our models tend to have at least +\- 30% uncertainty on volumes and quite often we see that was not enough once we start production. Yet we spend billions each year trusting these models enough because they work overall despite the uncertainty. If someone has climate models that never had a range where SOME of the results were too high I’d say it was likely a bad model. The biggest economic problems in the oil industry often occur when people were way too narrow on their uncertainty range and all the runs were a narrow band.
It’s just very interesting to see how some people doubt the methodology behind how we develop oil and gas and the huge sums of money spend there, just because it’s used for climate.
I disagree, what is happening is they are using a wide range and picking the highest result as to increase the possible outcome, the first video I posted explains it. Our models tend to have at least +\- 30% uncertainty on volumes and quite often we see that was not enough once we start production. Yet we spend billions each year trusting these models enough because they work overall despite the uncertainty. If someone has climate models that never had a range where SOME of the results were too high I’d say it was likely a bad model. The biggest economic problems in the oil industry often occur when people were way too narrow on their uncertainty range and all the runs were a narrow band.
It’s just very interesting to see how some people doubt the methodology behind how we develop oil and gas and the huge sums of money spend there, just because it’s used for climate.
NRS said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting. This is about the latest generation CMIP6 models which, as mentioned a few pages back, has produced a subset of models that stand out as running 'too hot'. Most of the discussion I've seen about it has been how to go about 'ignoring' this subset because, if included in the range of model climate sensitivities, it raises the 'model mean' to higher than it has been in the past, which is used as the basis for a lot of other research
Sabine Hossenfelder however sees reasons to take them seriously - and is very worried.
Some of you (and for example Diderot) would never work in the oil industry, given how you hate uncertainty or extrapolation of data. The entire industry would basically not exist if we applied your view on how data should be used. For example we tend to apply the properties to a reservoir and spend a billion dollars developing it often off one well around 8” wide and apply that over several square miles despite knowing it might be very different just a few metres away. Sabine Hossenfelder however sees reasons to take them seriously - and is very worried.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 31st January 13:12
Our models tend to have at least +\- 30% uncertainty on volumes and quite often we see that was not enough once we start production. Yet we spend billions each year trusting these models enough because they work overall despite the uncertainty. If someone has climate models that never had a range where SOME of the results were too high I’d say it was likely a bad model. The biggest economic problems in the oil industry often occur when people were way too narrow on their uncertainty range and all the runs were a narrow band.
It’s just very interesting to see how some people doubt the methodology behind how we develop oil and gas and the huge sums of money spend there, just because it’s used for climate.
kerplunk said:
Whereas the planet's climate is what? Not a tangible product with inherent value and application?
Net Zero is the vainglorious and hubristic delusion of those stupid enough to imagine that they can control the climate. Whereas I can drive my Jag to the petrol station and fill it up. Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Whereas the planet's climate is what? Not a tangible product with inherent value and application?
Net Zero is the vainglorious and hubristic delusion of those stupid enough to imagine that they can control the climate. Whereas I can drive my Jag to the petrol station and fill it up. Should've seen that coming
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Whereas the planet's climate is what? Not a tangible product with inherent value and application?
Net Zero is the vainglorious and hubristic delusion of those stupid enough to imagine that they can control the climate. Whereas I can drive my Jag to the petrol station and fill it up. Should've seen that coming
So let us imagine that Net Zero will be achieved globally. What next? Design and install massive corks to plug all the volcanos? Construct huge sea walls to stop El Ninos, La Ninas and other ocean currents from circulating? Change the orbital eccentricity of the planet? Super glue all the tectonic plates together? Erect vast sunshields to regulate fluctuations in solar output? Paint all the trees white? Eliminate all humans in order to prevent respiration?
It is simply breathtakingly absurd to imagine that we can control the climate by achieving Net Zero. The only thing that that will achieve is a geopolitical objective: rendering dodgy regimes who produce oil medieval.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Whereas the planet's climate is what? Not a tangible product with inherent value and application?
Net Zero is the vainglorious and hubristic delusion of those stupid enough to imagine that they can control the climate. Whereas I can drive my Jag to the petrol station and fill it up. Should've seen that coming
Yes very likely so, for the waming of the last 50 years, in line with the scientific assesments of the IPCC etc. Write it on a post-it note or something, like Val Kilmer
Diderot said:
So let us imagine that Net Zero will be achieved globally. What next? Design and install massive corks to plug all the volcanos? Construct huge sea walls to stop El Ninos, La Ninas and other ocean currents from circulating? Change the orbital eccentricity of the planet? Super glue all the tectonic plates together? Erect vast sunshields to regulate fluctuations in solar output? Paint all the trees white? Eliminate all humans in order to prevent respiration?
It is simply breathtakingly absurd to imagine that we can control the climate by achieving Net Zero. The only thing that that will achieve is a geopolitical objective: rendering dodgy regimes who produce oil medieval.
Duh. To save time can you just clarify whether you think AGW *could* be limited by action to reduce fossil fuel emissions or if you think *that's* an impossibility.It is simply breathtakingly absurd to imagine that we can control the climate by achieving Net Zero. The only thing that that will achieve is a geopolitical objective: rendering dodgy regimes who produce oil medieval.
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Whereas the planet's climate is what? Not a tangible product with inherent value and application?
Net Zero is the vainglorious and hubristic delusion of those stupid enough to imagine that they can control the climate. Whereas I can drive my Jag to the petrol station and fill it up. Should've seen that coming
Yes very likely so, for the waming of the last 50 years, in line with the scientific assesments of the IPCC etc. Write it on a post-it note or something, like Val Kilmer
Diderot said:
So let us imagine that Net Zero will be achieved globally. What next? Design and install massive corks to plug all the volcanos? Construct huge sea walls to stop El Ninos, La Ninas and other ocean currents from circulating? Change the orbital eccentricity of the planet? Super glue all the tectonic plates together? Erect vast sunshields to regulate fluctuations in solar output? Paint all the trees white? Eliminate all humans in order to prevent respiration?
It is simply breathtakingly absurd to imagine that we can control the climate by achieving Net Zero. The only thing that that will achieve is a geopolitical objective: rendering dodgy regimes who produce oil medieval.
Duh. To save time can you just clarify whether you think AGW *could* be limited by action to reduce fossil fuel emissions or if you think *that's* an impossibility.It is simply breathtakingly absurd to imagine that we can control the climate by achieving Net Zero. The only thing that that will achieve is a geopolitical objective: rendering dodgy regimes who produce oil medieval.
Context and perspective is everything. For billions of years the climate of the planet has undergone massive changes without the very limited and extraordinarily short-lived influence of humans; the last ice age ended what c. 11.5k years ago? And let’s not overlook the fact that CO2 is an extremely weak, trace gas, essential for life, but absolutely dwarfed in its influence on the climate by, for example, methane and water vapour. And the fact that CO2 has had, over geological timescales, precious little correlation to huge temperature fluctuations - fluctuations way beyond the modest warming we have seen since the little ice age that we have no way of distinguishing between natural variation.
So there are massive issues with your argumentation: attribution - exactly how much of the recent modest warming is due to natural variation or human emitted CO2? Natural variation is a factor that humans can’t control (as above) without big corks, huge walls and vast sunshades, and f
k tons of Dulux brilliant white. Then there is the thorny issue of climate sensitivity. Here we have arrived once more at the frontier of estimation mise en abîme (let’s hope you’ve Googled it). Your supposition is, wahey!!!!: we can save the planet, so let’s bankrupt ourselves unilaterally because of a 19th century hypothesis and a lack of any contemporaneous data for the vast majorly of the global land mass, much intervening sophistry since then, much regrettable substandard and dishonest science (as we are seeing played out in court right now in the USA) since the whole political movement gained traction, and, not forgetting, there’s no definitive evidence about attribution or climate sensitivity. Lovely stuff.
Keep on keeping on.
kerplunk said:
"So there are massive issues with your argumentation"
I would be very surprised if you have good recall of what my argumentation is - it's not evident from your post
You believe that humans can control the climate by regulating CO2 output. I think that covers it. I would be very surprised if you have good recall of what my argumentation is - it's not evident from your post
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 1st February 23:46
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff