Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

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

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 1st February 23:46

You believe that humans can control the climate by regulating CO2 output. I think that covers it.

No I think it's possible that AGW can be limited by reducing CO2 emissions.

Honestly, do you think this kind of dancing makes you look good?

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

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

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 1st February 23:46

You believe that humans can control the climate by regulating CO2 output. I think that covers it.

No I think it's possible that AGW can be limited by reducing CO2 emissions.

You’re saying the same thing.

[Isotopologue]

Diderot said:

Isotopologue said:

Diderot said:

The claim is last year was the hottest since records began in 1850 - NOAA explicitly states: ‘ The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade. In fact, the average global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850–1900) average by 2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).’

There is no mention of a trend, instead an explicit average temperature is stated to two decimal places. That number is an estimate mise en abîme. There is no actual data from most of the global land mass to support it across the 1850-1900 average they are using. That is a simple enough concept for you to grasp isn’t it?

What about the claims of the Roman Warm Period being "at least 2 degrees warmer" than today. Do you place any stock in those?

If you do, then how does the sampling compare to the 1850-1900 time period.

If not, then why don't you repeatedly tell the posters of such claims that they are mistaken?

Thanks.

What about those claims? They are an estimate, usually prefaced by ‘about’, ‘around or ‘circa’, not expressed to two decimal places as if the estimate mise en abîme is derived from actual data. Beyond that difference, the most significant one is that we are not basing absurd policies which will cost us £ trillions to implement, and lead inexorably to reduced standards of living, on such estimations.

There's been a repeat of the claim on the other thread: "the Roman Warm Period was 2 deg C warmer than now"

No indication it's an estimate - it's stated as fact.

No use of ‘about’, ‘around or ‘circa'

No indication whether it's local or regional.

It is not expressed to two decimal places so there's one thing on your list.

Should I place any stock in this claim or is it also not based on "actual data" ?

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

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

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 1st February 23:46

You believe that humans can control the climate by regulating CO2 output. I think that covers it.

No I think it's possible that AGW can be limited by reducing CO2 emissions.

You’re saying the same thing.

Am I? Ok then, yes

[Diderot]

Isotopologue said:

Diderot said:

Isotopologue said:

Diderot said:

The claim is last year was the hottest since records began in 1850 - NOAA explicitly states: ‘ The 10 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred in the past decade. In fact, the average global temperature for 2023 exceeded the pre-industrial (1850–1900) average by 2.43 degrees F (1.35 degrees C).’

There is no mention of a trend, instead an explicit average temperature is stated to two decimal places. That number is an estimate mise en abîme. There is no actual data from most of the global land mass to support it across the 1850-1900 average they are using. That is a simple enough concept for you to grasp isn’t it?

What about the claims of the Roman Warm Period being "at least 2 degrees warmer" than today. Do you place any stock in those?

If you do, then how does the sampling compare to the 1850-1900 time period.

If not, then why don't you repeatedly tell the posters of such claims that they are mistaken?

Thanks.

What about those claims? They are an estimate, usually prefaced by ‘about’, ‘around or ‘circa’, not expressed to two decimal places as if the estimate mise en abîme is derived from actual data. Beyond that difference, the most significant one is that we are not basing absurd policies which will cost us £ trillions to implement, and lead inexorably to reduced standards of living, on such estimations.

There's been a repeat of the claim on the other thread: "the Roman Warm Period was 2 deg C warmer than now"

No indication it's an estimate - it's stated as fact.

No use of ‘about’, ‘around or ‘circa'

No indication whether it's local or regional.

It is not expressed to two decimal places so there's one thing on your list.

Should I place any stock in this claim or is it also not based on "actual data" ?

It would be good practice for those to be prefaced, and in some of the literature they are and in some they are not. In most secondary sources I've seen, they are not usually. However, it's a forum, TB isn't a Government funded scientist or a journalist, and £ trillions won't be spent on the back of any claim to do with the Roman Warm Period being about 2c warmer than today. But it's ok, cos it woz the Sun wot dun it back then, not CO2.

[kerplunk]

TB's misrepresentations of literature, even after it's been pointed out, is a lot more gross than whether he said 'about' or not.

[Isotopologue]

Diderot said:

It would be good practice for those to be prefaced, and in some of the literature they are and in some they are not. In most secondary sources I've seen, they are not usually. However, it's a forum, TB isn't a Government funded scientist or a journalist, and £ trillions won't be spent on the back of any claim to do with the Roman Warm Period being about 2c warmer than today. But it's ok, cos it woz the Sun wot dun it back then, not CO2.

If people on forums get a free pass, then why 'pick on' KP - after all he's posting on the same forum?

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

It would be good practice for those to be prefaced, and in some of the literature they are and in some they are not. In most secondary sources I've seen, they are not usually. However, it's a forum, TB isn't a Government funded scientist or a journalist, and £ trillions won't be spent on the back of any claim to do with the Roman Warm Period being about 2c warmer than today. But it's ok, cos it woz the Sun wot dun it back then, not CO2.

£ trillions won't be spent on the back of reporting of temps that don't mention the uncertainty bars either.

It's as ineffectual as turbobloke not saying 'about'

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

It would be good practice for those to be prefaced, and in some of the literature they are and in some they are not. In most secondary sources I've seen, they are not usually. However, it's a forum, TB isn't a Government funded scientist or a journalist, and £ trillions won't be spent on the back of any claim to do with the Roman Warm Period being about 2c warmer than today. But it's ok, cos it woz the Sun wot dun it back then, not CO2.

£ trillions won't be spent on the back of reporting of temps that don't mention the uncertainty bars either.

It's as ineffectual as turbobloke not saying 'about'

They are being spent. Error bars and confidence % levels are just another estimation.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

They are being spent. Error bars and confidence % levels are just another estimation.

Error bars and confidence levels are widely used in data analysis and science. Nevertheless, if those things aren't acceptable to you, why don't you describe an approach to data analysis that you'd be OK with?

[kerplunk]

The run of large margin record-breaking temps since the middle of last year continues into 2024.

UAH global av for January broke the previous record (Jan 2016) by +0.43C

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/uah-global-te...

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 2nd February 20:40

[NRS]

Diderot said:

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.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 31st January 13:12

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.

Apples and oranges. Your example is of business investment in a tangible product with inherent value and application. Net Zero, on the other hand, will cost £ trillions of public money,. Big difference.

The methodology is the same. You predict something using the evidence, and make the best decision based on that uncertainty span. You’re saying it is different because you come from the view that humans don’t influence the climate and so it’s all a waste of money. Hence ignoring the methods that the oil industry uses - why waste billions gathering data and having people work out if it’s safe and financially good if we can ignore that because of what is ‘obvious’ to a random person?

Do you believe humans can impact the climate?

[Lotus 50]

Hysterical to see Turbobloke still promoting Shaviv et al and solar forcing as the lead climate driver on the politics thread. He references a 2023 paper... not sure if this is the right one but if it is it demonstrates the level of mis-representation and gaslighting that he and others promote:

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/...

Abstract:

We review the long-term climate variations during the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic Eon). We begin with a short summary of the relevant geological and geochemical datasets available for the reconstruction of long-term climate variations. We then explore the main drivers of climate that appear to explain a large fraction of these climatic oscillations. The first is the long-term trend in atmospheric CO2 due to geological processes, while the second is the atmospheric ionization due to the changing galactic environment. Other drivers, such as albedo and geographic effects, are of secondary importance. In this review, we pay particular attention to problems that may affect the measurements of temperature obtained from oxygen isotopes, such as the long-term changes in the concentration of ?18O seawater.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Tuesday 6th February 09:59

[Isotopologue]

abstract from Lotus 50 said:

... such as the long-term changes in the concentration of ?18O seawater.

That last bit of the abstract is so garbled that I have no idea what they're trying to say. Isotope delta isn't a concentration nor can it be described as such. 'Delta 18O seawater' isn't a thing either. I'll look at the paper later as I (surprisingly) have access...

[Gadgetmac]

Wow, you take a couple of weeks off and come back to the loons running the asylum.

Thankfully the most obnoxious one appears to have been banished to the thread of idiots to join the others deemed not suitable for the science discussion.

On catching up I couldn't help but laugh at Deeps 2 links today to blogs from anonymous right-wing scribes from where he obviously gets his science intake. One of them is actually primarily involved in the promotion of bit-coin with a bit climate denialism thrown in. Trump would be so proud.

Anyway, I'll post up some more science in the coming days.

te visurum <--- Am i doing this right?

[Lotus 50]

hehe... a long time ago i did a course on writing scientific papers/reports. One piece of strong advice was to avoid including latin/french/other language quotes because, aside from generally being superfluous and obscuring the information you were trying to convey, it:

- made you look pretentious
- smacked of trying to look cleverer than you actually are.

QED

[Isotopologue]

Lotus 50 said:

Hysterical to see Turbobloke still promoting Shaviv et al and solar forcing as the lead climate driver on the politics thread. He references a 2023 paper... not sure if this is the right one but...

Given he's just said "I was reminded (who wouldn't be ) of the paper from Wong and Minnett as published in Nature (2018)" when the paper he then goes on to quote was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (by those authors and in that year, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.100... ), being "not sure" about a paper he cites being the right one seems to be fairly common...

[Lotus 50]

Yep, although I don't think it is the one he was quoting as there seems to be quite a big gap between Shaviv's apparent recognition of the major role that CO2 has in driving climate alongside other, galactic/solar forcing in that paper and TBs desire to find an alternative to greenhouse gas emissions driving warming.

[Diderot]

Lotus 50 said:

hehe... a long time ago i did a course on writing scientific papers/reports. One piece of strong advice was to avoid including latin/french/other language quotes because, aside from generally being superfluous and obscuring the information you were trying to convey, it:

- made you look pretentious
- smacked of trying to look cleverer than you actually are.

QED

Ha! Translation only goes so far. Ask a poet,

[Lotus 50]

Well yes, but there comes a point when you need to ask yourself ‘am I just being a t**t?’