Paradox said..
It's well documented that large amounts of people die from energy poverty. 7% of deaths in Australia are related to it.

Do you have a credible reference for that? I'm surprised. The UK yes, but Au, surely not?

Marvin said..

Do you have a credible reference for that? I'm surprised. The UK yes, but Au, surely not?

I read it somewhere. Would have to look to find it.

It's possibly from this paper or one of its references. The paper probably is enough in itself to highlight Australia is not immune from the global problem.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673037.2019.1686130

"Widely recognized as a warm country with a relatively benign climate, few people consider cold housing as a problem in Australia. Nevertheless, Australia is a nation with a notably high burden of ill health and mortality in wintertime (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2018). Anecdotally, immigrants from northern hemisphere, cold-climate countries say that their first winter in Australia is often the coldest that they have ever experienced. This is because the Australian housing stock, compared with that of cold-climate countries, offers little protection from the prevailing weather conditions due to poor thermal building standards (Moore et al., 2019)"

Marvin said..It says quite clearly in the footnote to the figure spm.3 that:

"The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcing can be estimated with less uncertainty than the contributions from greenhouse gases and from other anthropogenic forcing separately. This is because the two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a combined signal that is better constrained by observations."

In other words the contributors are harder to measure with certainty than the combined effect.

If I recall correctly 'extremely likely' is within the bounds of a 95% confidence interval.
climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/uncertainty-guidance/topic2

Scientifically there is nothing clear about something being "less uncertain" than something else that is uncertain. They are both simply uncertain.

This footnote is actually a great example of what the IPCC summary writers do and how they push deceptive messaging.

I will rephase the footnote to explain what they mean and how they come up with thier 95% confidence interval:

"If we lump all our possible theoretical human contributers to global warming together, we come up with a really big figure (way more than what we are seeing). So therefore by extention we believe that as real observations don't match our big figure, then we are much more confident that most or all of the observed warming has to be because of at least some of our theories. Obviously some of them just overlap somehow. In fact because we can come up with theroetical warming so far in excess of what we are seeing, we also conclude that a natural cooling trend must be masking the real warming"

And that is how they come up with a 95% confidence interval.

If one starts looking at the IPCC past predictions, their certainty about how uncertain they are are becomes increasingly uncertain.

Ian K said..Natural forcings and Natural internal variability (Whatever the difference is?) conveniently set to zero!

Marvin said..

holy guacamole said..

Ian K said..Where did Paradox claim that? Doesn't seem to fit in with Paradox's line of reasoning

holy guacamole said..ANY compelling evidence that the current warming trend is largely natural, as Paradox claims?

Many times. Paradox doesn't reason - he twists the truth.

He's claimed recently that anthropogenic factors do not contribute more than 50% or so to the warming, that this is a quote "bald faced lie" unquote and that quote;

"As for those expouting gov agencies that I am supposedly saying are saying differently, you need to go read those sites. few if any state outright that humans are the predominant cause of observed warming. Many use language to make it sound like that but don't actually say it. Words like "likely" "probably" or vague terminology are used. That is not scientific language."

He also lies about the IPCC documentation. For instance, paradox claims that the IPCC's summaries and conclusions demonstrate loose language about AGW and a level of uncertainty, whereas the reality is that the IPCC have calculated that GHG's are quote "extremely likely to be the dominant cause for the observed warming...".

From the IPCC 2014 Synthesis Report:

"Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. "

It says quite clearly in the footnote to the figure spm.3 that:

"The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcing can be estimated with less uncertainty than the contributions from greenhouse gases and from other anthropogenic forcing separately. This is because the two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a combined signal that is better constrained by observations."

In other words the contributors are harder to measure with certainty than the combined effect.

Its been a while since I played in this game, but if I recall correctly 'extremely likely' is within the bounds of a 95% confidence interval.
climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/uncertainty-guidance/topic2

I dunno. Putting error bars on two theoretical calculations and then mixing it with observations of the real world to pull in the error bars when added is a bit dodgy. And

( It is extremely likely 1 standard deviation is the new 2 standard deviations. )

That's right, you probably don't know. The IPCC however would know.

There's virtually zero evidence that natural forcing is responsible for the majority of the observed warming!

Imagine that Ian. Science! You observe no evidence, therefore you conclude zero effect.

...and until you do see some evidence to the contrary, the central hypothesis is supported!

Amazing.

Paradox said..

Marvin said..It says quite clearly in the footnote to the figure spm.3 that:

"The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcing can be estimated with less uncertainty than the contributions from greenhouse gases and from other anthropogenic forcing separately. This is because the two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a combined signal that is better constrained by observations."

In other words the contributors are harder to measure with certainty than the combined effect.

If I recall correctly 'extremely likely' is within the bounds of a 95% confidence interval.
climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/uncertainty-guidance/topic2

Scientifically there is nothing clear about something being "less uncertain" than something else that is uncertain. They are both simply uncertain.

This footnote is actually a great example of what the IPCC summary writers do and how they push deceptive messaging.

I will rephase the footnote to explain what they mean and how they come up with thier 95% confidence interval:

"If we lump all our possible theoretical human contributers to global warming together, we come up with a really big figure (way more than what we are seeing). So therefore by extention we believe that as real observations don't match our big figure, then we are much more confident that most or all of the observed warming has to be because of at least some of our theories. Obviously some of them just overlap somehow. In fact because we can come up with theroetical warming so far in excess of what we are seeing, we also conclude that a natural cooling trend must be masking the real warming"

And that is how they come up with a 95% confidence interval.

If one starts looking at the IPCC past predictions, their certainty about how uncertain they are are becomes increasingly uncertain.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

"In statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a type of estimate computed from the statistics of the observed data. This proposes a range of plausible values for an unknown parameter (for example, the mean). The interval has an associated confidence level that the true parameter is in the proposed range."

...The higher the CI, the more likely it contains the true value. For a 90% CI sample:

...Were this procedure to be repeated on numerous samples, the fraction of calculated confidence intervals (which would differ for each sample) that encompass the true population parameter would tend toward 90%."

That is a pretty clear statement about uncertainty. Sure there is uncertainty - but the point remains that we can be more confident of some things than others.

Regarding your italicised section on how the IPCC gets its 95% CI, is that a quote, or did you make it up? Please provide credible references to substantiate your claim.

Marvin said..Regarding your italicised section on how the IPCC gets its 95% CI, is that a quote, or did you make it up? Please provide credible references to substantiate your claim.

Paradox said..

Marvin said..It says quite clearly in the footnote to the figure spm.3 that:

"The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcing can be estimated with less uncertainty than the contributions from greenhouse gases and from other anthropogenic forcing separately. This is because the two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a combined signal that is better constrained by observations."

In other words the contributors are harder to measure with certainty than the combined effect.

If I recall correctly 'extremely likely' is within the bounds of a 95% confidence interval.
climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/uncertainty-guidance/topic2

Scientifically there is nothing clear about something being "less uncertain" than something else that is uncertain. They are both simply uncertain.

This footnote is actually a great example of what the IPCC summary writers do and how they push deceptive messaging.

I will rephase the footnote to explain what they mean and how they come up with thier 95% confidence interval:

"If we lump all our possible theoretical human contributers to global warming together, we come up with a really big figure (way more than what we are seeing). So therefore by extention we believe that as real observations don't match our big figure, then we are much more confident that most or all of the observed warming has to be because of at least some of our theories. Obviously some of them just overlap somehow. In fact because we can come up with theroetical warming so far in excess of what we are seeing, we also conclude that a natural cooling trend must be masking the real warming"

And that is how they come up with a 95% confidence interval.

If one starts looking at the IPCC past predictions, their certainty about how uncertain they are are becomes increasingly uncertain.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

"In statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a type of estimate computed from the statistics of the observed data. This proposes a range of plausible values for an unknown parameter (for example, the mean). The interval has an associated confidence level that the true parameter is in the proposed range."

...The higher the CI, the more likely it contains the true value. For a 90% CI sample:

...Were this procedure to be repeated on numerous samples, the fraction of calculated confidence intervals (which would differ for each sample) that encompass the true population parameter would tend toward 90%."

That is a pretty clear statement about uncertainty. Sure there is uncertainty - but the point remains that we can be more confident of some things than others.

Well observed again marvin. I think I know the answer to your question and I reckon you do too, but let's see the misinformant's sources and logic first.

Should be fascinating fiction as always.

Well that's reassuring Ian. Speaking of measuring phenomena for 70 years...

I notice it's also speeding up....

Paradox said..
Marvin said..

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

"In statistics, a confidence interval (CI) is a type of estimate computed from the statistics of the observed data. This proposes a range of plausible values for an unknown parameter (for example, the mean). The interval has an associated confidence level that the true parameter is in the proposed range."

...The higher the CI, the more likely it contains the true value. For a 90% CI sample:

...Were this procedure to be repeated on numerous samples, the fraction of calculated confidence intervals (which would differ for each sample) that encompass the true population parameter would tend toward 90%."

That is a pretty clear statement about uncertainty. Sure there is uncertainty - but the point remains that we can be more confident of some things than others.

Regarding your italicised section on how the IPCC gets its 95% CI, is that a quote, or did you make it up? Please provide credible references to substantiate your claim.

A definition of a term does not relate to its accurate usage. Usage of a 95% confidence interval is merely a way of expressing your results. It does not atuomatically mean your results or methodology are correct or reflect the stated figure.

Regarding the quote any IPCC publication is a credible reference.

My admittedly toungue in cheek "quote" is merely rewording what the IPCC footnote itself clearly explains. The IPCC have made no secret of the fact that thier models and associated antropologic forcings from CO2 and other means (not clearly defined) give a warming far in excess of what we are currently seeing.

The IPCC footnote clearly says that the individual theoretical contributers (Greenhouse gasses and other forcings) have a lower confidence individually than combined. When combined the "signal" is better constrained by observations. ie if we simply add the % of all our possible contributers together (none of which we are overly confident about) then the combined likelyhood of them explaining all the warming is higher.

To take multiple possible contributers with low confidence and then add them together to get a high confidence is not an accepted statisticial solution.

It's called fudging. Feel free to look into the IPCC summary reports and see for yourself. It's how they do it and the footnote explains it quite well, but is worded to sound "scientific" to justify the high confidence level stated.

Lets face it. This is all about CO2, thats what the graphs show and its what the IPCC and others focus on solely as needing remedy. If they were confident that CO2 was the main cause of warming then they would clearly state thier confidence about CO2 only and they would have no need to deploy the smoke and mirrors in thier wording by lumping in and adding up "all greenhouse gasses" and "other sources" to come to some inflated confidence level. Thats the giveway.

I will say it again. We don't know, IPCC doesn't know.

Arctic sea ice extent has been measured by satellites since the 1970s. And scientists can sample ice cores, permafrost records, and tree rings to make some assumptions about the sea ice extent going back 1,500 years. And when you put that all on a chart, well, it looks a little scary.In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card, which analyzes the state of the frozen ocean at the top of our world. Overall, it's not good."The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history," Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAA's Arctic research program, said at a press conference. "This year's observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago."The report, which you can read in full here, compiles trends that scientists have been seeing for years. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. And 2017 saw a new record low for the maximum sea ice extent (i.e., how much of the Arctic ocean freezes in the coldest depths of winter).

www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/12/16767152/arctic-sea-ice-extent-chart



Anything changed since 2018?

Ian K said..
No body is arguing about that measurement. It's the consequences of CO2 that are debatable. Us primates evolved in the Eocene 34 to 56 million years ago. i.e.. In the most recent 1% of earth's history. During that time C02 was up and down reaching an almighty high of 4,000 ppm. Didn't seem to set us back all that much.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

Really. Are the consequences of CO2 debatable on Venus?

Debatable according to whom? Do you really think you have a better grasp of this than the collective intelligence of the IPCC and all the international institutions standing behind it?

I very much doubt it.

Having an opinion, does not constitute debate, rather pig headed denial.

In my opinion, the assessments made by the IPCC make a lot of sense.

Details to the contrary smack of wafer thin semantics.

holy guacamole said..
Really. Are the consequences of CO2 debatable on Venus?

Debatable according to whom? Do you really think you have a better grasp of this than the collective intelligence of the IPCC and all the international institutions standing behind it?

I didn't know the IPCC had made comments about the atmosphere on Venus?

You're just arguing from authority again.

IFocus said..
Anything changed since 2018?

Not so much in the larger trend.

My point was that there were large gains in winter and this year it seems to be accompanied by large losses in summer although we wont know the full extent until Sept.

2012 was the lowest Antarctic ice amount ever recorded (in summer) and it did the same thing with massive gains in winter. Notably that period had record gains in Antarctica.

Overall the northern hemisphere has had a way above average snow mass accumulation this year.

Good data here: globalcryospherewatch.org/satellites/trackers.html

Marvin said..

First, it's not fudging if you can measure the overall flux with greater confidence than the theoretical components. To take the car speedo analogy again, the police speed gun may have low uncertainty/very high confidence as to the observed car's speed, but a concurrent project to estimate of the weight of the car, the fuel burn from the exhaust emission plume, the headwind, the roughness of the road, the tyre pressure and so on - as component contributors - may not be so confident, individually.

Second, it's about CO2 equivalence (CO2e), not just CO2. Methane in particular is a very important ghg at 25 CO2e (1 tonne is equivalent to 25 tonnes CO2). The IPCC always report in CO2e terms.

Finally, the IPCC is clearly onto it. The basic story hasn't changed since the 1980s. The biosphere continues to confirm the broad outcomes - retreating glaciers and warming poles are just two.

OK, but that graph shows estimated forcings. It does not provide any detail on observed or predicted global temperature. That requires another step also with significant potential error. (enter the models)

I will also point out the graphs estimation of net human FORCINGS ranges between 50% to 150%. Thats a pretty big error bar just on the forcings and highlights what happens when you start adding things up with large errors.

What that graph doesn't show is the then very important step of climate sensitivity. That is what is needed to bridge the gap between forcings and actual measured temperature. No one has any real idea of sensitivity as the modelled results are all over the place using a large spread, the lower end of which conforms with observed warming.

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

To recap, we are discussing the validity of the IPCC 95% confidence that observed warming is predominantly human caused. I am not arguing that there is no human influence, only that IPCC 95% confidence is unreliable.

The IPCC are simply saying that when we add everything up and crunch some numbers with our black box models we get bigger results than what we are seeing. So therefore we are really confident that most of what we are seeing must be due to some aspects of our theorys, even though we don't know which.

Given the uncertainty in all the factors that build up the outcome, stating a 95% confidence based on a "what else could it be?" is scientifically unsound, especially coming from an organisation that does not have a charter or mandate to actually look into anything else. IPCC was not formed and does not operate to look for any other contributions to global warming than human ones. Consequently a 95% confidence in thier own existance is not surprising however unsound it may be.

The only way to get a reliable climate forecast is to get the Covid guys onto it. They predicted 50,000-150,000 deaths this season in Australia, and we're up to 100 already...so that's pretty close.

NotWal said..

Paradox said..

Marvin said..

First, it's not fudging if you can measure the overall flux with greater confidence than the theoretical components. To take the car speedo analogy again, the police speed gun may have low uncertainty/very high confidence as to the observed car's speed, but a concurrent project to estimate of the weight of the car, the fuel burn from the exhaust emission plume, the headwind, the roughness of the road, the tyre pressure and so on - as component contributors - may not be so confident, individually.

Second, it's about CO2 equivalence (CO2e), not just CO2. Methane in particular is a very important ghg at 25 CO2e (1 tonne is equivalent to 25 tonnes CO2). The IPCC always report in CO2e terms.

Finally, the IPCC is clearly onto it. The basic story hasn't changed since the 1980s. The biosphere continues to confirm the broad outcomes - retreating glaciers and warming poles are just two.

OK, but that graph shows estimated forcings. It does not provide any detail on observed or predicted global temperature. That requires another step also with significant potential error. (enter the models)

I will also point out the graphs estimation of net human FORCINGS ranges between 50% to 150%. Thats a pretty big error bar just on the forcings and highlights what happens when you start adding things up with large errors.

What that graph doesn't show is the then very important step of climate sensitivity. That is what is needed to bridge the gap between forcings and actual measured temperature. No one has any real idea of sensitivity as the modelled results are all over the place using a large spread, the lower end of which conforms with observed warming.

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/

To recap, we are discussing the validity of the IPCC 95% confidence that observed warming is predominantly human caused. I am not arguing that there is no human influence, only that IPCC 95% confidence is unreliable.

The IPCC are simply saying that when we add everything up and crunch some numbers with our black box models we get bigger results than what we are seeing. So therefore we are really confident that most of what we are seeing must be due to some aspects of our theorys, even though we don't know which.

Given the uncertainty in all the factors that build up the outcome, stating a 95% confidence based on a "what else could it be?" is scientifically unsound, especially coming from an organisation that does not have a charter or mandate to actually look into anything else. IPCC was not formed and does not operate to look for any other contributions to global warming than human ones. Consequently a 95% confidence in thier own existance is not surprising however unsound it may be.

"The IPCC's mandate is to assess the state of the scientific literature on all aspects of climate change, its impacts and society's options for responding to it." www.ipcc.ch/2017/09/21/ipcc-statement-clarifying-the-role-of-the-ipcc-in-the-context-of-1-5oc/
So not just anthropogenic causes as you seem to think.

Your lack of confidence in The IPCC's confidence seems unjustified. My guess is that you can only maintain it because of the commonly expressed mistrust in The IPCC and there's very little substance to that just a lot of fud from mischief makers and ct from the nuttersphere.

I'm inclined to leave the climate science to the climate scientists and trust that the normal scientific methods will sort the grist from the chaff. In short, I think second guessing the IPCC without good substantiated reason, is pissing in the wind.

Happy with that answer. Thumbs up from me.