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.

NotWal said..
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.

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.

Exactly Notwal. That's all paradox and Ian are doing, pissing in the wind.

And it doesn't matter how much longer the pissing gets, it's still just piss.

Thing is, with thousands of words from paradox we still haven't seen one shred of evidence to back his claims that the IPCC is off the mark.

Gotta love the nuttersphere Notwal.

holy guacamole said..

NotWal said..
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.

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.

Exactly Notwal. That's all paradox and Ian are doing, pissing in the wind.

And it doesn't matter how much longer the pissing gets, it's still just piss.

Thing is, with thousands of words from paradox we still haven't seen one shred of evidence to back his claims that the IPCC is off the mark.

Gotta love the nuttersphere Notwal.

And we've seen nothing from you except claiming he's wrong and insisting "the science is settled" with no proof of either.

Argument from authority is not an argument at all.e

psychojoe said..
I guess at the point where scientists went from flat earth to the world is round and it's the centre of the universe, the consensus would have been not to question the scientists

In 2000 there was a consensus amongst 97% of the medical community that the cause of stomach ulcers was stress, spicy food and excess stomach acid - and that the solution to this was to prescribe antacids and reduce stress in your life.

In 2010 two Aussies won the Nobel prize for medicine for proving this was wrong. It is in fact a bacteria that causes it and the solution is an antibacterial.

Nobody ever doubted stomach ulcers weren't real, or the effects of having them aren't very serious. But the rest - well it seems the accepted science was very wrong.



This thread started about "crying wolf on climate change". The original author of the first article wasn't suggesting climate change wasn't occurring or that humans weren't causing change.

The point was that for the last 30 odd years the claims of the impending results of a changing climate and what required solutions are need to stop any change has been riddled with ever increasing alarmism, and this has actually done more damage than good.

Arguing about the nuances of the science has nothing to do with the point being made.



Does nobody actually know the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf (one of Aesop's I assume) ?

You know - the one where the boy cried the alarm of immediate danger and widespread destruction when there wasn't any such immediate danger. And he did it so many times and with such ferocity that in the end everybody just ignored him. Every time he thought he heard a dog bark or the sun came out he cried wolf.

This resulted in everyone dismissing the danger more than they ever had before he started crying wolf.

Eventually of course he was proved right. The wolf came and ate the sheep. It was a fable, so it was bound to happen eventually. No doubt these days he would have say "told you so".

Problem was, if he hadn't cried wolf all those times before, then everyone else would not have ignored the danger of the wolf when it actually came.


So yes Paradox, the wolf exists, it is real. And one day it might even come.

But the Himalaya glaciers won't melt by 2035, there won't be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, and you won't steal Swedish school kids youth if you don't buy a Tesla tomorrow.

- and then, even when the wolf comes and steals a sheep, the rest of the flock will carry on. The shepherd might not like, it but sheep and wolves evolved and existed together long before the shepherd was born.


Oh, and Paradox whilst you are paranoid about the wolf huffing and puffing and blowing your house down, don't forget about the virus carrying little piggy next door#, the giant city being built around your lovely little sustainable straw house and the giant panda and bald headed eagle fighting to the death in the adjacent paddock.

Because one of them might eventually get you. And then some people will be proved right and get to say "told you so".




(#by 'disease riddled piggy next door' I mean Victorians obviously)

holy guacamole said..
which it most definitely is not

Doubling-down and proving my point again. Smooth.

You refuse to even acknowledge that the IPCC is nothing but the immutable last word on the subject.

You refuse to acknowledge there could be flaws at all, with "the science" or with the politics of the IPCC.

You insist that "the science" is settled.

Any challenge to the authority of the IPCC you dismiss without consideration or invent conspiracy theories to poison the well.

And you refuse to acknowledge that science is actually an on-going process, not the destination.

That's what "argument from authority" means. That's not science.

I've seen the same kind of dogma before, but usually there were funny hats and collection plates involved.

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
which it most definitely is not

Doubling-down and proving my point again. Smooth.

You refuse to even acknowledge that the IPCC is nothing but the immutable last word on the subject.

You refuse to acknowledge there could be flaws at all, with "the science" or with the politics of the IPCC.

You insist that "the science" is settled.

Any challenge to the authority of the IPCC you dismiss without consideration or invent conspiracy theories to poison the well.

And you refuse to acknowledge that science is actually an on-going process, not the destination.

That's what "argument from authority" means. That's not science.

I've seen the same kind of dogma before, but usually there were funny hats and collection plates involved.

I don't make any of these claims. They are a figment of your imagination.

All I'm asking you to do, is demonstrate that the IPCC is wrong - which you haven't to date done.

If you have a hypothesis that the warming is largely natural or some such, demonstrate this with some observations, analysis and peer reviewed science.

Otherwise, you are just pissing in the wind with the same tired old hypothesis.

OK conspritards, here's an analogy.

Evolution of The Species.

It is widely accepted that evolution of the species is a fact. Demonstrated both by the fossil records, observation and experimentation.

Few people deny this fact. If you're prepared to deny evolution is real, then you're not discussing science but faith or dogma.

Now when it comes to the theory of the mechanism by which species evolve, there is genuine discussion.

Nonetheless, we are almost certain that the mechanism is descent with modification coupled with natural selection. This drives Evolution because almost all the evidence points to this.

We are not 100% certain of course because that's not how biological sciences work, but we are almost certain due to the mass of evidence.

I see the science examining the causes of climate change in the past century or so similarly. There is a mass of evidence that points to the human markers and very little if any evidence that points to natural variability. Simply stating that it hapenned in the past, therefore it's happening again now, is highly unscientific.

So until someone can demonstrate that the current observations ARE NOT due to anthropogenic activity, the hypothesis of natural variability is unsupported by the observations and facts and the most likely, most robust hypothesis remains.

Therefore it is false to claim that "we just don't know" when it comes to AGW. That is as silly as claiming we don't know about descent with modification or the power of natural selection.

psychojoe said..
Here's a nice little graph Guac.
It shows that nothing has changed for thousands of years.
The line that goes straight up at the end is your mate's prediction for the next eighty years.
I guess the polar ice caps really did melt by 2000.

LOL. "My mate". Are you claiming that the work of thousands of scientists and universities and meteorological institutions amounts to "my mate"?

As for your graph, if you actually read it you'll notice that the observations from 2000 were at +0.5 deg above the 2,000 year maximum.

So, your statement is not correct, whichever way one looks at it.

In reality, there have been many misleading graphs circulating the conspiritard web for years.

This kind of micro-analysis also confuses global warming with local warming in Greenland and tries to extrapolate a conclusion based on this. The trouble is, it's a bit like comparing weather with climate because what's most important is the global situation, not just one continent.

www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

If you're going to discuss global warming, you have to be global.

psychojoe said..
And if we had this in the year 1720 I'm sure you'd be convinced that we're rocketing into the next ice age

Not if you look at the above graph, no.

I did a quick pick from Wikipedia. Most graphs from reputable sources look about the same. Only the conspiritard websites fudge numbers.

So it's back to denying observations now Paradox? Sums it up really.

OK, let's go back to first grade at NOAA.

holy guacamole said..
I did a quick pick from Wikipedia. Most graphs from reputable sources look about the same. Only the conspiritard websites fudge numbers.

So it's back to denying observations now Paradox? Sums it up really.

OK, let's go back to first grade at NOAA.

Im sorry, exactly who was recording temperature 2000 years ago? They are not observations, they are attempts at reconstructing past temperatures using different methods of which give significantly different results. Ice cores are recognised as the most accurate.

But thank you yes NOAA is a significantly better source than wikipedia (scores a zero for reliable information) and that graph is very different to the one you first posted.

Here is some other very good information taken from Antarcitic ice cores. acecrc.org.au/news/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story/

"The study shows that the Millennium Drought was far from an exceptional event for eastern Australia during the past thousand years.""Droughts lasting longer than five years are in fact a normal part of long-term climate variability, and should therefore be factored into catchment management.""We now have a much clearer picture of the multi-decade cycles in Australian rainfall patterns, and therefore a more reliable means of predicting future trends."

holy guacamole said..

TonyAbbott said..
IPCC needs to be defunded

Why, a bit too much truth for ya Mr Not The Suppository of All Knowledge?

Same reason we defended Tim Flanery

Alarmist will do it for free anyway

As demonstrated by that liar

^ Well because that's where we get optimal readings that are accurate due to the lack of seasonal vegetation.

The observatory is situated well away and upwind from any active volcanism and prevailing winds bring air directly in from the Pacific.

On occasions of eruptions spikes are detected and removed from the sample, like any observations do.

It's also not the only station measuring atmospheric CO2....

This is why we leave the science up to the scientists and not fools like Tony Abbott or nuclear spruikers like paradox.

I guess the Hawaiian guys are also in on the conspiracy to commit a fraud on humanity.

Rupert said..
"CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used."

This intrigues me, can anyone explain why pre 1950 CO2 samples are collected from ice cores obtained from Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic sources yet since then, they have been collected from a location some 3,000 mtrs up the side of an active volcano (the source of thousands of tonnes of 'greenhouse gasses'),

To me this hardly seems like a reasonable comparison, a bit like taking a seawater sample from the Mariana trench and comparing it to a sample from Sydney Harbour, after all, they're both sea water, yeah?

Yep, as HG eventually got to, Mauna Loa is accepted as suitably high and suitably remote to provide accurate data on homogonous atmospheric composition. I am not aware of any issues that have been raised over it's representative accuracy.

holy guacamole said..

cammd said...Hmmm, its also true the most robust hypothesis around your identity is that you are an architect that drives a skoda.

Only a theory amongst internet trolls whose hateful personal attack topics in HW get deleted by the moderators? I wonder? So nasty they get deleted from Heavy Weather!

Pure hate is bad corrosive to the soul cammd.

Nope nothing hateful Bono, it was just demonstration that hypothesis are not facts regardless of how likely the hypothesis is.