|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 23, 2024 0:24:25 GMT
"Every rain cloud is a vindication of my theory"
In the end we may have to put these people in funny farms
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 23, 2024 7:28:54 GMT
I'm more worried by processing that the readings are put through to "smooth" them out. Obviously if you look at all the data accumulated over the decades (and measured by various means) you end up with a forest of crosses which are all over the place - and it's very difficult to work out where to draw a line. So bodies like the IPCC use filtering algorithms to eliminate the "incorrect" data. The obvious problem is how do you identify which are wrong. The usual way it's done is to use a filtering algorithm that uses a working model which knows what the readings should be - so the filtering process can eliminate those that don't fit and you get a nice clean graph. The problem is that the climate models don't work. The IPCC's attitude to this is that they're the best we've got, so the data is processed by the models, such as they are. And guess what? The data tends to follow a curve that roughly correlates warming with CO2, because that's what the model assumes. So they now have the data fitting the models - so their model is accurate! It's a good trick isn't it? This is how they eliminated the "pause" of about 20 years when CO2 continued to rise but temperatures didn't - "pausegate". Except some of their senior scientists didn't think this was science and resigned, because the smoothing had eliminated the most accurate readings they'd got. Another little trick they've got is to then present their nicely cleaned up graph with a massively offset zero. So the "zero" is set at the 1850 average global temperature (about 15C). So the warming looks pretty spectacular, when in fact it's just a blip of about 1C - which is actually probably less than the error in data measurement. Very clever - and it fools most people. I think we're back to square one. Not starting again with they're all lying. It's not about lying - it's about pseudo-science which is rife nowadays. It's perfectly valid to filter data when you have accurate algorithms. It allows you to identify readings that are wrong. But it's obvious that using the contentious climate models is simply deleting readings that don't fit the unproven theory. They're not necessarily incorrect readings. For example, this technique certainly eliminated the recent 20 year "pause" and caused the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming) to disappear completely. Yet these events were almost certainly NOT caused by incorrect readings. The use of offset zeroes on graphs is dubious IMO when you end up with things like the "hockey stick" graph where you see a straight line that suddenly shoots up when CO2 starts to increase. It looks very persuasive, but if you show the reality the warming is actually a very small blip. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 8:56:08 GMT
I was referring to the temperature measurements of the oceans. I wasn't. I know but you replied to my post where I was clearly indicating ocean readings unless of course they use buoys as land based weather stations which I do not believe they do. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2024 19:07:53 GMT
I know but you replied to my post where I was clearly indicating ocean readings unless of course they use buoys as land based weather stations which I do not believe they do. Saying you don't have measurements suddenly means something now. As I said vegetation only covers 9% of the planet. So unless you can show the oceans are causing cooling then I continue to believe the climatolical institutes in their assessment rather than an internet blog and a bloke who says prove it. Thankfully you have Orac's wisdom fantasy land to support you. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2024 19:08:44 GMT
I think we're back to square one. Not starting again with they're all lying. It's not about lying - it's about pseudo-science which is rife nowadays. It's perfectly valid to filter data when you have accurate algorithms. It allows you to identify readings that are wrong. But it's obvious that using the contentious climate models is simply deleting readings that don't fit the unproven theory. They're not necessarily incorrect readings. For example, this technique certainly eliminated the recent 20 year "pause" and caused the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming) to disappear completely. Yet these events were almost certainly NOT caused by incorrect readings. The use of offset zeroes on graphs is dubious IMO when you end up with things like the "hockey stick" graph where you see a straight line that suddenly shoots up when CO2 starts to increase. It looks very persuasive, but if you show the reality the warming is actually a very small blip. Oh yes NASA and their pseudo science. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 19:40:12 GMT
I know but you replied to my post where I was clearly indicating ocean readings unless of course they use buoys as land based weather stations which I do not believe they do. Saying you don't have measurements suddenly means something now. As I said vegetation only covers 9% of the planet. So unless you can show the oceans are causing cooling then I continue to believe the climatolical institutes in their assessment rather than an internet blog and a bloke who says prove it. Thankfully you have Orac's wisdom fantasy land to support you. What on earth does this post mean I was referring to the largely sparse existence of measurement buoys from which the world's oceans are designated with a temperature at various levels. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2024 19:42:37 GMT
It's not about lying - it's about pseudo-science which is rife nowadays. It's perfectly valid to filter data when you have accurate algorithms. It allows you to identify readings that are wrong. But it's obvious that using the contentious climate models is simply deleting readings that don't fit the unproven theory. They're not necessarily incorrect readings. For example, this technique certainly eliminated the recent 20 year "pause" and caused the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming) to disappear completely. Yet these events were almost certainly NOT caused by incorrect readings. The use of offset zeroes on graphs is dubious IMO when you end up with things like the "hockey stick" graph where you see a straight line that suddenly shoots up when CO2 starts to increase. It looks very persuasive, but if you show the reality the warming is actually a very small blip. Oh yes NASA and their pseudo science. Misleading is more like it, their science may be generally good, as you would expect, their adjustments, conclusions and presentations are a bit more suspect and seem to reflect a political narrative as opposed to detailing what facts can be derived from the readings. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2024 21:22:21 GMT
Saying you don't have measurements suddenly means something now. As I said vegetation only covers 9% of the planet. So unless you can show the oceans are causing cooling then I continue to believe the climatolical institutes in their assessment rather than an internet blog and a bloke who says prove it. Thankfully you have Orac's wisdom fantasy land to support you. What on earth does this post mean I was referring to the largely sparse existence of measurement buoys from which the world's oceans are designated with a temperature at various levels. You have a short memory. 1, You claimed plants were cooling the planet possibly as fast as atmospheric Co2 was warming it. 2, I informed you plants only cover 9% of the planet whereas oceans cover 71%, so unless they are also act as cooling agents then veg can't win. 3, You said you had no idea because they haven't tested that. It doesn't matter if they haven't measured the oceans temperature properly in this case, it matters regards the conversation above. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2024 21:34:02 GMT
Oh yes NASA and their pseudo science. Misleading is more like it, their science may be generally good, as you would expect, their adjustments, conclusions and presentations are a bit more suspect and seem to reflect a political narrative as opposed to detailing what facts can be derived from the readings. I know, them and the IPCC and the CMA. Then there's: WMO, UNEP, NOAA, NCAR, ESA, UK met office and The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research To name but a few of the dozens of misleading bribed corrupted institutes who say AGW is real and happening. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 24, 2024 7:42:47 GMT
What on earth does this post mean I was referring to the largely sparse existence of measurement buoys from which the world's oceans are designated with a temperature at various levels. You have a short memory. 1, You claimed plants were cooling the planet possibly as fast as atmospheric Co2 was warming it. 2, I informed you plants only cover 9% of the planet whereas oceans cover 71%, so unless they are also act as cooling agents then veg can't win. 3, You said you had no idea because they haven't tested that. It doesn't matter if they haven't measured the oceans temperature properly in this case, it matters regards the conversation above. I think that was me who pointed this out, zany. It may come as a surprise to you that there's a vast amount of vegetation in the oceans. The creatures of the sea can't all survive by eating each other. Most are heterotrophs. BTW I was looking through some of the BBC programs about climate that litter my hard disk and, from a 2015 program there was a quote from one of IPCC's annual reports which said: There is a 95% probability that at least 50% of the current warming is man-made and this is predominantly caused by greenhouse gases. I suspect that this may be the origin of all the variations that that proliferate on the net, such as "95% of scientists believe that man-made CO2 is the predominant cause of warming". Note that: 1. it's not saying that 95% of scientists believe this. It's just a calculation they've made (using their model) by running variations of data. It's accuracy is entirely dependent on the accuracy of the model - which is not good. 2. It's talking about "at least 50%" so even the IPCC admit that there are other important factors. It's not saying this is "predominantly the cause of warming. 3. It's not specifically talking about CO2 - there are many other greenhouse gases, some of them far more powerful than CO2 and some present in far higher concentrations. It's also very hard to see how the IPCC can draw these conclusions when they haven't done the full attribution. There are a lot of warming (and cooling) factors that cannot be modeled - because a) we don't have the equations and b) we don't have the data. Scientifically it's completely impossible to make any comment whatsoever on the "predominant cause" of warming until you have analysed all the factors. So ALL of their conclusions are highly dubious - particularly so because many of the factors interact with each other.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 24, 2024 8:18:05 GMT
You have a short memory. 1, You claimed plants were cooling the planet possibly as fast as atmospheric Co2 was warming it. 2, I informed you plants only cover 9% of the planet whereas oceans cover 71%, so unless they are also act as cooling agents then veg can't win. 3, You said you had no idea because they haven't tested that. It doesn't matter if they haven't measured the oceans temperature properly in this case, it matters regards the conversation above. No it doesn't amaze me, I am aware of algae etc. Just look at the Sargasso sea. Interesting, My views on this is that I have not found a single scientific institute that is even questioning AGW. I would expect to be reading articles in Nature or from the NOAA speaking of caution in response to claims. That was back in 2015 and was the BBC, can I have a link please. In answer show me the institute IPCC, CMA, WMO, UNEP, NOAA, NCAR, ESA, that has called doubt on the claims. Yes I appreciate that you think nothing is proved until its proven. Unfortunately it does work that way for the decision makers, they cannot wait until the planet is bad enough for their theories to be proven before they recommend action. No one will thank them when they say told you so. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 24, 2024 9:17:16 GMT
Zany said: "Yes I appreciate that you think nothing is proved until its proven."
As usual you don't understand what I've said. NOTHING is ever "proven" in science. You either have working theories or you don't. If you don't have a working theory you CANNOT understand what's going on and you CANNOT make predictions. And if you have a complex system for which there are many competing factors - most of which you have no working equations to represent - you CANNOT make statements (as the IPCC has done) that man-made greenhouse gases are causing half the warming.
I know your understanding of science is weak but science is basically very simple. You look at data and draw up your equations to represent the behaviour of the factors involved. If you understand ALL the factors you can model the system. But we have little knowledge of most of the factors involved in our weather/climate. We can't even predict the weather for more than a few days. Yet these numpties are running the models for years ahead and expecting people to believe what they say. It's obviously nonsense.
If people actually want to help the planet the ONE thing that will definitely solve a lot of problems is to take measures to control our population. But will that happen? Of course not.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 24, 2024 9:21:04 GMT
No it doesn't amaze me, I am aware of algae etc. Just look at the Sargasso sea. Interesting, My views on this is that I have not found a single scientific institute that is even questioning AGW. I would expect to be reading articles in Nature or from the NOAA speaking of caution in response to claims. That was back in 2015 and was the BBC, can I have a link please. In answer show me the institute IPCC, CMA, WMO, UNEP, NOAA, NCAR, ESA, that has called doubt on the claims. Yes I appreciate that you think nothing is proved until its proven. Unfortunately it does work that way for the decision makers, they cannot wait until the planet is bad enough for their theories to be proven before they recommend action. No one will thank them when they say told you so. It is all circular which is the root of the problem. Take the ESA they agree with the IPCC assessment not because they have done separate work on it but becasue they have had a few scientists involved in the report they say as they blow their own trumpet:- "It is the strongest and most significant IPCC report to date, incorporating advances in climate observations, analysis methods and modelling, and will be a key input to climate negotiations and decision-making. Drawn from 14 000 scientific publications, the report concludes that ‘it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’ and warns that the changes to the state of many parts of the climate system are ‘unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.’ Carbon dioxide is now at its highest level in at least two million years, and every tonne adds to global heating. This is causing widespread and rapid changes to the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. Across many chapters, the report highlights the valuable contribution that satellites provide in tracking change and improving models for climate prediction. New and improved observational data records, which are longer since the IPCC’s previous report in 2013, support greater confidence in climate attribution assessments. “The latest IPCC report clearly demonstrates the value of ESA programmes in providing the evidence base for monitoring and understanding climate change.” said Josef Aschbacher, ESA’s Director General. “These hard facts are also highly appreciated by political decision makers in Europe and globally.” The report explicitly acknowledges ESA’s Climate Change Initiative (CCI), which supports science teams to create long-term datasets spanning up to four decades for key aspects of the climate, known as Essential Climate Variables. These variables underpin the ‘headline indicators’ for climate monitoring. Fifteen scientists from ESA’s CCI programme worked as contributing authors to the report, with five taking lead and coordinating author roles." It is not that there is bribery and corruption it is that there is a direction in which research is promoted and to get published, that most scientists desperately want, then the direction of a paper is quite important. As an example consider a religious order that had a publication the vast majority of published papers would be as regards God, what he is, how he affects us, what he wants, what we can do for him etc. Very few would deal with his actual existence and if they did then their direction would be to seek evidence for his existence. There is always a direction of travel and that is often directed by funding. If one is researching one is more likely to get funding if one researches the effect of climate change on x,y or z but probably not likely to get it if one researches why the climate models are inaccurate. These are just the facts of life. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 24, 2024 14:53:06 GMT
Zany said: "Yes I appreciate that you think nothing is proved until its proven." As usual you don't understand what I've said. NOTHING is ever "proven" in science. You either have working theories or you don't. If you don't have a working theory you CANNOT understand what's going on and you CANNOT make predictions. And if you have a complex system for which there are many competing factors - most of which you have no working equations to represent - you CANNOT make statements (as the IPCC has done) that man-made greenhouse gases are causing half the warming.I know your understanding of science is weak but science is basically very simple. You look at data and draw up your equations to represent the behaviour of the factors involved. If you understand ALL the factors you can model the system. But we have little knowledge of most of the factors involved in our weather/climate. We can't even predict the weather for more than a few days. Yet these numpties are running the models for years ahead and expecting people to believe what they say. It's obviously nonsense. If people actually want to help the planet the ONE thing that will definitely solve a lot of problems is to take measures to control our population. But will that happen? Of course not. How many times must we go round this before you accept I know what you're saying but disagree with you. A theory can be seen to be working regardless of whether there are small anomalies in the outcomes and variables. The could have saved time by not bothering to run the rest of your petty insults and repetitiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 24, 2024 15:02:27 GMT
Yeah those lazy scientists, if only they read Whatsupwiththat. "It is the strongest and most significant IPCC report to date, incorporating advances in climate observations, analysis methods and modelling, and will be a key input to climate negotiations and decision-making. Drawn from 14 000 scientific publications, the report concludes that ‘it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’ and warns that the changes to the state of many parts of the climate system are ‘unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.’ Carbon dioxide is now at its highest level in at least two million years, and every tonne adds to global heating. This is causing widespread and rapid changes to the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. Across many chapters, the report highlights the valuable contribution that satellites provide in tracking change and improving models for climate prediction. New and improved observational data records, which are longer since the IPCC’s previous report in 2013, support greater confidence in climate attribution assessments. “The latest IPCC report clearly demonstrates the value of ESA programmes in providing the evidence base for monitoring and understanding climate change.” said Josef Aschbacher, ESA’s Director General. “These hard facts are also highly appreciated by political decision makers in Europe and globally.” The report explicitly acknowledges ESA’s Climate Change Initiative (CCI), which supports science teams to create long-term datasets spanning up to four decades for key aspects of the climate, known as Essential Climate Variables. These variables underpin the ‘headline indicators’ for climate monitoring. Fifteen scientists from ESA’s CCI programme worked as contributing authors to the report, with five taking lead and coordinating author roles." It is not that there is bribery and corruption it is that there is a direction in which research is promoted and to get published, that most scientists desperately want, then the direction of a paper is quite important. As an example consider a religious order that had a publication the vast majority of published papers would be as regards God, what he is, how he affects us, what he wants, what we can do for him etc. Very few would deal with his actual existence and if they did then their direction would be to seek evidence for his existence. There is always a direction of travel and that is often directed by funding. If one is researching one is more likely to get funding if one researches the effect of climate change on x,y or z but probably not likely to get it if one researches why the climate models are inaccurate. These are just the facts of life. More corrupt, needy, greedy, lazy scientists. Dear oh dear. |
|
