CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

froog · 22-01-2020 7:31pm

what i don't get about climate skeptics/deniers is the conspiracy angle; that there is some huge conspiracy among climate science and environmental groups spanning many decades to push this agenda without any kind of plausible motive, and the aggressive silencing of differing opinions.

i mean there is huge companies, entire countries and indeed whole economic systems not only benefiting from fossil fuels, but dependent on them. if there's a conspiracy to change public perception of climate science, then it's much more likely to push the denier/skeptic angle.

Nabber · 22-01-2020 7:37pm

posidonia wrote: »

Nine to go then...

posidonia you add very little to this thread. You’re a hindrance even to the side you support and your comments become noise. I tried to engage with you as have others. At this point you should be ignored until such time as you begin contributing to the discussion.

Akrasia · 22-01-2020 7:59pm

Danno wrote: »

Isn't it funny how you two guys have such a difficulty with the spelling of Valentia!

Ever hear of predictive text?

SeaBreezes · 22-01-2020 8:21pm

froog wrote: »

what i don't get about climate skeptics/deniers is the conspiracy angle; that there is some huge conspiracy among climate science and environmental groups spanning many decades to push this agenda without any kind of plausible motive, and the aggressive silencing of differing opinions.

i mean there is huge companies, entire countries and indeed whole economic systems not only benefiting from fossil fuels, but dependent on them. if there's a conspiracy to change public perception of climate science, then it's much more likely to push the denier/skeptic angle.

Again, I hate the word denier. Climate is changing no doubt about that. And most people on here think it's a combination of human and natural causes.

And most scientists like data to be EXACT. If you look at it there are only 5 global datasets world wide that are used for ALL the climate scientists. And Dr Fleming from NOAA is a whistleblower and said they fudge the data.

So, Gaoth got curious and had a look at local data. And it didn't match. It's been warmed by 1.5C over 100 years, sorry homogenised... raw data shows not the same warming at all.

Isn't that odd?

Akrasia · 22-01-2020 8:37pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Personal insult? Seabreezes, are you insulted that I corrected your mistake? :rolleyes:

The explanation provided was a general description of the methods used, which is all very helpful, except it doesn't answer the question of which exact corrections were made to this particular station's data. This is the question that nobody is able to answer. I can't click on any station and see the actual adjustments made to just it. What parts of its history were taken into account and deemed worthy of adjustment. This is what you're not getting.

Here are the adjusted and unadjusted GHCN v3 curves for Valentia. Open each link in a separate tab and flick back and forth to see the timeslices of data that were adjusted downwards (in the earlier period, pre-1880 and 1940-85) and upwards (particularly the most recent 5 years). Even better would be to make an animated gif. Here are the two anomaly charts involved.

Unadjusted "All"

Adjusted

You’re asking why the raw data from valentia should have had to be adjusted over 140 years of operation

I’m asking you how can you say that this data wouldn’t have had to be adjusted. Are you saying they use exactly the same instruments and methodology throughout its entire history of operation?

Clearly they did not given that the current instruments did not exist in 1880

You need to justify your position that no adjustments were required.

oriel36 · 22-01-2020 9:06pm

froog wrote: »

what i don't get about climate skeptics/deniers is the conspiracy angle; that there is some huge conspiracy among climate science and environmental groups spanning many decades to push this agenda without any kind of plausible motive, and the aggressive silencing of differing opinions.

i mean there is huge companies, entire countries and indeed whole economic systems not only benefiting from fossil fuels, but dependent on them. if there's a conspiracy to change public perception of climate science, then it's much more likely to push the denier/skeptic angle.

Academics dictate public policy to politicians without any accountability or responsibility while the politicians dictate to the electorate but are accountable and responsibile for their decisions. In this exceptionally odd era, the students are dictating to politicians regarding public policy while the same politicians are dancing to the tune of academics so talk about an academic pincer movement !.

Sooner or later the politicians are going to discover how they are being played but then again it was Thatcher who first approached academics to intervene indirectly in a political maneuver involving coal mining. It had the same effect as inviting Strongbow into Ireland -

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/04/thatcherism-and-the-climate-catastrophe/

All this was covered early in the thread but grotesque nonetheless for those with enough common sense to spot that when politicians and academics get into bed together bad things happen.

froog · 22-01-2020 9:10pm

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Again, I hate the word denier. Climate is changing no doubt about that. And most people on here think it's a combination of human and natural causes.

And most scientists like data to be EXACT. If you look at it there are only 5 global datasets world wide that are used for ALL the climate scientists. And Dr Fleming from NOAA is a whistleblower and said they fudge the data.

So, Gaoth got curious and had a look at local data. And it didn't match. It's been warmed by 1.5C over 100 years, sorry homogenised... raw data shows not the same warming at all.

Isn't that odd?

so if that's true, why on earth would a huge group of scientists do that for decades? what would be their motive - shares in turbine companies?? it makes zero sense.

froog · 22-01-2020 9:18pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Academics dictate public policy to politicians without any accountability or responsibility while the politicians dictate to the electorate but are accountable and responsibile for their decisions. In this exceptionally odd era, the students are dictating to politicians regarding public policy while the same politicians are dancing to the tune of academics so talk about an academic pincer movement !.

Sooner or later the politicians are going to discover how they are being played but then again it was Thatcher who first approached academics to intervene indirectly in a political maneuver involving coal mining. It had the same effect as inviting Strongbow into Ireland -

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/04/thatcherism-and-the-climate-catastrophe/

All this was covered early in the thread but grotesque nonetheless for those with enough common sense to spot that when politicians and academics get into bed together bad things happen.

academics are accountable to other academics via peer review. and it's worked incredibly well for 100's of years. how else would you propose a system of accountability for them? have uneducated people rate their work??

by the way, you are free to peer review climate scientists yourself! just work hard and spend several years in college studying climate science. but i guess it's easier to not do that and criticize from a safe distance.

froog · 22-01-2020 9:26pm

final thought - to the climate change skeptics (or whatever term you prefer) ask yourself this and be honest with yourself;

did you decide that man-made climate change was bull**** before you started researching stuff on the internet? or did you approach from a neutral position and weigh up the arguments from both sides. and do you continue to only search out information sources that support your already decided position.

here's a pretty a great website that deals with a lot of the statements that i've seen from climate skeptics in this thread and across the internet. it's pretty condensed, but use it as a "starting point" for exploring both sides of various arguments. keep an open mind.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Gaoth Laidir · 22-01-2020 9:38pm

Here's that gif ("All" = unadjusted).

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Here are the adjusted and unadjusted GHCN v3 curves for Valentia. Open each link in a separate tab and flick back and forth to see the timeslices of data that were adjusted downwards (in the earlier period, pre-1880 and 1940-85) and upwards (particularly the most recent 5 years). Even better would be to make an animated gif. Here are the two anomaly charts involved.

Unadjusted "All"

Adjusted

Gaoth Laidir · 22-01-2020 9:53pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You’re asking why the raw data from valentia should have had to be adjusted over 140 years of operation

I’m asking you how can you say that this data wouldn’t have had to be adjusted. Are you saying they use exactly the same instruments and methodology throughout its entire history of operation?

Clearly they did not given that the current instruments did not exist in 1880

You need to justify your position that no adjustments were required.

I'm asking what adjustments were made, that's all. There's nowhere to find that information that I can see. From Met Éireann's own dataset I see no abrupt shifts that GISS and others use as possible flags requiring scrutiny or adjustment. If you can spot them below then let us know. I'm particularly interested in why the last 5-8 years have been shifted upwards in the adjusted series in the gif above.

oriel36 · 22-01-2020 10:05pm

froog wrote: »

academics are accountable to other academics via peer review. and it's worked incredibly well for 100's of years.

Of course it has, how else does a self-promoting and self-protecting academic scam work !. The only thing 'climate change' did was expose the indulgences theorists allow themselves using an experimental point of departure and dumping in ingredients to suit their conclusions with a hapless opposition doing the same thing.

People should have enough sense to know why a strict regime must hover over engineering and medical sciences along with airline pilots, nuclear planet operators and things like that to prevent incompetence but not with astronomy and Earth sciences where a different perspective reigns.

Mathematical modelers try to treat Earth sciences like mathematics but for those with a higher standard of reasoning that is not possible just as the mathematicians, like Pascal, observed long before Royal Society empiricism began to dominate. The following was written at a time when mathematicians and their approach had some discipline and integrity until they overreached by attempting to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions -

"But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal

All that happened is that mathematical modeling has become so unstable and unbalanced that they convinced politicians that humans can control planetary temperatures. Peer review indeed !, a sort of luxury that politicians or dictators could only wish for.

Oneiric 3 · 22-01-2020 10:42pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Academics dictate public policy to politicians without any accountability or responsibility while the politicians dictate to the electorate but are accountable and responsibile for their decisions.

Not quite sure about that Oriel36. Would say that it is, in Ireland at least, the higher ranks of the civil service that controls the policy making. Politicians are just their interchangeable front men.

oriel36 · 22-01-2020 11:07pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Not quite sure about that Oriel36. Would say that it is, in Ireland at least, the higher ranks of the civil service that controls the policy making. Politicians are just their interchangeable front men.

Academic politics is the least interesting thing even if I understand it all too well but people generally can't discuss issues in general or in detail when an entire group are singing off the same empirical hymn sheet.

The notion of 'climate change' didn't fall out of the sky and it wasn't conjured up by civil servants either. The fact that it is a vehicle for experimental theorists who can waste a whole day of their lives arguing over spelling or graphs belies the real problems created through the education system as an inter-generational issue.

Even though Von Humboldt was an empiricist himself, he had enough integrity to recognise how academics can search out doom and gloom predictions in nature with all the failing seen here in this thread -

"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another-- this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,--is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions." Von Homboldt , Cosmos

It is so much part of today's culture that the vast majority of people, even with the strongest effort, find it difficult to escape and especially the academics.

Maybe the 'roadrunner' tactics are interesting for some people but it all becomes stale for the same reason that dull people are inclined to make doom and gloom predictions and made worse by empirical opponents who act as further incentives to keep the who grotesque spectacle going.

froog · 22-01-2020 11:36pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Of course it has, how else does a self-promoting and self-protecting academic scam work !. The only thing 'climate change' did was expose the indulgences theorists allow themselves using an experimental point of departure and dumping in ingredients to suit their conclusions with a hapless opposition doing the same thing.

People should have enough sense to know why a strict regime must hover over engineering and medical sciences along with airline pilots, nuclear planet operators and things like that to prevent incompetence but not with astronomy and Earth sciences where a different perspective reigns.

Mathematical modelers try to treat Earth sciences like mathematics but for those with a higher standard of reasoning that is not possible just as the mathematicians, like Pascal, observed long before Royal Society empiricism began to dominate. The following was written at a time when mathematicians and their approach had some discipline and integrity until they overreached by attempting to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions -

"But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in order as in mathematics; because the principles are not known to us in the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it." Pascal

All that happened is that mathematical modeling has become so unstable and unbalanced that they convinced politicians that humans can control planetary temperatures. Peer review indeed !, a sort of luxury that politicians or dictators could only wish for.

so you trust peer review for medical science and engineering but not for climate science? i don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to do to get that straight in your mind. it seems like you think climate science isn't science at all but some kind of art or mystical abstract philosophy?

Oneiric 3 · 22-01-2020 11:55pm

oriel36 wrote: »

Maybe the 'roadrunner' tactics are interesting for some people but it all becomes stale for the same reason that dull people are inclined to make doom and gloom predictions and made worse by empirical opponents who act as further incentives to keep the whole grotesque spectacle going.

You certainly have a 'pulling no punches' way with words Oriel36!

Akrasia · 22-01-2020 11:58pm

froog wrote: »

so you trust peer review for medical science and engineering but not for climate science? i don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to do to get that straight in your mind. it seems like you think climate science isn't science at all but some kind of art or mystical abstract philosophy?

Especially when you consider the incentives to falsify data in medical science are enormous with billions in profits to be made from drug sales while climate scientists are supposedly corrupted by a comparative pittance in academic salaries and grant money

Oneiric 3 · 23-01-2020 12:00am

froog wrote: »

so you trust peer review for medical science and engineering but not for climate science? i don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to do to get that straight in your mind. it seems like you think climate science isn't science at all but some kind of art or mystical abstract philosophy?

Which or whatever, unlike medical science and engineering etc, 'climate science' as a science holds no intrinsic value for the good or functioning of society.

posidonia · 23-01-2020 12:06am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Which or whatever, unlike medical science and engineering etc, 'climate science' as a science holds no intrinsic value for the good or functioning of society.

Discuss? Or is that a statement of your belief?

posidonia · 23-01-2020 12:15am

Nabber wrote: »

posidonia you add very little to this thread. You’re a hindrance even to the side you support and your comments become noise. I tried to engage with you as have others. At this point you should be ignored until such time as you begin contributing to the discussion.

'Thanks.'

All I've done (and others have done the same) is to suggest you ask those who've QCed weather/climate data in a way you don't like why they did/do what they do.

I think what you are actually saying is you don't like people asking why you wont do that, because it's easier for you to keep demanding the answers here from people like me who (yes really) aren't the people who QC said data.

I do admit I do find myself amazed how some people get fixated by the data for a few weather stations out of thousands - because it means those are the only ones you can (you think) find something to complain about.

Meanwhile...large parts of Scandinavia and western Russia have been more than 10C above average this month so far. Anyway, I guess it's time to get back to nit picking the Valentia record again eh?

Oneiric 3 · 23-01-2020 12:16am

posidonia wrote: »

Discuss? Or is that a statement of your belief?

Is this you demanding asking again 'Posidonia'? Why don't you give your opinion for a change?

Oneiric 3 · 23-01-2020 12:20am

posidonia wrote: »

'Thanks.'

Meanwhile...large parts of Scandinavia and western Russia have been more than 10C above average this month so far. Anyway, I guess it's time to get back to nit picking the Valentia record again eh?

I also believe that parts of eastern Europe (Moscow at least) had one of their coldest summers on record last year.

posidonia · 23-01-2020 12:23am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Is this you demanding asking again 'Posidonia'? Why don't you give your opinion for a change?

Of course climate science has value - its ridiculous to suggest we should not be interested in how the atmosphere we live in changes over time. I very much doubt you actually meant what you wrote.

froog · 23-01-2020 12:24am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Which or whatever, unlike medical science and engineering etc, 'climate science' as a science holds no intrinsic value for the good or functioning of society.

Yeah we only depend on the atmosphere to like you know.. live.

Oneiric 3 · 23-01-2020 12:25am

froog wrote: »

Yeah we only depend on the atmosphere to like you know.. live.

And?

Oneiric 3 · 23-01-2020 12:28am

posidonia wrote: »

Of course climate science has value - its ridiculous to suggest we should not be interested in how the atmosphere we live in changes over time. I very much doubt you actually meant what you wrote.

For those of us who were born with an interest in climate, we learned how the 'atmosphere' worked long before 'climate science' came into being.

Gaoth Laidir · 23-01-2020 12:45am

After a bit of digging on the met.ie website I found that the upward shift from 2012 onwards at Valentia coincided with its switch from manned to automated. The upward adjustment is 0.3 to 0.4 degrees, depending on the month. Below are the 2012 monthly means from the GHCN v3.

Danno, is that difference typical of your screen versus AWS readings? The TUCSON stations in place now do have the same screens, with the same PT100 sensors they've been using for a long time, so it's not the same comparison as your setup. A difference of almost half a degree between old and new sensors is not something that would be either likely or accepted as part of the validation of the switch to automation, I would imagine.

Adjusted| 9.0| 8.9| 10.2| 8.4| 11.6| 13.3| -999.9| 15.6| 13.4| 10.7| 7.8| 8.3
Raw| 8.6| 8.6| 9.9| 8.1| 11.2| 12.9| -999.9| 15.2| 13.1| 10.4| 7.4| 7.9

Nabber · 23-01-2020 12:53am

froog wrote: »

did you decide that man-made climate change was bull**** before you started researching stuff on the internet? or did you approach from a neutral position and weigh up the arguments from both sides. and do you continue to only search out information sources that support your already decided position.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

There are varying skeptics within the sceptical societies. Some propose that there is no AGW, others that fell its combination of natural and AGW, then others who feel we don’t know enough about our climate to understand what we are looking at.

For myself I’m interested in the data and it’s use. For example in the 70s the same data we use today signaled that the planet would plummet into an ice age. 30 years later the same data showed a soaring heat retention problem.
My own stance is that we don’t understand enough to make a judgement and surface temperature with the small variations we are seeing is a poor measurement. We still don’t know what’s a cause or effect.

Why would a large population of scientists agree? The 97% has been debunked, 97% agreed temps were rising, not all agreed it was AGW and there was no agreement on whether that was good or bad or the rate of increase.

My issue with AGW is the lack of accountability, anyone including respected scientists can make downright outlandish predictions and still not impact their career at all.
Imagine an expert football pundit predicting every game to end 10-10?

I’d also like to add that skepticism is the foundation of peer review. To deny skepticism in your field is to deny the foundation of the science itself.

Akrasia · 23-01-2020 1:05am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

For those of us who were born with an interest in climate, we learned how the 'atmosphere' worked long before 'climate science' came into being.

Or you think you learned... how unbelievably arrogant it is to think that a childhood interest in something trumps the combined expertise of every reputable scientific body on the planet who have published on this topic

Akrasia · 23-01-2020 1:09am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

After a bit of digging on the met.ie website I found that the upward shift from 2012 onwards at Valentia coincided with its switch from manned to automated. The upward adjustment is 0.3 to 0.4 degrees, depending on the month. Below are the 2012 monthly means from the GHCN v3.

Danno, is that difference typical of your screen versus AWS readings? The TUCSON stations in place now do have the same screen, with the same PT100 sensors they've been using for a long time, so it's not the same comparison as your setup.

Raw.........2012__9.0__8.9__10.2_8.4__11.6__13.3__-999.9__15.6__13.4__10.7__7.8__8.3
Adjusted..2012__8.6__8.6__9.9__8.1__11.2__12.9__-999.9__15.2__13.1__10.4__7.4__7.9

Ok, so you’ve found a scientific reason for an adjustment and are verifying if it is valid by asking
Your mate down the pub who thinks dogs can’t look up

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments