Global Warming

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

They keep trying to make the models better, even though, as NASA pointed out a couple of years ago, their long term climate predictions were within 1/20th of a degree of being spot on. They made new models, looked at the results, found they were not as accurate as they liked, and flagged that there were issues. This is how science works.

It is the complete opposite to how denialism works, they just double down, as you constantly do.

We all know climate change is happening, we can all see the impacts, why do you keep trying to deny reality and clutch on to the crap the deniersphere trots out?

DS

*smile* me if your debating style isn't the most dishonest and sly thing I've encountered on this site. You are one slimy mother *smile*.

Address the content of the article why don't you - the admission by the IPCC and the change of methodology to use past warming as a baseline for forecasting.

 

[AngryAnt]

As soon as Lee flips into abuse you know he has nothing.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

As soon as Lee flips into abuse you know he has nothing.

I posted the article to see what know-all would make of it, thinking that surely some concession would be forthcoming. No, he tries to spin it as a positive for alarmist science.

Unconscionable. Without conscience.

 

[DavidSSS]

*smile* me if your debating style isn't the most dishonest and sly thing I've encountered on this site. You are one slimy mother *smile*.

Address the content of the article why don't you - the admission by the IPCC and the change of methodology to use past warming as a baseline for forecasting.

The content of the article is that they created new models, found they weren't as accurate as they liked, and, as science does, they pointed this out.

Don't see the deniers concede anything even after their lies are exposed.

You're problem is that you can't handle the fact that the scientists working on this are honest. They know they are always pushing the boundaries to understand as much as they can about human impact on the climate, they know they need to continually question everything they do and they know that admitting when they don't get it as right as they would want that they will get s*** - yet it is the scientists themselves who point out when their latest work is not as good as they hoped.

Your attempt to exploit this is just the sort of tactics I expect from those who don't understand, or care, about how science actually works.

DS

 

[AngryAnt]

I posted the article to see what know-all would make of it, thinking that surely some concession would be forthcoming. No, he tries to spin it as a positive for alarmist science.

Unconscionable. Without conscience.

Yes, the models were slightly off, around 20%. So they will use the new real world data to improve the models.

That's how science works. I think David's conscience is working fine, and I've never seen him lose it and flip into outright abuse like you do.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Your attempt to exploit this is just the sort of tactics I expect from those who don't understand, or care, about how science actually works.

I do the best I can in the limited time I have to understand what drives climate. In doing so I take in all sorts of sources and perspectives but can barely scratch the surface of such an incredibly complex field.

You on the other hand simply push your unthinking unchanging narrative at every opportunity, to the point of endless repetition.

 

[DavidSSS]

I just state what the best science tells us.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I just state what the best science tells us.

And science doesn't know the answers.

 

[RoarEmotion]

No model of the future ever made is ever perfect. It’s an impossible expectation unless you are living in a virtual reality programmed by computers.

Models are our however our best imperfect attempts to predict the future and they can be tuned as new data comes in.

There is always a chance on something that changes over hundreds of years that there are big factors we don’t understand yet that could cause more cooling…. Or more warming.

Much like NSW with corona, if you get it wrong you are *smile* and the cure will be far worse than prevention. But you will never know what happens until you play your cards, and then time goes by. There are no time travel machines.

So if you have argument that because science doesn’t get the predictions perfect you are wrong then you will never be wrong about the models being wrong but to say that that means science is wrong doesn’t seem logical to me and ignores how science progresses. Theory test observe revise

Personally having run models (not on climate change) but on complicated aspen PIMS op software I know that they will never be perfect but they can tell you what is likely to happen - if you made good assumptions and the model doesn’t have a hack or some missing relationship.

I see climate change the same way - most models tell us it’s going up and the cost of it going up is going to be horrendous vs doing nothing. If the models are wrong and the temperature for some unknown reason turns back down then we get Gladys 2020 lucky. Otherwise we are Gladys 2021.

I don’t think we debate that co2 levels are higher - that seems accepted.

If we just need a line to say models are never perfect I’ll try and say it four or five times here.

 

[DavidSSS]

And science doesn't know the answers.

Well, I suppose if science can't definitively explain absolutely everything about climate then we should just ignore anything they say?

Is that what you are proposing?

Or should we go with the best science we have, the best knowledge we have?

I prefer to go with the science rather than the conspiracies.

I prefer to go with what we do know, rather than sniping at the edges of what scientists are still trying to work out.

DS

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Well, I suppose if science can't definitively explain absolutely everything about climate then we should just ignore anything they say?

Is that what you are proposing?

Or should we go with the best science we have, the best knowledge we have?

I prefer to go with the science rather than the conspiracies.

I prefer to go with what we do know, rather than sniping at the edges of what scientists are still trying to work out.

There you go yet again, trying to put words in my mouth. Unconscionable. Without conscience.

King is endorsing what I have said for years - observe and record, observe and record. It’s fine to theorise while doing it, but let’s not pretend we have full understanding of things we are only just beginning to investigate.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

No model of the future ever made is ever perfect. It’s an impossible expectation unless you are living in a virtual reality programmed by computers.

You've obviously missed a lot of the past discussion on models, but I'll forgive you. Nobody is condemning scientific models per se, although David tried very hard, repeatedly, to assert that I did. On the coronavirus thread of all places.

Climate models are an extremely simplified representation of an extremely complex system. As stated previously, all the computing power on earth would not be sufficient to model climate accurately. Our poor understanding of cloud formation alone, and the sheer impossibility of representing it accurately in a climate model, is enough to handicap the models severely.

So if you have argument that because science doesn’t get the predictions perfect you are wrong then you will never be wrong about the models being wrong but to say that that means science is wrong doesn’t seem logical to me and ignores how science progresses. Theory test observe revise

No, it's the wholesale dependence on the models by bodies such as the IPCC in making their proclamations that is the issue. That they are now conceding the models' flawed performance is a significant change in perspective.

the cost of it going up is going to be horrendous vs doing nothing

Nobody has advocated "doing nothing". Nobody.

 

[RoarEmotion]

.

 

[RoarEmotion]

No, it's the wholesale dependence on the models by bodies such as the IPCC in making their proclamations that is the issue. That they are now conceding the models' flawed performance is a significant change in perspective.

I’m not sure what the alternate to using models and then updating them as you get better information would be though. Good better than best as long as the vector is correct and not massively out.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I’m not sure what the alternate to using models and then updating them as you get better information would be though. Good better than best as long as the vector is correct and not massively out.

Nothing wrong with refining models to achieve greater accuracy (unless you modify the data to assist the models ). However the warming lobby has used the models to make extreme, definitive proclamations of disaster in order to pressure governments into adopting expensive, immature alternative technology. That these forecasts of doom have repeatedly failed to materialise is no doubt a factor in the IPCC's recent mea culpa.

The IPCC is less responsible for the alarmism than some others. The last report actually stated that the evidence for increased flooding, droughts and hurricanes due to climate change was very weak.

 

[AngryAnt]

Nothing wrong with refining models to achieve greater accuracy (unless you modify the data to assist the models ). However the warming lobby has used the models to make extreme, definitive proclamations of disaster in order to pressure governments into adopting expensive, immature alternative technology. That these forecasts of doom have repeatedly failed to materialise is no doubt a factor in the IPCC's recent mea culpa.

Expensive, immature technology that is replacing old fossil fuel technologies because they are driving down the cost of energy and making the old expensive technology non-competitive? LOL

Your information is ten years out of date, or you just don't care about facts, probably the latter. The market has chosen.

Origin Energy flags $1.7 bln hit, big earnings drop on weak prices

Australia's Origin Energy (ORG.AX) warned on Friday of a A$2.25 billion ($1.67 billion) charge in fiscal 2021 and a steep fall in next year's earnings for its energy markets business, which is struggling from a collapse in wholesale electricity prices.

www.reuters.com

 

[RoarEmotion]

Nothing wrong with refining models to achieve greater accuracy (unless you modify the data to assist the models ). However the warming lobby has used the models to make extreme, definitive proclamations of disaster in order to pressure governments into adopting expensive, immature alternative technology. That these forecasts of doom have repeatedly failed to materialise is no doubt a factor in the IPCC's recent mea culpa.

The IPCC is less responsible for the alarmism than some others. The last report actually stated that the evidence for increased flooding, droughts and hurricanes due to climate change was very weak.

I think there is a strong corollary to how the NSW government didn’t lockdown hard early with provisos.

1. there is no Vic failure then success to compare to - we don’t have two earths.

2. the timescale is decades to a century of ‘lockdown pain’ vs months with NSW if we screw it Up

3. success will be very hard to measure vs do nothing. There is no ‘excess deaths’ metric. Failure will be obvious but in 10-30 years from now. Not weeks.

 

[AngryAnt]

I think there is a strong corollary to how the NSW government didn’t lockdown hard early with provisos.

1. there is no Vic failure then success to compare to - we don’t have two earths.

2. the timescale is decades to a century of ‘lockdown pain’ vs months with NSW if we screw it Up

3. success will be very hard to measure vs do nothing. There is no ‘excess deaths’ metric. Failure will be obvious but in 10-30 years from now. Not weeks.

of course these changes are gradual and hard to spot at a given moment in time, but excess deaths from CC are already being measured. Additional heat wave deaths, increased tropical disease and so on are all measurable and being linked to CC.

This study (in Nature no less) shows that around 1 in 3 heat deaths globally can already be linked to CC.

The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change - Nature Climate Change

Current and future climate change is expected to impact human health, both indirectly and directly, through increasing temperatures. Climate change has already had an impact and is responsible for 37% of warm-season heat-related deaths between 1991 and 2018, with increases in mortality observed...

www.nature.com

Lee wants us to only consider deaths in extreme weather events like hurricanes and such like as the only possible indicators - wonder why - but in fact the studies have been done. These mostly occur in poorer countries so middle-class whities in their airconditioned homes in the leafy outer suburbs don't really think about them too much. He's super-happy to post waffle about new ice-ages due to a "weakened sun" about to hit though.

This study looks at the increase in malarial deaths - currently around 445000 per year and projects increases in child malarial mortality by 20% over this century. That's a lot of kids who will die from a preventable disease.

Burden of climate change on malaria mortality - PubMed

In 2016, an estimated 445,000 deaths and 216 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide, while 70% of the deaths occurred in children under five years old. Changes in climatic exposures such as temperature and precipitation make malaria one of the most climate sensitive outcomes. Using a global...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

We'll also have increased conflicts over diminishing arable land, water, and an increase in economic/war/climate refugees over the next century. The data is out there if you want to look, but Lee will prefer fixate on bizarre interpretations of satellite and ground station heat records. All part of the evil Chinese/UN conspiracy.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I think there is a strong corollary to how the NSW government didn’t lockdown hard early with provisos.

1. there is no Vic failure then success to compare to - we don’t have two earths.

2. the timescale is decades to a century of ‘lockdown pain’ vs months with NSW if we screw it Up

3. success will be very hard to measure vs do nothing. There is no ‘excess deaths’ metric. Failure will be obvious but in 10-30 years from now. Not weeks.

The first key assumption implied here is that we can shape earth’s climate. The global shutdown of 2020 had no effect on the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2. Zero.

The short timescales crucial to the ‘emergency’ narrative are gross underestimates.

An alternate parallel might be Hocking’s unnecessary rule changes rooting the game of football.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

He's super-happy to post waffle about new ice-ages due to a "weakened sun" about to hit though.

These are postulated by smarter people than you or I. I don’t necessarily subscribe but have posted to illustrate that the dominant narrative is not the sum total of the state of climate science.

But if you’re as bound to the emergency narrative as you are to supporting Richmond over another club, you’re not going to consider any other possibilities.