Yet more proof.

[papasmurf]

Right, whilst oil and gas are totally beyond the control of powerful organisations and governments?...

Battery storage is getting cheaper and cheaper. It's about £5k for a 10kwh system.

A 3 6kwh "turnkey" solar panel and battery camping system providing 240v is a little over £2,600.

You do have a point about "control" when it comes to the latest "smart" products.  I don't want my bloody fridge to be connected to the internet and my car shouldn't need "over the air updates" or a subscription for heated seats

Too expensive for me and many other people.

[BeElBeeBub]

Yeah, and they are investing in green tech now.  The advantage of green tech is that it is not only profitable, it's also supported by politicians, and people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk.  It is easier to impose political control over electric products.  For example, you cannot store much electricity (compared to oil or gas), and so you rely on the grid.  You also can't use cash to charge your car.  If you look at the big picture, powerful people benefit more from an electric world.

Right, whilst oil and gas are totally beyond the control of powerful organisations and governments?...

Battery storage is getting cheaper and cheaper. It's about £5k for a 10kwh system.

A 3 6kwh "turnkey" solar panel and battery camping system providing 240v is a little over £2,600.

You do have a point about "control" when it comes to the latest "smart" products.  I don't want my bloody fridge to be connected to the internet and my car shouldn't need "over the air updates" or a subscription for heated seats 

[papasmurf]

  For example, you cannot store much electricity (compared to oil or gas), and so you rely on the grid. 

You can store electricity BUT it is prohibitively expensive to do so for most people.

[Scott777]

You realise the big financial guns are the fossil fuel companies.

Yeah, and they are investing in green tech now.  The advantage of green tech is that it is not only profitable, it's also supported by politicians, and people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk.  It is easier to impose political control over electric products.  For example, you cannot store much electricity (compared to oil or gas), and so you rely on the grid.  You also can't use cash to charge your car.  If you look at the big picture, powerful people benefit more from an electric world.

[BeElBeeBub]

Indeed. But rather than coming out and crashing the worlds economies with carbon offset policies, use real data and not some flawed models.
This is from KLM: asking if I wish to pay two and a half grand to offset a few hundred KG's of carbon!! This is what has happened to the world over nothing, how about stopping Brasil cutting down a piece of Forrest the size of Wales every day or what ever it is, I'd support that all day long, same as banning plastic.

I'll agree carbon offsetting is BS. Likewise deforestation should be stopped (it's notable the deforestation policies tend to be worse under leaders that are denier aligned). I'll be with you on those campaigns.

But you realise the irony of worrying about crashing the world economy whilst also saying "ban plastics" - that stuff is vital to our economies.

And I question the whole idea of decarbonisation "crashing world economies" why should it?

There will be costs (the OBR estimate £1.3tn for the UK) but also savings (the OBR estimate £1bn for the UK).

Wind and solar are the cheapest sources of energy.

Home insulation makes you house more comfortable and cheaper to run.

Heat pumps (ok, when correctly installed - it's easy to balls it up if you don't know what you are doing) are cheaper to run than gas and can provide cooling 

Electric cars are nicer to drive (ok subjective)  cheaper to run than ICE and now are approaching price parity with various companies bringing 20k and below models to the market.

[Nick]

Many AGW supporting scientists have pointed to the "hot model" problem. There are multiple papers discussing why this is, what the causes may be and how to fix it.

The awareness of this is why the projections exclude the higher temperature model outputs.
As I mentioned before, you cannot just use the raw model outputs. Expertise is needed to sift the useful information from  the outputs.
This is entirely in keeping with other fields. If you let untrained users loose to use fea models to design parts for stress, they break. Because the lay users don't understand how to account for the inherent errors in the modelling process. That doesn't mean the models are useless, just that you need to be knowledgeable about how to apply them.

Indeed. But rather than coming out and crashing the worlds economies with carbon offset policies, use real data and not some flawed models.
This is from KLM: asking if I wish to pay two and a half grand to offset a few hundred KG's of carbon!! This is what has happened to the world over nothing, how about stopping Brasil cutting down a piece of Forrest the size of Wales every day or what ever it is, I'd support that all day long, same as banning plastic.

[BeElBeeBub]

You're getting closer, but still not correct.  Not all scientists (who are qualified as such) would necessarily publish anything on it.  And of those who do, we need to ask - if a considered view opposes AGW, do they get funding, or do they get abused?  How do financial interests influence what gets researched and published? 

You realise the big financial guns are the fossil fuel companies.

[BeElBeeBub]

I heard this one.

If you went to the board and ask for funds to research the nut gathering behaviour of Squirrels at Hyde Park you'd be told to knob off.

If you went to the board and ask for funds to research the nut gathering behaviour of Squirrels at Hyde Park in relation to climate change, the funds would be available the next day.

Scientists get funding all the time to research into areas of uncertainty in AGW and the salaries for doing this research aren't big. They aren't swanning about on yachts because of this.

If you want to make money in the AGW sphere, go and be a denier.
How many pro AGW climate scientists do you know by name?  How many media and podcast appearances do they get?

[BeElBeeBub]

It's not just John Christy, there are many scientists in top positions agreeing that the predictions are way off. Syun-Ichi Akasofu was head of the International Arctic Research centre, he is also a non-believer.

Many AGW supporting scientists have pointed to the "hot model" problem. There are multiple papers discussing why this is, what the causes may be and how to fix it.

The awareness of this is why the projections exclude the higher temperature model outputs.
As I mentioned before, you cannot just use the raw model outputs. Expertise is needed to sift the useful information from  the outputs.
This is entirely in keeping with other fields. If you let untrained users loose to use fea models to design parts for stress, they break. Because the lay users don't understand how to account for the inherent errors in the modelling process. That doesn't mean the models are useless, just that you need to be knowledgeable about how to apply them.

[Nick]

You're getting closer, but still not correct.  Not all scientists (who are qualified as such) would necessarily publish anything on it.  And of those who do, we need to ask - if a considered view opposes AGW, do they get funding, or do they get abused?  How do financial interests influence what gets researched and published? 

I heard this one. 

If you went to the board and ask for funds to research the nut gathering behaviour of Squirrels at Hyde Park you'd be told to knob off. 

If you went to the board and ask for funds to research the nut gathering behaviour of Squirrels at Hyde Park in relation to climate change, the funds would be available the next day. 

[BeElBeeBub]

So, (That's for you Barry), we finally come to the point made weeks ago that models are limited in what they do, and if we look at  actual recorded data we see that the rate of warming is nowhere near what the doom-mongers are saying.

It's not just John Christy, there are many scientists in top positions agreeing that the predictions are way off. Syun-Ichi Akasofu was head of the International Arctic Research centre, he is also a non-believer.

But the IPCC predictions have been pretty much accurate with reality being within uncertainty on the low side.

It's also worth noting that the previous graphs end around 2015.

If you were to add the next 10 years (IE to now) of observations they would be heading back to the central estimate.


You can see the temp has trended up significantly up 2015.

The rate of warming may be at the lower end of the predictions but it is still unnaturally rapid and outside anything seen for hundreds of thousands of years.

You still haven't articulated how your sunspot driving temps driving co2 theory can account for the fossil fuel nature of the co2 increase.

(Nor, I should mention how O3 in pp billion can affect the climate but CO2 in pp million can't)

[Scott777]

In which case I apologise, I should have said "99% of scientists who are qualified to hold a considered view on this subject agree with the theory of AGW"

You're getting closer, but still not correct.  Not all scientists (who are qualified as such) would necessarily publish anything on it.  And of those who do, we need to ask - if a considered view opposes AGW, do they get funding, or do they get abused?   How do financial interests influence what gets researched and published?  

[Nick]

Right, the Christy Graphs.



Ok there are several versions but essentially his argument is that "the models" predict more warming than is actually observed.

To back this up he produces a nice, very impactful, graph basically showing models" vs "observed" and the 2 lines clearly diverge.

As.you say, any PhD (or congressman) can look at this and say "case closed".

Except sometimes are not quite so cut and dried.



As with any model, understanding it's purpose and limitations and using it correctly to get useful information is important.

Finite element analysis is a standard and well used technique in engineering (as I'm sure you know)  But using it still requires skill. The technique will always underestimate stresses and a skilled operator will know how to correct for that.  They will also know how to set the model up to give you the information you require.  This is why we still have specialists in computational simulation.

Some models perform better than others both overall and in certain areas.  You might use one model for thermal analysis, another for stress, yet another for fatigue. You  might have bespoke hydrodynamic models optimised for wave slam conditions whilst another will be better for drag.

Climate models are no different.  They are not some machine you stuck a coin in to tell you the future



The CMIP project is a database of various outputs from various models run under various conditions.

Christie picks a subset of CMIP model runs which he decides are the most representative.

If you pick another set of model runs the results are different

Here is another graph of the models (grey with black average) and the actual (blue) over the same period.  Whilst it is true the models are higher than measured the two still overlap somewhat and the difference is no longer as cut and dried. (Models from V6 of database)



It is a known issue that some (about ⅕) of the models in the V6 data base are known to have high temp rises (v5 also) These are often associated with poor matching of historical conditions.
For this reason the IPCC don't simply weight all models equally. The high ones are excluded in their "main" projection

Here is the IPCC 5th assesment (black with grey lines are uncertainty) from around the time of the original (top) Christie graph with the actual temps from various sources overlaid.




In this case the assesment (as opposed to the raw, unweighted, model outputs) was much more accurate.

So, (That's for you Barry), we finally come to the point made weeks ago that models are limited in what they do, and if we look at  actual recorded data we see that the rate of warming is nowhere near what the doom-mongers are saying.

It's not just John Christy, there are many scientists in top positions agreeing that the predictions are way off. Syun-Ichi Akasofu was head of the International Arctic Research centre, he is also a non-believer. 

[BeElBeeBub]

What we should or should not include "in the count" is irrelevant.  YOU made a claim about all scientists.  Not me.  You have made many claims.  Then you backtrack.  Do you want to apologise for making that claim for which you have zero evidence?  Then the question of who we "should" listen to is another matter.

In which case I apologise, I should have said "99% of scientists who are qualified to hold a considered view on this subject agree with the theory of AGW"

[BeElBeeBub]

Do you agree that a PHD scientist, regardless of their field can look at 2 sets of data: for example temperatures taken by Satellite and compare them with weather balloon data and say they match? The same scientist can then look at the model data and say the rate of warming in the model is double that of the actual data. The climate scientist does the research, some other brainbox can confirm the findings regardless of their field.

You still won't comment John Christy, I think we can agree he knows what he's talking about. Of course you will point to the fact that there are scientists that say his work is flawed, the same scientists that commented that his work was groundbreaking, until it didn't give them the answer they wanted, much like the EU!! That flawed that NASA gave him the award for exceptional scientific achievement.

• 1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer).
• 1996: AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of Earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate" (with Roy Spencer).

A

Right, the Christy Graphs.



Ok there are several versions but essentially his argument is that "the models" predict more warming than is actually observed.

To back this up he produces a nice, very impactful, graph basically showing models" vs "observed" and the 2 lines clearly diverge.

As.you say, any PhD (or congressman) can look at this and say "case closed".

Except sometimes are not quite so cut and dried.



As with any model, understanding it's purpose and limitations and using it correctly to get useful information is important.

Finite element analysis is a standard and well used technique in engineering (as I'm sure you know)  But using it still requires skill. The technique will always underestimate stresses and a skilled operator will know how to correct for that.  They will also know how to set the model up to give you the information you require.  This is why we still have specialists in computational simulation. 

Some models perform better than others both overall and in certain areas.  You might use one model for thermal analysis, another for stress, yet another for fatigue. You  might have bespoke hydrodynamic models optimised for wave slam conditions whilst another will be better for drag.

Climate models are no different.  They are not some machine you stuck a coin in to tell you the future



The CMIP project is a database of various outputs from various models run under various conditions.

Christie picks a subset of CMIP model runs which he decides are the most representative.

If you pick another set of model runs the results are different 

Here is another graph of the models (grey with black average) and the actual (blue) over the same period.  Whilst it is true the models are higher than measured the two still overlap somewhat and the difference is no longer as cut and dried. (Models from V6 of database)



It is a known issue that some (about ⅕) of the models in the V6 data base are known to have high temp rises (v5 also) These are often associated with poor matching of historical conditions.
For this reason the IPCC don't simply weight all models equally. The high ones are excluded in their "main" projection

Here is the IPCC 5th assesment (black with grey lines are uncertainty) from around the time of the original (top) Christie graph with the actual temps from various sources overlaid.




In this case the assesment (as opposed to the raw, unweighted, model outputs) was much more accurate.