Weather and Climate change

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 06:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I found the article after some searching.  My original point stands - what does that article have to do with anything I posted?  It's a strawman rebuttal.

Well this was your "original point":

"Also, would you please tell me what you think that article disproves that I have said?  I only get an abstract, the rest is behind a paywall and "no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods" doesn't sound like the article you're referring to."

The team of five scientists who undertook the study concluded this:

"we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."

Have you NOT been disputing that global warming is 1) "unparalleled" in the last 100 years, AND 2) that it is anthropogenic? Strawman rebuttal how?

Although Breech has been begging you for at least one, Beaker's link is the only actual study so far cited on this thread. Sounds like you only read the title of that study and could not make the connection, or read the abstract but did not understand it, and then could not immediately access a science database. A bad look for someone who claims that I "continue to fundamentally misunderstand how science works" and urges virtually everyone else to "educate themselves" on "climate alarmism"--by googling, no less.

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 07:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So again the TL;DR version is that the foundation of climate alarmism is based not on science, but data mining.  Such models do provide ideas for further research, but are garbage for forecasting and policy choices.

Here's an article from Curry talking about the "scientific method/process" behind the models.  Again, 100% spot on.  Two of the tenets of good science, aside from a validated model, is that your methods and assumptions are documented and the work is reproducible (which obviously fails without the first, and when models are treated like proprietary trading models).
https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/10/the-culture-of-building-confidence-in-climate-models/

Here's a bit more on model fitting and validation just to prove I'm not pulling this out of my ass.
https://people.duke.edu/~rnau/three.htm
https://dziganto.github.io/cross-validation/data%20science/machine%20learning/model%20tuning/python/Model-Tuning-with-Validation-and-Cross-Validation/
LOL- "We learned that training a model on all the available data and then testing on that very same data is an awful way to build models" (a.k.a more derisively referred to as junk science).

And a link (it will download a pdf) to the IPCC chapter on model "evaluation" (there they go again choosing a similar sounding word but directly avoiding "validation").  Seems mainly devoted to providing a false sense of confidence in the models.  That many things are tightly constrained still leaves plenty of giant assumptions and freedom fit a model.  Actually an interesting read, and I think there's a pretty obvious disconnect between how and what is reported in the media and the range of uncertainty outlined here.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Strictly speaking, your link to Curry is a blog article, not the kind of journal article or "study" which Breech has been requesting, without success. 

Further, she is no climate denier or even skeptic. Quite the contrary, she has been in the forefront of climate scientists arguing, at once, for the integrity of scientific principles and AGAINST extraction-funded disinformation, which would portray climate science as "junk science." For example, this article from 2006, which sorts out climate denial in the context of debates over the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf. This NYT article includes her message to young graduate students on how to address climate skeptics. https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?pagemode=print. There is this on the climate audit site too: https://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/.

Curry's blog is an articulate and interesting discussion of how policy application requires of climate modeling a different kind accountability than mere scientific inquiry would. Her discussion, and the responses below, probably give non-scientists a good indication of how climate science moves forward by critiquing and refining models.  But the only reason I can think why you included it here, not to mention the other two links on model fitting (which have nothing directly to do with climate science) is because you have now hung your hat on V & V as the crux of the entire climate change debate and want to show that it is indeed "a thing."  The direct disconfirmation of actual specific Climate studies you presume--we can still google that, right?

(PS If you did read Curry's blog then it ought to be plain why the IPCC chapter on model evaluation uses the term "evaluation" rather than V & V. "Much of the debate between validation/verification versus evaluation seems to me to be semantic. . . .")

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 09:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Is there something wrong with investing in renewable energy?

If you make your profits from carbon extraction, then yes, absolutely.

Millions of dollars spent in funding climate denial secures billions in profits. No brainer there.

There is a phrase used once by Lenin--"useful idiots"--to describe capitalists who would work with Communists (for a profit) to help undermine their own economic system, their interest being wholly focused on personal profit and not the common good or larger political and economic trends.

Extraction industries follow a similar model in buying politicians and journalists. The goal is then to create, in the minds of the public, the illusion that the scientific consensus on GW is unsettled--a model borrowed from efforts of big Tobacco to forestall government "interference" in tobacco sales, especially efforts to addict new and ever younger customers to their product.

There was a great article on "the denial machine" in Newsweek back in 2007.https://web.archive.org/web/20071022035106/http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/2.

As a social phenomenon, denial is in its own right an interesting subject, worthy of study. They often like to flip the script on the science community by claiming their research is somehow driven by a 2 trillion dollar solar energy industry, supposedly the mirror image of big oil. lol

[GMDino]

(08-07-2019, 09:23 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Is there something wrong with investing in renewable energy?

Yes.  It costs money.

Now the money it costs us to "show China" we're serious about a trade war is TOTALLY worth it.  Military? Spend away.  

anything to potentially help the country and the earth?  Pffft.  Why should we do it?

[Beaker]

(08-07-2019, 09:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a political football now 

Thats the biggest problem in my opinion. 
As far as people changing, they wont. People dont change until they become uncomfortable. Right now, theyre still comfortable.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2019, 08:19 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, continuing to repeat your question isn't going to change what I've actually said.

I understand.  You "challenged people to post good science" and you're not exempt from your own challenge.  Lead by example. Don't ask anyone to do something you yourself aren't willing to do.  Show me the science.  Not editorials from the media you don't trust.

Quote:I've laid out the issues and assumptions that are problematic. The challenge has always been to prove otherwise.

Again, I haven't asked you to prove anything and I'm not trying to prove anything.  Just post the journal articles and let the research speak for itself.  Linking an article doesn't prove or disprove man's role in climate change.  That's not part of the scientific method.  You're not going to prove or disprove anything by showing me an article you read because you aren't doing any research, collecting data, making observations, or drawing a conclusion based upon your experimentation.  You're just linking a website to an article.  That's it.

You don't even have a hypothesis.  You have opinions.  Yet, you inexplicably claim others don't understand science.

Quote:So that leaves you two choices - get to work on google and prove me wrong,

I want to read the science you read.  That doesn't mean I want to prove you wrong.  It means I want to read the science.  As I have told you before, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this topic because of the issues you already brought up with the media, the fact this is such a politically polarizing topic that basically splits upon party lines among laymen with no real expertise in the subject, the the amount of disinformation actively being spread, and my general lack of interest in the physical sciences.

Quote:or stop pretending that you actually understand the science and move on to another topic. 

I've never claimed to understand this topic.  Matter of fact, I have repeatedly told you my mind is open on this topic.  It is quite possible I may not understand the actual science related to this topic because my background is mostly in biology, chemistry, and medicine.  So while I readily admit I'm no expert in climate change, I do have a background in and understand science and how science works.  Just not this field of science.  So I'm not going to waste my time Googling through the massive amount of disinformation on the internet when I have a source such as yourself to point me in the right direction.  Because my time would be better spent reading a NEJM article which I can use towards my annual CME requirements than reading an editorial about climate change from some random dude who works as a lawyer.  You and I will never know if I will understand the science if you continue to refuse to show me the science.

Quote:I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published.  And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated.  That's not how science works, and I think you know this.

That's just not true.  That's exactly how Andrew Wakefield's research linking a specific MMR vaccine to autism was discredited.  By publishing studies of "non-findings" which refuted the link.  Basically, the studies proved a negative; there is no link.

Quote:I've said many, many times the "science" behind climate hysteria is junk. Data mining is not science, and I'm not going to go find you a journal article that.   Maybe don't mock people when you don't appear to understand even the basics of the science yourself.

Mock you? Show me where.  I've made the conscious decision not to mock you despite the fact you mocked me in the same sentence you accused me of mocking you in the hope you would rise to your own challenge and . . . just show me the science.

[Dill]

(08-08-2019, 12:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Quote:I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published.  And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated.  That's not how science works, and I think you know this.

That's just not true.  That's exactly how Andrew Wakefield's research linking a specific MMR vaccine to autism was discredited.  By publishing studies of "non-findings" which refuted the link.  Basically, the studies proved a negative; there is no link.

Excellent point.

Independent replication of results is essential to experimental method.  And replication often does result in "non-findings," which are important for a research community in assessing findings. Only after replication and correlation to other results can "findings" be judged knowledge and integrated with existing theory. The process of earning a PhD in any field I can think of consists in the process of mastering "the literature" in the field, the published results, including non-findings, which enable a young scientist to evaluate new research and to do original research him/herself, i.e., to see which areas of the field are yet "unplowed."

However, such replication is typically made public in conference papers presented to other specialists and in discipline or field specific journals--the latter one typically finds in databases (e.g., Beaker's article linked above) and academic/research libraries. JustWin's link to Chapter 9 of the IPCC report, which discusses evaluation of climate studies, is full of references to "non-findings," which are listed in its bibliography.

JustWin is correct, however, if he means "non-findings aren't typically published" in newspapers and on websites and message boards. The latter is where one typically finds people throwing up individual, de-contextualized studies or news articles "proving" that global warming or evolution or vaccine-induced autism is or is not "true." It's in this sphere that one finds sweeping, theologically framed invitations to "find out the truth for yourself" about global warming or evolution etc . . . .

[Dill]

(08-07-2019, 07:23 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I asked you to go google ECS and then look at where IPCC gets there values from.  The IPCC takes those values primarily from the climate models.  That's inherently problematic.  The long and short of it is the science DOES NOT reject the default assumption of low climate sensitivity, which as I already pointed out is most likely between 1 and 1.5 based on the actual temperature data.  But then the climate alarmism falls apart, and with it a giant deflation of a $2T+ industry (among other things).

Those models aren't validated.  That's the hugely critical difference between data mining and science.  If their models had actual power, if they could be validated, they would do so with out-of-sample testing.  At a high-level, their model development has a computer chug thru different linear combinations for parameter estimates until it fits the data within the different constraints.  There's not a unique solution, which is why the IPCC uses something like 70 different models.  And there could be many more, so the range of ECS estimates is driven by assumptions and preferences of the modeler (or more deliberately, putting one's "thumb on the scale).  Many, many ways to bias a model, unintentionally or not, which is why validation is critical.

In other fields, assumptions and forecasts that come from an unvalidated model are dismissed out of hand.  The model is almost certainly wrong and certain to fail, so such research is a total non-starter.  I'm sure you won't believe me, but check out pages 2&3 of this UChicago link - this is what I've always said when referring to the fundamental building block of this as junk science:
http://jtac.uchicago.edu/conferences/05/resources/V&V_macal_pres.pdf

I'm sure you can find a lot of justification and explaining away the need to validate climate models.  But you need to pay very close attention to what is being said.  That a model matches the observed data is meaningless - it was forced to fit the data.  Plugging in new, observed values and getting an accurate forecast is a different model - the actual model had a wrong forecast/simulation for those variables because only CO2 is considered external forcing.  Fitting the model to include the new data is a different model (i.e. "re-tuned").

So in summary climate alarmism is not based on science, but on data mining (likely to produce a pre-determined result).

How are you defining "climate alarmism" here? Are you referring to pronouncements of some environmentalist groups, or to the IPCC? Are you following a journalist agreement among some publications to use the term?

Without reference to specific studies and arguments, it is hard to follow a claim that the IPCC "takes its values from climate models," and that that is  "inherently problematic" in some way not already acknowledged and addressed by the IPCC.  If you have seen and can specify some exact point where your claim is substantiated, I don't understand why you can't refer me directly to that. Perhaps you do not know how to cite or incorporate textual evidence into an argument? (My complaint here is the same as Breech's; you make general claims which look like they came from specific support, but at the moment any scientist would cite that support, you gesture vaguely towards Google while saying we obviously don't understand how science works. That looks like you are working with someone else's summary.)

You speak of an "unvalidated model" as if there were only one in question here, as if validation of open-ended systems is the same as validation of closed, and as if the global warming thesis depended only on models.

One can grant all the criticism of data mining in your links to non-climate science discussions without assuming that, in itself, invalidates climate modeling--an ongoing project of many models and many forms/sources of data.  That climate scientists themselves, working with physicists and mathematicians, criticize such models to constantly improve them, is hardly in itself sufficient evidence of "junk science."

So you are still a LONG WAYS from establishing that an undefined "climate alarmism" is, somewhere out there, based primarily upon data-mining, which is bad because discussions of V & V unrelated to climate science say it is bad.  I am not disputing it is bad, just saying you have really made no specific connection.

[GMDino]

Just throwing this out there as an example of why we can't have nice discussions:

"Southern Hemisphere" is trending because Dinesh D'Souza doesn't understand the axial tilt of the earth makes it winter there now.

Also, he thinks snow proves climate change a hoax.

Also, he may not believe there IS a southern hemisphere.

At this point I put nothing past him. pic.twitter.com/pKj5lyLclx

— Windthin ~ Rebel Scum & Snark Jedi ???️‍?️? (@windthin) August 12, 2019

 

[Belsnickel]

Deforestation, Agriculture, and Diet Are Fuelling the Climate Crisis

Quote:In the Amazon, or in the parts of the Amazon that people have mowed down and converted into grazing pasture, the average abattoir-bound cow has nearly three acres to himself. Nice for the cow, perhaps, but senseless and dangerous in every other way. Every year, on average, tropical deforestation accounts for fifteen per cent of global greenhouse emissions. About half of the contributing deforestation occurs in South America; deforestation in the Amazon recently increased. If the trend continues, scientists have found, it could lengthen the forest’s dry season, triggering even greater warming and drying, killing trees in the nearby (still intact) forest, and eventually causing mass tree mortality and an entire ecosystem shift—from rainforest to savannah. The tipping point for such a collapse in the Amazon is between twenty and twenty-five per cent deforestation—fifteen to seventeen per cent is already gone. “If you exceed the threshold,” Carlos Nobre, a Brazilian climate and tropical-forest expert, told me, “fifty to sixty per cent of the forest could be gone over three to five decades.”

An urgent new report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.), published this morning in Geneva, Switzerland, highlights “what has been true all along,” Deborah Lawrence, an environmental-sciences professor and tropical-ecosystem expert at the University of Virginia, said. “We cannot make our climate goals without stopping deforestation and better managing agriculture.” In the past, I.P.C.C. reports focussed on what various energy futures would mean for the atmosphere. How much might we reduce the use of fossil fuels, by when, and what might that look like for all of earth’s systems? In this case, however, the panel focussed exclusively on land—and specifically on how people’s unsustainable use of land is dramatically contributing to climate change. According to the report’s findings, land use is responsible for twenty-three per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions—half from carbon dioxide emitted through deforestation, half from agriculture. (If pre- and post-production activities in the global food system are included, the emissions are estimated to account for as much as thirty-seven per cent of total human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions.) In turn, climate change is hastening land degradation, destabilizing the food supply, and harming the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. “Climate change creates additional stresses on land, exacerbating existing risks to livelihoods, biodiversity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, and food systems,” the report’s summary for policymakers states. “Some regions will face higher risks, while some regions will face risks previously not anticipated.”

Since the industrial revolution, the overland air temperature has risen by about 1.53 degrees Celsius, or nearly three degrees Fahrenheit—almost double the average increase over the land and sea combined. Around the world, there have been more frequent, more intense, and longer-lasting heat waves, along with changing precipitation patterns—heavier bouts of rain over all, and more frequent and intense droughts in some regions, including the Mediterranean, many parts of South America, much of Africa, and northeastern and western parts of Asia. Climate change has increased risks from water scarcity, soil erosion, vegetation loss, wildfire damage, permafrost thaw, coastal dissolution, and tropical crop decline. In the Global South, climate change has caused the yields of some crops, such as maize and wheat, to decline, and has lowered animal-growth rates and productivity in African pastoral systems. Interviews and community surveys with indigenous groups in the African drylands and high-alpine regions of Asia and South America also detail the ways that changes in regional climates have further challenged their food security. As of 2015, five hundred million people lived in areas that were affected by desertification.

That’s the present moment. The report states that, even if we dramatically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the next decade, achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, and thereby limit warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius—something the world is nowhere near on track to accomplishing—food security is at risk in the course of the twenty-first century, especially for the most vulnerable people. Extreme-weather events will get worse and more frequent, disrupting the supply chain. Higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide will lower the nutritional quality of crops. In a middle-of-the-road scenario—where technological progress, production, and consumption patterns continue as they have in the past—cereal prices in 2050 will see a median increase of 7.6 per cent, with the possibility of a twenty-three-per-cent increase over current levels. “Exceeding the limits of adaptation can trigger escalating losses or result in undesirable transformational changes,” the report added, including forced migration, conflicts, and extreme poverty.

People today use seventy-two per cent of the earth’s ice-free land for food, animal feed, fibre, timber, and energy. A quarter of that land is subject to what the report called “human-induced degradation.” If you share the responsibility equally across the planet, that is roughly three acres for every person—about equal to a cow in the Amazon—but, if you scale it by a fraction of the global economy, Lawrence pointed out, “everyone in the United States is responsible for deforesting, degrading, or somehow altering ten acres of land.” That is significantly more than any person needs to thrive. Lawrence went on, “You can almost excuse us on the atmosphere—we thought it was so big. . . . But, with the land, we know it is finite. We don’t need scientists to tell us that.”

Fortunately, science has been advancing particularly rapidly in terms of land-based natural climate solutions. The conservation of carbon-rich land—forests, wetlands, mangroves, peatlands—improved forest and grazing-land management, and systemic changes in food production and consumption could provide as much or more mitigation as eliminating the emissions from all global transportation, or all the electricity and heat used in buildings globally. Plant-based diets, featuring coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts, and seeds, present opportunities, according to the report, “for reducing GHG emissions from food systems” by as much as 3.4 gigatons of carbon dioxide (or its equivalent) per year, by 2050. Food loss and waste represented a third of global food production and, from 2010 to 2016, equalled eight to ten per cent of total greenhouse-gas emissions from food systems, costing roughly a trillion dollars per year. Such waste could be minimized through improved harvesting techniques, on-farm storage, infrastructure, and packaging. Changing agricultural methods to reduce soil erosion—which, in some cases, when conventional tillage is practiced, is occurring at a rate as much as a hundred times higher than soil is forming—could easily keep more carbon in the ground. Other farming programs, like agroforestry and perennial crops, can also sequester meaningful amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.

The longer the world waits, the less capacity such solutions have for making a difference, as we are on the verge of surpassing tipping points in many places besides the Amazon. Other land-based tipping points involve the world’s permafrost, which holds an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of carbon, and is already rapidly melting. As wet, boggy, and peaty soil thaws and releases methane, it speeds up warming, which speeds up melting. As boggy soils drain to rivers and oceans in the Arctic, peaty soils will dry out and turn into tinder. Even if those soils don’t burn, natural decomposition will send the peat’s carbon into the atmosphere. That’s why, with natural climate solutions, it is important to remember that it’s “a ‘yes, and’ relationship,” Katharine Mach, a senior research scientist in earth systems at Stanford University, said. “Carbon stored in the biosphere is at risk if we don’t simultaneously get energy, industry, and transport emissions in check.” At that point, it won’t matter if everyone becomes a vegetarian.

[GMDino]

Let's break up the very serious discussion with a moment of levity courtesy Ben Shapiro.

Note: the video is NSFW.  It has one bad word in it.  Screamed.  Very loudly.

Ben Shapiro has climate change all figured out?

??? via @Parentella https://t.co/V93Cy5W99u

— ? Kim (@kim) August 14, 2019

 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-07-2019, 08:19 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, continuing to repeat your question isn't going to change what I've actually said.   I've laid out the issues and assumptions that are problematic. The challenge has always been to prove otherwise.  So that leaves you two choices - get to work on google and prove me wrong, or stop pretending that you actually understand the science and move on to another topic. 


I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published.  And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated.  That's not how science works, and I think you know this.

I've said many, many times the "science" behind climate hysteria is junk. Data mining is not science, and I'm not going to go find you a journal article that.   Maybe don't mock people when you don't appear to understand even the basics of the science yourself.

I took statistics at Miami University as part of a program for gifted high school students. I took Earth Science in 10th or 11th grade at a shitty little high school in southern Ohio where cow tipping is a right of passage into manhood.

What's your level of expertise with data mining, statistics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and meteorology and atmospheric science?