Not so much actually

From a review of a book about climate change:

The biggest value of Stott’s account is in giving the lie to the denialists’ accusation that climate scientists are (for reasons they never make clear) conjuring alarmist narratives from error-prone computer models and shoddy data.

That at least some folks are using shoddy data is easy enough to prove.

Just read through the usual run of papers insisting that climate change will cause this, create that, rains of blood, dogs lying down with cats.

In near all such papers they say “using a business as normal” estimate of emissions. Which, with some checking, we’ll find out means RCP 8.5. Which is an emission path that is not a continuation of what is happening. Not in the slightest – in fact, of the four major models it’s the only one that we’re, damn near, absolutely certain *won’t* happen.

But you know, evidence and religion….

23 thoughts on “Not so much actually”

  1. for reasons they never make clear

    Nobody has ever pointed out that there’s zero money or prestige in climate realism before, and in fact it’ll probably get you brigaded and sacked.

  2. I watched Gardeners World last night. There was a report from a piece of woodland where trees were being subjected to elevated carbon dioxide levels. All the measurements showed that the trees were growing faster both above and below ground. Yet the ‘scientist’ in charge seemed certain that his results indicated problems being stored up for the future! What I saw was direct evidence that burning woodchips at Drax was having the predicted effect.

  3. More importantly, the meteorological data averaged over time (that average = climate) shows no trend to indicate any changes out of natural variations, the usual ups and downs, which balance out over time.

    The millennia-long direct global warming measurement is so slight it is within the margin of error (instrument and other variations) so is in effect zero. This is why ‘scientists’ had to concoct the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record which applies algorithms (based on conjecture) and other hocus-pocus to correct confounding factors to produce temperature changes of tenths and hundreds of a degree, an accuracy far greater than the raw input data, in order to ‘prove’ global warming. But since the apparent correlation between their alleged warming and CO2 emissions, stopped after 1996, there is no evidence to support the claim Mankind is causing it.

    Correlation may not prove causality, but if there is a causal relationship there must be correlation. Its absence falsifies the claim.

  4. In a sense, Tim, you’re responsible for this as much as the people you’re complaining about. If you give the IPCC scenarios credence then you can’t blame people picking the one’s suit them. You’re doing the same. In truth the whole thing’s made up waffle to suit political aims. No-one’s got a clue what any particular level of CO2 will do to the climate or what the effects of any particular level of warming will be. That’s just the science, let alone the economics derived from it.
    The big mistake’s been taking these fantasies seriously in the first place. Although not for the people built lucrative careers on the back of them.

  5. It was meant to rain all week according to the weather forecast, but the last couple of days were actually quite nice. Large expensive super-computers and weather models got it wrong in less than 5 days.

    However, we know to single digits precision what the temperature and climate will be like in 100 years.

    Really, they are having a laugh.

  6. …and, unless they’ve done some substantial rewrites since I last looked at the code of some of the “premier” climate models, they aren’t “error-prone”, they’re “shit”!

  7. Computer models of any sort are like divining the future using animal entrails.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

  8. @Michael Fish, Nope, they’re entirely serious, which is even more worrying.

    Mind.. If someone like the Elyian Sage can somehow teach economics at a “University”, you can expect people of the same level of “expertise” teaching statistics in other places. And it shows..
    I was taught at Uni that averages should always be accompanied by the two Other Numbers: confidence and variance. Because without them averages are just numbers without any meaning.
    And you were tarred and feathered for not including them in any report, essay or article.

    Nowadays… Oh wait.. They’re inconvenient, or “confuse the main narrative of the results”.
    Yup they sure are, because they generally show you’re overextending your conclusions with regards to the solidity of your data….
    But hey.. The Narrative!!

    Where’s the nearest ( got to steal that…) Anthropophagic-Felines-as-a-Service?

  9. The sceptics inferred all sorts of misbehaviour by the warmmongers. The the Climategate emails showed that the sceptics were right, not only in the thrust of their arguments but often in their detailed inferences.

    The great thing now is that this scam has been running so long that lots of the early predictions have already been falsified. In the sciences, at least as they once were, when a theory is falsified you are expected to abandon it and develop another.

  10. They are still pushing out the date when it’s obvious that it was all lies.

    If you look at the graph on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway it’s really 2040 before the RCPs start to noticeably differ. By then it’ll be “refined” to make sure there is another 20 years of uncertainty.

    Okay, so RCP 8.5 goes earlier (around now) but we all know that’s just the pathway the likes of scaremongers such as XR claim for their eco-communism.

  11. “climate scientists are (for reasons they never make clear) conjuring alarmist narratives from error-prone computer models and shoddy data.”

    If you catch them misrepresenting the facts, is it necessary to ascribe motive? Isn’t the wrongness of it enough?

  12. Some quotes…

    From the Graudian puff piece:

    “In 2004, Stott published a paper showing that extreme summer heatwaves like that of the previous year were made more likely by global heating – a breakthrough idea that extracted meaningful probabilistic information even though it is all but impossible to ascribe the causes of individual events.”

    So he extracted results from data that makes it impossible to ascribe cause. Okay, interesting I wonder how?

    I assume this “paper” is “Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003” which starts:

    “The summer of 2003 was probably the hottest in Europe since at latest AD 1500” – likes his Carlsberg does he? Nothing like backing that statement up to get things going.

    And states this in the discussion section:

    “Quantitatively, the result does appear to depend on the climate model used as well as on the statistical models used. However, qualitatively the results appear fairly robust to these points.”

    Which to me says he didn’t get the numbers he’d hoped (garbage in, garbage out) but decided it supported his preconceived idea anyway.

    And this is his great contribution is it?

  13. “Nobody has ever pointed out that there’s zero money or prestige in climate realism before, and in fact it’ll probably get you brigaded and sacked.”

    Yep.

  14. Bloke in Spain,

    “In a sense, Tim, you’re responsible for this as much as the people you’re complaining about. If you give the IPCC scenarios credence then you can’t blame people picking the one’s suit them. You’re doing the same. In truth the whole thing’s made up waffle to suit political aims. No-one’s got a clue what any particular level of CO2 will do to the climate or what the effects of any particular level of warming will be. That’s just the science, let alone the economics derived from it.
    The big mistake’s been taking these fantasies seriously in the first place. Although not for the people built lucrative careers on the back of them.”

    I tend to agree with you. I think it’s wildly exaggerated.

    But, the fight here isn’t about the CO2 calculations, it’s people who are using it for their own agendas. They don’t care about climate change, they just want more organic food or more choo-choos or whatever.

    So, you start throwing Pigou into things. This is about reducing CO2, yes? Not just that you want more trains. Right, let’s build nuclear power stations and plant lots of trees instead then, yes? As you’re so concerned about climate change, we could do more climate reduction that way, so why do you want more trains?

    Based on the last ORR stats, we should probably dig up a lot of track, for the sake of Gaia. The network has lost more than half the passengers, and on some areas, like Cross Country rail, it’s below 1/3rd. At that level, you’re running trains that are worse for the planet than everyone getting in a car.

  15. Policy driven model creation for climate was the trial run for pandemic modelling. We should have hung Michael Mann et al then to encourage honesty in data collection and use. Stephen McIntyre was ignored despite his thorough demolition of the hockey stick, also the Climategate emails should have discredited the whole enterprise. Instead the whole establishment gang decided to throw money at it and sign up to Green Agendas with a similar enthusiasm to that shown in imposing lockdowns and dodgy witches brew on all of us. Both schemes have greatly enhanced governmental and international organisations power and opportunities for fortunes to be made off the scams. Time for accountability and hanging.

  16. @BoM4
    The principal’s the same as for charity muggers, doorstep Watchtower sellers, drunks & fat birds at parties. Don’t ever engage with them. You start debating with them, you’re halfway to loosing.
    As for carbon taxes & other Pigou axes, when will economists get it through their thick heads, taxes are politics not economics? They have no useful input to offer on the subject.

  17. Green BS is a leftist scam to add trillions in costs+regulations on Western economies and ruin us while their Chicom mates thrive. That is all you need to know. They should be dealt with as any other group of enemy agents and saboteurs. Arrest and trial/jail for treason.

    Altho–sans Aussie coal the Chinese suddenly look like they are going down for the 3rd time. Doug Casey’s greater depression may now be at hand. And will be used by political scum as an excuse for their Great Reset.

    We must all fight back or freedom will go under forever.

  18. There are dozens of different computer climate models that all diverge and predict different results for the same scenario. What does this tell us? It tells us that at best only one of them is correct, but not which one, and all the rest are clearly wrong. It’s quite a ridiculous leap of faith to believe even one of them right.

  19. This season, across the world, “Global Stilling” — the reduction in wind duration and intensity — is leaving electricity grid under-powered.

    Which climate scientist using which model predicted “Global Stilling” as a component of “Climate Change”?

    Or do I remember correctly that, to the extent that “stilling” was associated with “The Pause” or “The Hiatus” in warming, that the measurements and models as of 2019 predicted that winds were actually speeding up.

    https://www.meteorologicaltechnologyinternational.com/news/climate-measurement/after-decades-of-slowing-down-global-windspeeds-are-picking-up.html

    The Princeton study, which was published in Nature Climate Change, … would mean that global windspeeds are set to continue to rise, with positive repercussions for wind energy generation. According to the Princeton team, if the current pattern continues average global power generation could increase by as much as 37% by 2024. (over, presumably, the publication date of 2019)

    Of course, the linked article also says that for decades earlier, wind speeds were falling, all the while governments were encouraging and even subsidizing wind-powered generation, in response to “Climate Change”. The climate was changing, they said, in a way that made windmills less useful, so build more of them and rely on them more heavily. Uhm, why should we listen to the experts, again?

  20. They’ve got their snouts in a public trough that gets bigger with every hysterical and dishonest claim they make.

    In a commercial environment they’d have been thrown in prison for their fraud, which is way beyond any Enron-style accounting.

    “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it”

    “I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”

    “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? ”

    “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. ”

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years…to hide the decline.”

    Yet now we’re promised a fawning BBC film about the leak of these emails: “Prof Jones became the victim of cyber terrorism with stolen emails used by human-induced climate change deniers to promote their view of global warming ahead of an international conference.

    That’s right: “cyber-terrorism” by “climate change deniers”; not “whistle-blowers” revealing the absolute disgrace that is the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

  21. @ AndyF

    What you do when all the models diverge is to normalise them – in other words add more averaging on top of the house-of-cards shonky assumptions already baked into them.

    Handy the normalisation process always comes up with the answer required.

    BTW, I note the term “human induced” has started to proceed climate change – is there something coming that demonstrates beyond doubt it’s all the fault of the Sun and this is pre-empting that? Once the Doublespeak starts to change you know there must be a reason for it…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *