Elsewhere – in Exeter

“Not quite what I’m likely to say of course”

And why not? Don’t hold back the truth.
Those fearing the sky falling should lie down in a dark room until the hysteria passes, and those planning to attend Baksheesh 28 should securely lock their (taxpayers) wallets before attending.

Oh, and would those who want to freeze to death in the dark please get on with it, and leave us fossil fuel burners alone. Thank you.

But like I’ve said before, the mistake all along has been debating the subject. (This is something any club bouncer knows) Once one enters a dialogue one’s conceding the validity of one’s opponent’s argument. It would have been much better if they’d been told to go forth & multiply in the first place.

“the major crisis facing humanity” rather than, say, the possibility of a vaxxocaust, the effects of Long Lockdown, the nascent WWIII, the chronic economic problems brought on by Central Bank control of fiat currencies, the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the Woke religion, and the demographic problems boiling up? Oh yeah, and the criminal folly of Gain-of-Function research which has, in all probability, already brought us one pandemic.

Instead the major crisis is the wholly imaginary Catastrophic, Anthropogenic Global Warming. Next time I meet someone banging on about CAGW I must ask them about their experience of dealing with Infra Red absorption – say, by using IR Spec in the lab or doing furnace heat transfer calculations – their expertise at mathematical modelling of physico-chemical systems, what their original contribution to finite element methods has been, their experience with fluid mechanics modelling, their expertise at temperature measurement, and their background in statistics.

Poltroonery from “economists” is rather irrelevant except in the sense of saying “even if you naively believe all that bollocks why do you insist on dealing with it in a stupid way rather than an intelligent one?” I suppose the last is your duty Mr W. Give ’em hell.

Bottom line: there is no climate crisis and not a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that there is.
I engage in endless conversations with suggestible people who accuse me of being a climate denier who is driven by self interest.
Having established that the climate has been changing for 100s of millions of years, with temperatures and CO2 levels frequently being much higher than at present, periods known as climate optima because the planet was healthy and abundant during such times, we eventually end up at the “current rate of change is unprecedented”.
Nothing says “I have never actually researched this subject” quite like that claim.
A few figures showing the last 20,000 years of sea level rise and the temperature changes during the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations usually puts them back in their box except for the terminally stupid who don’t know when they are beaten.

Sorry Tim, you’re not a Knight in shining armour trying to defeat their argument – you’ve accepted their basic premise that there really is a problem caused by man burning fossil fuels but favour a different method to solve the delusion. Angels on pinheads and all that.
Good luck all the same.

‘… how economic analysis can help us solve these problems.‘

Just like CoVid, where the ‘problems’ were not caused by the virus, a natural phenomenon beyond Man’s ability to control, but by Government’s response to it; the climate change ‘crisis’ is the crisis wholly manufactured by Government response to a natural, cyclic event beyond Man’s ability to control it.

The solution therefore is rope and sturdy lamp posts.

I prefer my Flipper brushed with olive oil and grilled.

dearieme: Judith Curry has an item on her blog about how difficult CFD is to do well and how the climate modellers really aren’t up to it. Climate models are basically all GIGO so far, and from what the guy says it will be very hard to develop one that isn’t. And if you do, how do you test it?

@TG: my research students have found CFD to be really useful but our interests have been infinitely simpler than The Atmosphere – not least because (i) we get to control the initial conditions, (ii) we have excellent values for the parameters in the equations and boundary conditions, and (iii) we do not have to run many cycles of simulation with the inevitable accumulation of error.

On one thing I plead ignorance. Atmospheric models are multi-variable, nonlinear, and cyclic. You might therefore fear that you’d generate “chaotic” solutions. Has anyone managed to prove that this difficulty does not arise?

“that you’d generate “chaotic” solutions. Has anyone managed to prove that this difficulty does not arise?”

The system is inherently “chaotic”, so expecting any result that isn’t is…well.. ignoring certain basic facts.

As-is, I believe us re-introducing locked-up CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing, up to a certain level. Because the volcanoes stopped doing it for us at levels that keep pace with the fixation by plants a couple 10’s of million years or so.
In fact, the idiocy of net-zero, if implemented at the levels the Greentards/Statists want, will cause the next ice-age to be a long one.
The ice ages themselves are a “warning” in and of themselves we’re at the very bottom range for certain parameters when it comes to keeping this planet comfortably warm enough for us in any appreciable geological timescale to begin with.

But that’s just the opinion of one, of course.

The climate models are tuned using hard-coded parameters instead of properly-derived variables. In fact guess which are adjusted in order to make the models not go crazy. They have checkpoints during each run and if things aren’t going in the right direction the run is stopped. If by chance they run away hot OR cold the results is discarded. The are about 20 models in the ensemble. Each is the proud representative of the nation or organisation which developed it. Some run way hotter than others and way hotter than the observed temperatures. Those models ought to be chucked out of the ensemble, but they aren’t. For instance the Canadian model has run hot for years. It doesn’t get thrown out. Some of the mof=dels do approximate observed temps, but they are at the bottom of the ensemble so their result is rolled in to the mean of the ensemble to get the warmingest result. \\\there is no mathematical or statistical justification to average supposedly unrelated models.

So any graph or prediction using those models is bogus. Tell them that and see if they produce a counter-argument that is not reducible to ‘Denier!!!!!!!!’

For the last 2 years, in the UK we have effectively had a basic income economy. It has rebounded well from the emergency shutdown but it does not look very healthy

(1) So, what _is_ the correct temperature?
(2)Are you suggesting that the climate was in stasis before 1800? Climate change denier!