Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Paris Climate Summit


Recommended Posts

Over most of the life of the planet, satellites were not being put into space and humans were not going to the moon. In fact, we are seeing an unprecedented rate of increase in the number of satellites being put into space, which is well outside what we have seen in the past. The number of people sent to the moon is infinity times greater than the number of people for the rest of the past 4.5 billion years!

Drastic changes are associated with extinction events. All this stuff being sent into space is a drastic change! Therefore, we should ban sending stuff into space, be it communication satellites, telescopes to learn about the universe, etc.

See the ridiculousness of your argument?

No... but I am starting to see the ridiculousness of debating people who make specious and fatuous analogies. Tell me when you're done wasting my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No... but I am starting to see the ridiculousness of debating people who make specious and fatuous analogies. Tell me when you're done wasting my time.

You attack the analogy maker rather than the analogy. What does that tell us?

There is nothing wrong with his analogy. All kinds of wacko things can be proposed using the logic of climate change activism. I can't say that aliens will invade.....but I also can't say they will NOT invade. But obviously, we need to pour incredible resources into building a giant gun to shoot them, because we should be prepared just in case right?

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

No... but I am starting to see the ridiculousness of debating people who make specious and fatuous analogies.

If you make bad arguments, I'll point out why they are bad. Don't blame me for your bad arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with a Taylor approximation? Productivity is likely a continuous function of temperature, and we know that if things get too hot or too cold people become less productive. Therefore, a quadratic approximation may be reasonable.

Yes, and I agree in principle. The problems:

- we ultimately do not know the relationship between productivity and temp, might be continuous, might not be.

- 'too hot' and 'too cold' are not defined. There is as much chance that warming will optimize production, as will diminish it. We have no idea we are on this curve (sort of like tax rates on a laffer curve)

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

- we ultimately do not know the relationship between productivity and temp, might be continuous, might not be.

I see no reason to expect discontinuities.

- 'too hot' and 'too cold' are not defined.

But you can estimate it from empirical data. Clearly 100 C temperature would be bad, and so would -100 C.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason to expect discontinuities.

Even assuming continuity, this gives us almost no useful information on the question. It does not even tell us the direction of the relationship.

But you can estimate it from empirical data. Clearly 100 C temperature would be bad, and so would -100 C.

Even if you have empirical data, you still need to assign a definition of 'too hot'. Obviously 100 degrees would be but that is a moot point since nobody is claiming we are going to 100 degrees. They are claiming we are going to 2-3 degrees above today. Whether that would qualify as 'too hot', is known by nobody.

It is the height of folly to begin economy-wide changes that lower the standard of living and increase costs for everyone, given the above vast uncertainties.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

1/3 or is it even half of the world's population living north of the 60th degree latitude are Finns. The corresponding latitudes in Sweden and Norway are much more thinly populated and the vast areas of Northern-Russia and Northern-Canada are mostly very sparsely populated tundra barely fit for human inhabitation.

We have been reminded time and again and made guilty for our geographic location as we are told living this north is very unecological and to maintain a standard of living of a western country creates a huge carbon footprint. We really have heard of that ad nauseam.

I just wonder why all that has recently been forgotten as all of a sudden high population growth into this place of a huge carbon footprint isn't a problem at all as those people posing as refugees have finally found this place back of the beyond. Does the presence of Iraqis produce a smaller carbon footprint than that of the Finns?

Just wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

source/cite to your claim that there has been, as you say, "no trend for significant warming for nearly 20 years".....

No-Warming-18-years-7-months-July-2015.p

oh my! Only the fringe of fringe deniers actually dispute warming! :lol: Let's examine:

- out of all the available data measurement options, you've chosen satellite tropospheric data from RSS. I'm surprised you didn't rally further around your boy Spencer and choose UAH satellite measurements... oh wait, that wouldn't fit your denial, would it?

- why not expound on why you decided to pick satellite data... the result of which isn't actually a direct measurement of temperature and why you chose RSS? Surely it's not because there's a recognized problem with RSS is it? Why your boy Spencer has even offered his own thoughts on why there's a ever growing divergence (since 2010) between RSS and UAH satellite data... Spencer has stated that he believes, "that increasing levels of diurnal drift are to blame for the divergence between UAH and RSS; suggesting that the satellites RSS uses are older and unable to maintain stable orbits. Whatever is causing the divergence between the 2 satellite measuring systems, there is recognition some degree of bias currently exists within the RSS data.

- of course RSS is also known for a smaller coverage area of the globe, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. Notwithstanding, whether RSS or UAH, presented trends are typically inclusive of cooling stratospheric bias... perhaps you can find something that has excluded this bias, hey!

in any case, back in the real world, the following represents 3 separate global temperature trends over the same period you chose (1996-2015)... as I've presented in prior threads, you can choose your own parameters in this interactive page hosted by Dr. Kevin Cowtan within the University of York website - enjoy!

zqtaL1F.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you have empirical data, you still need to assign a definition of 'too hot'.

Regress the logarithm of productivity on temperature, temperature squared and other explanatory factors. Now you have an estimate of productivity as a function of temperature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regress the logarithm of productivity on temperature, temperature squared and other explanatory factors. Now you have an estimate of productivity as a function of temperature.

But you still don't know the direction of the effect. Furthermore, depending on the variables you put in, the 'effect' could range from nothing to enormous. So yes, it can be modeled. But no, if you don't actually know the values of any of the variables going into that model/equation, it is not very helpful.

And also that is not answer to my question, which about how you define 'too hot'. You still need a definition, to know if your regression reveals that you have met it.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

But you still don't know the direction of the effect.

You can estimate that.

Furthermore, depending on the variables you put in, the 'effect' could range from nothing to enormous.

You just have to be smart about what other variables you put in, or use akaike's information criterion to determine the best model, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my! Only the fringe of fringe deniers actually dispute warming! :lol: Let's examine:

- out of all the available data measurement options, you've chosen satellite tropospheric data from RSS. I'm surprised you didn't rally further around your boy Spencer and choose UAH satellite measurements... oh wait, that wouldn't fit your denial, would it?

- why not expound on why you decided to pick satellite data... the result of which isn't actually a direct measurement of temperature and why you chose RSS? Surely it's not because there's a recognized problem with RSS is it? Why your boy Spencer has even offered his own thoughts on why there's a ever growing divergence (since 2010) between RSS and UAH satellite data... Spencer has stated that he believes, "that increasing levels of diurnal drift are to blame for the divergence between UAH and RSS; suggesting that the satellites RSS uses are older and unable to maintain stable orbits. Whatever is causing the divergence between the 2 satellite measuring systems, there is recognition some degree of bias currently exists within the RSS data.

- of course RSS is also known for a smaller coverage area of the globe, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. Notwithstanding, whether RSS or UAH, presented trends are typically inclusive of cooling stratospheric bias... perhaps you can find something that has excluded this bias, hey!

in any case, back in the real world, the following represents 3 separate global temperature trends over the same period you chose (1996-2015)... as I've presented in prior threads, you can choose your own parameters in this interactive page hosted by Dr. Kevin Cowtan within the University of York website - enjoy!

zqtaL1F.png

Cowton well-intended error is that he just added in data where there was none (infilling). Because there were not enough land records (due to lack of measurement in the artic and antartic), he just supplemented it with satellite data of his choosing. Obviously taking data from two sources introduces a selection bias. And what a shock, the entire change in the 'pause' comes from his own changes to the raw data, as shown here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cowtan-wray_before-after.jpg?w=720

We have the same problem in medicine when combining patient groups with different characteristics and trying analyze. It is a form of bias. This is widely known, it is a basic statistical principle.

The irony is that the satellite data alone, or the land data alone, show little to no increase. It is only when you mix them into a special brew, modified for maximum impact as Cowton did, that you get the bogeyman you are looking for.

And of course, the yet unanswered problem of how most climate models badly overestimate temperature, and how Spencer's model does better, remains. Believe it or not, even a large number of emoticons, lol's and exclamation points in your posts cannot change that.

There is no perfect model, but why we would believe models the IPCC relies on even while they fail to reflect observed data, is unclear.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot estimate a direction. You have to first know the direction, and know some of the variables, at which time equations for estimates become usable. No quadratic equation will give you the direction. For every variable, you need to tell it - or +

You just have to be smart about what other variables you put in, or use akaike's information criterion to determine the best model, etc.

The problem is not about knowing what variables you want (although certainly some we do not know). It is knowing the value of those variables. You need actual numbers, or your equation has nothing to crunch. And if you are going to say we can estimate the variables, that is circular.

Put another way, if I have a simple equation like x + y = z, and also I know that (x/a) + b2c/d = e, but I do not have a single reliable number for any of x,y,z,a,b,c or d, then I can't really do much can I?

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowton's main claim to fame is that he just added in data where there was none (infilling). Because there were not enough land records (due to lack of measurement in the artic and antartic), he just supplemented it with satellite data of his choosing. We have the same problem in medicine when combining patient groups with different characteristics and trying analyze. It is a form of bias. This is a fairly basic statistical principle.

Not trying to account for lack of instrumental coverage results in representation error, which biases the results. Krigging is the best way to overcome this and results obtained from Krigging have the property of being the best linear unbiased estimator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging). Not krigging is insane, which means that the best temperature data sets are BEST and Cowtan & Way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to first know the direction

No, you really don't.

For every variable, you need to tell it - or +

Why do you think this? On what basis?

Put another way, if I have a simple equation like x + y = z, and also I know that (x/a) + b2c/d = e, but I do not have a single reliable number for any of x,y,z,a,b,c or d, then I can't really do much can I?

You haven't distinguished between what is your dependent variable, what are your explanatory variables, and what are the parameters you wish to estimate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to account for lack of instrumental coverage results in representation error, which biases the results. Krigging is the best way to overcome this and results obtained from Krigging have the property of being the best linear unbiased estimator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging). Not krigging is insane, which means that the best temperature data sets are BEST and Cowtan & Way.

Kriging only makes sense if the under-represented areas are not dramatically different from the sampled one in a given area. Surely we can agree that it goes without saying that the arctic is very different than the rest of the earth and also in a different location (captain obvious). If we cannot agree, refer to my previous link for an explanation of why it in fact is not similar, and thus why Kriging is inappropriate.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you really don't.

Why do you think this? On what basis?

You haven't distinguished between what is your dependent variable, what are your explanatory variables, and what are the parameters you wish to estimate.

Maybe I'm explaining it badly, I'll try again later.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope some good solutions to our problems come about from this summit. I hope it isn't a waste of time and money going to it. Time will tell.

The waste of time and money going into this meeting, is a fraction of a drop of a bucket compared to the potential waste of time and money coming out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowton's main claim to fame is that he just added in data where there was none (infilling). Because there were not enough land records (due to lack of measurement in the artic and antartic), he just supplemented it with satellite data of his choosing. Obviously taking data from two sources introduces a selection bias. And what a shock, the entire change in the 'pause' comes from his own changes to the raw data, as shown here:

none of those 3 examples I presented use the Cowtan/Way datasets, either the krigging or hybrid methodologies they used... notwithstanding you clearly don't know what you're talking about as you're speaking to the hybrid approach with your reference to the inclusion of satellite data... and... none of those 3 examples I presented are using the hybrid approach.

quite clearly you denier types don't like approaches that aim to compensate for the absence of proper station coverage in isolated areas... particularly those isolated areas of the earth where the most warming has occurred/is occurring (like the Arctic... like areas within Africa...).

but hey now, you've completely avoided my requests asking you to speak to why you chose RSS satellite data - is there a problem for you here?

.

The irony is that the satellite data alone, or the land data alone, show little to no increase. It is only when you mix them into a special brew, modified for maximum impact as Cowton did, that you get the bogeyman you are looking for.

bullshyte! I provided the link to that York University site that allows you to pick your own dataset, land only, land&ocean, global or satellite... try it... you won't like it! That's also not the only site that allows this type of interactive parameter driven option to arrive at trending results across the assortment of datasets... would you like more?

.

And of course, the yet unanswered problem of how most climate models badly overestimate temperature, and how Spencer's model does better, remains. Believe it or not, even a large number of emoticons, lol's and exclamation points in your posts cannot change that.

you keep stating climate models badly overestimate temperature... repeating your unsubstantiated claim means nothing! Step up and support your claim - source/cite:

you can keep nattering about that simplistic Spencer model... it has no merit in relation to legitimate climate models... it does not properly simulate climate no matter how hard you keep flogging it. Notwithstanding you keep making your grandiose statements about the model and all you've provided is a link to the abstract of that paper you're beating on... the abstract which states absolutely nothing about model comparisons. I highlighted this once already and somehow you just can't manage to provide a link to the full Spencer paper... is there a problem for you?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... based on models that cannot even reliably predict temperatures today when data points from decades past are inputted.

source/cite to your claim that models don't, as you say, "reliably predict temperatures today"

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what, as you say, direct reliance does the IPCC have upon the political process? I've related the mandate of the IPCC... and I've spoken to how (some of) it's reports aren't completed/released until formal acceptance by representatives of participating countries. If you presume to suggest some irregularity in report findings based on your undeclared/unspecified "direct reliance"... I suggest you provide clarity in that regard.

If IPCC reports are not released until acceptance by political bodies, that is an obvious source of bias. Science is not supposed to depend on politicians. Why you believe this dependence is advantageous, is known only to you.

again, you clearly know nothing about the IPCC process... that sure doesn't stop you from casting derision towards it over and over again, hey!

there are 2 report groupings that are "signed off" by participating government representatives... the Summary for Policymakers report and reports related to respective nation emission inventories. The sole reason for the sign off of that summary report is to allow government representatives the opportunity to scrutinize it... to make sure it reflects the underlying content/data in all other IPCC reports... particularly the underlying physical science basis, technical summaries, synthesis, etc.. There is no, as you say, "science depending on politicians"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The waste of time and money going into this meeting, is a fraction of a drop of a bucket compared to the potential waste of time and money coming out of it.

Lol. Very nice.

However I'm not so pessimistic. I am a conservative yet I firmly care about the environment and want to see it protected. Maybe even take over all natural resource harvesting from private companies.

We need to reinstate protections to our fresh water for one. Very important.

If Trudeau can do something on this file and stand with Israel I may vote for his party next election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we cannot agree, refer to my previous link for an explanation of why it in fact is not similar, and thus why Kriging is inappropriate.

The link is just an image, I don't know which blog post its from. From memory, the only relevant criticism for Cowtan & Way is that it is using primarily Arctic land measurements to estimate changes in the Arctic Ocean. Since oceans tend to have lower sensitivity than land, this arguably results in an overestimation of the change in Arctic Temperature. However, I'm pretty sure that BEST deals with this problem.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...