Discussion > We are wasting our time; all of it.
"What do you consider to be Salby's most significant new interpretations of observed reality and why are the rationalisations and dismissals of his interpretations wrong?"
Raff, to coin a phrase, "If you have to ask, you'll never know".
Or, to express essentially the same thing, if you were genuinely interested in the answer, you'd have already worked it out for yourself.
Martin A
Are we wasting our time? No. For our time is to do as we want. Now I like it here, it satisfies my desire to grumble about AGW hysteria with people who understand and care about the issues. I don't expect to make a difference since the climate is in charge and politicians have to run though this obsession in their own way. If someone influential reads this site and is moved to ask pertinent questions then that's a bonus. That the media has to acknowledge there is opposition is the least we can hope for. Without support of numbers there would be nobody for the media to seek out in those rare moments they want to provide balance or even controversy. If there was no WUWT or Bishop Hill, there would be a need for them, so that people like us have somehere to express ourselves. Twitter is all very well but it often resembles polite Tourette's. So no, my time is not wasted.
What's your excuse Raff?
TinyCO2
You make a good point, TinyCO2. Without sites like this, how could sceptical questions be raised to public awareness? Without sceptical questions being allowed to be raised, where is science?
I fear that my worst fears may soon be realised; I wonder what the excuses will be, and how those as paranoid as Raff will react, should the global temperature plummet over the next few years. Perhaps Raff would explain the snow-fields of summer as yet another ploy by the eeevil corporatists, or an illusion that we poor saps should ignore. At least, having been "wasting our time" commenting on sites like this, we will have good evidence to back us when we say, “Told you so!”
Radical Rodent
"I wonder what the excuses will be, and how those as paranoid as Raff will react, should the global temperature plummet over the next few years."
I think there would be no difference from what we have seen for the "pause" (better termed the halt) in increase of global surface temperature during the past couple of decades:
- There is no statistical evidence that global temperatures have fallen.
- The fall in temperatures was predicted by the climate models all along.
- It is merely something cooked up by the paid stooges of the Koch brothers and is within the bounds of normal variation..
In addition, there would be some who, undoubtedly, would claim that the wind farms, solar panels etc were having the effects promised and were at last moderating climate change.
Martin A
It was indeed a very good post Tiny and it is a post I could not and would not wish to argue with. My title was more of a political statement than a scientific one and I believe we have said in the past that the climate change argument had become more political and less scientific?
Real world action on climate change is now being driven by unelected individuals within the EU and the UN; not by scientists.
Dung
Raff (no idea who you are)
I am surprised that you did not latch onto a discussion Rhoda started a few years ago and which I continued a few months back.The basic discussion was titled; Where is the evidence? (that CO2 is causing or can cause catastrophic golbal warming). To date nobody has been able to post a plausible response.
Dung
Dung,
If Raff could offer evidence of dangerous climate change he would.
There is none to actually offer, so he has to indulge in rhetorical bs.
It is no different really than when a religious cult member resorts to shouting down those who point out that the prophecies and scripture interpretations they chose to cling to are bogus crap.
hunter
Come on Martin, don't be so evasive. Just give me one significant observation that stands up to criticism and supports his hypothesis. Just one.
Tiny, I am just wasting time. But it can be entertaining.
Radical, if temps plung for years without an obvious reason (volcanic etc) then AGW is dead. But if they rise, BH and WUWT will be unaffected, as you are not driven by evidence. What about you, what would it take to convince you that you are supporting the wrong "side"?
Dung, I wasn't around a few months back. I did not see the thread.
Raff
"Just one."
Raff, as one of your heroes once said: "Why should I answer your question when all you want is to find something wrong with it?". But nonetheless, do the following make any sense to you?
1. I found Salby's observation of the correlation (80%) between global temperature and net CO₂ emission and the correlation with "surface conditions" (temperature + moisture) (93%) very surprising.
Only after I had downloaded the publically available data for myself, bandstop filtered it to remove variations at frequency one cycle per year and then lowpass filtered it to remove short term random fluctuations and found that I had produced essentially the same curves as Salby did I believe it.
Gavin Cawley (for whom I have respect, both for the originality of his analyses and for his courtesy in discussion) pointed out that correlation functions are independent of mean values. That is perfectly true, but it would need a much deeper analysis than that to mean that the correlations observed by Salby are irrelevant.
2. Salby pointed out that the satellite record shows that the areas with the highest atmospheric CO₂ concentration are far away from industrial and densely populated areas. I have not seen this addressed or mentioned anywhere by the True Believers.
I'll draw the line at "just two".
Martin A
Raff,
Your hiding from the pause tells us much.
Please name one prediction that has withstood the test of time or reasonable review.
For me, I would be convinced of the merit of the consensus claims regarding the cliamte crisis has merit if any of their predictions of doom actually came true.
hunter
…you are supporting the wrong "side"?A very revealing phrase, Raff. I am not on any “side” other than that of facts; a truth is, or it isn’t; whoever – of whichever “side” – reveals it will not affect my acceptance of it, provided it can be verified. The truth is that global temperatures can fluctuate, as the truth has been revealed that they have fluctuated by significant amounts in times past. The truth is that we have so little understanding of the mechanics of the Earth’s atmosphere that we have been unable to offer any realistic explanations for most of these fluctuations. (Case in point: any liquid flowing through a pipe will interrupt its own flow with turbulence every few metres for reasons as yet unknown; despite the limitations of so few parameters required to be known, it is not yet possible to construct a computer model of this effect, yet you cling to the notion than an entire atmosphere can be modelled. Hmmmm…) The truth is that there is no evidence that any recent rise in temperatures are specifically anthropogenic (or even Mann-made) – however, this does NOT discount the possibility that humans might have had some influence, though such influence might not actually be measurable. The truth is that, though CO2 and other gasses can be shown to exhibit “greenhouse” properties in a laboratory, there is no evidence that these properties have any effect upon global temperatures. The truth is that climates can, and do, change; there is no evidence that anything humans have done has had any significant effect upon the “global climate” (whatever that might be), though there have been noticeable changes in local climates.
If you could provide me with verifiable facts, then I would listen. Unfortunately, you either will not or cannot, merely resorting to ad hominem diatribes and belittling comments. Quite why you think that is a good way of conducting a discussion is a mystery to me.
Radical Rodent
Martin, Salby's correlation conundrum was discussed at length here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
The correlation may be an interesting feature but in no way is it evidence that the CO2 increase is not because of our emissions.
The CO2 satellite record thing that you have not seen discussed is old SCIAMACHY data misused by Salby. See half way down here: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/09/22/cheshire-claim-rupert%20darwall-copies-satellite-co2-nonsense and a more recent try at the same trick here: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-april-fools-prank.html
Radical, I used "side" as shorthand, but you chose instead to hide behind a 300 word smokescreen. I indicated how I would change my mind if the climate facts changed. What global climate changes would it take to change your mind (i.e. to think that AGW is real and serious)?
Raff
Raff, Instead of giving us a link to someone else's words, why not formulate your own arguments (ie not cut and paste). Demonstrate that you understand those arguments.
TinyCO2
Why? It is not about me. Just read it.
And tell me what global climate changes would it take to change your mind.
Raff
Are we wasting our time? No. For our time is to do as we want. Now I like it here, it satisfies my desire to grumble about AGW hysteria with people who understand and care about the issues. I don't expect to make a difference since the climate is in charge and politicians have to run though this obsession in their own way. If someone influential reads this site and is moved to ask pertinent questions then that's a bonus. That the media has to acknowledge there is opposition is the least we can hope for. Without support of numbers there would be nobody for the media to seek out in those rare moments they want to provide balance or even controversy. If there was no WUWT or Bishop Hill, there would be a need for them, so that people like us have somehere to express ourselves. Twitter is all very well but it often resembles polite Tourette's. So no, my time is not wasted.May 17, 2015 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2
That sums up much of my opinion too.
And then there's my favourite Phil Jones Climate-gate email, which causes me mirth and gives me sustenance:
"The internet has allowed all these people to find one another unfortunately.":)
michael hart
Raff, Instead of giving us a link to someone else's words, why not formulate your own arguments (ie not cut and paste). Demonstrate that you understand those arguments.
May 17, 2015 at 7:45 PM TinyCO2
Why? It is not about me. Just read it.
Raff
Raff - I think Tiny said that because he thinks (as I do) you don't have a clue what it's about. Copying and pasting a link to something that impressed you is unlikely to impress readers here. Particularly when your links are to those fonts of truth and learning SkS and Desmog. [And to that bloke who talks about himself in the third person - a classic sign of personality disorder - and who thinks he is a rabbit.]
Your blindly repeating the word "conundrum" used by Gavin Cawley at SkS seems to confirm that you haven't made sense of it. I had already mentioned that GC had pointed out that correlation functions are independent of mean values. Your giving a link to where he does that does not add anything to what has already been said.
And quoting Desmog. Really Raff.
Do you think anyone here will be impressed or convinced of anything by that? Stuff like
The world of climate dismissives often could be Wonderland, although with multiple Mad Hatters. Both have characters who can believe six impossible things before breakfast. Many wrong climate claims seem more like the Cheshire Cat, who could appear as just a floating grin or a bodiless face to avoid beheading.
Climate claims/myths might be called “Cheshire Claims” here. Like the Cat, they appear anywhere and get repeated without checking, no matter how absurd. As the Cat said, “We're all mad in here,” an apt description for attempts to disprove the well-established role of fossil fuels in CO2 rise, using misrepresented satellite data. (...)
As I said before, Salby seems to inspire immense levels of fear in the True Believers. After evidently searching frantically through numerous plots and numerous references, the Desmog writer finally concludes, evidently with great relief:
.....The SCIAMACHY work is consistent with the IPCC and related research papers, not with Salby's Cheshire claim, nonsense that Darwall did not check, either because he did not try or because he lacked relevant expertise. There was a grin, and a face, but they were illusions. There was no cat.
Which Raff translates as "...old SCIAMACHY data misused by Salby".
Yet if you look at recent NASA CO₂ satellite data, what do we see? We see that the high CO₂ concentrations are in areas such as South America and tropical Africa, where there are few people and hardly any industry. Exactly as pointed out by Salby.
Martin A
Raff: facts do not change; facts are, plain and simple. It is merely our understanding of the facts that changes, a completely different thing.
If there was any verifiable evidence presented that indicated that AGW was real and serious, then I would accept that. Unfortunately for you, there is NO evidence for AGW – yep, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, and have done pretty much steadily for several decades… during which time, human consumption of hydrocarbons has risen exponentially – in other words, no real correlation. Okay, the records indicate that there was a rise in global temperatures for a little over 20 years; however, the rate was no different from that of the 30 years prior to WWII, and followed a slow reduction for 30 years; it has also more or less flat-lined for nearly 20 years. Certainly, there is no evidence that any warming that we may yet get to experience is going to take us into dangerous territory; perhaps it might even get to where it was in the mediaeval warming period. So, the “side” I am on is that of the facts. Which “side” are you on?
MartinA: “rabbett” is American for a “rebate”, a recess in woodworking for fitting two pieces together. Not quite sure why there should be an assumed link to Leporidae. I have to admit that anyone who uses any of the sites that Raff tries to link us to has no real understanding of the world.
Radical Rodent
Dung’s headline, stating that “We are wasting our time; all of it” is interesting. However, his thesis, summed up as “We are the new USSR and there is no way back” is nonsense.
Raff’s first four comments are very sensible. Stewgreen disagrees with Dung about our wasting our time with a persuasive analysis of the lack of support for climate alarmism in the recent election, but accuses Raff of attacking a straw man when he takes Dung’s comments about the “new USSR” literally.
Raff then goes off the deep end (though I love “Matt King Coal” and I hope the good Viscount appreciates it).
Thank heaven for MCourtney, BigYinJames and hunter for countering Raff’s riff. At least two of those three are among those regularly referred to in comments here and at WUWT as “leftwing scum”. (Haven’t seen any on this thread yet - just an accusation that Fabians kill billions).
Dung (May 15, 2015 at 3:19 PM) brought the discussion back to the subject with a useful description of EU powers. The idea that Brussels rules has been shot dead this weekend with Cameron and the French PM both telling Juncker to take a running jump with his plan for immigrant quotas. It’s also a finger up to the Italians who are being told they’re on their own when it comes to hundreds of thusands of starving refugees arriving on their shores. European solidarity seems to have withered this weekend, if not died completely.
I agree with TinyCO2 about our time being ours to waste. Small bands of eccentrics in seventeenth century England wasted their time discussing such absurd ideas as universal suffrage and the rights of women.
I’d add to Radical Rodent’s speculation about future temperatures: I wonder what our reaction should be, should we experience a scorching summer in the run-up to the December Paris Conference?
geoffchambers
Geoff: if you read my comment, you will note that I said it is my greatest fear that temperatures will fall, as if they do, history tells us they will probably fall fast. My hope is that the temperatures will resume their gentle rise; a scorching summer would be a nice change.
Radical Rodent
Hello Geoff :)
I sincerely wish my comments were nonsense but they are not. The EU has already declared that there will be an Energy Union that will also include a "forward looking climate policy".These issues will become part of the Aquis Communitaire and even if Cameron wanted to object he can not. The EU are promising to take the same route on immigration so it is either IN or OUT and only Farage is advocating OUT.
Dung
Radical Rodent
I do read your comments. My interest in future temperature movements (of no particular interest otherwise) is the effect they may have on Paris 2015, and therefore on European and world politics. This, I think, is what Dung was hinting at with his reference to us wasting our time. He thinks Europe has already decided everything. But Europe is in delicate health.
We’re a few thousand well-informed blatherers amusing ourselves. A few dozen among us (scientists, journalists, possibly bloggers) have the possibility of perhaps influencing a tiny number of politicians. Paris may change this. A spectacular bust up between the developing world and Europe and the USA is on the cards. This might bring to the fore the latent political differences within Europe which are currently invisible (which is why Dung’s nonsense about EU = USSR is so unhelpful).
Everything depends how Paris is sold by the media. A spectacular failure, with the developing world calling our bluff, and western leaders refusing to show up for a media chatastrophe, would maybe spell the end of global warming hysteria. Something as simple (and irrelevant) as a spectacular Philippines style weather disaster, or a European heatwave, might save the warmists’ bacon.
There’s lots we might do to prepare for these eventualities. I don’t think we’re wasting our time.
geoffchambers
Martin, the SKS piece is by a "Dikran Marsupial". I was unaware that this was Gavin's pen name. I feel suitable ashamed for not knowing, but now I know. But the point that correlation says nothing about the part of data that is not being correlated (the mean) is news to few; neither Salby nor you should not have been among that few but apparently you both were. I wasn't.
Your contempt for the sources obviously impeeded your ability to undrstand what was written. Salby uses a 2008 plot of 2005 data with the year removed. The Desmog article located the original image, describes its pedigree and shows some more up to date images. A sense of humour is probably needed to read the article and I appreciate that might be hard for you, as the humour is directed against Salby/Darwall.
Salby's trick/error using the SCIAMACHY data is exactly the same as yours using the OCO-2 data. Remove your blinkers and look at your own NASA figure. It says Oct 1 - Nov 11 2014, just over a month's worth of data. Are you aware that there is an annual cycle in CO2 that causes the wiggles on the Keeling curve (which BTW you could correlate with something else if you felt so inclined, although it would still tell you nothing about the trend)? Yes of course you are. Do you think looking at 1 month of those wiggles tells you something? No of course you don't. Yet you flourish this image as if it proves something. If your disdain for the Rabett had allowed you, you would have seen it discussed in the link I gave you: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/04/another-april-fools-prank.html Who's the fool?
Radical, so once again, with feeling, what "verifiable evidence" of global climate changes would it take to change your mind?
Geoff Chambers, "Matt King Coal" is indeed good but it was not my invention. I don't know where it originated, but doubtless from other leftwing scum. On imigrants, I tend to see the problem as payback time for our (the rich world) half century or more of feathering our own nests with little thought for (or active oppression of) the other several billion. Many will disagree.
Raff
typo: that should have been "neither Salby nor you should have been among that few"
Raff
I'm really torn on this thread.... Raff is a buffoon troublemaking troll but Dung is a moronic blue-rinse bigot. So in some senses I'm delighted Raff has derailed his thread, even if reading what he says is like chewing a brick.
TheBigYinJames
Raff's cowardice and bluster is a mini-me version of UWA when the collective will of the academics was to have a melt down over the idea of an independent voice at their school.