Harold W

I did not pick the 13C null hypothesis out of the air. I looked for a physics based calculation.

Can you reference your 15C model? You cannot pull figures out of the air. The null hypothesis has to be based on physics.

I remind you that that the GISS baseline 0.0C anomaly=14.0C=287K. a 1.6 units difference is the same size in Anomaly, C or K.

Somewhere back along the discussion I noted that there are other factors affecting real world temperatures; albedo, aerosols, solar cycles etc. Filtering these out to identify the effect of CO2 is what professionals spend years studying. I am not going to match that here.

Tiny CO2

"Debate. What effing debate?"

Raff and I are here, debating on your ground. You complain about the lack of debate, yet make us very unwelcome. Make your mind up. ☺

Tiny CO2, Martin A

Raff and I come to BH to debate the science. This gives you an opportunity to beta test the scientific arguments against what you facetiously call CAGW, before using them in more important debates. Do you do so? No, you try to drive us away by calling us trolls and worse. What a wasted opportunity!

Perhaps this is the sort of forum Tiny CO2 had in mind.

A court in the Netherlands found that under tort law the government was failing to sufficiently protect its citizens from future climate change.

If you were the defence, would you have argued against the probability of dangerous global warming? If so, what evidence would you have presented? In such a forum both sides have to prove their case. You cannot dodge the issue and say that the onus lies elsewhere.

EM, this is a little known but well loved web site, it's not where the 'debate' should take place. It should be before the world, nationally and/or internationally. The judges being the public. People from both sides of the debate get to tell their side, with rebuttals and counter, counter claims.

"If you were the defence, would you have argued against the probability of dangerous global warming?" EM.

No, I'd lay out what was known and unknown about the science and the solutions and said 'you decide'. Probabilities are pointless when there's so much uncertainty. The answer wouldn't be a yes/no it would be in the form of what people want to do. How much will they venture now as opposed to later?

The current policy is to lie, lie and lie again and then boo hoo when the public flip AGW the finger and get on with their lives.

As for trying me for AGW crimes - first you'd have to work out what law I'd broken. Second you'd have to prove I'd done what you think I'd done.I'm assuming that that would be delaying action on AGW. That would be a minefield of detecting my influence and working out what would have happened without it. Third you'd have to prove that my part in it was greater than say Dr Mann who is responsible for a lot of scepticism. Fourth, you'd have to offset my personal actions compared to someone like Prince Charles, or even an average UK citizen. I'd score quite highly on the saving the planet scale. Along the way you might have to prove I knew that what I was doing was harmful and I wasn't just wrong headed.

How long will this trial be? It might take a while to get a conviction and in the meanwhile I might make more converts for the sceptic side than the warmist one. And if I type way too much I talk a helluva lot more.

Seriously, does it not bother you EM that a prime time news reader for the BBC and/or research team doesn't know that it won't warm 4 degrees C in the next 15 years? It doesn't bother you that Obama thinks that current warming is worse than scientists had predicted? That level of ignorance of the science should bother everyone involved. There are lies told on a daily basis, both knowingly and through ignorance. It says that there hasn't been anywhere near enough discussion about the simple stuff, let alone the complex.

If AGW is going to be catastrophic then it will require an extraordinary response from the public. You can't trick them into it. The sooner warmists start telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the sooner you'll get the response you want... assuming the public see it your way.

Tiny CO2

No need for panic. I had you cast as the defence barrister.

Probabilities are the measure of uncertainty. You say that you would describe the uncertainties, but you cannot, since you cannot quantify them.

I , on the other hand, know what the uncertainties are. I can say that there is a significant warming trend and that the pause was not significant. I can be confident that CO2 has caused the majority of the observed warming. I can provide projections of future warming and tell you the margins of error. All of that can be demonstrated mathematically.

All your side can do is waffle. I watched James Delingpole last weekend and my main emotion was pity for the poor bloke.

EM

I did not pick the 13C null hypothesis out of the air. I looked for a physics based calculation.

Followed later by

Somewhere back along the discussion I noted that there are other factors affecting real world temperatures; albedo, aerosols, solar cycles etc. Filtering these out to identify the effect of CO2 is what professionals spend years studying. I am not going to match that here.

So from that I take it that one of your beliefs is that, for the first time in the history of mankind, scientists have pinned down all the variables and all their effects exactly? In which case I'm impressed by your unquestioning faith, but not a lot else.

EM, what you know and that you think you know are irrelevant. Ditto each and every scientist or activist or bystander (on both sides). It only matters who you can persuade and how much they are persuaded. It's very easy to get people to tick a box. The proof needed is relatively low and yet 50% resist putting an X in the climate change box. It's a little harder to get them to give you a pound . As the cost and the inconvenience rise, the proof needed to motivate people gets higher. Simple concept. So why, when people refuse to believe climate change theory (which might be right), is it assumed they are in denial? The simple answer is that the proof isn't good enough.

At this point every warmist I've ever conversed with becomes an idiot and confuses 'truth' with 'convincing'. They're so busy fighting an imaginary battle and defending their cause that they can't accept that simple concept. Hopefully you'll grasp it, although I have my doubts.

Can you see that irrespective of the truth, climate science is failing to convince?

I , on the other hand, know what the uncertainties are. I can say that there is a significant warming trend and that the pause was not significant. I can be confident that CO2 has caused the majority of the observed warming. I can provide projections of future warming and tell you the margins of error. All of that can be demonstrated mathematically.

All your side can do is waffle. I watched James Delingpole last weekend and my main emotion was pity for the poor bloke.
Jun 24, 2015 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Wow.

That is scraping it, EM. Even by your standards. I really do wonder if there is anything that could dent your self-belief in the face of conflicting evidence. Let's have a look at one of your previous surfeits of confidence over competence, from the "Predictions for 2014" thread:

El Nino

All temperature records except HadCRUt4 show record global land/ocean temperature.

Mar 13, 2014 at 1:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

How did that go?
Ouch, as they say.
Sure, anyone can get unlucky with predictions. That's why generally I steer clear, except for humour. But you sounded like you really believed yourself, again, and got it wrong. Just by eye-balling the data, it was a no-brainer. And I said so.

You just don't learn. Saying you are right doesn't make it true, or necessarily mean that it will become true.

Out of interest, when you were merely droning on at schoolchildren like a badly printed textbook, how did you treat kids in your classes who seemed oblivious to facts?

I'm confused I recognise what EM says he believes but everything he believes is based on one pivotal hypothesis; Increasing CO2 will increase temperature. A hypothesis that falls down by any standards in observation. Temperatures have increased (and declined MWP to LIA) with no discernible change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere - with the exception of CO2 increasing after a rise in temperature. We've had 65 years, or so, of record rises in CO2, for 20 of those years not much happened, then for thirty years there was a rise in temperature, for the last 18 years nothing much has happened.

That's evidence by any standards, there is little uncertainty in that evidence. Yet EM is constantly going on about us not being persuaded by evidence - which in his case is the output of computers, I wonder sometimes what this is all about, and how such evidence can be ignored by the EMs of this world.

If I may, could I just put my view about what "uncertainty" means in science. It means you have a theory but you're not certain because all experiments have confirmed your theory, you still can't put it together with you're hypothesis.

What it doesn't mean is that your hypothesis is right but you don't quite know why. Subtle I know, but different if you are advocating policy uncertainties..

In climate science "uncertainties" mean huge gaps in knowledge, failed experiments, contra-observations, and failed forecasts can be ignored on the grounds that there are always "uncertainties" in science.

I won't even go near to the claims that the cliscis can foretell the future state of the climate and it's associated catastrophic weather conditions. Nor will I address the myriad other camp followers who are forecasting the increase in bird flu, extinction of the blue whale, shortage of tennis balls, freezing winters in Thailand, lack of roses for Prince George's wedding and all the other outputs from febrile minds of stupid, overpaid researchers.

Sandy, on explanations:
A: already given

B: the degree of warming we can expect is very uncertain. The effects are consequently also uncertain. So it is hard to say it "will be" serious, as the question asked. If it turned out to be only 1C since 1880 for double CO2 and emissions are cut (avoiding higher levels), there might be no serious consequences. Neither of those seems the most likely outcome though.

C: How can I know your motivation? There is quite a range of people from idiotic to clever. I don't believe anyone with a "love of truth" would be able to support such a dishonest blog, its comments or discussions. But neither do I believe people have been directly "brainwashed by sinister organisations", although many skeptic memes lapped up by some people probably do come originally from self interested PR/think-tank/astro-turf groups. If anyone is paid for their comments here I'd be amazed at the stupidity of their sponsor - paying people to post away from home would be a better use of funds.I imagine for most people it just provides a social and entertainment need that is unmet elsewhere.

D: the chances of several degrees more warming happening in the next 100 years seem to be not insignificant according to all probability distributions I've seen, maybe 10%. I'm not confident that a 3 degrees warmer world would not have some very bad consequences.

But where did your 1 in 100,000 come from? It corresponds to no research I've ever seen.

And Martin, where did your 1 in 1000 chance of "an overnight ice age return" come from? What does "overnight" mean in this context and what would cause it? You were previously dismissive of the forcing from CO2 doubling or any probability distribution resulting from it, yet you suddenly pull this startled rabbit out of your hat.

Sandy S

You may have heard of the "God of the gaps". As science has come to explain more of the world in scientific terms, the areas for which God can be deemed to control has shrunk to the gaps . These are the areas not yet explained by science.

In climate science a similar process has taken place. As monitoring of Earth's energy budget becomes more comprehensive the main components have been identified and quantified.

I would not presume to claim that "all the variables and all their effects" have been identified., However the uncertainty gaps into which any new variables might fit are small. We can be confident that no major variable has been overlooked.

Radical Rodent

A regular sceptic propaganda memes is that the uncertainties are larger than the statistical calculations of confidence limits describe.

Is this just your belief or can you give me numbers?

You misread the Met Office report. RCP8.5 projects a 4C rise worldwide. Since the warming is smallest in the Antarctic and highest in the Arctic, and higher in NH winters than summers it is reasonable to project Northern European winters 6C warmer. What the solar minimum might do is to fractionally reduce that +6C to +5.9C.

Radical Rodent

2000 Indian deaths.

Tiny CO2

Following the 2008 crash, large institutional investors – most notably, CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement Systems – sued the rating agencies. In the CalPERS case, filed against Moody’s, the court brushed away the agencies traditionally successful defenses, and approved the suit going forward on the basis of a negligent misrepresentation claim. The CalPERS appellate court opinion quoted an expert who said the ratings agencies “had no empirical or logical basis of assumption” for the ratings it gave to the financial products CalPERS purchased. Moody’s settled – a development that would have been almost impossible to conceive a few years earlier.

Based on Moody’s handling of the Adjani bonds, one could easily imagine a similar expert opinion in a climate lawsuit, and a similar outcome.

This is another scenario in which the ability to make a good sceptic case in court is essential.If Andrew Montford or others are reading this; you need more than propoganda. You need a sceptic case which can stand up to expert cross-examination in court. Without it your backers are going to be hammered.

geronimo

"f I may, could I just put my view about what "uncertainty" means in science. It means you have a theory but you're not certain because all experiments have confirmed your theory, you still can't put it together with you're hypothesis.

What it doesn't mean is that your hypothesis is right but you don't quite know why. Subtle I know, but different if you are advocating policy uncertainties."

Not far out.

Though each experiment so far has confirmed your hypothesis there are still two possible reasons why it may be wrong.

One is chance. It is possible that measurements may not represent reality because random variation made them unrepresentative. Statistics tells you how likely that is, and therefore how much confidence you can have that the agreement between results and hypothesis is real.

Secondly, there is always the possibility that the next experiment will show your hypothesis to be wrong. Since this is an unknown, you can never be absolutely certain. This is why important or dangerous hypotheses like relativity and climate change continue to tested in new ways..

"Earlier, I asked what should be a fairly easy question for you to answer, but you have ignored it, so let me repeat it: what damage that can be attributed to climate change have we had, so far, and what damage do you feel is soon to become evident? (If anyone else feels that they can answer that, please do not hold back, as I would really like to know.)"

According to the EM-DAT CLIMATE DISASTER DATABASE, climate related deaths went down from a peak of 0.75M in the 20s and 30s to around 0.1 climate related deaths in 2013. You can't pick one country as an example of how we're affected by climate change, so these are global figures.

"Not far out."

EM it's always pleasing if someone agrees with you, but you appear to have overlooked my main points which were:

1. The hypothesis for CO2 causing atmospheric warming has been proved WRONG by both observations and forecasts.

2. The climate science community and their camp followers are using "uncertainty" which is clearly what I've defined it as, in a different way. They are using "uncertainty" to drive through policies on scientific hypotheses that have failed the empirical tests. That isn't uncertainty if a hypothesis fails to do what was predicted, or physical evidence is found that it has previously failed to do what is predicted, there are no uncertainties, it is WRONG.

Geronimo

"1. The hypothesis for CO2 causing atmospheric warming has been proved WRONG by both observations and forecasts."

So people here keep telling me. Somehow the evidence is never available.

On uncertainty , Wikipedia has useful content. You will find my view of uncertainty under Measurement. Which section best describes your view?

Geronimo

Regarding climate related deaths, have you considered the effect of improved preparation and disaster relief on death rates?

Typhoon Hyan was the strongest on record, but the country it hit was well prepared. There were casualties, but how do they compare with the death rate if the same storm had hit 50 years ago? Beware oversimplified global numbers, when the real effect are felt locally.