« Federal Overreach at Local Level Grows Unabated | Main | Ruminations - 13oct13 (updated) »

12 October 2013

Comments

Russ Steele

For a more detailed analysis of the failure to add better science please check out Steve McIntyre's analysis at Climate Audit HERE and HERE.

It is clear that the IPCC is hiding from the fact their models cannot deal with the solar impact on the global temperatures. If they did the CO2 impact would shrink to insignificant. But, that does not fit the IPCC model for global wealth redistribution.

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.– Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III.

George Rebane

RussS 728am - The intent of this post on IPCC's AR5 was NOT to add another entry in the long litany of AGW's bad science as presented in their latest report; no one much pays attention to that any more. My intent was to conclude from evidence and state unambiguously that global warming science has been corrupt and hasn't been worth a crap for the last thirty years. I don't see anyone else using what Shaviv compiled to make that indictment, most certainly McIntyre did not come out and say that. That is why I believe this is the smoking gun that should lay IPCC's dire warnings to rest were science the tool used for assessing such warnings. Alas, that is not the case.

Russ Steele

OK!

fish

As Shaviv correctly points out, the resulting output measurables from any theory claiming to be scientific will converge as the theory becomes more mature in the sense that it is exercised and experimented with over the years by various competent investigators. But such error bounds will only become smaller if the theory proves to be correct in how it describes the realworld.

I'm not sure that refinements of their climate models don't include additional variables in the models. Each addition brings it own uncertainty which might explain the lack of convergence. I admit to being in way over my head here though.

Personally I thought the quote that Russ posted was the best explanation of the matter possible in two sentences.

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.– Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III."

Money is all this has ever been about. Politicians wanted to monetize fear and this was the best thing since sliced bread. Wars eventually end....this nonsense could go on forever.

George Rebane

fish 1150am - Edenhofer's comment is a restatement of longheld positions by the community of AGW skeptics - it is again welcome, but nothing new.

Your comment about "additional variables" as model "refinements" does not excuse their added contribution to reliability and error. No theory (as expressed by a model) is vindicated by adding complexity which does not contribute to reliability - Occam rejects it. Those familiar with complex systems modeling know that adding variables and commensurate feedback and feed forward loops is done primarily to better fit the data record. However such embellishments are no guarantee that the predictive power of the model is thereby enhanced.

For the tech savvy reader. In freshman science courses the student is asked to demonstrate this fact of life for himself by fitting a low order polynomial (model) to the first, say, half of a noisy dataset generated by some known process. An error metric is computed (e.g. RSS) and the student then fits the same data window with a higher order polynomial, and lo, its RSS error is smaller. This nonsense can go on to any length desired - finally, selecting the order to be equal to the number of data points will cause the polynomial model to go through ('osculate') every point in the data window. But alas, continuing such a polynomial - i.e. computing the model - past its data window demonstrates the catastrophe that results. This principle is also encountered and replicated with more sophisticated models that even include the latest (best theory) transfer functions of known realworld processes embedded in the overall model.

Walt

"IPCC computer models" equates to " garbage in,,, garbage out".

"The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."

Just what in Hell is that supposed to mean? The resources of the U.S.
belongs to us. ( the legal citizens of these 50 states) And are not for the divvying up by some "ambassador". The "not" Agenda 21 again?

Gregory

Walt, from the beginning, the IPCC was tasked with seeing how bad the anthropomorphic global warming problem was, and to negotiate treaties to transfer wealth from the 1st world (the ones who have used most of the fuel to date) to the 3rd world who would be the victims having born the brunt of the damage.

Why else would an Indian railway engineer turned economist be the chair of the IPCC?

To back down from the conclusions drawn before the studies began would mean kissing off the wealth transfers the group was formed to facilitate.

fish

So it's about the money then?

Hmmm....good to know!

Russ Steele

Dave Burton writes at Watts Up With That, it is politics all the way down.

Anthony,

The IPCC replied promptly to my inquiry ... and they surprised me, twice:

1. They say that the just released “final” draft of the AR5 WG1 Report isn’t really final after all, but the Summary for Policy Makers is final; and

2. They say the “underlying chapters” may be revised for consistency with the SPM.

Does that seem backwards, to you? The SPM is the political statement. The “underlying chapters” are (supposedly) the science. So they’re saying that they may still need to revise the science to make it consistent with the political statement. . . .
Full report is here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/

It appears the science is being changed to support the policy statement, which is pure politics. The stated politics is wealth distribution, taking from the 1st World and giving it to the 3rd World. I guess the 2nd World is just screwed, except for the increase in crop production from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

George Rebane

fish 506pm - while Gregory is spot on, your "Hmmm...good to know" serves it's own purpose. See how we all educate one another ;-)

Bill Tozer

When you brainiacs start using all these big words for whats going on, I resort to simpler small words like lie, steal and cheat. Occasionally I will add a syllable or two and use big words such a hoodwink or horn-diddled or the common term "bamboozled".

Lets take a look at current events. 750,000 herd of cattle perished in South Dakota this week. Seems they done froze to death in October. Yep, October with a capital O. 250,000 sheep done became icicles in Ireland. And hundreds of thousands of llamas went belly up in the bitter cold of the Chilean Andres. Or were they hardy alpacas? They all look alike to me. Maybe a million of them furry llamas and/or alpacas that have lived for centuries in that climate in that elevation might thaw out someday. Boy, what a stink that will be.

How many innocent creatures will have to die a horrible frozen death before our animals lubbers around the globe stand up and take notice?? This is a crisis.

Yes, you idiots. We will all be like fried Twinkies at the Iowa State Fair. Burnt to a crisp cause of Global Warming. But that will be long after our next Ice Age.

http://iceagenow.info/

Bill Tozer

Somebody forgot to tell me the issue is settled, done deal. The LA Times has announced it will refuse to publish letters from climate change deniers. Deniers meaning that humans may not be causing man caused global warming. No debate necessary.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story

Todd Juvinall

This is what the lamestreams always do. They chose what gets printed and anything they disagree with does not. Thank goodness the only people reading the LA Times are the homeless on the streets who use it as toilet paper.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad