Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Comments 1351 to 1400:
-
CORK at 00:44 AM on 7 September 2023It's cooling
Oui, merci.
Moderator Response:[PS] As previously stated, this is off-topic. You are welcome to post comments on the relevant threads and you have indicated that you have in fact looked over the "Climate's changed before" thread. If you want to continue that discussion and dispute the debunking of this and other papers offered there, then do it on that thread not here. Offtopic comments get deleted.
-
Eclectic at 00:38 AM on 7 September 2023It's cooling
Cork @336 ,
Merci , for your Cedric Ringenbach reference link, on the other thread ("Climate's Changed Before" = Most Used Climate Myths No. 1. )
Ringenbach's concerns over the contradiction of temperature/CO2 lag . . . are greatly discussed on Most Used Climate Myths No. 12 ~ which is accessed on the top left corner of this page (which you may already be aware of).
-
michael sweet at 00:28 AM on 7 September 2023Climate's changed before
Cork:
Your link is an article from 2012. I see nothing that relates to your previous posts. The conclusions of the link are the same asw what we discuss here at SkS. What is your point?
The moderators often delete link only posts. You have to say why the link is interesting, not just say it is interesting. It was a waste of my time.
-
CORK at 00:22 AM on 7 September 2023It's cooling
In the last GIEC report a difference is made between CO2 records in geological times: C02 would raise 1000 years after the spike in temperature (melting of ice and erosion of sediments etc... = delayed release) and CO2 records in recent times, CO2 increasing 50 years before a spike in temperatures. And they insist that both phenomenons occur at the same time of course and may feed each other.
Over the last 150 years, the spike in temperatures occurring after a spike in CO2 would be very bad news indeed.
-
CORK at 00:07 AM on 7 September 2023Climate's changed before
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/11/22/vous-etes-ici/
It is in french but it is worth reading.
Moderator Response:[PS] Nope it isnt. Long ago debunked and not relevant to this topic. Link only posts are permitted by comments policy. The correct way to engage is first choose the appropriate place, make your argument and use links to published literature to support your argument.
-
Eclectic at 23:59 PM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
Cork @330 : I would answer slightly differently from Bob Loblaw ~ and I hope I may give my answer here in this thread, for the sake of continuity.
English language has horrible spelling, and an overly-rich vocabulary (which can be useful for nuances of meaning, as well as for the artistic appeal of literary style). Nevertheless the English language, like most other languages (possibly excepting Japanese? ) can also be used in a simple effective manner - like a hammer - to convey ordinary meanings.
Cork, my protest was not against your literary style, but against the ideas that you wrote.
For example, your sentence: "The anomaly of the temperatures of the last 150 years may just be an anomaly." There are technical scientific meanings of "anomaly". Here it is not clear what you mean by an "anomaly" ~ but you seem to be using the word anomaly in its ordinary Oxford Dictionary sense of: "irregularity, deviation from the common or natural order, exceptional condition or circumstance".
If you meant that sort of anomaly . . . then yes, the sudden steep temperature rise in the last 150 years, is certainly an anomaly.
Permit me to answer your question this way ~ by this example :- You, Cork, are walking on a sandy beach; you are alone and no-one is in sight. The sand is pure and white. And then you see a gold coin lying on the beach. The gold coin is an anomaly. You know that there is an explanation for this anomaly ~ someone has dropped the coin there (it did not get there without a mechanism causing a coin to be present).
Likewise, we know the mechanism of rapid rise of CO2 producing the anomalous modern spike in temperature.
Our proxy records of temperature a million or ten million years past, are "smoothed together" over thousands of years, and will not show a sudden short spike (as rapid as our modern spike). Perhaps there were some (few) sudden spikes in ancient geological times ~ but, like the gold coin on the beach, there would need to be a mechanism which produced a spike. And our knowledge of geology and physics tells us that such spike-mechanisms must have happened very rarely.
The important point is that we now have a modern anomaly ~ a rapidly rising temperature, and we know it will continue to rise (since we know the mechanism). And we must tackle this problem. [My apology for this long answer : but I can be more verbose, if you wish ! ]
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:37 PM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
CORK @ 332:
You don't need to join a group to be part of it. You don't even need to be aware that your actions and viewpoints are shared with a larger group.
@33:
The hockey stick is one of many forms of evidence that tells us the current warming is unusual. Like anything else, it can easily be criticized by the uniformed. Should you wish to discuss the hockey stick, this thread is the place to go.
-
CORK at 23:30 PM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
Bob Loblaw @331
The simple answer to why the current warming is due to human emissions of CO2 is "physics". We do have information on past climates through geology - combined with understanding the physics involved. We know what physics can and has affected climate in the past, and we know that those processes do not explain the current warming - unless you also include the effect of CO2.
Yes, I know all this.
That's exactly my point: explain Climate change to the wider public with that type of information. Not with hockey cross curves that can easily be criticised.
Now, good bye.
-
CORK at 23:22 PM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
Bob Loblaw @331
I am not part of a group, thank you.
I'm going to Past Climates. Apologies.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:39 PM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
CORK @ 330:
I see. You're in the group of people that say "how could we possibly know what happened in the distant past?
The simple answer to why the current warming is due to human emissions of CO2 is "physics". We do have information on past climates through geology - combined with understanding the physics involved. We know what physics can and has affected climate in the past, and we know that those processes do not explain the current warming - unless you also include the effect of CO2.
But as the moderator told you in comment 327 - this is getting off topic for this discussion. The moderator pointed you to the thread on past climates. Another post you may benefit from reading is the one on the Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:26 PM on 6 September 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Markp @ 3:
Oh, my. The IPCC does not provide analysis in the sense of crunching data, etc: it collects information from the published scientific literature, and provides a broad overview of the status of the science. It does not do any new research of its own. All the material it presents is based on other publications and research. The authors of the IPCC reports are a subset of the authors that work in climatology, but ultimately the science itself comes from the literature. If you don't like what the IPCC says, you can always go into the literature and see what it says for yourself.
The "Summary for Policymakers" documents are more subject to political pressures. That is where things will get watered down, spin applied, etc. If you disagree with them, look in the full reports for details. If you don't like the full reports, read the literature.
When you say things like "However, much of that information is deeply flawed, according to scientists both inside and outside the organization", expect to get challenged. Such a vague accusation is pretty much worthless in a serious discussion. What information? What flaws? What scientists? What positions do they hold? Most of the IPCC participants are not "members of the organization" - they do this work as part of their normal employment elsewhere. I have worked with people that were involved in the IPCC process. They did not get paychecks from the IPCC. They did not have IPCC membership cards.
"Some people say..." is such a weak, weak, weak argument. Some people say all of science is corrupt. Some people say evolution is wrong. Some people say the world is flat. Some people say the Easter Bunny is real.
To make this vaguely on-topic, John F Clauser says things that are simply way off. Just because he says it does not make it remotely true.
-
michael sweet at 21:49 PM on 6 September 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Markp,
Certainly there are scientists who are doomers like the ones you have linked. The IPCC reports give the low end of scientific thought on warming problems. This was a political compromise. You are correct that the majority of scientists think it will be worse than the IPCC says.
Everyone agrees that 3C warming will be much worse than 2C and 4C will be much worse again. We have to do everything we can to reduce CO2 pollution as much as possible. While we have missed the 1.5C target, we still benefit from the reductions that have taken place.
There are already many people who have given up on trying to solve the warming problem. They think it is too hard. If all scientists take your attitude then it is likely that most countries will give up and the problem will be worse. Scientists like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt know that the situation is very bad. They act to get as much response as possible from governments.
I saw this quote today in CNN:
"Samantha Burgess, deputy director of Copernicus, “The scientific evidence is overwhelming – we will continue to see more climate records and more intense and frequent extreme weather events impacting society and ecosystems, until we stop emitting greenhouse gases,”
How can she say anything stronger?
-
CORK at 21:38 PM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
Eclectic @329
My apologogies for sounding confused. English is not my native language.
"You seem to be saying that global warming (or cooling) cannot be assessed by measuring temperatures":
The anomaly of the temperatures of the last 150 years may just be an anomaly.
How can we be certain that anomalies of temperature did not occur a million year ago or before, when the only sparse data that we have for these times are estimated by proxi?
We compare averaged estimated data (of the geological times) to the measures of today. That does not make sense to me.
-
Markp at 18:14 PM on 6 September 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
I'll admit that the IPCC is the largest organization producing climate analysis, and as such provides the overall best information we have. However, much of that information is deeply flawed, according to scientists both inside and outside the organization. Is it wrong to want that corrected? Because that's all anyone is saying.
Your logic would also have us stop trying to change flaws in our law courts and legal system, flaws in our election system, ad infinitum, because "what we have works and they are doing their best."
Have you read either of the papers I've provided links to? If you haven't, it's unlikely you know anything about the problems you are trying to close everyone's eyes to.
Once again, you do not do yourself favors by refusing to be realistic about the good efforts that have been made to fight climate change, and to pretend there is nothing wrong, or to hold that to say so is some kind of blasphemy, or is unfair or unkind, and to suggest that rather than try to shed light on things that need improving if we are to have a fighting chance here, that we should just keep our mouths shut, close our eyes and offer thanks and praise.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:02 AM on 6 September 2023Climate Confusion
Eclectic @45,
I agree with the understanding "...though it's likely that "Reduced Consumption" by the general public would be a very hard sell".
But I maintain the importance of understanding the need to limit the over-consumption of those who have developed a liking for consumption that is beyond what is necessary. I would also argue that there is plentiful evidence that 'lower cost' is a crude, and potentially very damaging, measure of merit, advancement or improvement. 'Less harmful' is almost always more difficult and more expensive.
The 'best future for humanity', including the least climate impact harm done, can be understood to be achieved by the most significant reduction of unnecessary consumerism, including the ending of harmful activity that developed popularity and profitability. Reduced consumption reduces the harm done during the transition period where harmful unsustainable activity is ended.
Correcting any harmful unsustainable ways of 'enjoying life more' that have become popular or profitable is 'a hard sell'. That sentiment applies to every identified necessary climate impact change, including the need to get people to accept that significant harm is being done by continued fossil fuel use. Many people incorrectly perceive that more consumerism beyond what is necessary indicates 'advancement to higher status'.
The focus needs to be on the harm done by the development of perceptions of status based on harmful inequitable and ultimately unsustainable actions. There have been many presentations throughout history of the unsustainable harmful development of an 'unjust ruling class' excused, supported and admired by an 'unjust noble class' - all excused, supported and admired by portions of the divided 'lower class'.
The root problem is the powerful forces developed by increased inequality. A very good recent presentation of this understanding was made by Matthew Stewart in "The 9.9 Percent" (about how the most powerful 0.1% win with support of the 9.9% - all excused by a portion of the remaining 90% due to their divisive fighting to become 'higher-status' like the top 10%).
-
Eclectic at 04:29 AM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
Cork @328 :
Your actual message is not at all clear. You seem to be saying that global warming (or cooling) cannot be assessed by measuring temperatures ~ and at the same time, global warming does not exist unless it shows out clearly on a graph of temperature/time (of any scale).
That sounds more Lewis Carroll than common sense. And so I must deduce that you are not explaining yourself at all well.
Please clarify what you mean.
-
CORK at 03:27 AM on 6 September 2023It's cooling
CORK to "Response".
Thank you for your comment.
I had actually read "What does past climate change tell us about global warming?" extensively a few months ago and the idea that the warming anomaly of the last 150 years may not show up on a graph at a different scale of time for the future climatologists of year 22023 was scratching my at my patience slowly.
If the warming of the last 150 years is really a global warming trend it will be seen, even at a larger scale of time in 20 000 years, but at the scale of time used for today's events which is about a 1cm for 100 years it may be given an importance it may have not.
In a nutshell, and aknowledging that I do not think that measuring temperatures alone can confirm a human made global warming, I beleive that the hockey cross graph is counter productive in trying to open minds.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:04 AM on 6 September 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
- "...one of the world’s greatest scientific bodies."
Name a functional equivalent that produces a more competently comprehensive synopsis of how Earth's climate functions and how we affect its functioning.
- "It is composed of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who every 5 to 8 years devote tremendous amounts of time and effort to author reports summarizing the latest climate science research, without any remuneration whatsoever."
This is objectively correct.
- "The IPCC reports are in fact the world’s best source of accurate and valuable climate science information."
Name reports on climate (or anything else) that are more comprehensive and also accurately reflect "here's the best we know at this point."
The IPCC exists, the first and most important virtue. It's a concrete feature, as opposed to wishful desire for a system for dealing with human nature that is divorced from human factors.
Meanwhile, haggling over the messaging, the messaging ending up acceptable to multiple countries with multiple often conflicting self-interests? Is this a defect? If one bothers to read its self-stated mission and purpose, one will learn that the IPCC specifically exists for the purpose of colliding geopolitics with science. To expect the IPCC to remain aloof from geopolitics is to doom it to have no connection with or influence over geopolitics and the behavior of individual states.
The IPCC has since its first report steadily produced warnings over our influence on climate that have over the course of the years increased in stridency and urgency, a surfeit of actionable advice. The parsimonious methods of the IPCC have yielded all the information we've needed to act on and attempt to check our climate disaster. But the IPCC does not operate governments, it informs them. There's plenty of information emerging from this sausage factory, only consumed very slowly because it's emerging into a world full of interactive, reverberating other problems of human nature.
There's a lot of inchoate frustration over human nature and Earth's climate floating about these days, looking for its proper home. Keep looking.
Meanwhile Skeptical Science will try to stay in the tank of reality, where feet wade through clay as best as they actually may.
-
Markp at 20:47 PM on 5 September 2023John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist
Scientists are human beings like everyone else, and while that explains much of the disagreement one can find among scientists on all sorts of topics, when people like Clauser come along and speak outside of their area of expertise, flatly contradicting the work of the majority of those directly involved specifically in that field, as in this case climate science, it really makes you wonder what motivated them to do that.
Honesty is important for everyone involved on the subject of climate science and global warming, of course, including those in the mainstream. The characerization of the IPCC here, for example, is so glowing, one might think it was written by the IPCC itself "one of the world’s greatest scientific bodies. It is composed of the world’s foremost climate scientists, who every 5 to 8 years devote tremendous amounts of time and effort to author reports summarizing the latest climate science research, without any remuneration whatsoever. The IPCC reports are in fact the world’s best source of accurate and valuable climate science information."
In fact, the IPCC is arguably not a scientific body: the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is, as the name implies, a governmental body, where scientists volunteer their work but must in a way "compete" with political appointees from 195 UN nations to haggle over messages delivered to policymakers. It is well known that those political agents have rejected and softened language in statements proposed by scientists numerous times, when that language was deemed problematic for their individual nations.
But it goes further than that. The IPCC in fact has been criticized, not only by cranks like Clauser, but by its own contributors as well as other, reputable scientists in the climate science field, for being far too cautious, particularly in their characterization of the speed and severity of the effects of climate change from global warming. Being on the "right" side of this debate between the mainstream climate science "community" and people who are clearly climate deniers, should not mean that those defending what scientists have discovered need be deniers themselves of the many errors and misinformation that has been produced by organizations like the IPCC.
Papers such as "What Lies Beneath; The Understatement of Existential Climate Risk" by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, and "Faster Than Expected; The IPCC's Role In Exacerbating Climate Change" by Kyle Kimball, are a good start for those interested in examining clearly documented errors and pattern-forming cases of inaccuracy on the part of the public messages delivered by the IPCC.
It is one thing to be an outright climate denier. It is another to be one who so stridently opposes the outright frauds and fakes that one refuses to admit, and even attempts to hide or gloss over the real problems that do exist within what people call the climate science "community" and those various organizations responsible for gaining insight and finding solutions for humanity to fight what may someday soon be legally recognized as the ecocide perpetrated by numerous energy companies when they were warned numerous times by scientists of the need to swiftly switch to alternate fuels, and chose to bury, manipulate and deny that science in order to focus on business as usual and the maximization of shareholder value.
-
Eclectic at 13:08 PM on 5 September 2023It's not urgent
PollutionMonster @45 : you have linked to something titled: "Fact Check: Setting the record straight on Bidenomics".
Sadly , this is not an official government publication issued by (non-partisan) public servants who have carefully analysed the situation. Instead, it is a heavily-slanted piece of propaganda, issued by a partisan House Committee for political purposes . . . apparently with some editorial assistance from Mr G. Santos [readers in subsequent years may wish to google the Santos scandal ].
It needs a Fact Check itself !
PollutionMonster, if you look more closely at the Report, you will see not only cherrypicking ~ but a complete absence of mention of the Budget Deficit sabotage caused by the Trumpian years. Sabotage & societal harm caused also (by both major political parties) in following the reaganomics Trickle-Down fiasco.
PollutionMonster, tell your antagonists to find some reputable info.
-
Eclectic at 11:18 AM on 5 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp @42 and prior :
Simon Michaux is an intelligent guy, but is a "paralysis alarmist" who promotes inaction as the response to future difficulties which he sees as insuperable. Rather similar to those ( literally gloomy ) Malthusians who thought that an increasing world population would inevitably be condemned to nocturnal gloom and darkness ~ because there could never be enough whale oil for our lamps.
OnePlanetOF points out how AGW can be tackled not by a single silver bullet [or even an aluminium-film-coated bullet ] ~ but by a multiplicity of methods . . . though it's likely that "Reduced Consumption" by the general public would be a very hard sell.
Markp , what is the mirror coverage that you require? My back-of-envelope [Direct Normal Insolation 1000 W/m2 ; mirror efficiency 80% ; and 80% efficiency of shortwave transmission to space ] points to around 400,000 square kilometers of mirroring needed, to produce a 1 W/m2 of reduction in global warming. And presumably you would be aiming for at least 2 W/m2 reduction during 50 or 100 years? Might need to supplement that with some CO2 emissions reduction, as well.
For 400,000 or 800,000 square kilometers, the Sahara Desert would do nicely (being conveniently away from airports ) if the local inhabitants were suitably bribed . . . or bribed to move to an immigrant-welcoming locality such as Texas.
-
PollutionMonster at 09:17 AM on 5 September 2023It's not urgent
Thank you, I've read the responses and have used them to debunk the deniers claims. Yet, like a bad game of whack a mole more keep coming.
Seems anti-green budget house government
I don't know how good a source this is the Heritage foundation which we debunked earlier is quoted a lot. Aren't government websites supposed to be least bias? I am confused. Thank you in advance. :)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:54 AM on 5 September 2023It's cooling
CORK... "But this is not incompatible with a cooling at geological time scales."
What's important to understand is that warming or cooling, on whatever scale, is due to physical processes, most of which are at least fairly well understood by researchers.
The Escalator graphic is demonstrating there are inherent variations in the surface temperature trend. This makes sense when you understand that short term changes surface temperature is a function of energy going into and coming out of the earth's oceans.
The Escalator graphic is presented to explain how "skeptics" will use very short trends in global temperature to claim the "globe" has stopped warming, when nothing could be further from the truth.
The earth, on the whole, is rapidly warming primarily due to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. That fact is true regadless the short term rate of warming at the surface.
-
CORK at 04:27 AM on 5 September 2023It's cooling
Climate's changed beforeWhat bothers me in the "Escalator" is the time scale. From 1970 to 2022 the temperatures rise, yes.
But this is not incompatible with a cooling at geological time scales. We may be in a rising part of the curve which will go down and over several 1000s of years the average will show a cooling trend.
The scale of time can be used and the curves can defend both arguments. Therefore the "escalator" is of no use.
The only pure fact in all the climate change saga is that humans are producing greenhouse gasses.
From that fact a whole theory of climate has been built. It is very difficult to say things like that without being insulted today.
Moderator Response:[PS] The escalator is counter-argument to "it cooling" every time there is a couple of El ninos. If you want to look at geological timescales please go to this article. In fact there are many tools to tease out other climate forcings. The IPCC reports have excellent chapters on these, summarizing the very extensive scientific literature. If you want to talk about geological timescales, please comment on the article I referenced, not here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:24 AM on 5 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp,
Your comment @40 contains the following helpful point: "In fact, one of our first mirror test sites was either on or adjacent to a local airport's land and their permission was required, and it was given."
This is helpful because it appears to establish that, along with your earlier mention of being very familiar with 'climate related finance', you appear to be 'invested' in a 'mirroring enterprise'.
Mirrors may be a helpful measure, along with other actions that increase the reflection of sunlight, to reduce the current degree of human impacts on global warming. They could be a part of the broad diversity of helpful actions. But they are unlikely to be 'the primary solution'.
Project Drawdown (at drawdown.org) developed by Paul Hawkin (author of The Ecology of Commerce) is an informative resource. It lists and evaluates climate impact reduction solutions. In their words "Project Drawdown’s world-class network of scientists, researchers, and fellows has characterized a set of 93 technologies and practices that together can dramatically reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." But their list of solutions includes helpful actions that do not reduce ghgs like the one they evaluated that seems close to your 'mirror' application - Green and Cool Roofs (Linked to Project Drawdown).
Maybe you should get in touch with Project Drawdown to get your idea added to their list of evaluated solutions.
However, I am pretty sure about what the primary solution is. And it is not covered by Project Drawdown. It is not a 'new idea'. It requires nothing new to be built. And it requires no alteration of any developed activities. It is:
Reduced Consumption - especially by the people who have over-developed levels of consumption (who consume 'beyond necessary consumption') - especially the reduction of types of consumption that are ultimately undeniably unsustainable like fossil fuel use (which cannot be continued to be 'enjoyed by everyone' centuries into the future even if there were no harmful impacts).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:19 AM on 5 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp... When I say "new tech" what I'm alluding to is new materials. Replacements for cobalt. Potential for, say, solid state batteries. New methods and materials for the production of solar panels.
You can fall off your chair all day long, but people are continually working on better ways to generate energy. There is no lack of ingenuity being applied to these problems.
I think this illustrates the potential problem with your evaluation of the issue. If you look at any of this as steady state and extrapolated forward from there, you're inevitably going to end up with a doomsday scenario. But, as I've stated from the start, things are happening. Smart people have been working hard on these issues for decades and it's bearing fruit. The IPCC's work has been instrumental in keeping that ball moving forward though international agreements.
The task remains nothing less than Herculean, but it is wholly inaccurate to suggest that nothing has happened.
I tend to harp on this issue quite a lot because I believe rhetoric suggesting nothing has happened leads people to give up, right when we need people to understand that real progress is being made.
-
Markp at 02:58 AM on 5 September 2023Climate Confusion
Rob, I missed your bullets on how we can achieve net zero by 2050. Are you talking about these?
>A lot is happening toward decarbonization
>Decarbonization needs to happen faster
>We know a hell of a lot more about the climate than we did decades ago
>We have a good chance of getting to net zero by ~2050
>Once we get to net zero, warming is expected stop
>There are going to be increasing impacts in the coming decades
>The sooner we get to net zero the better off we are
>There is going to be a longer, more difficult task of getting fully to zero emissions which will take some decades moreBecause if you are, I fail to see how there explain how might be able to reach net zero by 2050!
As for the real problem of materials, I'm trying not to fall off my chair at your comment about new tech. We are talking about replacing FF. What new tech is on the market, or coming, that will replace FF and fill the huge gaps expected from wind and solar?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:28 AM on 5 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp... "When I asked you how you thought this could be done, I asked for a few bullets."
And when I gave you bullet points you challenged me to provide sources. Which I did.
I'll read the Michaux's paper but I think this is an old discussion point about necessary resources for the technologies, whether it be lithium or cobalt or whatever. The good thing is, there is a near constant stream of new technologies coming to market all the time now. People have understood resource constraints and view it as both necessary areas for development and potential market opportunities.
-
Markp at 01:01 AM on 5 September 2023Climate Confusion
Eclectic, thanks. I always find it odd that people will say that such -and-such a solution will be "a hard sell" when we've arguably got no alternative other than extinction. This is not a "sale" the way one buys a new car and wants it a Honda to be perfect or they'll buy a Mercedes (or whatever). There are no perfect solutions here.
I think people who grumble at windmills but accept that they produce energy, will just as easily accept mirrors (which a tiny percentage of the public would ever see as they may indeed occuppy mainly relatively lonely parts of the world) knowing that they are keeping life on Earth possible.
Farmers will be happy to be able to increase their yields and actually grow and water their crops, which the way things are going, is getting really difficult. The cost will likely be born by the governments, as they will probably be tied to "offsetting" schemes (tax write-offs or direct subsidies).
Mirrors do not bother pilots or birds (the first thoughts of many). In fact, one of our first mirror test sites was either on or adjacent to a local airport's land and their permission was required, and it was given. There are some physics needed to explain why a mirror field does not affect pilots but I'm not prepared to offer them.
-
Markp at 00:47 AM on 5 September 2023Climate Confusion
Rob, thanks for the chart, but merely looking at a cost comparison between FF and renewables overlooks a lot. Have you seen Michaux's paper on this? You can find it here. It's a large report but worth looking at.
The report is called "Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels." One of his conclusions is that the amount of metals required far outstrips current reserves to build the needed infrastructure for the first generation of such a "transition" only (1st generation needs to be mined because until it's been built there is little to recycle). He writes: "Current expectations are that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial energy ecosystem that took more than a century to build. The current system was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit, and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. The replacement needs to be done at a time when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, and an unprecedented world population, embedded in a deteriorating natural environment. Most challenging of all, this has to be done within a few decades. It is the author’s opinion, based on the new calculations presented here, that this will likely not go fully to as planned."
So even if wind and solar energy is cheaper than FF, we may not be able to replace FF with them, even if the IPCC says "we MUST."
Thanks also for the IEA link to "Net Zero Emissions by 2050" but this is a big paper. When I asked you how you thought this could be done, I asked for a few bullets. I will have a look at the paper, but my fear is that, as Simon Michaux's has pointed out, a lot of the "plans" for a better climate future have, amazingly, been made without consideration for the reality of time, energy, resources, etc. So they contain bold statements about what MUST be done, as if saying it is all that's needed. Like I said, I'll look at it but I'm not going to be surprised if I don't find a realistic assessment.
-
Eclectic at 05:50 AM on 4 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp , thank you for a tad more detail on your "suspended mirrors" in post 34 paragraph 9 (please consider numbering your paragraphs & subsections, as per Congressional law-makers ).
Perhaps SkepticalScience has a suitable thread for such discussion?
Overall, mirrors wil be a hard sell to farmers, and to aircraft pilots who will have their own professional objections.
Also a hard sell to the general public (such as me) who might grumble at the "visual pollution" of fields of wind-turbines and fields of solar panels ~ but who recognize the immediate benefit of cheap low-pollution electricity on top of the long-term environmental benefits. A field of raised & suspended mirrors . . . not so much.
Markp , as a financier of sorts, you will have considered not only the per-square-kilometer levelized costing of mirrors, but also the opportunity cost. Opportunity cost analysis would be interesting, indeed.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:24 AM on 4 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp:
I am also not going t try to wade through a long post, either. I will respond to one small portion. You state, with respect to models:
And as my primary experience (nearly 30 years now) has been in the financial arena for many "quant" strategies where, in that industry it is painfully common to see wonderful quant investment funds with great backtested results finally have some real money thrown at them and start a live track record, only to see the live returns look nothing like the lovely return characteristics of those backtests, I confess a lot of my skepticism comes from just that type of environment.
All I will say is that climate models likely bear very little resemblance to the sort of models you run into in financial topics. For one, climate models have an awful lot of physics in them. They are not pure statistical models (although statistical models do get used in climatology). The laws of physics put some pretty strong constraints on how climate models behave.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:33 AM on 4 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp... I'll also add this report from the IEA on the chances for net zero by 2050:
Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE)
"There are many possible paths to achieve net zero CO2 emissions globally by 2050 and many uncertainties that could affect any of them; the NZE Scenario is therefore a path, not the path to net zero emissions."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:09 AM on 4 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp... The conversation gets unweildy when you do such long posts. Can you please try to engage in a bit more editing to get your comments better focused? I think it would improve the value of this exchange.
I'm only going to address your first observation here: "'A lot is happening towards decarbonization' is vague enough to require examples to qualify the statement."
I'm sure there is a better thread for this but, if the mods will allow, I'll just post a response here for now.
First is the mere fact that onshore wind and solar are now cheaper than FF sources. This is relatively recent yet is already starting to show benefits in the energy marketplace.
The result of this is now renewable energy is scaling exponentially.
Bear in mind, this is still the early phase of exponential growth, so the true effects of that growth are going to be realized out past 2030-2050.
In the latest EIA LCOE (levelized cost of energy) reports they're now including battery storage technologies because those costs are now falling in line with peaker plants.
So, to try to somewhat tether this to the topic at hand, these technologies are the product of decades of very hard, complex work done by a lot of very smart people. These are the fruits of those efforts. This is why I say, while there are still many large and looming challenges, there is a lot of positive change afoot that should not be ignored.
These advances are very likely a product of the sorts of communications and political engagement done over the years by the IPCC and various resulting international agreements. It would have been unlikely any of these advancements would have occurred with out the IPCC's work.
These are the kinds of advancements that have to occur in order to get to net zero and then eventually zero carbon emissions by 2050 and after.
-
Markp at 22:43 PM on 3 September 2023Climate Confusion
For Rob: I know I have not provided much data to back what I've been saying, but that's mainly because I was going on the assumption that you may already be aware of the data that could support me. In other words, I don't think what I've said is uncontroversial from a data point of view, but I do accept that it might be controversial from the point of view of making those holding a mainstream view (and I know that's vague) uncomfortable.
I disagree with little of what you say about climate in this last post. From your list of 8 items, only 1,4 and 5 are problematic in my view. Unfortunately, those few items are weighty:
"A lot is happening towards decarbonization" is vague enough to require examples to qualify the statement. There has definitely been a lot of talk about decarbonization, but as 2022 saw global emissions hit a new high of 36.8 Gt, according to the IEA's report "CO2 Emissions in 2022" one has to ask what decarbonization achievements, what action, in place of mere talk, can we point to. Renewable energy production plus use of EVs, heat pumps and who knows what else saved about 550 Mt. Fine. But this growth rate (growth of renewable contribution) won't hold up. So when you say "a lot" is happening, what's that really mean? And could you give just a few bullets on how you think we'll achieve net zero by 2050?
I'm also curious to know how much your vision of "net" zero relies on offsetting schemes, because I don't trust them and fear that they are being relied on too much for comfort.
As for what happens to the rising temperatures in a net zero 2050, we'll have to wait and see.
I'm certainly with you on breaching 2C by 2050, but since I've got little hope we'll be anything close to net zero by then (for whatever net zero is actually worth as long as we've got all the offestting nonsense thrown in there) it looks worse to me than to you.
Finally, and to change the subject a bit, I think the talk about models went too far. I'm not saying models are bad, just that they're being relied on too heavily in certain important cases. And as my primary experience (nearly 30 years now) has been in the financial arena for many "quant" strategies where, in that industry it is painfully common to see wonderful quant investment funds with great backtested results finally have some real money thrown at them and start a live track record, only to see the live returns look nothing like the lovely return characteristics of those backtests, I confess a lot of my skepticism comes from just that type of environment. Still, when we continually see news reports with headlines running "Researchers present shocking new data that climate change is happening much faster than expected" and the previous expectation was based on models, I don't feel at all surprised. I've just had a look at the "myths" section of Skeptical Science specifically at the models myth and I also see there that most of the argument seems to be toward trying to convince climate deniers who say models are all wrong that GW is real. That's clearly not me.
For Eclectic: I don't think I've written too much, do you? I know people these days don't like to read anything longer than a twitter post, but I don't think your assessment here is fair. I've tried to keep it short, in fact. Like I said, I assumed, and maybe wrongly(?), that you folks had a decent understanding of the data already, and could follow commentary like mine that took a broader look at things rather than fussing over citations and decimal points because I'm not claiming anything that boils down to a disagreement over small measurements but has been more about one's basic orientation: some of you seem to be wearing rose-colored glasses in my view, like too many people are.
As for the mirror concept, if the goal were to limit global temperature rise to 2C by 2100 we would need about twice the surface area of the contiguous USA. Although these reflectors would be useful in many instances, like on rooftops, parks, outdoor markets, reservoirs, etc., the main idea is for them to be used in agricultural settings because there's a lot of agricultural land, and because the reflectors would bring both local benefits to the crops by cooling, saving water and increasing yield, and contribute to global cooling. How to do that on a large scale is a problem that needs to be worked out. Any cropland managed by tractors and other large machines would either need to involve reflectors that would be removed from time to time for those machines to do their work, which wouldn't be easy, or they'd need to be placed so as not to interfere with those machines, perhaps by having them suspended vertically alongside crops rather than horizontally over them. And of cource, horizontal coverage would not involve blocking all available sunlight as to choke off photosynthesis, but as most crops can thrive with up to 30% shading, it would be placed intermittently. Anyway, this is the rough idea. Reflectors made from PET and aluminum cans from landfill provide more than enough for this level of scale, but other reflector constructions/materials could pop up as well. If you feel this isn't the type of detail you'd like to see, I'm not allowed to offer more. Not to protect technology or profits, because this comes from a nonprofit, but simply because I'm not authorized. As some of you know, the science takes time. We're working on it.
If that surface area seems "too big" as in "nobody will go for that" I can certainly feel that, but what choice have we got? The Earth is big. We can do it. We've got 4 million miles of roads in the USA. When cars first got started, nobody would have thought that possible. All of our climate "solutions" are by nature on a grand scale. Nothing to do about that as far as I know. And why people might balk at lots of mirrors/reflectors when they seem to think DAC (or your solution of choice) can clean (enough of) the entire atmosphere, I'm stumped.
-
BaerbelW at 18:19 PM on 3 September 2023It's freaking cold!
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on September 3, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
Eclectic at 10:08 AM on 3 September 2023Climate Confusion
Rob Honeycutt @32 :
Well stated.
......................................
Markp @31 (and prior) :
There is a danger zone, in posting, when an increasing word-count tends to cause a loss of focus. Just as a 10-minute sermon does better than a 45-minute sermon.
Worse ~ as verbiage increases, some cracks may start to appear in the messaging. And the naive reader (such as me) begins to identify contradictions :- This part looks Extinction-Rebellion-ish . . . That part looks Denial-ish . . . Here is some disingenuous arguing . . . There is a practical impossibility . . . and so on.
It all leaves a feeling that one is looking at a mask ~ with another mask beneath that ~ and perhaps a third mask underneath that. It erodes confidence in the candor of the commenter ~ and the naive reader starts to look under bridges for those mythical inhabitants.
Overall, it is best to avoid anything suggestive of smoke & mirrors. Practicality should be King. And speaking of mirrors, Markp, you have not yet provided a practical outline of your "mirror solution" ; an outline which is at least back-of-envelope in quantification.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:22 AM on 3 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp...
It's a little difficult to cut through your tone to get to a substantive discussion. I read a lot of frantic hand-waving but not much in the way of data or linked citations needed to evaluate the position you're putting forth.
All I'm left with is restating what I've already said.
- A lot is happening toward decarbonization
- Decarbonization needs to happen faster
- We know a hell of a lot more about the climate than we did decades ago
- We have a good chance of getting to net zero by ~2050
- Once we get to net zero, warming is expected stop
- There are going to be increasing impacts in the coming decades
- The sooner we get to net zero the better off we are
- There is going to be a longer, more difficult task of getting fully to zero emissions which will take some decades more
We could rant all day long about what actions should have been taken and when they should have happened, but that changes nothing. We are where we are. People are working hard on the problem.
I would add here, the basic premise of the 2°C limit is, we know with a reasonable degree of certainty that the last interglacial reached about 2°C over the modern Holocene preindustrial temperature without setting off any spiraling amplification effects. And 1.5°C has been set forth as a modern safe limit to try to stay under.
We are almost certainly going to break 1.5°C. As I understand it, we'll probably also breach 2°C by ~2050 but global temperature will settle back down below that. I think the question becomes, how resilient is human civilization going to be, and how resilient are natural systems going to be.
-
Markp at 05:22 AM on 3 September 2023Climate Confusion
Hello
No, I'm not at all advocating that individuals adjusting their lifestyles are the answer, far from it (I'm surprised to hear this from you!), but it is something that must be done. Average people pushing the politicians and business leaders to act is necessary as well, because as we can see, without that they'll continue making targets and holding discussions that don't get us anywhere.
This is going to come down to us agreeing to disagree, I guess, for example regarding the IPCC and all the supposed "progress" we've made. I know that most people in climate science (scientists and others) think like you, that a lot has been done, etc. I just don't buy it. We've certainly managed to elevate the overall knowledge of GW among everyone - people from all walks of life (not with the honesty and clarity that is needed in my opinion, but...). But that has not translated into the kind of action we need by a LONG shot. It's politics and it's scientific reticence (i.e. David Spratt) and many other reasons, but it's there, staring us all in the face. Maybe I'm just speaking here to the optimists, 45-years of experience or not. I don't know. But if you think you shouldn't take me seriously because of my attitude towards models re "the end of temp rise" I'll just reiterate that it's not just me but people like James Hansen who have expressed those opinions. Just look at his latest tidbit: "Equilibrium Warming = Committed Warming?" where he writes in the 4th paragraph: "...climate science should be focused on data. That's the way science is supposed to work. However [the] IPCC is focused on models. Not just global climate models, but models that feed the models, eg. Integrated Assessment Models that provide scenarios for future GHG levels...sometimes the models contain hocus-pocus. As we mention in our current paper, they can assume, in effect, that 'a miracle will occur.'" And as you know, he's not the only one to criticise the overreliance on models. I'm assuming you are all familiar with Spratt and Dunlop's "What Lies Beneath."?
At the end of the day, scientists are no different from anyone else in this world where we all have to struggle for survival and protect our jobs and reputations and do things we have to do but may not believe in. Research isn't done for fun or for pure curiosity unless one bankrolls one's own laboratory, which few do. It's done to support the money, make a product, build a name for oneself, etc.
So people like (unnamed) set up for-profit companies as sidelines in addition to their responsibilities with their universities and, look what he just did: sold Carbon Engineering for over $1B. Nice. Ka-ching. You can't sell simple solutions for that kind of money, can you? And Climeworks, when are they going to have an IPO and cash-out, for worthless DAC? And this is all because the IPCC said "We MUST do this!"
An extremely important statement from the foreward of "What Lies Beneath" is from Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, professor of theoretical physics, etc., long list of credentials, when he said we are running out of time and so "...it is all the more important to listen to non-mainstream voices who do understand the issues and are less hesitant to cry wolf [than for example those scientists working with the IPCC]".
I work with those non-mainstream scientists because they are the ones who seem to be cutting through the BS towards real solutions that give us more than hopium.
Let me just ask you, and I am trying to be fair to the scientists in climate, generally speaking, because I imagine the vast majority are really doing their best. They aren't free to do what they might if they weren't trapped in the system we all are trapped in. (I know one who is a physicist but works with the IPCC on policy and he told me once "You have to trust your institutions, Mark"!!! Really. I trust the post office to deliver a letter. I don't trust politicians to solve global disasters that require those in power taking home less money.) But let me ask: if scientists really have been trying as hard as they could for decades now to come up with ways to stop rising heat and protect life on Earth as fast as possible, why has nobody else but a man who left his academic career at Harvard behind in order to found a nonprofit been able to come up with the solution staring us each in the face every morning when we brush our teeth, involving mirrors? Could it maybe have anything to do with the fact that it is just not very sexy? Honestly, I cannot understand or explain it any other way. And I've seen big-wig scientists in the climate sphere hear of this and say "where's your peer-reviewed research?" instead of just turning their brains on and thinking about the idea first. "Hey, makes sense, pretty obvious, actually...could be some complications, but overall, interesting idea..." (Kudos to Eclectic on this one) No, instead they just wanted research to back up the idea that ice will melt in a hot frying pan.
Well...would have been more fun over a beer. Take care.
-
Eclectic at 04:29 AM on 3 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
Bigoilbob @59 :
Yes, very likely that is the ultimate aim of Dr Frank's mathematical contortions ~ to declare all the data to be "unevaluable". That is the desired end-point of the exercise.
Tragic, to have years of effort devoted to "proving" that the mountain of evidence of AGW . . . is non-existent and meaningless. This is the fall-back position of many Denialists ~ though most use a shotgun of poor reasonings, rather than the single bullet approach favored by Dr Frank.
-
bigoilbob at 23:29 PM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
Dr. Frank not only mixes up evaluations of systemic v random error, but asserts - with no justification - that the extremely statistically durable trends we've found with GAT, sea level, ice melt, etc. have been constructed from systemic errors that, if accounted for, would invalidate them. He has several papers treating these mixes of errors, that all conclude that the trend under discussion is bogus. Again, without even attempts to re-evaluate the data using the "larger" error bounds, and of course also with no treatment of the correlation of these systemic errors. In other words, he ends these papers by throwing up his hands and declaring the data "unevaluable" with zilch for backup.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:40 AM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
ICU: I think you posted comment 56 while I was preparing comment 57.
In the OP, the MANOBS chart of temperature correction is an excellent example of systematic error in a temperature sensor - and how to account for it. Here it is again, for convenience.
If this correction is ignored, we see that there is an additional uncertainty of up to 0.2C in the readings - with the exact value depending on temperature. Since each thermometer is calibrated against a better temperatuer sensor (in a lab), we can adjust the reading based on that known systematic error.
But error is not uncertainty... but even if we do not know the error, we can account for any fixed error (e.g., Mean Bias Error) by subtracting each individual reading from the mean (i.e, an anomaly). That fixed error is non-random, so it is present in every reading in the same amount - even if we do not know that amount.
Let me try with a simple equation set: (I know, not that math $#!^ again).
T1true = T1reading + error1
T2true = T2reading + error2
Since we don't know the error (we never can, because anything we compare our reading to also has errors), the unknown is an uncertainty. If error1 and error2 are independent, then all the "combined in quadrature" equations that Pat Frank uses are applicable.
But what if they are related? In the simple case, where the error is completely systematic and fixed (the MBE describes it all), then error1 = error2. In that case when we do T2reading - T1reading, [error2 - error1] = 0, and we get exactly the correct answer for T2true-T1true, even though we have uncertainty in each individual reading.
Comments 49 and 50 demonstrate this using real data. The errors are not purely MBE, but correcting for MBE on a monthly basis greatly reduces the uncertainty.
Much of the literature that Pat Frank references, related to different ventilation shields, different measurement systems, changes in station locations etc., is designed specifically to ferret out the MBE and other systematic errors in temperature measurements. Once that systematic error is identified, it is accounted for through the process of homogenization.
Pat Frank has no idea how any of this actually works.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:11 AM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
ICU: I mentioned the randomness issue briefly above, in the blog post and in comments. He makes the argument for non-randomness saying he finds a non-normal distribution. I point out in comment 46 that he is wrong: you can have non-normal, but still random, distributions.
And he keeps using equations to combine uncertainties that require independence of the variances, which is contrary to his claim of non-randomness. And he uses a multiplier of 1.96 to get 2-sigma from 1-sigma, even though he says that distributions are non-normal.
In the NoTricksZone post, he argues that covariance is not relevant (in fact, that statistics equations combining variances) are not relevant because uncertainty is different from statistics. So he dismisses the equations I have present in the OP - in spite of the fact that they are listed in Wikipedia's "Propagation of Uncertainty" section. Yet covariance is the key concept that needs to be included when things are not random.
In comment 21, bdgwx provided a link to JCGM 100:288, which is basically the same as the 1995 ISO Guide to Uncertainty in Measurement. Section 5.2 talks about Correlated input quantities. If you look at section 5.2.1 on page 33, it says (emphasis added):
Equation (10) and those derived from it such as Equations (11a) and (12) are valid only if the input quantities X are independent or uncorrelated (the random variables, not the physical quantities that are assumed to be invariants — see 4.1.1, Note 1). If some of the Xi are significantly correlated, the correlations must be taken into account.
The internal inconsistencies in Pat Frank's work are numerous and critical. It's not random, but you don't need to use equations that are designed for correlated inputs. It's not normally-distributed, but you can still get to 95% confidence levels by using the proportions from a normal curve and 1-sigma/2-sigma ratios.
He's picking equations and terms from a buffet based on taste, having no idea how any of the dishes are made, and claiming that he can cook better than anyone else.
In comments 49 and 50, I show data from real world measurements comparing three equivalent temperature sensors, and how you need to properly divide Root Mean Square Error into the Mean Bias Error and standard deviation of differences between pairs to properly evaluate the uncertainty. And how accounting for the Mean Bias Error across sensors (by using anomalies) shows that all three sensors agree on how different the current temperature is from the monthly mean.
Nowhere in Pat Frank's paper does he discuss Mean Bias Error or any other specific form of systematic error. Every single one of his equations ignores the systematic error he claims is a key point.
-
ICU at 07:49 AM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
OK so systematic errors. What specific systematic errors are being claimed for temperature measurements and their magnitude(s)?
-
ICU at 07:19 AM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
Bob,
As I see it, Frank's basic argument is that measurement errors are not random. I think it is better to address the major arguments of a position then to get bogged down in the minutia of an argument.
I would argue that, if in fact, measurement errors are not random, then observational sciences are royally fucked! Meaning, show me explicit examples where the measurement errors are not random and how far those deviate from an assumption of randomness. Actual measurements, not just some made up just so math concoctions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:16 AM on 2 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp @ 27:
Bluntly, when you dismiss information you don't like with statements such as this one:
I've spoken to established research scientists who laugh off the climate modelers who so cheerfully say "temperatures will just stop rising" if net zero is achieved. These are people I trust. They've had long careers doing real science, not short ones playing with computers.
...then it is hard to take you seriously.
If you want me to actually believe that such "established research scientists" exist, then you will have to point to a credible source of the statements they make and their arguments against the "established research scientists" that have studied and modelled carbon cycles for many years.
And I'll see your "working in climate science for a couple of years now" and raise you "studying and working in climate science for 45 years now". Only five of those years were spent dealing with forest carbon cycles and their relationships with climate, though. And I've only been "playing with computers" for 45 years, too.
-
Eclectic at 06:03 AM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
ICU @52 , methinks you are asking Bob L to act like Sisyphus.
Sisyphus had a large stone to move to the top of the mountain ~ but Dr Frank's ideas are a much smaller stone (though obviously much denser! ) . . . and the small dense Frankenstein [sorry, the pun was irresistible] is determined to keep rolling itself back down into the gutter [in this case, the gutter press, aka NoTricksZone ] at every opportunity.
As Gavin Cawley says: Frank's methodology is "argument-by-attrition".
Wise psychiatrists know that sometimes you just have to walk away.
On the other hand, Bob may simply enjoy a bit of jousting, for the fun & mental exercise.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:45 AM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
Hi, ICU/Everett.
I am aware of the PubPeer discussion of this recent Pat Frank paper. I have started participating on that discussion as Camponotus mus - a pseudonym assigned by PubPeer. I saw that link to NoTricksZone, and have a short response waiting in moderation at PubPeer. (As a new, anonymous user at PubPeer, I understand that my comments will always go through moderation, at least for a while.)
I have only looked quickly through that NoTricksZone post, and it seems that Pat Frank is mostly just asserting he is right and the whole world is wrong. Part of my PubPeer response is:
I see that you are arguing that averaging is not the same as weighting. That is quite an amazing claim, as the average of two numbers is algebraically equivalent to weighting each number by 1/2. You do understand that (A+B)/2 is identical to A/2 + B/2, and that this can be re-written as (1/2)*A + (1/2)*B? If you think this is not correct, then I would add basic algebra to the topics that you do not understand.
He also seems to claim that uncertainty can't use the rules of statistics, such as the covariance term I mention in the OP. This is certainly a most bizarre idea, as the GUM makes extensive use of statistical models in demonstrating concepts of uncertainty.
Overall, Pat Frank's response at NoTricksZone looks like he is in hagfish mode, as described in DiagramMonkey's blog post. I do not think it would be productive to try to refute it here unless Pat Frank comes here and makes his arguments here. A read-this-blog/read-that-blog cycle will not be at all productive.
Of course, if Pat Frank does come here, he would be expected to follow the Comments Policy, just like anyone else.
-
ICU at 05:12 AM on 2 September 2023A Frank Discussion About the Propagation of Measurement Uncertainty
Hello Bob,
Everett F Sargent or Francis F Sargent of ATTP infamy here. I just noticed a Crank reply in the most recent PubPeer article from Frank the Crank ...
https://notrickszone.com/2023/08/24/dr-patrick-franks-refutation-of-a-sks-critique-attempt-loblaws-24-mistakes-exposed/
Now I know that this Crank is wrong although I am not now able to go through the necessary math. Your thoughts on this more recent rebuttal to your post here would be most greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and/or equations. Also think an abstract of sorts would be most useful covering this crank's misunderstandings from the 2019 and 2023 (this article) papers.
Moderator Response:[BL] Since this is your first post here, please note that our Comments Policy does ask that you keep the tone civil. The parts that I have flagged are getting a bit too close to the line.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:36 AM on 2 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp... "We've had the IPCC for 35 years and not much to show for it..."
Again here, you're seemingly making the claim that nothing has happened when the opposite is true. A great deal has been accomplished. A great deal more must be accomplished. You can certainly make the claim that the changes aren't happening fast enough, but you can't rationally claim nothing has happened.
