Hocus Pocus
-
Posts
1,125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Hocus Pocus
-
-
2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:
True.
One has dependence on or is useful for...something. How one is supposed to extrapolate from that to the conclusion that AGW theory is of little or no use is, quite frankly, beyond me.
Quite simply put one can be to dependent on a simulated outcome particularly when climate modelling is warming the atmosphere some 67% more when compared to the other observational datasets.
-
4
-
-
14 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
We'd have to shut down most of our modern if we decide computer simulations aren't useful!
Luckily, climate models are just one part of climate science, so the discipline will prevail regardless.There’s a difference between useful and dependence.
-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
It would appear that some here don't quite know the difference between scientific theory, and the colloquial usage of theory.
From WikipediaA scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
--------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------
So, just because someone calls an idea they have a theory, doesn't mean it meets the standard of scientific theory. For example:
Gravity, evolution, plate tectonics, germs causing disease - all scientific theories.
Electric universe, flat earth, creationism, spicy food causing ulcers - theories in a colloquial sense, but not scientific theoriesComputer modelling isn’t a theory but merely an estimation.
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:
Wasn't that merely received wisdom, handed down from the time of Galen?
It was the consensus at the time before new scientific knowledge superseded it, and that’s kind of my point what is today’s consensus is tomorrow’s old hat. That’s not that I’m implying the theory on CO2 is wrong but merely the modelled projections most likely are.
-
3
-
-
There was once a theory that Peptic Ulcers were caused by spicy foods.
-
3
-
-
45 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
That's not how these things work! You made the claim that she's produced numerous articles for the IPCC, so the onus is on you to prove that! Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Other than, say the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, there have been countless studies that have shown CO2 and other GhGs are the main driver of climate change. Every major scientific institution on the planet doesn't support the position that human activity is now the dominant force driving climate change because it feels right. They support that position because of the evidence! For example, one way you can determine if CO2, for example, is causing warming is to look at the energy entering and exiting the Earth's atmosphere. The first things that's noticed is that there is more entering than exiting, which means warming is inevitable. You can then look at the specific wavelengths of energy, because particular materials absorb particular wavelengths. So when you examine the energy wavelength associated with CO2, you can detect a big drop in that energy leaving the atmosphere. That energy then contributes to warming and is directly associated with CO2.
Here's one paper that shows this, but there are loads more to be found with a quick search: https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
And that's just one line of evidence. Just because climate denier sites don't like to talk about this stuff, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!Denier sites........ Judith Curry is a climate scientists held in the highest esteem for goodness sake and who mentioned that man isn’t responsible for some of the warming, he’s not responsible for all by the way but at a best guesstimate around 0.4c of the present warming trend.
That still doesn’t answer what caused the warming during the RWP/MWP, we can’t just dismiss naturals and lay all our eggs into one basket. Yes CO2 levels are contributing to SOME of our warming how much probably the above you but hot we get is the answer that still remains uncertain despite the nonsense above.
-
4
-
-
Take it up with Judith she’s very approachable you know, this mountain of evidence you keep,referring to only highlights that we're warming just like we did back during the MWP/RWP ( arguments about whether it was global or not for another thread ).
Also whose mentioned cooling per se we know we’re still in a warming trend but what does that mean it’s all down to man or not? Whilst on the subject I do believe the AMO is a big player, in NH temps at least so combined with the projected Grand Solar Minimum we should get a good idea on just how significant mans role in warming is at least.
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, Summer Sun said:
A similar story last year with the September update when they went for a cold winter
The final update before winter started
You are indeed correct and JAMSTEC does have a cold bias at this time of year, having said that all long range models have inbuilt biases be it warm or cold so none of them are worth the bandwidth really. Just for fun is fine though
-
14 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
Neither Roy Spencer (who's also a creationist) or Judith Curry (now retired) have published any meaningful climate papers in years, perhaps decades. Those they have published have been debunked or retracted by the journal. They are 2 of about 4 in your camp that have relevant qualifications and some published studies under their belts.
On the other hand, there are literally thousands of other actively working scientists more qualified to comment on the climate debate than those two mentioned. Yet why do you ignore them? Might it be the few dissenting voices on the climate denier site get disproportionate publicity through climate denier media channels?I work and interact with climate scientists all the time, and my own PhD involves quite a bit of climatology too. My department has climate and ice sheet modellers, paleoclimatologists, permafrost experts, etc. I have never met a single expert, not locally or internationally, that thinks humanity is not the primary driver of climate change.
This feels a bit like standing in the middle of a forest, surrounded by trees, sending you photos of the trees and with experts reports confirming it's a forest, - while you tell me I'm biased and ignoring the truth that it's a desert because a blog said so.So if a man believes in god his credentials aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, wow confirmation bias of what I just said above.
Also Judith has produced numerous articles for previous IPCC reports yet remains sceptical of the modelled ( that’s the key word here ) outcomes at the higher end of temp rises.
So we now have a situation which sees the uncertainties in global temperature projections being replaced with a “We’ve only got 12 years before temps breach the 1.5c threshold, you couldn’t make it up perhaps they are after all these are algorithms we’re talking about right not a set in stone prediction.
I await the next twelve years with a wry smile on my face and will comeback to this then.
-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, Matthew. said:
The NAO forecast in May was supportive of a positive regime. I have a feeling a mild one is on the way overall but pressure patterns are always up in the air for now. Snow events can turn up at times even in generally mild winters.
The NAO imdex is correct 2/3 times so here’s hoping this is the other one.
-
-
1 hour ago, Paul said:
Scientists don't need to 'speak out', as since their work is evidence based, they can allow that to do the talking for them. Plus of course there's the peer review process. So the more likely picture, as much as you may not want to believe it, is that there's no reason to speak out because there's no scientific evidence to support those alternate views.
Sometimes, if something looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks like a dog, it is actually a dog. Even if the 'establishment' is telling you it's a dog and every fibre in your being is screaming at you to disbelieve them because they are the 'establishment', especially as you really want a cat. At some point you just have to face up to the fact that Tiddles is actually Fido and there's no amount of arguing or wishful thinking or YouTube based 'evidence' can change that fact.
So what does that make those scientists your oblivious to who do speak out then?
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
It's fallen back, from an annual peak of at about 1.2C back to about 1C above pre-industrial.
That's another climate change denier website, written by amateur bloggers with the intent to mislead.
Like I said it’s now 0.8c which is widely accepted by most. As for being a deniers site well like I said I could cite respected scientists such as Judith Curry who knows more than anyone posting here or for that matter most working within the circles of climate science, as does Roy Spencer. Just because you disagree with those doesn’t make them less credible.
This is why climate science is unlike any other scientific field, it’s become a closed shop of nodding dogs where questions on outcomes are met with with an almost hostile reception. As for a consensus amongst climate scientists, well I have a copy of the just what was asked of these scientists in forming a consensus and it was based on a simple question of “do you think man has contributed to today’s warming”. Of course the answer is yes but there is no consensus on outcomes merely a range of temps in which we may or may not see.
-
4
-
-
I think this article explains well some of the issues however I expect some will dismiss the source if it’s nit directly from the IPCC. I could cite Judith Curry or Roy Spencer but feel the same responses will only flame the divisions, hence why I rarely bother with climate science as there’s no middle ground.
-
29 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:
Note quite. Temperatures are currently close to 1C above pre-industrial already, and most of that warming (around 0.7C) has come in the last 40 years.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2018/global-surface-temperatures-in-2017
The Met Office also thinks there's a small chance that an individual year may exceed 1.5C between now and 2022.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018That’s not up to date and it currently sits at 0.8c BFTV. It did get close to 1c with the super nino event buthas since fallen back into line.
My question on why all of a sudden the uncertainties are now certainties remains unanswered.
-
1
-
-
So many variables to take into account at the best of times but with a impending Grand Solar Minimum and a AMO due to switch to its overall negative phase things look like they could get interesting, or not.
-
3 hours ago, Paul said:
Am a bit of a loss with this debate. Firstly, because I don't get the name-calling and mudslinging, how does that help?
But secondly and more importantly, I just can't understand how much more evidence some people need? Surely when there's enough consensus amongst virtually all of the worlds leading experts on a subject, then that should be enough to convince all but those who have made up their minds and aren't interested in the science, evidence etc?
But maybe I'm wrong here, so for those deniers out there (I'm not going to use the word sceptics, because being sceptical can surely only last so long, and faced with the mountain of evidence, it has to be impossible to remain sceptical any longer?), what more do you need, what piece of evidence is missing for you right now? Is there anything a climate scientist could show or explain to you to answer the questions you still have?
I get that there will be differing global temperature forecasts, and how natural climate cycles may effect the over-riding trends etc etc. So for those who agree with the principle of AGW but are wondering about the finer details, this isn't aimed at you so much, although, we can probably safely assume the worlds leading experts haven't missed that stuff when looking into all of this prior to putting the IPCC and other reports together!
It depends on what you class as evidence, for me evidence is based on facts somwith that in mind the only facts we can truly agree in is the globe has warmed and no doubt man is responsible for some of that warming just how much is open to debate as is how much warming we’ll continue tosee.
This headline of seeing a further 0,7c rise before 2030 is highly unlikely considering we’ve only seen a 0.8c rise over the last 150 years and counting, Whatever happened to the huge uncertainties on how much warming we’ll continue to see, this was always the IPCC mantra but suddenly we’ve seen a change of tune, why is the question we should be asking.
-
Not all the experts agree on the IPCC findings and don’t give me that big oil malarkey as science is ever evolving and never rests on its laurels. The only thing of any certainty is that we’ve warmed and man has caused some of this the rest is speculative at best.
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, Weather-history said:
It's like saying you hate the sight of your mother-in-law but you have a photo of her in your wallet.......
It reminds me of the old joke of keeping a picture of your mother in law in your wallet to stop your kids pinching any money.
-
Around 3” snow here and looking like we could get a few more inches over the next 24 hours. ?
-
The cold continues for many in the North, no deep cold uppers from the weekend but surface cold will keep temps a few degrees above freezing during the day with snow comtnuing to be a risk for the next 5-7 days. Excellent for the time of year.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, karyo said:
I have noticed that the GFS shows most of the shower activity during the afternoon hours, helped by the sun. Then overnight mainly dry. This is also what happened in March 2013 which meant that snow only settled briefly and then the sun made short work of it. You can still keep the snow in the shade though.
Easterlies rarely deliver for our region on the whole , we need a strong convective flow with embedded troughs or a frontal attack. At the moment I think most of us will see falling snow but amounts may not amount to that much away from elevation.
-
Just now, Mokidugway said:
That's why it's better for you to find a new hobby .
It’s not an hobby to start with. ?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Spah1 said:
someone pass me a bowl so I can ?
If that verified we may as well give up. ?
Report Climate change ipcc
in Climate Change
Posted
What are we denying exactly may I ask?
Theres a lot of denying going on this thread for sure but it’s not from those posing questions.