As in all things, there is the usual range of motivations behind this lunacy. Some mad, some bad and everything in between. I suspect Milliband & his ilk really think they are doing good and will be seen as long sighted saviours of mankind. The stronger the pushback, the more entrenched their position becomes.
Reality? That doesn't matter. As long as these fantasists can Virtue Signal to their peers they don't care about reality or truth.
The Climate Change Committee are deeply compromised. Most of the members have connections to the renewables industry, not that you needed me to tell you that 🤣
Take the global temperature anomaly curves and add real uncertainties of at least 1 degree C top and bottom and you'll start to see why this whole thing is nonsense. You can draw any curve you want going up or going down. The Met Office still publishes papers about all the corrections they do to temperature data and assumptions made because it isn't accurate enough and never will be. Which means it shouldn't be applied to the real world if there were any ethics involved.
Climate Change is an academic exercise not a real world one. It doesn't pass a basic audit. Certainly not one of any engineering standard.
Around the time of the UEA scandal, particularly after going through the 'readme' document which contained the software/data analysts' shocked horror at the degree of data-manipulation and sheer methodological ignorance, I'd have agreed. But . . .
1. I think things have come a long way since then. Back at UEA days, 'climate science' didn't attract the talent - we got the duffers. I don't think it's like that anymore: you've got some bright people on the job.
2. But the job of constructing a 'global temperature' at all remains one of enormous methodological complexity, and I grant you that it might well be insuperable. The best one can hope for, then, is a 'normalized' series, in which the underlying fundamental errors are at least consistently if tacitly accepted. I don't think that's a 'dodge', I think it's the only possible way forward. Quite possibly the 'real' global temperature is out (up/down) by a degree or more. I'm not sure that matters if we're talking normalized trend.
3. The problems of measurement are, of course well known, and there's every reason to think the Met tolerates or even encourages these errors because it suits the political narrative they are paid to push. (Ie, putting your thermometer next to an aircon duct or other obvious heat-spot). I don't take any notice of the Met's insulting offerings. Rather I take the data from NASA's Goddard Inst, and, separately, from the satellite readings of the lower troposphere, which are probably the most trustworthy.
4. I'm very aware of the complexity of modelling any dynamic system at all, let alone one as complex as climate. So I think we should treat the model outcomes with a degree of scepticism, since a) we probably don't really know the initial state and b) we can't be sure that we know all the active stock/flows at work.
5. Nonetheless, I think it's reasonable to believe two things. First, that global temperatures are indeed rising and second, that rising concentration of CO2 (and greenhouse gases) are a contributing factor. Therefore, although for all the reasons I've written about, I'm outraged by our masters' insistence that we sacrifice to their Net Zero god, I'm not a 'climate sceptic'.
No. If you’re measurement is not sufficient to meet your hypothesis standards such that have to use assumptions and various statistical techniques you have a hypothetical idea. If your source signal to noise is terrible then you have no real world verification.
Do we increase property tax due to denser space because of extra branes from String Theory? Of course not as not one String Theory prediction has ever come true and can be explained by conventional physics.
Nothing in climate science is significant in real world terms. It is just looking at noise.
Even satellite data has limits especially for long term trends.
Basically we do not know if the 1930s were warmer than today. Or the 1200s. Or the Roman period. But other records of heat and drought as well as crop patterns suggest it was. But not to decimal places.
OK, I'm going to go there. It is possible, and probably even correct, to view the very idea of a 'global temperature' as an impossibility - indeed, strictly speaking, I think it probably is. (And this not because of the difficulty of measurement, but because, well, of time and space. Maybe if you had a measuring satellite sufficiently far out in space we could estimate the planet's radiative trend over time. Maybe, in fact, that's the only way it could be done.)
But that said, the statistical purity you demand before any conclusions can be drawn is truly unworldly. The fact that almost all data comes surrounded by noise does not mean that no signal can ever be detected. (Confession, as an economist I spend my days and nights extracting signal from a great deal of noise. Only very rarely does the noise completely destroy the signal (one huge example, however, is the UK trade data, which is so noisy I've stopped pretending you can get even a vague directional signal from it.)
The various global temperature signals, published every month, are of course noisy. But the noise is not overpowering, and that one can use fairly regular statistical filters on it does not mean it is impossible to identify a trend. In fact, for your argument to stand (ie, no signal possible), you would have to argue not merely that there is noise, but that the noise has grown consistently larger (and in one direction) over the last 30 years. Because if it hasn't, then the rising trend will survive.
If that is your position, then you're going to have to produce some really good reality-based evidence to support the 'ever-noisier' argument your conclusions needs. Probably you'd need a really huge conspiracy theory to give it legs. Maybe. . ..
Like it or not, and with all the qualifications I happily acknowledge, you've got to erase too much evidence if you're going to assert that the globe isn't warming. And I'm sorry about that.
In basic metrology and science if your source measurement uncertainty is greater than the variation you expect from hypothesis you try and get a better measurement process. Otherwise your errors/uncertainties propagate.
Take trying to measure the width of a human hair using a ruler marked in mm. The uncertainty is +/- 0.5 mm. It can’t go any lower unless you use a vernier scale i.e. a better ruler. But even with that taking multiple measurements and averaging them will not produce a better result if you can’t read sub-micron. The error is systematic. Irreducible. You need better tools if you wish to use the measurements for real data and importantly it is mandatory to use adequate precision if it affects people’s safety.
Most of these academics publish temperature series as hypothetical data because a real average would be ludicrous if looking at fractional changes. If however you were looking at changes of 10 or 20 degrees say in an aircraft engine then having an error/uncertainty of 2 degrees is okay.
When academics say uncertainty they often mean a statistical uncertainty which actually means a model. Assumptions. They have many papers talking about just that.
But you don’t do any engineering with such models alone. And if you do they are tightly controlled.
You are saying the temperature noise is not overpowering? The actual raw temperatures for sea surface temperatures have systematic irreducible errors of at least 1 degree and more. Which means changes of sub 1 degree are noise. Just hypotheticals. And that the average will be worse factoring in extrapolations and uneven gridding.
The satellite temperature data uses other datasets for reference too except ones that don’t estimate surface temperatures but even with that they only go back a few decades. Not to the 1920s.
All of the temperature variation fits well within the error bars of the surface sets so what are you talking about?
Every engineering application that you use today from the chair you sit on to the water you drink follows strict signal to noise requirements during verification. That’s not a conspiracy theory it’s just a fact and a consequence of the Scientific Method
As in all things, there is the usual range of motivations behind this lunacy. Some mad, some bad and everything in between. I suspect Milliband & his ilk really think they are doing good and will be seen as long sighted saviours of mankind. The stronger the pushback, the more entrenched their position becomes.
Reality? That doesn't matter. As long as these fantasists can Virtue Signal to their peers they don't care about reality or truth.
The Climate Change Committee are deeply compromised. Most of the members have connections to the renewables industry, not that you needed me to tell you that 🤣
There is a collective madness which:
1. Suggests GB can produce all its energy by Wind & Solar; with no provision for when wind/ solar does not generate enough.
2. Refuses to adopt SMR Nuclear; perhaps using Rolls Royce or Czech versions. Need for Gas generators middle to long term.
3. As the author says, considers UK Greening makes a difference; apart perhaps moral leadership.
4. Forces us to buy Electric Vehicles without regard for public charging points, pollution caused by Windmills & Solar at end of useful life.
5. Fails to use UK skills to find new ways of operating. Work on Batteries or Carbon Capture may help long term.
Of course China & India pollute many times more than UK.
On balance I think CC is real, but we are not assessing & responding to the implications.
Worth listening to interviews of Jeremy Grantham who explores the above.
Take the global temperature anomaly curves and add real uncertainties of at least 1 degree C top and bottom and you'll start to see why this whole thing is nonsense. You can draw any curve you want going up or going down. The Met Office still publishes papers about all the corrections they do to temperature data and assumptions made because it isn't accurate enough and never will be. Which means it shouldn't be applied to the real world if there were any ethics involved.
Climate Change is an academic exercise not a real world one. It doesn't pass a basic audit. Certainly not one of any engineering standard.
Around the time of the UEA scandal, particularly after going through the 'readme' document which contained the software/data analysts' shocked horror at the degree of data-manipulation and sheer methodological ignorance, I'd have agreed. But . . .
1. I think things have come a long way since then. Back at UEA days, 'climate science' didn't attract the talent - we got the duffers. I don't think it's like that anymore: you've got some bright people on the job.
2. But the job of constructing a 'global temperature' at all remains one of enormous methodological complexity, and I grant you that it might well be insuperable. The best one can hope for, then, is a 'normalized' series, in which the underlying fundamental errors are at least consistently if tacitly accepted. I don't think that's a 'dodge', I think it's the only possible way forward. Quite possibly the 'real' global temperature is out (up/down) by a degree or more. I'm not sure that matters if we're talking normalized trend.
3. The problems of measurement are, of course well known, and there's every reason to think the Met tolerates or even encourages these errors because it suits the political narrative they are paid to push. (Ie, putting your thermometer next to an aircon duct or other obvious heat-spot). I don't take any notice of the Met's insulting offerings. Rather I take the data from NASA's Goddard Inst, and, separately, from the satellite readings of the lower troposphere, which are probably the most trustworthy.
4. I'm very aware of the complexity of modelling any dynamic system at all, let alone one as complex as climate. So I think we should treat the model outcomes with a degree of scepticism, since a) we probably don't really know the initial state and b) we can't be sure that we know all the active stock/flows at work.
5. Nonetheless, I think it's reasonable to believe two things. First, that global temperatures are indeed rising and second, that rising concentration of CO2 (and greenhouse gases) are a contributing factor. Therefore, although for all the reasons I've written about, I'm outraged by our masters' insistence that we sacrifice to their Net Zero god, I'm not a 'climate sceptic'.
Hope that helps.
No. If you’re measurement is not sufficient to meet your hypothesis standards such that have to use assumptions and various statistical techniques you have a hypothetical idea. If your source signal to noise is terrible then you have no real world verification.
Do we increase property tax due to denser space because of extra branes from String Theory? Of course not as not one String Theory prediction has ever come true and can be explained by conventional physics.
Nothing in climate science is significant in real world terms. It is just looking at noise.
Even satellite data has limits especially for long term trends.
Basically we do not know if the 1930s were warmer than today. Or the 1200s. Or the Roman period. But other records of heat and drought as well as crop patterns suggest it was. But not to decimal places.
OK, I'm going to go there. It is possible, and probably even correct, to view the very idea of a 'global temperature' as an impossibility - indeed, strictly speaking, I think it probably is. (And this not because of the difficulty of measurement, but because, well, of time and space. Maybe if you had a measuring satellite sufficiently far out in space we could estimate the planet's radiative trend over time. Maybe, in fact, that's the only way it could be done.)
But that said, the statistical purity you demand before any conclusions can be drawn is truly unworldly. The fact that almost all data comes surrounded by noise does not mean that no signal can ever be detected. (Confession, as an economist I spend my days and nights extracting signal from a great deal of noise. Only very rarely does the noise completely destroy the signal (one huge example, however, is the UK trade data, which is so noisy I've stopped pretending you can get even a vague directional signal from it.)
The various global temperature signals, published every month, are of course noisy. But the noise is not overpowering, and that one can use fairly regular statistical filters on it does not mean it is impossible to identify a trend. In fact, for your argument to stand (ie, no signal possible), you would have to argue not merely that there is noise, but that the noise has grown consistently larger (and in one direction) over the last 30 years. Because if it hasn't, then the rising trend will survive.
If that is your position, then you're going to have to produce some really good reality-based evidence to support the 'ever-noisier' argument your conclusions needs. Probably you'd need a really huge conspiracy theory to give it legs. Maybe. . ..
Like it or not, and with all the qualifications I happily acknowledge, you've got to erase too much evidence if you're going to assert that the globe isn't warming. And I'm sorry about that.
In basic metrology and science if your source measurement uncertainty is greater than the variation you expect from hypothesis you try and get a better measurement process. Otherwise your errors/uncertainties propagate.
Take trying to measure the width of a human hair using a ruler marked in mm. The uncertainty is +/- 0.5 mm. It can’t go any lower unless you use a vernier scale i.e. a better ruler. But even with that taking multiple measurements and averaging them will not produce a better result if you can’t read sub-micron. The error is systematic. Irreducible. You need better tools if you wish to use the measurements for real data and importantly it is mandatory to use adequate precision if it affects people’s safety.
Most of these academics publish temperature series as hypothetical data because a real average would be ludicrous if looking at fractional changes. If however you were looking at changes of 10 or 20 degrees say in an aircraft engine then having an error/uncertainty of 2 degrees is okay.
When academics say uncertainty they often mean a statistical uncertainty which actually means a model. Assumptions. They have many papers talking about just that.
But you don’t do any engineering with such models alone. And if you do they are tightly controlled.
You are saying the temperature noise is not overpowering? The actual raw temperatures for sea surface temperatures have systematic irreducible errors of at least 1 degree and more. Which means changes of sub 1 degree are noise. Just hypotheticals. And that the average will be worse factoring in extrapolations and uneven gridding.
The satellite temperature data uses other datasets for reference too except ones that don’t estimate surface temperatures but even with that they only go back a few decades. Not to the 1920s.
All of the temperature variation fits well within the error bars of the surface sets so what are you talking about?
Every engineering application that you use today from the chair you sit on to the water you drink follows strict signal to noise requirements during verification. That’s not a conspiracy theory it’s just a fact and a consequence of the Scientific Method
On point as usual Michael. This is collective madness.