Global warming/climate change discussion

[Bootstrap]

Seems a good time to revive this thread. Texas seems to be suffering from the opposite of warming. Is global warming to blame for -4° weather and frozen pipes?

Of course!

But remember Josh, it’s “Global Climate Change”, not global warming. That’s called “hedging your bets”.

And it's "Global Climate Change", not "Local Weather Change". So perhaps the best starting point is to look at past predictions and see how well they have predicted global warming rather than local weather.

[Bootstrap]

Suppose we aren't all experts on the many areas of science involved in the IPCC reports. We can still look back to past predictions, see how much warming they predicted, and compare that to measured results. We can use the simplest measurements possible.

Here's one article that does just that.

Let's look at just the IPCC reports that are at least 20 years old. Here they are:







Note that each image shows multiple models and the consensus prediction. To me, at least, it looks like the predictions of global climate warming track pretty well with measured data in the time since then.

Am I missing something?

[nett]

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I'd say you are

[Bootstrap]

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I'd say you are

These graphs clearly look different. Is there an article associated with the graph? I don't really know what your graph is charting, that makes it hard to compare it to the graphs I just provided.

Can you provide information that can help? I would like to use sources that directly compare IPCC predictions to observed data for global temperature, using a transparent methodology that I can understand.

[nett]

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I'd say you are

These graphs clearly look different. Is there an article associated with the graph? I don't really know what your graph is charting, that makes it hard to compare it to the graphs I just provided.

Can you provide information that can help? I would like to use sources that directly compare IPCC predictions to observed data for global temperature, using a transparent methodology that I can understand.

It's pretty easy to accurately predict the future, when you can just change history...

Here's a proactive list of tired old arguments, so we can avoid the boring chore of rehashing something everyone now knows. The historical record has basically been invalidated.

[Bootstrap]

These graphs clearly look different. Is there an article associated with the graph? I don't really know what your graph is charting, that makes it hard to compare it to the graphs I just provided.

Can you provide information that can help? I would like to use sources that directly compare IPCC predictions to observed data for global temperature, using a transparent methodology that I can understand.

It's pretty easy to accurately predict the future, when you can just change history...

Here's a proactive list of tired old arguments, so we can avoid the boring chore of rehashing something everyone now knows. The historical record has basically been invalidated.

Oddly, scientists and scientific associations do not seem to know what "everyone now knows". That's why I am trying to stick with the big picture. Let's not just throw talking points at each other or throw up graphs without even discussing them in detail.

A lot of this stuff basically is based on the belief that scientists are in a conspiracy to fool you. I happen to believe that political factions and lobbyists are often in a conspiracy to fool us and that scientists are generally more objective. I don't think that we know this science better than the climate scientists do.

It's pretty easy to accurately predict the future, when you can just change history...

Are you saying the three graphs I provided do that? I can't easily track the things in the post you point to, which seems to be based on other blog posts. If you think that the temperature record in the three graphs I provided is wrong, could you explain how you believe they are wrong, and what makes you believe that?

[Josh]

It would be interesting to apply these predictive models to the stock market. In theory, stocks should be much simpler to model than global weather, particularly predictions 5 or 10 years out.

Would anyone care to make predictions of the stock market a year out?

[Bootstrap]

It would be interesting to apply these predictive models to the stock market. In theory, stocks should be much simpler to model than global weather, particularly predictions 5 or 10 years out.

Would anyone care to make predictions of the stock market a year out?

It would be stupid to predict a given day or the exact values a year out (weather), but people do invest in the stock market because they believe they can predict a big picture trend (climate) - they believe that in the long run, the stock market will go up over time. In fact, many people believe in that so much that they bet their retirement on it. People who think it is not stupid to invest in the stock market might also think it is not stupid to believe in big picture global climate trends.

But really, can we please focus on the three graphs? If there is something wrong with them, what is it? Let's stop throwing one-liners and talking points at them and ask the fundamental questions. Nett has claimed that the temperature measurements in these graphs are wrong. Are they? How can I know that?

[nett]

These graphs clearly look different. Is there an article associated with the graph? I don't really know what your graph is charting, that makes it hard to compare it to the graphs I just provided.

Can you provide information that can help? I would like to use sources that directly compare IPCC predictions to observed data for global temperature, using a transparent methodology that I can understand.

It's pretty easy to accurately predict the future, when you can just change history...

Here's a proactive list of tired old arguments, so we can avoid the boring chore of rehashing something everyone now knows. The historical record has basically been invalidated.

Oddly, scientists and scientific associations do not seem to know what "everyone now knows". That's why I am trying to stick with the big picture. Let's not just throw talking points at each other or throw up graphs without even discussing them in detail.

A lot of this stuff basically is based on the belief that scientists are in a conspiracy to fool you. I happen to believe that political factions and lobbyists are often in a conspiracy to fool us and that scientists are generally more objective. I don't think that we know this science better than the climate scientists do.

It's pretty easy to accurately predict the future, when you can just change history...

Are you saying the three graphs I provided do that? I can't easily track the things in the post you point to, which seems to be based on other blog posts. If you think that the temperature record in the three graphs I provided is wrong, could you explain how you believe they are wrong, and what makes you believe that?

I have not seen any scientists actually questioning that TOB adjustments are responsible for the demonstrated warming trend. There is a lot of discussion about whether the adjustments are accurate, but I have yet to see any discussions where the TOB defenders don't fall back to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. If you can point me to something of substance, I'd gladly review.

I can we can all agree that it's hard to take warming trends seriously, when they almost complete rely on changing historical data, not current measurements.

Here's a simple question. Why do they continue to adjust 1930-70s temperature data? No new information has come out, but they continue to make adjustments. I think the simplest answer, is that they are bending history to make their predictions at least credible.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, rather a cult. A cult where anyone who questions the official narrative has to deal with career ending attacks, personal threats, slander, insults etc.

BTW, I do not deny that humans (esp post-industrial humans) are contributing to ecological disasters left and right. It's just that warming alarmism plays into the hands of the already rich and powerful, by distracting from their plunder of the earth, at everyone else's expense, while enabling a whole new category of pay-to-play so that the rich get richer (eg. carbon credits).

[nett]

But really, can we please focus on the three graphs? If there is something wrong with them, what is it? Let's stop throwing one-liners and talking points at them and ask the fundamental questions. Nett has claimed that the temperature measurements in these graphs are wrong. Are they? How can I know that?

I posted a decent starting point to understand why the adjustments are problematic. It's not hard to understand. That being said, if you have an undying faith in central institutions, nothing I can say or post will ever change your mind.

Speaking of the stock market, I think it's interesting to look at how the central bankers are thinking about climate hysteria. For instance Dr Mark Carney, the UN Secretary General’s new Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

A market in the transition to net zero is now being built…which can accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy. It’s turning an existential risk into one of the greatest commercial opportunities of our time. It’s now within our grasp to create a virtuous cycle of innovation and investment for the net zero world that people are demanding, and that future generations deserve. In this way, private finance can bend the arc of history towards climate justice…..and the Glasgow of COP 26 can be reunited with the Glasgow of Adam Smith. (Reith Lecture 4, transcript, page 6, December 26, 2020)

Part of being a Christian is a required amount of skepticism, distrust, and lack of faith in worldly wisdom and institutions.

The elite globalists are literally salivating over this opportunity to further centralize "the arc of history" under the power of private. If that doesn't give you the willies, then we might not have enough of our worldview in common to actually have a meaningful discussion.