nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Scariest climate change prediction yet: More time to eat plane food

Anonymous Coward

False premise leads to false results

Pretty much sums up the state of "climate change" modelling. Once you have bought off on the bogus predictions of the climate modellers, one can more or less model any future result.

However, if the actual satellite data is correct, and the warming stays in the trivial department (as it has for 40 years according to the instruments in space), this, like most catastrophic predictions will not come to pass.

I miss Lewis :(

27
19
Silver badge
Happy

Re: False premise leads to false results

New narrative: okay, we admit things are actually getting warmer, but only a little bit.

13
5

Re: False premise leads to false results

"Boffins" can predict all they like, but no evidence will change the mind of those who are convinced AGW is a conspiracy. Some "boffins" even calculated that, given the number of scientists involved, such a conspiracy would fall apart after 3.5 years at most, but conspiracy theorists are immune to evidence.

18
19

Re: False premise leads to false results

It's not a conspiracy, it's skepticism. It's looking at the data provided and finding it lacking.

28
11

Re: False premise leads to false results

"It's not a conspiracy, it's skepticism. It's looking at the data provided and finding it lacking."

When over 97% of those qualified to study the evidence find it compelling, only a conspiracy theory explains your so-called scepticism.

13
21
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

When somebody tells you that there is 97% agreement for something as complex as this, you have to question whether it's true.

The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'.

21
9

Re: False premise leads to false results

"The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'", that must be a conspiracy!

9
12
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

@ Dan 55

"New narrative: okay, we admit things are actually getting warmer, but only a little bit."

I am fairly sure the narrative is the same old 'we all gonna die, the saviour is coming, something about 4 horsemen'.

You would have thought the many false claims and blatant wealth transfer would have changed their story by now but nope. They still wanna stand on top of a hill waiting for their mothership to take them away while the rest of us burn on this planet. (I may have got the religions mixed up a little there. Eventually they all start sounding so similar)

15
3
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

@ Thought About IT

"When over 97% of those qualified to study the evidence find it compelling, only a conspiracy theory explains your so-called scepticism."

I will point out that those religious believers all believe themselves to be qualified and are believed to be qualified by their believers. Are you a sceptic? Or only of every god but yours?

10
7
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

Another thing that makes me think 'hmmm' is that temperatures are currently relatively stable ( ie: it's not 50°c in the UK today ), but any day now, if we don't do something immediately, that hockey stick is going to kick in. It's all too way convenient.

9
10

Re: False premise leads to false results

"Boffins" can predict all they like, but no evidence will change the mind of those who are convinced AGW is a conspiracy.

It's not a conspiracy; It's a lifestyle.

7
7
Anonymous Coward

AC: "I miss Lewis :("

Anyone get a desperate spam email from Lewis Page in recent weeks looking for work?

(Get the impression he was shown the door in a style not unlike his explosive prose)

4
8
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

And another ( last one, promise ):

THIS YEAR HOTTEST EVER ( although actually *way* within the error margins, technically equally as warm as one year just after the war before AGW really apparently kicked in ). That form of hyperbole doesn't sit well with me.

18
7
Silver badge

Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

Anyone get a desperate spam email from Lewis Page in recent weeks looking for work?

That would indicate he had access to our e-mail address which would be quite worrying.

Lewis' articles on anything (especially defence) other than climate change were usually entertaining and thought-provoking. But the climate-change stuff was very partial ranting; a bit like Worstall's stuff on economics. I don't mind reading stuff that I don't necessarily agree with – I might learn something – but do when it's too obviously pushing an agenda.

While I do believe that human development is affecting the planet, I'm also not convinced by the greenhouse effect. But this is largely down to the fact that we simply do not have sufficient historical data. However, I don't think it's something we should bet against. And what advantages do we really have in a dependence on fossil fuel?

8
6
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

> The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'.

You'll find that about the same percentage (likely a higher one) of physicists accept, say, quantum mechanics.

Interpreting overwhelming agreement on a topic in the scientific community as suspect is very unwise.

11
2
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

But nobody is hoping to use the consensus on QM to reduce the living standards of everybody in the world.

My point is that I don't believe the 97% figure. It's being jammed down our throats so as to say "You're wrong, science says so, reduce your living standards".

I won't believe until I see some some actual evidence, not a vague promise that keeps getting pushed back, that any day now, we're going to experience the pointy end of hockey stick. Every time it's "firey death in 20 years", but 20 years came and went and we're apparently occasionally 0.1° warmer, within the margin of error.

Next prediction, of course, will be different.

10
8
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

@Thought About IT

The 97% meme so often quoted has been dismantled and shown to be not what it is claimed to be. However the "converted" preach it as gospel, despite having been falsified - rather like the "settled science" they also worship.

13
8
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

Few people who question the AGW assertion (it is not in any way a theory), do so by claiming there is a conspiracy. Mostly they do so because the evidence is rather thin on the ground, and pretty much all of the predictions the AGW assertion has made turned out to be totally wrong (there is a website somewhere keeping score).

And just so you are clear, there does not need to be a conspiracy. There simply needs to be a sufficient number of people who make the same choices for their own self interest. A lot of climate scientists need funding, and toeing the AGW party line is the way to funding, publication, career and tenure.

12
8
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

@GrumpenKraut It also turns out that a significant number of theoretical physicists and real scientists incl. Nobel laureates, think that "climate science" is completely bogus and unrelated to science.

9
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

For Mr. Thumbs down, I suggest Google, or you could start here. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

You don't have to like the WSJ, but they give their sources. As usual, the "believers" have been sold a lie, they are just too stupid and gullible.

I am really looking forward to the day that the useful idiots of the Church of AGW suddenly realise that they have been duped, and robbed of their living standard in the name of their church.

7
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

"And what advantages do we really have in a dependence on fossil fuel?"

1: It's cheap

2: There is an awful lot of it around (centuries worth), and we have very good systems in place for finding it, delivering it and consuming it.

3: It's not nuclear (though personally nuclear is fine by me)

4: You can generate base load from it.

8
3
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Another False premise...

"... which will mean longer trans-Atlantic flights"

No, it won't. On average, they will remain the same, one way will be faster, and the opposite direction will be slower.

3
5
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

"When over 97% of those qualified to study the evidence find it compelling, only a conspiracy theory explains your so-called scepticism."...

...If indeed there is any evidence at all that 97% did find it compelling: If not the fact that its been stated so often is, itself evidence of a conspiracy...

5
4
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

And what advantages do we really have in a dependence on fossil fuel?

Oh, the mere fact that without it modern civilisation as we know it would cease to exist in a matter of days, along with 90% of the worlds population?

But dont worry your pretty little head about it, keep voting green (or red: not much difference these says).

9
5
Holmes

Re: one way faster, the opposite direction slower... on average the same

Unfortunately that's not how scientists see it. Must be a conspiracy.

Simply, for instance, you drive 200km at 100km/h, it takes 2h. Now if you drive 1h TIME at 50km/h and one hour at 150km/h, you've done 200km in 2 hours as well, but this is not what's happening here.

Here you drive a DISTANCE of 100km at 50 (which takes 2h already...) then 100km at 150.Imagine (it's theory) the wind is so strong it takes 3 times more to go one way, how do you keep the average time on the way back? Warp speed?

8
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

Oh, the mere fact that without it modern civilisation as we know it would cease to exist in a matter of days, along with 90% of the worlds population?

You really think 90% of the world's population is dependent upon fossil fuel? I've got news for you: if the rest of the world develops anything like the same hunger for energy as we do, then we're screwed.

But dont worry your pretty little head about it, keep voting green (or red: not much difference these says).

Ah bless, being patronised by a Tory…

5
8
Silver badge

Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

No. And if he was pushed out, it's a shame on El Reg. because I enjoyed his articles, I've enjoyed the site under his term as editor and in my opinion, it's worse without him.

9
2

Re: On average, they will remain the same

That's not how dynamics works. Think about it. If the plane's groundspeed is 300 mph, and the jet stream is also 300 mph, then one way the combined speed is 600 mph so half the travel time. But in the opposite direction the combined speed is 0 mph, so the travel time becomes infinite.

4
1
Dead Vulture

Re: AC: "I miss Lewis :("

>"No. And if he was pushed..."

No if about it.

Didn't you get the memo? The Register is a fully compliant company house now. Deviation from properly approved blackwhite is not tolerated.

5
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: On average, they will remain the same

Brangdon is, of course perfectly correct about the relative dynamics. However the quivering carbophobes can relax once again: Airlines already have a tendency to avoid flying planes directly head-on against jetstreams for the purely commercial reasons of (1) passenger comfort and safety and (2) elementary economics... however they do routinely make use of following winds to reduce flight times and fuel consumption. Also for purely commercial reasons. You can safely trust that these practices are sure to continue - at least until such times as oil prices fall into negative values. Therefore, should any foretold jetstream embiggening actually come to pass, the resultant savings will be correspondingly embiggened while any potential hindrances will continue to be avoided resulting in net reductions in both flight times and fuel consumption. That means the aviation industry would be releasing less carbon if the jetstreams were to strengthen, BTW.

So, rest assured dear carbophobes, your terrible end is (still) not nigh.

5
3

Re: False premise leads to false results

"THIS YEAR HOTTEST EVER ( although actually *way* within the error margins, technically equally as warm as one year just after the war before AGW really apparently kicked in ). That form of hyperbole doesn't sit well"

Well 2015 was the warmest year on record at the surface. It isn't within the error margins, it's the warmest.

3
2
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

> ...a significant number of theoretical physicists and real scientists incl. Nobel laureates ... [citation needed]

Certainly not a significant percentage.

Plus, how do you define "real scientists", as not doing climate research?

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Another False premise...

Please do the calculation (it's not hard) to spot your error.

[edit: somebody beat me to it.]

0
0

Re: False premise leads to false results

so there is no 97% consensus of climate scientists that man made global warming is true but 100% of climate scientists believe in man made global warming to get more funding.

Thanks for the laugh people

3
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

Here is a very long list http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

Well, NomNomNom, you might actually read some of the sources claiming this (but we all know you won't, because you are a cheerleader for this bullshit). The links have been provided, so you do not have to dig up the papers - I have read some of them, utter bollocks!

4
2

Re: False premise leads to false results

I really don't understand the obsession with denying that the vast majority of climate scientists believe man is warming the climate. If I walked into a pub with 20 in I'd expect to be hard pressed to find just 1 who didn't think man was responsible. Is that really so threatening to skeptics? I guess so

5
4

Re: False premise leads to false results

If you look back, I think you'll find that at one time, not too long ago, more than 97% of scientists said that plate tectonics was not possible, and looking back a bit more, that the Big Bang Theory of evolution was rubbish. Whilst the first has been proven, we're still waiting on the latter. And going back a lot further the consensus of scientists was that the sun and stars orbited the Earth.

4
2
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

"as it has for 40 years according to the instruments in space"

Nope. The satellite data shows the same very clear long term warming trend as the surface data. See http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss

3
2
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

"The 97% figure is one of the things that makes me think 'hmmm'."

It comes from here: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

1
0
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

"temperatures are currently relatively stable"

You must have missed the last 2 years being in turn the warmest since records began?

3
3
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

"I won't believe until I see some some actual evidence"

Like the accelerating year on year rise in sea levels for instance?

3
2

Re: Another False premise...

"... On average, they will remain the same, one way will be faster, and the opposite direction will be slower."

No. I am a pilot, and one of the things we have to teach newbies is that it *doesn't* cancel out. In practice, the lose from a headwind is reliably bigger than the win from the tailwind going the other way. Any book aimed at student pilots will have a discussion of this.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

The warming is not trivial. The difference between glacial earth and now is only 3-4C and it's only another couple of degrees to tropical earth.

That's _average_ global temperatures. Regional variations are (of course) a lot higher.

Mind you, it looks to me like a bigger risk of the current CO2 spike is oceanic anoxic events (they go hand in hand with CO2 spikes right through geological history). If that's the case there may not be much civilisation around to worry about ocean level rises.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Another False premise...

The speedup in one direction (4-5 minutes) is outweighed by the slowdown in the other direction (7-8 minutes)

You could fly a more southerly route to catch the easterly trade winds, but the extra great circle distance would wipe out any gains.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: False premise leads to false results

"But nobody is hoping to use the consensus on QM to reduce the living standards of everybody in the world."

If you want to curb AGW, then you _can't reduce the living standards of everyone. Developed countries, perhaps, but 3/4 of the world lives in poverty and the only way to reduce their population growth is to make them better off.

The REAL answer to the issue is "more nooclear", but that doesn't fit the prevailing political agenda.

It's also worth noting that whilst a few hundred million dollars get thrown at things like the G8 Paris conference on climate change so all the leaders can hob-nob, actual researchers are mostly hard pressed to even get 50-100k grants for enough computing power to validate atmospheric satellite observations made over the last 40 years and see how much things have actually changed

(Hint: we know what the heat blanketing factor of CO2 is, but what we don't know is how much the earth's reflectivity has changed overall and therefore how much actual solar heat was retained in the atmosphere. At the current pace of data crunching, the project for analysing the change in every km^2 of the earth via satellite imagery taken over the last 40 years will be completed in 10-15 years)

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

Well, we all know it is warming, but it is doing so at a trivial rate. No hockeystick, no accelerating increase - and as we all know it has been pretty flat for the second half of the 40 year satellite record.

The thermogeddon folks got it very seriously and grossly wrong. The data does not in any way support their assertion, but supports the continued gradual rise consistent with us warming up since the last cold spell.

In recent news, the Australian Government has pulled the pin and realigning CSIROs research priorities, the religion of AGW has lost here, largely because the predictions have been so catastrophically wrong - and expensive!

The Australian article is good, but behind a paywall. Start here and look onwards. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/csiro-boss-apologises-for-climate-religion-comments/7160288

I am expecting things to cool down rather soon and rather dramatically.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

Only if you believe the homogonised ground data sets, which here in Australia are modified on a daily basis. The past has been cooled and the present is warmed ... ho-hum, the farce continues.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: False premise leads to false results

"Accelerating sea level rises" - not happening anywhere in the real world. Of course after data is homogonised and corrected, who knows (or cares).

2
2

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing