The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8..12..15..18..21..24~25~26 [Next]
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

On the deliberate removal of the medieval warm period from climate models, please see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/wh......-period/

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5923/78

Woland
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

For a demonstration of how the "hockey stick" was artefactually modeled, you might start with this recent exposition:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make-......re-11591

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 12:50, Woland wrote:
John,

Thanks for your generous offer. I will present the sources upon which I base my comments in a stepwise fashion.

First, let's examine whether the historical surface temperature data is of any value.

In the pages of the following site, you will find the information showing that data from >70% of the surface stations in the United States is seriously flawed:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

1003 of the stations in the USHCN have been surveyed and photographed so far.

Please review and comment as you deem appropriate.

Woland


I've seen this one before. Nothing on it appears to have passed any scientific review at all. And it focuses only on the US. Does this somehow invalidate ocean measurement? Satellite data? Other countries?

Further, there is nothing here that isn't accounted for in the scientific papers. IPCC even makes direct reference to the issue.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

For a discussion of the overall climate change paradigm, this article by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Climate Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is of interest:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/apr/08/......librium/

Quote:

"Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again."

-and-

"The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.

However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.

"Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.

"Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.

"The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

"One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.

"Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.

"It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.

"Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

"Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence."

(end quotes)

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 12:59, Woland wrote:
John,

On the deliberate removal of the medieval warm period from climate models, please see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/wh......[/quote]

The guy is a retired TV weatherman; this is hardly compelling evidence. Maybe an appeal to peer-reviewed science is in order.

Quote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/324/5923/78


Did you read this paper? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions of anthropogenic climate change. The paper proposes some mechanisms that may have been causally important in the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Nobody has ever denied that this fluctuation occurred.
Quote:
Woland


Thanks for the links, but these are not particularly helpful.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 13:04, Woland wrote:
John,

For a discussion of the overall climate change paradigm, this article by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Climate Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is of interest:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/apr/08/......librium/

Quote:

"Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again."

-and-

"The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.

However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.

"Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.

"Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.

"The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

"One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.

"Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.

"It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.

"Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

"Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence."

(end quotes)

Woland


This one is an op-ed piece by a qualified scientist. He presents a minority view, but fair enough; at least it is a qualified minority view. Now my question to you Woland is this: why do you believe him? When he is out-numbered by at least 100 to 1 by qualified scientists who disagree, what makes Richard S. Lindzen the guy you believe? Is it because he presents compelling arguments that the others don't? Or is it that he happens to agree with you?

As I have said numerous times, I am not a climate scientist. Why choose one expert over others? This is a crucial question.

My belief (which Danny Doyle insists is a religion) is that I am more convinced by the majority of experts than the minority. Because I am not qualified to critique the climate models, I have to rely on something else; in this case it is a clear and obvious scientific consensus. Why do you choose Lindzen over, say, the IPCC?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

I knew I posted too much at one time. I should have stuck to just my first post, the surface staion project.

Let's look at the data before we get into a debate over champions of different points of view.

Did you look at the detailed information about over 1,000 of the ~1200 surface weather stations in the US?

If -as is amply demonstrated with an on-line database of photographs that you can see with your own eyes- >70% of them are compromised according to NOAA standards, of what value is *any* model that extrapolates global climate predictions based on these surface stations' data?

Woland
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

Science has never been decided by a majority vote of "experts." If that was the correct scientific procedure, we'd still be calculating planetary orbits according to Ptolemy and applying leeches to treat infectious diseases. Scientists are just as vulnerable as anyone else to what Mackay called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

Woland
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
From http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/who :

"I recently commented on a proposed "commentary" from the American Physical Society on their climate change statement - what I didn't note there was that many of the worst confusions in the proposed commentary echo some of the claims by Lindzen - and Lindzen was one of the four or five respected scientists who APS asked to help come up with that commentary. The final version of the commentary is much improved - but it still includes the range "1 C to 3 C" for the sensitivity of climate to doubling of CO2, when the actual consensus range from the IPCC is 2 to 4.5 C. Chopping the lower bound in half (and also dramatically lowering the upper limit - but with at least a verbal caveat) is completely scientifically indefensible, and I can only conclude that Richard Lindzen continued to play a role in the re-drafting process. Given his extreme message in the Wall Street Journal articles, it looks like a major scientific society has (in perhaps a small but significant way) fallen prey to something between a crank and outright duplicity."
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Whit,

Thanks for that comment.

Have you looked at the data which show that 70% to 80% of the surface temperature records in the US are historically worthless?

Woland
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 14:26, Woland wrote:
Whit,

Thanks for that comment.

Have you looked at the data which show that 70% to 80% of the surface temperature records in the US are historically worthless?

Woland

Even if you are correct about that, did you look at the report I directed you to that used data from 10 different climate indicators measured by 160 research groups in 48 countries? All of which indicate increasing temperatures.

"Of the 10 measurements, the report said seven are rising – air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and the temperature of the troposphere, which is the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining – Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. ALL OF WHICH point to a warming trend."
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27157 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
All this from folks who can't teach evolution in schools, and say they don't have a clue where more than half the matter/energy in the universe is. And at a time when the carbon footprint of our adventures in the middle east or even of stopping forest fires goes unreported?

Sorry - huge credibility gap. Kindly get back to arguing over how many angels are doing the Charleston on the head of a spark plug - but quietly please - you don't want to wake up Cth****.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Balducci,

I've offered nothing to contradict any of those observations.

But the detailed climate models are not based on all of those disparate observations, they are based on temperature records.

There are basically two kinds of temperature records, first, and only within the last century, records of actually recorded temperatures, and then second, for previous periods, extrapolations from observations of, for example, tree ring thickness.

Note that in many cases, the correlation between tree ring thickness and theoretically determined temperatures in previous eras is based on correlations between tree ring thickness and actually recorded temperatures in the post-thermometer era.

But if the historical record of recorded temperatures is based on the 70-80% of surface stations that are no good, even without considering the way surface station data has been cherry-picked, of what value are the extrapolations made for previous eras?

Let alone the cherry-picking of tree ring data in the Yamal data set.

Woland
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-07-30 18:45, Payne wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-07-30 16:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Heidelberg Appeal. Authored in 1992 and signed by at least 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners-all skeptics of man made global warming.

Also look at the Oregon Petition. This was eventually signed by 30,000 American scientists who "have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science". (Sort of what John claims huh?)

To save time, I guess they are all disgruntled right? All paid for by big business and have been paid for the opinion.


No, the signers of the so called "Oregon Petition" are mostly unknown. No checks have been done to validate the identities of any of the signers and the list sports the names of Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.
The original petition was sent out under questionable and possibly fraudulent conditions to anyone holding any kind of academic degree. You could be a veterinarian and qualify to sign the original petition. It is doubtful that many qualified Climate Scientist signatures are actually on this document.

See more about this matter here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9mgT-xJNFA


I'm sure it's legit; ACORN handled the sign-ups.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 13:44, Woland wrote:
John,

Science has never been decided by a majority vote of "experts." If that was the correct scientific procedure, we'd still be calculating planetary orbits according to Ptolemy and applying leeches to treat infectious diseases. Scientists are just as vulnerable as anyone else to what Mackay called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

Woland


Actually you are very much incorrect, Woland. Science is ALWAYS decided by the majority of experts. Expert opinion is based on observation, theory and argumentation. This is the only way that science can be done. Scientists believe that, say, the Sun's energy is a consequence of the fusion of hydrogen atoms. The agreement doesn't make it true; the agreement is a consequence of the best trained people being convinced by the best available evidence. Fortunately, when new evidence comes forward, the majority change their minds (sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly) and a new consensus emerges.

What else can non-experts like you and I rely on?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 13:40, Woland wrote:
John,

I knew I posted too much at one time. I should have stuck to just my first post, the surface staion project.

Let's look at the data before we get into a debate over champions of different points of view.

Did you look at the detailed information about over 1,000 of the ~1200 surface weather stations in the US?

If -as is amply demonstrated with an on-line database of photographs that you can see with your own eyes- >70% of them are compromised according to NOAA standards, of what value is *any* model that extrapolates global climate predictions based on these surface stations' data?

Woland


I have seen this site before and have skimmed much of it; of course I have not looked at every datum.

For one informed response to the site, check out

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc......-island/

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

You won't be surprised that I don't find those arguments convincing.

I'm going to go outside and enjoy what remains of this beautiful warm interglacial weather while it lasts.

Woland
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
I think some of the information from John's citing ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc......-island/ ) is worth noting:

"Mistaken Assumption No. 4: Global mean trends are simple averages of all weather stations

As discussed above, each of the groups making gridded products goes to a lot of trouble to eliminate problems (such as UHI) or jumps in the records, so the global means you see are not simple means of all data (this NCDC page explains some of the issues in their analysis). The methodology of the GISS effort is described in a number of papers – particularly Hansen et al 1999 and 2001.

Mistaken Assumption No. 5: Finding problems with individual station data somehow affects climate model projections.

The idea apparently persists that climate models are somehow built on the surface temperature records, and that any adjustment to those records will change the model projections for the future. This probably stems from a misunderstanding of the notion of a physical model as opposed to statistical model. A statistical model of temperature might for instance calculate a match between known forcings and the station data and then attempt to make a forecast based on the change in projected forcings. In such a case, the projection would be affected by any adjustment to the training data. However, the climate models used in the IPCC forecasts are not statistical, but are physical in nature. They are self-consistent descriptions of the whole system whose inputs are only the boundary conditions and the changes in external forces (such as the solar constant, the orbit, or greenhouse gases). They do not assimilate the surface data, nor are they initiallised from it. Instead, the model results for, say, the mean climate, or the change in recent decades or the seasonal cycle or response to El Niño events, are compared to the equivalent analyses in the gridded observations. Mismatches can help identify problems in the models, and are used to track improvements to the model physics. However, it is generally not possible to ‘tune’ the models to fit very specific bits of the surface data and the evidence for that is the remaining (significant) offsets in average surface temperatures in the observations and the models. There is also no attempt to tweak the models in order to get better matches to regional trends in temperature.

Mistaken Assumption No. 6: If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away

This is really two mistaken assumptions in one. That there is so little redundancy that throwing out a few dodgy met. stations will seriously affect the mean, and that evidence for global warming is exclusively tied to the land station data. Neither of those things are true. It has been estimated that the mean anomaly in the Northern hemisphere at the monthly scale only has around 60 degrees of freedom – that is, 60 well-place stations would be sufficient to give a reasonable estimate of the large scale month to month changes. Currently, although they are not necessarily ideally placed, there are thousands of stations – many times more than would be theoretically necessary. The second error is obvious from the fact that the recent warming is seen in the oceans, the atmosphere, in Arctic sea ice retreat, in glacier recession, earlier springs, reduced snow cover etc., so even if all met stations were contaminated (which they aren’t), global warming would still be “unequivocal”. Since many of the participants in the latest effort appear to really want this assumption to be true, pointing out that it doesn’t really follow might be a disincentive, but hopefully they won’t let that detail damp their enthusiasm…"

**************************************


It seems to me that when 97% of the world's climate scientists--regardless of employment--agree on the existence and nature of global warming, and the 3% that disagree are largely in the employ of energy companies and multi-national corportations; then the burden of proof should be on the 3%. They need to do more than try to poo-poo the statistics like the Tobacco Industry did.

--Whit
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-08-01 16:19, Woland wrote:
John,

You won't be surprised that I don't find those arguments convincing.

Woland


On what grounds?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Real Climategate Scandal (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8..12..15..18..21..24~25~26 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.4 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL