Global warming [Archive] - Page 10

mhaze

4th November 2007, 07:26 AM

so have we discussed anything new on this thread in the last few months?

is there anything new in the science here, beyond the (sometimes important) back and forth on issues which were already widely discussed last July?

Here is July....

Recent temperature history and conclusions thereof
We know that temperature has risen - check.
We know that carbon dioxide has risen - check.
Since carbon dioxide should cause warming therefore carbon dioxide rise caused the temperature rise - no its doesn't.

The fallacy of correlation implying causation is used hundreds of times on this Forum, and not exclusively to Global Warming, but AGW is certainly mainlining it like its going out of fashion. No change. Correlation and logical fallacies by AGW believers are rampant, in spite of numerous peer reviewed articles that have introduced, linked to and which suggest the contrary.
IPCC forecasts have no scientific merit

Armstrong et al. We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Does anyone care to discuss the theory and practice of his approach to the IPCC Chapter 8 findings? No takers. Extensive attempts to discredit Armstrong failed resulting in this challenge (unanswered).
Unpredictability of climate sensitivity
Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out? No takers. (Currently possibly under discussion with Roe Baker 2006 and Schwartz 2007.
IPCC projections have gone done repeatedly, with each new report. Extensive attempts to deny this by AGW believers were refuted, (it is simply a factual statement)
Insults and name calling.
Calling someone a name, and apparently a name that has some sort of insulting meaning, (I never heard the word denialist until I read these forums), is not civil or intelligent. It is dumb.....And insulting. If all you got is calling someone a made up word, you got nothing.Basically unchanged.

Schneibster

4th November 2007, 03:27 PM

Here is July....

Recent temperature history and conclusions thereof
We know that temperature has risen - check.
We know that carbon dioxide has risen - check.
Since carbon dioxide should cause warming therefore carbon dioxide rise caused the temperature rise - no its doesn't.

The fallacy of correlation implying causation is used hundreds of times on this Forum, and not exclusively to Global Warming, but AGW is certainly mainlining it like its going out of fashion. No change. Correlation and logical fallacies by AGW believers are rampant, in spite of numerous peer reviewed articles that have introduced, linked to and which suggest the contrary.Unchanged indeed; recent denier arguments include:
1. Use of a graph that clearly shows warming with no apparent recognition of the fact that it is going up;
2. Denial of the obvious spectral and resulting thermodynamic implications of increased CO2, after the effects have been extensively discussed and not successfully rebutted;
3. Rampant misrepresentation of data (specifically, data was used to create a graph that turned out to be not merely incorrect, but deliberately manipulated to make it so, and this was made obvious by the response that included all the data and showed the expected results);
4. Misrepresentation of the argument in favor of GW as correlation without discussion of causation (see point 2 above regarding causation, an issue this poster would obviously prefer to avoid, and equally obviously has avoided discussing in this post for that reason). This, by the way, is a straw-man argument, because it involves a misrepresentation of the opposing argument.

Overall, an unsullied record of misrepresentation, data manipulation, and ignoring opposing points that one has no answer for.

IPCC forecasts have no scientific merit

Armstrong et al. We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Does anyone care to discuss the theory and practice of his approach to the IPCC Chapter 8 findings? No takers. Extensive attempts to discredit Armstrong failed resulting in this challenge (unanswered).
First, an analysis by a scientist is not necessarily a scientific analysis. Second, it appears there are significant problems with their analysis, not the least of which are misapplication of principles of data collection analysis to model output analysis, misunderstanding (to be charitable) of what the interior application of the model is as opposed to what data it is being checked against, and misunderstanding (to be charitable) of the data that is the output of the model as opposed to data that have been collected from the real world. The supposedly peer-reviewed article was published in Energy and Environment. :rolleyes: They talked to only one climatologist, and they reviewed only one chapter of the IPCC report and never looked at any of the source papers, much less analyzed any of them.

To top it all off, it appears that they are attempting to generate a controversy to improve sales of their book. Details are available here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/).

Unpredictability of climate sensitivity
Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out? No takers. (Currently possibly under discussion with Roe Baker 2006 and Schwartz 2007.Given that this is in progress, I'll not second-guess it.

IPCC projections have gone done repeatedly, with each new report. Extensive attempts to deny this by AGW believers were refuted, (it is simply a factual statement)
First, "extensive statements" is a lie. Second, the size of the range has decreased; I could equally state that the projections have gone up, because the minimum projection has gone up. Of course, the center projection remains unchanged. So this is a misrepresentation of the data. Again. The modus operandi appears to be, make a statement, ignore refutations and don't respond, and then claim that no one refuted it later. This pattern is repeated again and again by this poster.

Insults and name calling.
Calling someone a name, and apparently a name that has some sort of insulting meaning, (I never heard the word denialist until I read these forums), is not civil or intelligent. It is dumb.....And insulting. If all you got is calling someone a made up word, you got nothing.Basically unchanged.
He was mean to me, so he must be wrong. Non sequitur. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

fsol

4th November 2007, 04:47 PM

Which AGW blog talking points did you get that from? That is not Christy's quote. Very disingenuous of you. It would be akin to saying because Steve McIntyre was an expert reviewer for IPCC that he agreed with the Mann hockey stick.

Can't you folks be objective and honest in anything you post?

A history and assessment by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. who was a lead author of CCSP and resigned due to the same chicanery as IPCC; both corrupt and politically charged bodies.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=Temperature+Trends+in+the+Lower&submit=Search

Christy was a lead author on that report. I would guess that he would have at least read the executive summary of it, you know, being a lead author and all. Unless of course he is quite happy to attach his name to any old nonsense that comes along.

David Rodale

4th November 2007, 05:48 PM

Christy was a lead author on that report. I would guess that he would have at least read the executive summary of it, you know, being a lead author and all. Unless of course he is quite happy to attach his name to any old nonsense that comes along.

You "guess"......

http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_07EC_subEAQ_written.pdf
The key statement regarding GLOBAL trends in the report claimed, “This significant discrepancy no longer exists.” It would have been more accurate in my view to have said, “The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.” This is a subtle but important difference because it not only acknowledges that discrepancies still exist but that the differences between the global surface and atmospheric trends are within the
uncertainty bounds of our various measurements at this time. In other words, rather than being a statement claiming certainty of the measurements (and models) it should have been a statement claiming the uncertainty of our knowledge. I had proposed the second rendition, but was unsuccessful in seeing it implemented.

It is done by consensus, a vote, just like IPCC. Regardless of what you or I think of Christy, is it appropriate for him or anyone else to evaluate their own work?

IPCC work groups are loaded with authors evaluating their own work, including the latest hockey stick resurrection, as it was when Mann was lead author.

David Rodale

4th November 2007, 06:45 PM

Unchanged indeed; recent denier arguments include:
1. Use of a graph that clearly shows warming with no apparent recognition of the fact that it is going up;
2. Denial of the obvious spectral and resulting thermodynamic implications of increased CO2, after the effects have been extensively discussed and not successfully rebutted;
3. Rampant misrepresentation of data (specifically, data was used to create a graph that turned out to be not merely incorrect, but deliberately manipulated to make it so, and this was made obvious by the response that included all the data and showed the expected results);
4. Misrepresentation of the argument in favor of GW as correlation without discussion of causation (see point 2 above regarding causation, an issue this poster would obviously prefer to avoid, and equally obviously has avoided discussing in this post for that reason). This, by the way, is a straw-man argument, because it involves a misrepresentation of the opposing argument.

Overall, an unsullied record of misrepresentation, data manipulation, and ignoring opposing points that one has no answer for.

First, an analysis by a scientist is not necessarily a scientific analysis. Second, it appears there are significant problems with their analysis, not the least of which are misapplication of principles of data collection analysis to model output analysis, misunderstanding (to be charitable) of what the interior application of the model is as opposed to what data it is being checked against, and misunderstanding (to be charitable) of the data that is the output of the model as opposed to data that have been collected from the real world. The supposedly peer-reviewed article was published in Energy and Environment. :rolleyes: They talked to only one climatologist, and they reviewed only one chapter of the IPCC report and never looked at any of the source papers, much less analyzed any of them.

To top it all off, it appears that they are attempting to generate a controversy to improve sales of their book. Details are available here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/).

Given that this is in progress, I'll not second-guess it.

First, "extensive statements" is a lie. Second, the size of the range has decreased; I could equally state that the projections have gone up, because the minimum projection has gone up. Of course, the center projection remains unchanged. So this is a misrepresentation of the data. Again. The modus operandi appears to be, make a statement, ignore refutations and don't respond, and then claim that no one refuted it later. This pattern is repeated again and again by this poster.

He was mean to me, so he must be wrong. Non sequitur. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

1. Use of a graph that clearly shows warming with no apparent recognition of the fact that it is going up;
It's not going up. Find one scientist who thinks it is. Met O doesn't, why do you?

2. Denial of the obvious spectral and resulting thermodynamic implications of increased CO2, after the effects have been extensively discussed and not successfully rebutted;
You have not successfully shown what the implications are, and still can't provide the peer reviewed article supporting it after repeated requests. When Schwartz published his, what did you do to refute it? Link to RC?

3. Rampant misrepresentation of data (specifically, data was used to create a graph that turned out to be not merely incorrect, but deliberately manipulated to make it so, and this was made obvious by the response that included all the data and showed the expected results);
Considering you don't know how to construct graphs or interpret data, that's a fairly bold statement.
It's not warming, period. The oceans are not warming, period. No ocean warming, no global warming, end of story until oceans warm again.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716be0c414dd.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8829)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfaacc782.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8831)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfd375ab8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8832)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716c0ed51458.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8834)

4. Misrepresentation of the argument in favor of GW as correlation without discussion of causation (see point 2 above regarding causation, an issue this poster would obviously prefer to avoid, and equally obviously has avoided discussing in this post for that reason). This, by the way, is a straw-man argument, because it involves a misrepresentation of the opposing argument.
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.

First, "extensive statements" is a lie. Second, the size of the range has decreased; I could equally state that the projections have gone up, because the minimum projection has gone up. Of course, the center projection remains unchanged. So this is a misrepresentation of the data. Again. The modus operandi appears to be, make a statement, ignore refutations and don't respond, and then claim that no one refuted it later. This pattern is repeated again and again by this poster.
Lies, lies, lies. Everyone lies except Schneibster. Don't you think something can be wrong without being a lie? This appears to be a psychological issue with AGW proponents. Is it supposed to bolster your view? It does make you appear a bit insecure since you rarely address specifics, only generalize.

He was mean to me, so he must be wrong. Non sequitur. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.
The forum has rules. You routinely violate them. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a liar, but it does say something about your character.

David Rodale

4th November 2007, 09:19 PM

That is an interesting paper, isn't it? Peer reviewed, and in Science, no less. Pretty much at the top of my personal scale of credible sources.

Do you have a commentary from, shall we say, 'your side', on this paper? I'd like to be able to get an overview of opinion from both sides. Or even add your own, if you wish.

As for creating an 'irrefutable hypothesis', how do you get that? To which particular hypothesis are you referring?

Pipirr,
First I would challenge you on your statement that peer review is kryptonite to anti-AGW. I think if it were tallied up, Mhaze and myself have submitted more peer reviewed material than all of your side combined. The typical response we get from the AGW supporters here is usually link to RealClimate, AGW blog scripts, attack us and the authors or simply call it faked or lies. Fine, but your standard is "peer review". RealClimate contains much opinion and ad hom with cheers from the choir. They also censor posts quite efficiently.

An example of a typical RC response is given by AUP on the Roe_baker paper.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3119112&postcount=2253
Hardly a refutation. And as you say, I'm sure they will publish a peer reviewed article refuting it, correct? They did the same thing with Schwarz's paper:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf Have you read it?

I don't share the same sentiment about peer review as you do, but understand your point.

Now to the substance of your post. My only comments are, without claiming any expertise on climate models other than toying with various available programs for those who enjoy that sort of thing, in my business we routinely use models in engineering design. A model is a model however. The difference is the application and degree of complexity. The same basic core concepts still apply.

For those who have even an entry level understanding of models don't need to look far before realizing how unskillful and unreliable climate models are at predicting. Some folks here seem to think if a model can predict the past, they are qualified to predict the future. As you may know, that is not validation. Climate models are heavily parameterized and tuned (forced) to match observations. They also use many assumptions and in a word are numerical expressions of the views of the programmer. One assumption is climate sensitivity, which the Roe/Baker paper is addressing.

We get bombarded with "read the IPCC", and the IPCC this, that and the other thing. Climate models are the pillar, the 'Holy Writ' of the AGW hypothesis. That may seem sarcastic, but is the truth.

I don't know anyone who has actually read the entire IPCC. It is a convoluted mess and hard to follow. However, I decided to give it a go concerning climate models. Buried deep within Chapter 8 pg 601, is an interesting statement wrapped in accolades of praise about climate models:
Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
these are generally greater at smaller scales, important largescale
problems also remain.
That alone should give one cause to step back. In essence, climate models "agree with observations", but they have significant errors? Huh?
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf

If climate models are skillful, why did Met O find the need to create yet another 'new and improved' one?

On the question of IPCC addressing problems with clouds, below are two articles on the subject. The first link is to Spencer's web page with a description of the article, with a link to the abstract. It supports the much maligned Lindzen 'iris effect'. No doubt RC has more negative opinion if you value their input.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
and here:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JCli...18..237S
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf
There are many more out there.

If you desire more opinions from "my side" on Roe/Baker, I haven't looked for any.

a_unique_person

4th November 2007, 10:09 PM

We get bombarded with "read the IPCC", and the IPCC this, that and the other thing. Climate models are the pillar, the 'Holy Writ' of the AGW hypothesis. That may seem sarcastic, but is the truth.

Utter rubbish. Read the IPCC report and get back to me on that one.

fsol

5th November 2007, 12:36 AM

You "guess"......

Well that's what I said. Well done for digesting that little tid bit of information.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.” vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

I guess it depends whether you are a glass half full or empty type of person which one you prefer.

Megalodon

5th November 2007, 01:36 AM

Round and round it goes...
The atmosphere is cooling!
No it's not, here's the proof...
But the oceans are important, and the SST shows oceans are cooling!
No they don't, here's the proof...
But that's the surface, the importante is the deep-ocean and Lyman said the deep-ocean is cooling!
No, he said the superficial ocean was cooling from 2003-05, and it's been corrected...
But look, the SSTs show that it's not warming!
Round and round it goes...

Schneibster

5th November 2007, 01:56 AM

I note before beginning that this poster shows three graphs, every one of which is higher on the right than on the left, that it is claimed don't show warming. Judge first of all based on the quality of that evidence. It's not going up. Find one scientist who thinks it is. Met O doesn't, why do you?Nonsense. It's lower on the left and higher on the right. It's YOUR GRAPH. And you can't read it, and that's obvious to anyone with an IQ north of a watermelon.

You have not successfully shown what the implications are, and still can't provide the peer reviewed article supporting it after repeated requests. When Schwartz published his, what did you do to refute it? Link to RC?I provided a detailed analysis of precisely how it works. The best mind among your crowd at that time couldn't shake it. As always, you ignored that which you could not refute, and attempted to cover it up. I'll post a link to it if you like. You're welcome to attempt to refute it. It's quite convincing, I think, for lurkers to see how you twist in the wind trying to respond to that which you do not understand.

Considering you don't know how to construct graphs or interpret data, that's a fairly bold statement.Considering you haven't seen me construct a graph, I'd have to say that the bold statements are pretty much all on your side. As far as interpreting data, I seem to have less trouble than you do figuring out what it means when the Arctic Ocean melts.

It's not warming, period. The oceans are not warming, period. No ocean warming, no global warming, end of story until oceans warm again. And doubtless that's why the Arctic Ocean melted. Pull the other one.

Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument. Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote. Nobody else has any trouble interpreting the significance of the Arctic Ocean melting. That seems to be a problem that is yours alone.

Lies, lies, lies. Everyone lies except Schneibster. Don't you think something can be wrong without being a lie? This appears to be a psychological issue with AGW proponents. Is it supposed to bolster your view? It does make you appear a bit insecure since you rarely address specifics, only generalize. Yes, I generalize about the Arctic Ocean melting. It's really pretty general, isn't it?

The forum has rules. You routinely violate them. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them a liar, but it does say something about your character.I am content to let those who will judge my character based on my posts; I am surprised that you are. But not astonished.

Megalodon

5th November 2007, 02:38 AM

I note before beginning that this poster shows three graphs, every one of which is higher on the right than on the left, that it is claimed don't show warming. Judge first of all based on the quality of that evidence.

It should be noticed that, when I made an equivalent graph a few posts ago, it was dismissed because it was not "deep-ocean", and the data was therefore meaningless to the debate.

Or maybe the datapoints become meaningless if they don't have lines connecting them...

Considering you haven't seen me construct a graph, I'd have to say that the bold statements are pretty much all on your side. As far as interpreting data, I seem to have less trouble than you do figuring out what it means when the Arctic Ocean melts.

I think that DR is confusing the two of us... since he can't keep track of his own argument, I don't find it surprising that he can't keep track of the people he's debating.

Megalodon

5th November 2007, 03:22 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9081)

Since the uahncdc database is game again, maybe somebody can explain how a shift of the mean temperature anomaly from 0 to 0.3 in both the global and ocean temperatures is not a sign of warming.

To explain the figure to those who are less used to graphical representation of data, it represents the distribution of the percentage of months exhibiting a temperature anomaly for the periods of Sep1978-Aug2001 (gray) and Sep2001-Sep2007 (black), for both the Global (above) and Ocean (below) data.

mhaze

5th November 2007, 07:29 AM

Round and round it goes...
the importante is the deep-ocean and Lyman said the deep-ocean is cooling!

Since no one on this forum said that, why would you assert that someone on this forum said it?

mhaze

5th November 2007, 07:39 AM

Well that's what I said. Well done for digesting that little tid bit of information.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.” vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

I guess it depends whether you are a glass half full or empty type of person which one you prefer.

Christi's opinions on the report you mention are a matter of record. They are highly dissenting.

(A) we can go look at what Christi has to say about the report
(B) we can read the report and note that Christi's name is on it and claim that he agrees with it

Isn't (B) a bit ridiculous?

Schneibster

5th November 2007, 07:43 AM

So, are you claiming that Christy has repudiated the report? That he says it's wrong? Is that what you're claiming? You DO realize that having your name on a report you claim is incorrect has a slight tendency to impeach your credibility, don't you?

I would say you have a big problem here: either he lied when he put his name on it or permitted it to be put on it, or he's lying now. Which do you prefer?

mhaze

5th November 2007, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by David Rodale http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3121771#post3121771)
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.

Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.

Who will vote? What vote would that be?

Schneibster

5th November 2007, 07:49 AM

Who will vote? What vote would that be?I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.

Megalodon

5th November 2007, 08:11 AM

Since no one on this forum said that, why would you assert that someone on this forum said it?

So, from all the comments on science, graphs and analysis of databases and many unanswered questions, that post is what you choose to address?

And you claim that you want to discuss science?

And since you are impervious to the humouristic nature of the post you quoted, let me issue a public apology. Cooling was never mentioned. The preferred expression is "not warming", normally followed by the rethorical 'which way do you think it will go?', that apparently doesn't imply cooling. Also the rethorical questions related to changes in trends if the 98 El Niño wasn't there, or if the temperature was plotted from a different year, apparently don't imply any cooling. The trends were supposed to change from positive to blue, I guess... And of course, the graphs of yearly averages started in 98 is not supposed to imply a cooling... It's just a stylistic quirk.

Now that were done with this, are you going to address any of the questions you've been avoiding?

mhaze

5th November 2007, 08:33 AM

So, from all the comments on science, graphs and analysis of databases and many unanswered questions, that post is what you choose to address?

And you claim that you want to discuss science?

And since you are impervious to the humouristic nature of the post you quoted, let me issue a public apology. Cooling was never mentioned. The preferred expression is "not warming", normally followed by the rethorical 'which way do you think it will go?', that apparently doesn't imply cooling. Also the rethorical questions related to changes in trends if the 98 El Niño wasn't there, or if the temperature was plotted from a different year, apparently don't imply any cooling. The trends were supposed to change from positive to blue, I guess... And of course, the graphs of yearly averages started in 98 is not supposed to imply a cooling... It's just a stylistic quirk.

Now that were done with this, are you going to address any of the questions you've been avoiding?

Perhaps I'm just a stickler for details, but if I say you said something, I'll quote it, and it's exactly what you said. In your case, you assert someone said something, and my handy dandy fast lookup.... Well, let's just say, everything on this forum is there for anyone to audit.

Yes I do intend to get to some of the things you've said.

By the way, you were correct about Roe & Baker - for some reason I thought Roe was a first name.

mhaze

5th November 2007, 08:43 AM

DR:
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.
Schneib:
Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.

MHAZE:
Who will vote? What vote would that be?
Schneib:
I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.

I'd like some help in understanding this. You've repeatedly mentioned that the appearance of things here to the lurkers was very important.

Apparently there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings and the lack of actual arguments to certain scientific issues.

Based on that, these lurkers will vote.

That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place here.

These lurkers are diligently searching and poring over the veracity of JREF posts on global warming to assist in their important decision on this vote.

What vote would that be?

mhaze

5th November 2007, 08:48 AM

So, from all the comments on science, graphs and analysis of databases and many unanswered questions, that post is what you choose to address?

And you claim that you want to discuss science?

And since you are impervious to the humouristic nature of the post you quoted, let me issue a public apology. Cooling was never mentioned. The preferred expression is "not warming", normally followed by the rethorical 'which way do you think it will go?', that apparently doesn't imply cooling. Also the rethorical questions related to changes in trends if the 98 El Niño wasn't there, or if the temperature was plotted from a different year, apparently don't imply any cooling. The trends were supposed to change from positive to blue, I guess... And of course, the graphs of yearly averages started in 98 is not supposed to imply a cooling... It's just a stylistic quirk.

Now that were done with this, are you going to address any of the questions you've been avoiding?

For starters, let's try to take a look at the big picture. It seems to be the case - it's being talked about by scientists, meterologists and the like - that the PDO is reversing phase. That has obvious implications, such as less of the El Nino effect.

Is this certainly happening? I don't think so. But it does look like it could be happening, based on the periodicity of the PDO and the recent "non warming" (however we phrase that).

Does this sound reasonable? If so, we can go from there to something of what exactly this may mean. Note AGW skeptics are not the ones saying PDO is reversing phase, that's mainstream science.

And again, I haven't seen anyone say that the facts were in on the matter.

Schneibster

5th November 2007, 09:09 AM

I'd like some help in understanding this. No you wouldn't; you haven't wanted any help in understanding anything since you first appeared on this forum.

You've repeatedly mentioned that the appearance of things here to the lurkers was very important.You seem to think it is; otherwise, why would you bother with this? It's a complete waste of time. You don't have any evidence that supports your view; that's clear from the fact that you ignore any challenge to that evidence, and engage in rhetoric. People who have strong evidence post it and move on. People who don't have strong evidence play the kind of games you do. It's visible in other threads running on this very forum at this very time, beginning with the "Annoying Creationists" thread and kleinman. It seems to be a universal law that the shakier the evidence a crank has, the more vociferously he presents it, and the more cute rhetoric he engages in. Yours is the cutest of all, presented the most vociferously of all. It's to the point where no one even bothers to refute your evidence, because you have so many times ignored the refutation, or waited until later to bring it up again like it was all new and nobody had ever challenged it.

Apparently there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings and the lack of actual arguments to certain scientific issues. This is axiomatic; it's an open forum. Not everyone is bold or interested enough to bother to post. You seem to think it's worth your time, or I guess you wouldn't be here. I certainly can't account for it any other way.

Based on that, these lurkers will vote.So you appear to believe. You also appear to believe that it is still possible for you to influence what they believe, for whatever reason.

That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place here.It's your actions that tell me you believe so.

These lurkers are diligently searching and poring over the veracity of JREF posts on global warming to assist in their important decision on this vote.

What vote would that be?Haven't got a clue. Why are you here? Who are you? That would let me conjecture further. I've rarely seen the kind of dedication you've brought to the game; most cranks give up after a little while.

mhaze

5th November 2007, 09:39 AM

DR:
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.
Schneib:
Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.
MHAZE:
Who will vote? What vote would that be?
Schneib:
I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.

Mhaze:

I'd like some help in understanding this. There are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings...Based on that, these lurkers will vote.....That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place....What vote would that be?
Scheib:
Haven't got a clue. Why are you here? Who are you? That would let me conjecture further.

Haven't got a clue? But you said they were going to vote, that this discussion was important for them in their vote, and now you don't know for what or for whom? Further conjectures? They might indeed help resolve these apparently glaring inconsistencies in your statements....

Schneibster

5th November 2007, 10:07 AM

Hey, you're the one who thinks the matter is important enough to play rhetorical games and lie about; I can only speculate as to your motives, and I make no claim that my speculations will be consistent.

varwoche

5th November 2007, 10:18 AM

This (http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-06-08.html) according to Livermore Labs and Scripps, 2007: Climate models are reliable tools that help researchers better understand the observed record of ocean warming and variability.

That’s the finding of a group of Livermore scientists, who in collaboration with colleagues at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, had earlier established that climate models can replicate the ocean warming observed during the latter half of the 20th century, and that most of this recent warming is caused by human activities.

The observational record also shows substantial variability in ocean heat content on interannual-to-decadal time scales. The new research by Livermore scientists demonstrates that climate models represent this variability much more realistically than previously believed.

Using 13 numerical climate models, the researchers found that the apparent discrepancies between modeled and observed variability can be explained by accounting for changes in observational coverage and instrumentation and by including the effects of volcanic eruptions.

... casts doubt on recent findings that the top 700-meters of the global ocean cooled markedly from 2003-2005.

fsol

5th November 2007, 10:49 AM

Christi's opinions on the report you mention are a matter of record. They are highly dissenting.

(A) we can go look at what Christi has to say about the report
(B) we can read the report and note that Christi's name is on it and claim that he agrees with it

Isn't (B) a bit ridiculous?

As far as I can see from DRs link Christy would rather that a statement was phrased slightly differently to how it turned out. Now my limited comprehension of the change in phrasing is not that it would alter the meaning of that phrase in anyway.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.”

vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists..."

Both formulations state that the discrepancies are not significant. There seems to be no disagreement on the conclusion, just on the way to describe it.

If you have more? A journal paper perhaps? Where he details his objections and the reasoning behind them?

David Rodale

5th November 2007, 10:57 AM

This (http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-06-08.html) according to Livermore Labs and Scripps, 2007:

You're a bit behind the times. The Lyman update October 26 has confirmed no cooling or warming from 2003-2006, however no new data since then. Based on the latest ENSO/SST data and cyclone energy, would you conclude ocean heat content has risen or dropped?

Let's look at NOAA's predictions for ENSO and SST. SCRIPPS (from your link) predicts no drop but in fact a gain in ENSO. It looks like no matter what happens, it can be claimed "the models were spot on".
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323472f54313fe13.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9085)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323472f5478b45f4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9086)

Based on the above information, what do you think is going on?

David Rodale

5th November 2007, 10:59 AM

mhaze

5th November 2007, 11:06 AM

DR:
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.
Schneib:
Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.
MHAZE:
Who will vote? What vote would that be?
Schneib:
I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.
Mhaze:

I'd like some help in understanding this. There are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings...Based on that, these lurkers will vote.....That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place....What vote would that be?
Scheib:
Haven't got a clue. Why are you here? Who are you? That would let me conjecture further.
Mhaze:

Haven't got a clue? But you said they were going to vote, that this discussion was important for them in their vote, and now you don't know for what or for whom? Further conjectures? They might indeed help resolve these apparently glaring inconsistencies in your statements....
Schneib:
...I make no claim that my speculations will be consistent.

Well, that's interesting.

mhaze

5th November 2007, 11:19 AM

As far as I can see from DRs link Christy would rather that a statement was phrased slightly differently to how it turned out. Now my limited comprehension of the change in phrasing is not that it would alter the meaning of that phrase in anyway.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.”

vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists..."

Both formulations state that the discrepancies are not significant. There seems to be no disagreement on the conclusion, just on the way to describe it.

If you have more? A journal paper perhaps? Where he details his objections and the reasoning behind them?

I thought these had been recently posted; if not here they are. Essentially Christy had a dissenting opinion. Make your own conclusions, but always read the source documents.:)

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/02/ccsp-report-published)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ccsp-report-temperature-trends-in-the-lower-atmosphere-steps-for-understanding-and-reconciling-differences)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears)
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf)

Schneibster

5th November 2007, 12:33 PM

I thought these had been recently posted; if not here they are. Essentially Christy had a dissenting opinion. Make your own conclusions, but always read the source documents.:)

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/02/ccsp-report-published)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ccsp-report-temperature-trends-in-the-lower-atmosphere-steps-for-understanding-and-reconciling-differences)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears)
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf)The string "Christy" does not appear in any of the first three links. I can't read the PDF, so I can't see whether it's in there, but considering that it's by Roger Pielke, it's unlikely to contain any comments by Christy.

Basically, you've got no answer, so you post links to make it look like the answer is there, and then try to make a big enough smokescreen no one notices. Just another lie in the long litany.

mhaze

5th November 2007, 01:22 PM

I thought these had been recently posted; if not here they are. Essentially Christy had a dissenting opinion. Make your own conclusions, but always read the source documents.:)

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/02/ccsp-report-published)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ccsp-report-temperature-trends-in-the-lower-atmosphere-steps-for-understanding-and-reconciling-differences)
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/ (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears)
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf)

Sorry, those are Pielke's issues when resigning from that circus (CCSP) of which we speak. Here is Christy (http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_EC_v2Written.pdf), discussing this issue and related blunders of "consensus science"-

http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_EC_v2Written.pdf

fsol

5th November 2007, 01:37 PM

Read the rest of his summary...
The CCSP is not a journal paper.

I have read the rest of his Testimony.

I'll see if I can access those papers he mentions when I am at work tomorrow.

He takes a leap and goes off about policy and biofuels for some reason.

I find at the beginning this particuarly bizarre...

I then include comments on my view of the unfortunate and incorrect attempt to demonize energy and its by-products. Without energy, life is brutal and short.Not withstanding that without energy there wouldn't be life at all, never mind it being "brutal and short." Just who are these demonizers of energy anyway? There seems to be plenty of people pushing for more renewable energy useage. Somehow that is turned into people demonizing energy. At best it is a straw man that he repeats another couple of times and at worst, well it is bizarre.

In any case he clearly says that yes the planet is warming and at least some of that warming is due to AGW. He disputes the accuracy of models because he thinks his data shows something different.

Actually from google this is one of those papers

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/680247/satellite_and_vizradiosonde_intercomparisons_for_d iagnosis_of_nonclimatic_influences/index.html

and here is the abstract to the other,

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml

I don't realy follow the first one. Superficially skimming over it, I think it is to do with figuring out reasons why the data sets are a bit jumpy. Changes in software method, measurement devices perhaps, that sort of thing.

The second one, from the abstract only, seems to say that concerning the tropics only, then the troposphere is not warming as fast as the surface. And that would be why, in his testimony he makes a big deal about how interesting the tropics data is. Which, you know it might be however, as far as I can tell he still doesn't disagree with the statement "This significant discrepancy no longer exists..." for the global data sets except for the way it is phrased.

You didn't answer my question. Is it appropriate for authors to evaluate their own work?I don't understand the point of your question.

fsol

5th November 2007, 01:46 PM

Sorry, those are Pielke's issues when resigning from that circus (CCSP) of which we speak. Here is Christy (http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_EC_v2Written.pdf), discussing this issue and related blunders of "consensus science"-

http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_EC_v2Written.pdf

He doesn't say anything much different there than he does in the link DR provided. He is concerned with the phrasing of the statement but doesn't say that the statement is incorrect.

mhaze

5th November 2007, 01:52 PM

I have read the rest of his Testimony.

I'll see if I can access those papers he mentions when I am at work tomorrow.

He takes a leap and goes off about policy and biofuels for some reason.

I find at the beginning this particuarly bizarre...

Not withstanding that without energy there wouldn't be life at all, never mind it being "brutal and short." Just who are these demonizers of energy anyway? There seems to be plenty of people pushing for more renewable energy useage. Somehow that is turned into people demonizing energy. At best it is a straw man that he repeats another couple of times and at worst, well it is bizarre.

In any case he clearly says that yes the planet is warming and at least some of that warming is due to AGW. He disputes the accuracy of models because he thinks his data shows something different.

Christy has worked down in Africa. I'd say he speaks from experience about life without energy being "brutal and short". Recently he spoke on TV and made a point of mentioning that he was "in favor of coal power plants for Africa". That's a roundabout way of saying industrialization is good, "sustainable energy" for Africa is very, very bad. (another whole argument therein, having to do with Kyoto promoting a sort of eco-colonialism of the third world).

He's published work that as far as the geographical areas that it covers, shows a clear indication that land utilization changes dwarf CO2 issue as a local or regional AGW issue.

It'd be a mistake to simply put slap a contrarian label on the man....

fsol

5th November 2007, 02:42 PM

Christy has worked down in Africa. I'd say he speaks from experience about life without energy being "brutal and short". Recently he spoke on TV and made a point of mentioning that he was "in favor of coal power plants for Africa". That's a roundabout way of saying industrialization is good, "sustainable energy" for Africa is very, very bad.
(another whole argument therein, having to do with Kyoto promoting a sort of eco-colonialism of the third world).

Non-Annex 1 countries were exempt from curbing emissions under Kyoto.

He's published work that as far as the geographical areas that it covers, shows a clear indication that land utilization changes dwarf CO2 issue as a local or regional AGW issue.

Is there such thing as a local or regional global issue? It doesn't really scan very well.

It'd be a mistake to simply put slap a contrarian label on the man....

It'd be a mistake to hold him up as a saint and stick a vast global conspiracy label on all the other people researching climate change who happen to agree that AGW is real and we should really try and do something about it.

lenny

5th November 2007, 03:47 PM

Climate models are heavily parameterized and tuned (forced) to match observations. They also use many assumptions and in a word are numerical expressions of the views of the programmer. One assumption is climate sensitivity, which the Roe/Baker paper is addressing.

i thought climate sensitivity was an "output" of the experiment, not an assumption one coded into the model? does one specify the climate sensitivity of a given model a priori, or compute it by running the model?

lenny

5th November 2007, 03:57 PM

Armstrong et al. We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Does anyone care to discuss the theory and practice of his approach to the IPCC Chapter 8 findings?

No takers.

i'd be happy to discuss Armstrong et al and its relevance to forecasting physical systems if you'd like. are you happy to defend the claims it makes?

lenny

5th November 2007, 04:06 PM

It's not going up. Find one scientist who thinks it is. Met O doesn't, why do you?
can you specify your claim for me: What exactly does the met office say is not "going up"? (or fails to claim...). i'd like to know specifically what the factiod being argued here is. just a selfstanding statement in a sentence of two. thanks.

Pipirr

5th November 2007, 04:10 PM

mhaze

5th November 2007, 04:38 PM

i'd be happy to discuss Armstrong et al and its relevance to forecasting physical systems if you'd like. are you happy to defend the claims it makes?

For the most part, yes. In this case, it's Chapter 8 of the IPCC stuff that's at question. There's certainly a lot to be found at fault there, but here we address the question of how Armstrong's method helps or does not help in analyzing problems with Chapter 8.

Chapter 8 is the section on Climate Models. Take a look at section 8 and I'll re read it, it's been a while.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch08.pdf (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf)

Take a look at Armstrong's paper and see what you think - it's not so much about forecasting physical systems as a critique of the use of computer models and a critique of the people using them.

Armstrong's Congressional Briefing video and power point here. (http://ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=375&Itemid=92)
Paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?". (http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf)

Please note the exact wording I used -

Does anyone care to discuss the theory and practice of his approach to the IPCC Chapter 8 findings?

I find Armstrong's approach and economics in general interesting, but a lot of folks do not - to each their own, right?:)

CapelDodger

5th November 2007, 06:18 PM

You don't like 'Denier', but it's acceptable to use 'Warmers'?

The undeniable taint of hypocrisy. Which may well be denied, from my experience. (I don't have my experience presentable in graphical form yet, but naturally I'm working on it. Without a graph, how can I know it's real? (fnord irony))

CapelDodger

5th November 2007, 06:37 PM

He takes a leap and goes off about policy and biofuels for some reason.

We know the reason : The validity of science is dependent on its implications, and the more uncomfortable those implications can be presented as, the less valid the science.

Science doesn't imply policies. It implies further science, which is confirmed or isn't. So far the observable implications of AGW science have been confirmed over several decades. The political implications remain a fantasy-land that has nothing to do with science or observation. Comfortable territory for the ideologically-minded that don't get out a lot.

mhaze

5th November 2007, 07:29 PM

Incidentally...

Tamino has a rather excellent post up, showing various methods for obtaining trends from temperature datasets. Its a great primer on the subject, graphs in abundance.

I really do recommend it to anyone as a beginner's guide to analysing temperature data. And, as he says at the end,

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/analyze-this/#more-465

I like it. One comment on the comments -

cody // Nov 5th 2007 at 9:52 am (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/analyze-this/#comment-8219)
Thanks, very nice, very clear, very well explained. Have you ever considered R, though? Spoken as one wearily wondering whether its worth the effort, but also tired of waiting for a spreadsheet to get through it all.

[Response: R squared gives the fraction of total variance which is explained by whatever model we fit. This has its uses, but it doesn’t really tell us the statistical significance; that also depends on the (effective) number of data points and on then number of degrees of freedom in the model we choose. So R alone doesn’t enable you to compute statistical significance. For me, it’s usually not worth the wait (but there are cases in which it’s useful information).]

R is a statistical package available for download. (http://www.r-project.org/)

It is the package that www.climateaudit.org has standardized on.

Pipirr

5th November 2007, 07:47 PM

That's an amusing misunderstanding... :)

stevea

5th November 2007, 08:43 PM

In response to Schneibster

Originally Posted by stevea
I'm regularly disgusted by illogical arguments, and one of the first signals that things are going off the tracks is when people referring the the "Insert name" theory of such-n-such instead of briefly explaining the fundamental point.

Schneibster
So from this, I get two statements by you:
1. Any scientific theory that requires an IQ greater than 90 to understand, or requires an explanation that takes more than two sentences, is BS.
2. You don't want to talk about scientific theories by name; it's illogical.
Have I got that right?

You have that exactly *wrong*. Perhaps you should RE-READ my post. Any half-wit can walk in the room and say things like, "I find the Hegelian foundation of Marxist dialectic at odds with Hume's view of morality", and pompous undergraduates do say such things. There is no reasonable response since in a sentence they have made indirect reference to 2000 pages of weighty writing. That does NOT make the remark intelligent nor relevant., not does it clarify their viewpoint.

I have no difficulty with poster making reference to a well understood, well established and concisely expressible theory. If you wish to reference the 3rd law of thermodynamics, Lorentzian transform or a Maclaurin series then go ahead. My objection its that some people reference "the Hansen theory" and there is no such thing. They are loosely and vaguely referencing 30 years of climatology work and several dozen papers. Referencing "the Hansen theory" it is like throwing a phone book in a blender and posting the result - pompous nonsense.

Now in a room full of climatologists I expect that there are many theories that are well known and understood by the convention of a name *within that field*. That is NOT the case on this forum. Instead when people start throwing vague named theories around to a general intelligent audience, and particularly when they refuse to explain their points in plain language, it is clearly and obviously an attempt to obfuscate and hide their own ignorance.

If you cannot explain your pet theory to an intelligent audience without these obtuse references - then you really don't understand your topic at all.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
It's a great debater's technique for inserting a massive and therefore difficult to rebut body of work into a discussion without going to the effort of laying a foundation. It's really only valid when the audience all understand and agree on the definition of the idea.

Schneibster
So basically you don't want to talk about science, when you talk about climate. OK, that's fine, but I have to ask you, why are you posting on a forum titled, "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology?" Politics is over there ->.

If you want to talk science - then post your original data sources and your equations. I am quite willing to review and comment on SCIENCE. I do this every week. If you want to talk ABOUT science then do post your specific references and the exact inferences you mean to imply. If instead you want to chatter and make cloudy allusions - then go away; you are anethma to any intelligent conversation.

What you and some others want to do is bandy-about half-baked ideas with ill conceived and vague references to other's works. That isn't science Schneibster - that's a "snow-job".

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
NASA recently released the source code for Hansen's model. I performed a brief review and I have toi say the quality of the code is very poor.

Schneibster
It's crufty. That's why it has all those tracers and diagnostics sprinkled all over it. What's the matter, never seen scientific code before? They aren't, after all, professional software engineers. I didn't have any trouble following it. Are you saying you did? That would be consistent with your attitude on scientific theories.

You are dazzlingly ignorant of the fields you comment on, Schneibster. The source code is publicly available HERE for all to see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

There are no tracers (whatever that is) in the code. The term "trace" appear in the code as a comment about "precipitation trace" in half a dozen places and one instance of a variable called "TRACE" appears in exactly 5 lines. In the later mode code l understand "trace" to refer to trace atmospheric gases.

There are exactly two comment references to "diagnostic" and each is in a comment, implying that some variable appears just for observation, not calculation.

No! Sorry, you get an F in software analysis Schneibster. The code includes no verification mechanism nor even minimal diagnostics.

I've sat through many many code reviews in my career and my estimation, based on the code in STEP0, anyone trying to defend this code design would be sent out for a re-work after <15minutes of review. It simply isn't well written !!! No rational company would deploy similarly implemented code (even the 200n update) in a commercial product for fear of liability, Yet Hansen/NASA want's us to bring the planet's economies to grinding halt on this basis. I have difficulty with that reasoning.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
It contains the sort of organizational problems that I used to see in undergraduate homework programs in the 1970s (before better tools and languages avoided many of the problems)
Schneibster:
Well, gee, considering it was originally written in FORTRAN, in the '70s, THAT'S a big surprise, huh?

Wrong! The code is largely written in Fortran90 which was not available until late ~1989 and the particular code uses features that were not available until after the 1992 ANSI standard. Many of the scripts are written in Python - a computer language not available till 1991. This code was NOT written in the 1970s !

I was not dedgrading Hansen's software based on their use of a commonly available computer language of that era (Hansen's 1988 paper would have been on the trailing cusp of Fortran's era). I was noting that it contained many organizational problems that have been obviated by more modern computer languages.

What is clear is that this version of Hansen's code was greatly modified (re-written) at or after 2001, as the website states. They did not bother to make many of the changes that I would recommend to improve the basic structure.

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
That is not to say the model is wrong, but personally I'd be hesitant to make any major claims based on such a low quality tool. The possibility of error in the code is significant and I wonder what sort of test cases were used to give confidence to the results ? I don't see any test verification suite for the units.

Schneibster:

They test them with the diagnostics and tracers in the code that you apparently overlooked. In fact, according to the documentation, it's only recently that it was modularized. I bet that was fun. Almost as good as hitting yourself repeatedly in the chest with a pickaxe. No wonder it's got cruft all over it.

Since there are no diagnostics or "tracers" your comments are specious !! You are misrepresenting facts !! The facts are available to all in the code (see link).

Schneibster:
And with all that trouble you have with scientific theories and stuff, I bet you have a great deal of trouble figuring out what numerical simulations do, because it's mostly math- kind of like scientific theories are.

You are the one having trouble Schneibster. Let's put a few facts in play.

I have an IQ in the top 0.1% of the population (I dropped Mensa years ago, I think the Alpha Society fell apart too). I was elected to the honorary scientific society 'Sigma Xi' in 1985 based primarily on work I did on signal processing of neurological signals. I have written a substantial amount of scientific software for medical imaging, image reconstruction (CT & MRI), and also DoD related software for optical communication. I have a BS in pure Math, MSEE and MS.Physics. I have developed a substantial body of mission critical well reviewed scientific code.

You , Schneibster OTOH seem to have a great deal of difficulty solving simple high-school physics problems that require only multiplication:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97922

Schneibster clearly cannor read or understand source code. He cannot respond to anyone, particularly mhaze without a descent into name-calling and ad hominem. He regularly makes vague and unsupported claims. Go look at Schneibster's 1st post on this topic. He refers to Fourier's work on greenhouse gases. I've read Fourier's paper in translation and it has virtually nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Fourier proposes a brilliant (for that early era) analysis of heating of the earth that accounts for almost all factors including atmospheric heat capacity. So instead of understanding anything Schneibster appears to parrot certain scientific pronouncements. Unable to hear, understand, integrate and re-iterate the issues he is forced to short-cut and simply hears and repeats.

I seriously am NOT trying to toot my own horn and I absolutely reject any argument from anyone (myself included) based on credentials. (my point is to refute Scheibster's outrageously wrong claims). 'Appeal to authority' is yet another fallacious argument.

==

I fear that as scientific issues become more complex, and more relevant to daily life, that intelligent people will fail to question and anaylze the information. Perhaps rejecting the arguments as too deep, too complex. Instead on this forum it seems the issue is too argumentative and uninformative for most to tolerate.

I had hoped to find an intelligent discussion on the climate topic, but instead I find only moronic insults, and a LOT of orthodoxy and blind systematic belief. It is REALLY sad that a conversation on the actual data and it's analysis cannot take place on such a forum as this.

goodbye,
-S

ps to mhaze:
Your reference to the 1988 Hansen paper claims (in other parts of the text) 3.sd, but that is not consistent with a 1-in-100 chance (more like 1:400). and a normal distribution. Further the paper is remarkably vague (it could never be published in a hydrology journal for example) as they fail to show the method of analysis, and the basic statistical results. The paper repeatedly shows rather pointless graphs covering a 50-80 year period then the text makes the unsupported claim that the recent 30 year [circa 1980] warming period is several SD from the norm.
There isn't enough data presented to support this..

a_unique_person

5th November 2007, 08:58 PM

In response to Schneibster

Originally Posted by stevea

Schneibster

You have that exactly *wrong*. Perhaps you should RE-READ my post. Any half-wit can walk in the room and say things like, "I find the Hegelian foundation of Marxist dialectic at odds with Hume's view of morality", and pompous undergraduates do say such things. There is no reasonable response since in a sentence they have made indirect reference to 2000 pages of weighty writing. That does NOT make the remark intelligent nor relevant., not does it clarify their viewpoint.

I have no difficulty with poster making reference to a well understood, well established and concisely expressible theory. If you wish to reference the 3rd law of thermodynamics, Lorentzian transform or a Maclaurin series then go ahead. My objection its that some people reference "the Hansen theory" and there is no such thing. They are loosely and vaguely referencing 30 years of climatology work and several dozen papers. Referencing "the Hansen theory" it is like throwing a phone book in a blender and posting the result - pompous nonsense.

Who has referenced the "Hansen Theory" apart from deniers?

a_unique_person

5th November 2007, 09:08 PM

I've sat through many many code reviews in my career and my estimation, based on the code in STEP0, anyone trying to defend this code design would be sent out for a re-work after <15minutes of review. It simply isn't well written !!! No rational company would deploy similarly implemented code (even the 200n update) in a commercial product for fear of liability, Yet Hansen/NASA want's us to bring the planet's economies to grinding halt on this basis. I have difficulty with that reasoning.

I have difficulty with that reasoning too. You talk about unsupported assertions, yet make a blindingly bald one in the very next paragraph. FWIW, I don't believe anyone wants to bring the planet's economies to a grinding halt, they are actually trying to protect them.

The work of Hansen is only a small part of the case for the IPCC. Australia, for example, has it's own independent temperature records and scientists. Guess what, they correlate with what Hansen has come up with.

a_unique_person

5th November 2007, 09:21 PM

I fear that as scientific issues become more complex, and more relevant to daily life, that intelligent people will fail to question and anaylze the information. Perhaps rejecting the arguments as too deep, too complex. Instead on this forum it seems the issue is too argumentative and uninformative for most to tolerate.

I had hoped to find an intelligent discussion on the climate topic, but instead I find only moronic insults, and a LOT of orthodoxy and blind systematic belief. It is REALLY sad that a conversation on the actual data and it's analysis cannot take place on such a forum as this.

goodbye,
-S

So you are gone, My .01%, and I'm still here. What use are you then? I said in response to your first post on the topic I'm happy for some education on the matter if you can offer it. So far I've seen pretty well nothing.

Schneibster

6th November 2007, 12:55 AM

You have that exactly *wrong*. Perhaps you should RE-READ my post. You mean, and look to see if you actually specified what you were talking about, instead of making cryptic references to something apparently only you saw? Sorry, I'm not looking to do any cryptography here. Spell it out or eat it.

I have no difficulty with poster making reference to a well understood, well established and concisely expressible theory. If you wish to reference the 3rd law of thermodynamics, Lorentzian transform or a Maclaurin series then go ahead. My objection its that some people reference "the Hansen theory" and there is no such thing. They are loosely and vaguely referencing 30 years of climatology work and several dozen papers. Referencing "the Hansen theory" it is like throwing a phone book in a blender and posting the result - pompous nonsense.So who specified some supposed "Hansen theory" or other? I'm sorry, you'll have to make posts that address what someone actually said, not what you heard the voices in your head tell you they were saying. I can't hear the voices in your head.

If you want to talk science - then post your original data sources and your equations. I am quite willing to review and comment on SCIENCE. I do this every week. If you want to talk ABOUT science then do post your specific references and the exact inferences you mean to imply. If instead you want to chatter and make cloudy allusions - then go away; you are anethma to any intelligent conversation.Impressive. I believe they call this "projection." If you have some argument to make, get about making it; I haven't seen any so far. You'll need to be coherent and specific. Again, I haven't seen that so far.

What you and some others want to do is bandy-about half-baked ideas with ill conceived and vague references to other's works. That isn't science Schneibster - that's a "snow-job".Considering that you haven't asked a coherent question yet, I have to question whether you're competent to make such a judgment. Whether you feel you are is immaterial, I'll point out.

You are dazzlingly ignorant of the fields you comment on, Schneibster. The source code is publicly available HERE for all to see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

There are no tracers (whatever that is) in the code. The term "trace" appear in the code as a comment about "precipitation trace" in half a dozen places and one instance of a variable called "TRACE" appears in exactly 5 lines. In the later mode code l understand "trace" to refer to trace atmospheric gases. Perhaps you should read the release notes and operating instructions. I expect if you're capable of reading source code in Fortran you're capable of finding them, yes? I certainly had no trouble, and it seems we disagree about what's in that source code. Do you really want me to post annotated code, and the source files and line numbers it came from? You do realize this will make you look like an idiot, correct?

No! Sorry, you get an F in software analysis Schneibster. The code includes no verification mechanism nor even minimal diagnostics.Sonny, I was playing with Fortran when you weren't a gleam in your daddy's eye. I suggest you not try to tell your grandma how to suck eggs.

Wrong! The code is largely written in Fortran90 which was not available until late ~1989 and the particular code uses features that were not available until after the 1992 ANSI standard. Many of the scripts are written in Python - a computer language not available till 1991. This code was NOT written in the 1970s ! Not only do you ignore the release notes, the FAQ, and the manual for the software, you have the temerity to lie about it. Seriously, I hope you're not planning on sticking around- because I'm going to make an idiot of you if you do. It's not very pleasant to watch. I'll need the heavy rubber gloves; I think we can forgo the vaseline, all things considered.

I was not dedgrading Hansen's software based on their use of a commonly available computer language of that era (Hansen's 1988 paper would have been on the trailing cusp of Fortran's era). I was noting that it contained many organizational problems that have been obviated by more modern computer languages.Welcome to scientific programming. They don't care if it's pretty. What they care about is the algorithms, and that those algorithms be transparent enough that if they need to update them for a change in the understanding of the physics, they can do so quickly. And that it run efficiently- and it will most likely do that, no matter how nasty the commenting is.

What is clear is that this version of Hansen's code was greatly modified (re-written) at or after 2001, as the website states. They did not bother to make many of the changes that I would recommend to improve the basic structure.They aren't interested in the basic structure. They're interested in whether they can find what they need to modify if the physics changes, and if it runs fast. Everything else is candy.

Since there are no diagnostics or "tracers" your comments are specious !! You are misrepresenting facts !! The facts are available to all in the code (see link).Since you couldn't find them, or claim not to be able to, it's obvious you're either lying, or incompetent. Which do you prefer?

You are the one having trouble Schneibster. Let's put a few facts in play.Not having seen a single one so far, I'm game.

I have an IQ in the top 0.1% of the population (I dropped Mensa years ago, I think the Alpha Society fell apart too). I was elected to the honorary scientific society 'Sigma Xi' in 1985 based primarily on work I did on signal processing of neurological signals. I have written a substantial amount of scientific software for medical imaging, image reconstruction (CT & MRI), and also DoD related software for optical communication. I have a BS in pure Math, MSEE and MS.Physics. I have developed a substantial body of mission critical well reviewed scientific code.I'm sure. :rolleyes: It's especially apparent in your ability to analyze code someone else wrote.

You , Schneibster OTOH seem to have a great deal of difficulty solving simple high-school physics problems that require only multiplication:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97922You are cute, I'll give you that- but you've missed something important, which is the integrity to admit when I'm wrong and move on. A capability you appear to lack. I am content to be incorrect sometimes and remain capable of admitting it. I scoff and sneer at those who are incapable of that; they are, to my mind, children, more interested in their "cred" than in being right and finding out what's right. By this you demonstrate your lack of honor and your lack of integrity; and your lack of respect for honor and integrity. It is people like you who have damaged our society. With luck, your lack of personally respectable attributes will result in your ultimate humiliation, since only in this way can you be broken down far enough to learn wisdom. And it is not an evil I wish upon you, but a good that you will not recognize as such unless or until after it happens.

The remainder of this post I cast to the dogs. Perhaps they can make something of it.

lenny

6th November 2007, 02:09 AM

For the most part, yes. In this case, it's Chapter 8 of the IPCC stuff that's at question. ... here we address the question of how Armstrong's method helps or does not help in analyzing problems with Chapter 8.

agreed. and if it is shown that Armstrong's method has systematic flaws when applied to physical systems as a whole, particularly in climate-like problems (extrapolation) then we have sufficient evidence to conclude it does not help in "chapter 8".

thanks for the link to his slides.

I find Armstrong's approach and economics in general interesting, but a lot of folks do not - to each their own, right?:)
i think not. Armstrong's basic claim is that any analysis which fails to follow his principles fails to yield a scientific forecast. the question is whether or not his approach is applicable/helpful or not in climate science, not whether or not i like it.

Megalodon

6th November 2007, 03:52 AM

For starters, let's try to take a look at the big picture. It seems to be the case - it's being talked about by scientists, meterologists and the like - that the PDO is reversing phase. That has obvious implications, such as less of the El Nino effect.

That's funny, I ask you if you have anything worth discussing beyond your last ad hominem, or refering to the Lyman papers you linked to, or relating to the last graph I posted... and you bring up the PDO.

Obviously you must think it's very important...

Is this certainly happening? I don't think so. But it does look like it could be happening, based on the periodicity of the PDO and the recent "non warming" (however we phrase that).

...or maybe you don't. So you're trolling, once again... No bite from me, though.

Does this sound reasonable?

Less and less of what you say sounds reasonable, hazy...

If so, we can go from there to something of what exactly this may mean. Note AGW skeptics are not the ones saying PDO is reversing phase, that's mainstream science.

Thank you for aknowledging that your flavour of AGW skepticism is not mainstream science. And I would add, in the same way as homeopathy is not mainstream medicine.

There are AGW skeptics. You recognize them when they don't search the blogs for the next factoid that might keep them afloat for a while longer.

Pipirr

6th November 2007, 06:11 AM

Is it appropriate for authors to evaluate their own work?

No. That's what peer review is for.

However, once an author's work has been evaluated by peer review, then I think it certainly is appropriate for that author to summarise their own work.

If I want an accurate review of the science, I'd ask the scientists in the field.

Who better to summarize a science than it's scientists?

mhaze

6th November 2007, 06:58 AM

In response to Schneibster

Originally Posted by stevea

I had hoped to find an intelligent discussion on the climate topic, but instead I find only moronic insults, and a LOT of orthodoxy and blind systematic belief. It is REALLY sad that a conversation on the actual data and it's analysis cannot take place on such a forum as this.

goodbye,
-S

ps to mhaze:
Your reference to the 1988 Hansen paper claims (in other parts of the text) 3.sd, but that is not consistent with a 1-in-100 chance (more like 1:400). and a normal distribution. Further the paper is remarkably vague (it could never be published in a hydrology journal for example) as they fail to show the method of analysis, and the basic statistical results. The paper repeatedly shows rather pointless graphs covering a 50-80 year period then the text makes the unsupported claim that the recent 30 year [circa 1980] warming period is several SD from the norm.
There isn't enough data presented to support this..

Thank you for the reply.

I would apologize for the behavior of people on this forum but it's really the job of the moderators to maintain a reasonable adherence to the rules of the forum, also to recognize trolls, warn them, and if they don't get the message, permanently ban them from the forum. Any forum that does not have restrictions on trolling, personal attacks and ad hominems will find that the small percentage of people who delight in such activities will expand their use of such activities on that forum.

If I was to apologize for something it would be for attempting to hold serious discussions on this subject in a forum that could or would not support the serious discussion of science.

mhaze

6th November 2007, 07:03 AM

agreed. and if it is shown that Armstrong's method has systematic flaws when applied to physical systems as a whole, particularly in climate-like problems (extrapolation) then we have sufficient evidence to conclude it does not help in "chapter 8".

thanks for the link to his slides.

i think not. Armstrong's basic claim is that any analysis which fails to follow his principles fails to yield a scientific forecast. the question is whether or not his approach is applicable/helpful or not in climate science, not whether or not i like it.

Sounds like we are in agreement on the approach to the issue, then.

Megalodon

6th November 2007, 08:12 AM

I would apologize for the behavior of people on this forum but it's really the job of the moderators to maintain a reasonable adherence to the rules of the forum, also to recognize trolls, warn them, and if they don't get the message, permanently ban them from the forum.

You have no shame...

Any forum that does not have restrictions on trolling, personal attacks and ad hominems will find that the small percentage of people who delight in such activities will expand their use of such activities on that forum.

Fortunately for you the tolerance for trolls is high around here. Unfortunately for you, anyone can look back to the content of the thread.

If I was to apologize for something it would be for attempting to hold serious discussions on this subject in a forum that could or would not support the serious discussion of science.

It can, it did, your "science" didn't hold up to scrutiny. Not one time...
But some interesting things were discussed around your factoids.

CapelDodger

6th November 2007, 04:05 PM

Since you couldn't find them, or claim not to be able to, it's obvious you're either lying, or incompetent. Which do you prefer?

He did a perl-search on "TRACE", what more can be asked of a chap? He can hardly be expected to dig out a tracer - "whatever that is" - if they don't have a sound naming convention :rolleyes:.

So Hansen has an eponymous Theory now. This guy's status just keeps on growing. There'll be a Nobel at the end of it, mark my words.

CapelDodger

6th November 2007, 04:40 PM

No! Sorry, you get an F in software analysis Schneibster. The code includes no verification mechanism nor even minimal diagnostics.

Verification is against the real outcome. That's in the nature of a predictive model. What sort of "verification" are you expecting? Verification against what is actually going to happen?

As to diagnostics, if the model craps out the OS will tell you where and why.

I've sat through many many code reviews in my career and my estimation, based on the code in STEP0, anyone trying to defend this code design would be sent out for a re-work after <15minutes of review. It simply isn't well written !!! No rational company would deploy similarly implemented code (even the 200n update) in a commercial product for fear of liability, Yet Hansen/NASA want's us to bring the planet's economies to grinding halt on this basis. I have difficulty with that reasoning.

I too have had such experience, so I appreciate that commercial systems are completely different from scientific models. The former can be chock-full of verifications because they're self-contained. A predictive model is not self-contained.

What is clear is that this version of Hansen's code was greatly modified (re-written) at or after 2001, as the website states.

The substantive issue is surely the output of the Hansen et al 1988 model. We've had twenty years of reality since, and it's proved remarkably accurate. However ugly it might have been it worked and is still working. Like the Kalashnikov.

They did not bother to make many of the changes that I would recommend to improve the basic structure.

You've got the existing code, so why not implement your ideas, run some projections, post them here and we'll check in in 2027 to see if your version did any better? Models like Hansen et al 1988 improve with age, so it's quite a challenge.

If you're too busy, send me your spec and I'll implement it for you at a competitive rate. (I, too, cut my teeth on 70's FORTRAN, and I'm cheaper than Schneibster.)

CapelDodger

6th November 2007, 05:13 PM

Unfortunately for you, anyone can look back to the content of the thread.

There it all is, in fifty-odd pages. A large sample.

Which side does the hysteria come from? The global economy "grinding to a halt" end of things? No greenhouse warming that isn't "runaway", ushering in an "apocalypse", which is just what they want, you know.

It doesn't come from the pro-science side. Ours has been, I think, the more sober and mature presentation to whatever audience is out there. Certainly the more science-oriented, and of course more reality-oriented. Picking at a 1988 model (for instance) without reference to its performance over two decades is sad and barren.

CapelDodger

6th November 2007, 05:39 PM

You're a bit behind the times. The Lyman update October 26 has confirmed no cooling or warming from 2003-2006, however no new data since then. Based on the latest ENSO/SST data and cyclone energy, would you conclude ocean heat content has risen or dropped?

Would you?

Let's look at NOAA's predictions for ENSO and SST. SCRIPPS (from your link) predicts no drop but in fact a gain in ENSO.

What does a "gain in ENSO" mean?

It looks like no matter what happens, it can be claimed "the models were spot on".
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323472f54313fe13.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9085)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323472f5478b45f4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9086)

Which models? Whose models, and models of what? What exactly do you encompass with "the models"?

Based on the above information, what do you think is going on?

The fluid skin on this planet of ours is accumulating energy in the form of heat. That's what's going on. There'll surely be an El Nino in the next three-to-eight years, and then we'll see how significant September '07 was - which wasn't much.

Locri

6th November 2007, 10:44 PM

Which side does the hysteria come from? The global economy "grinding to a halt" end of things? No greenhouse warming that isn't "runaway", ushering in an "apocalypse", which is just what they want, you know.

It doesn't come from the pro-science side. Ours has been, I think, the more sober and mature presentation to whatever audience is out there. Certainly the more science-oriented, and of course more reality-oriented.

Only time for a quick reply, but to me, this is just absurd. If you truly feel that the AGW side isn't being hysterical, you might want to let some of the other AGW people know. I hate to bring him up, but Al Gore certainly has done a lot with that... he made a lot of inaccurate fear-mongering statements and a huge amount of AGW supporters go right along with that.

Even on the scientific side there have been some alarmist-type remarks from Hansen and Mann. Lots of stuff on Tipping points and such. Some even claiming that we already took too long and now there isn't anything we can do.

Harpoon

6th November 2007, 11:19 PM

There it all is, in fifty-odd pages. A large sample.
Which side does the hysteria come from? The global economy "grinding to a halt" end of things? No greenhouse warming that isn't "runaway", ushering in an "apocalypse", which is just what they want, you know.

Fifty-odd pages, indeed. My poor old dial-up, slow speed takes so long to change pages, I lack the patience to read back. So I confess my ignorance of what's in those 50 pages. But from what you say, the topic has wandered from science and into policy sometimes.

I know how some of you hate that -- "Take it to politics->" or something less kind.

I haven't checked the politics forum lately or frequently, and only came across one, dismal GW thread. The thread could have used contributions from several of you.

I've posted before that I fear the AGW policy-makers more than I fear a prematurally warmer planet.

I realize that science is amoral. But that doesn't mean scientists and those who respect science must be. While we have to defend objective science, we shouldn't ignor it when science is distorted by policy-makers and those serving only themselves.

An occasional relaxation of the rules, to discuss AGW mediation policies, could be very informative. And like I said, that doesn't seem possible in the political threads.

Or how about the philosophical implications of AGW? A forum for that?;)

Lucifuge Rofocale

7th November 2007, 08:30 AM

I have some sort of contradiction into this issue.
While I not agree to Kyoto and also don't agree to AGW, I'm all in for control of pollutants emissions (because they cause documented health problems) and also I'm all in for nuclear plants, wich is implemented could solve the non-problem (IMHO) of CO2 and also the true problem of fuel dependency.
So, if we discuss it from a politic perspective the discussion will be about how defective are Kyoto and similar proposals to fight the perceived problem, and searching for alternatives (which AFAIK can only be nuclear).
OTOH, from the pure science perspective, I'm all anti-AGW (because is bad science) and anti-Kyoto and carbon credits(because is defective, even if the AGW problem is real).

Locri

7th November 2007, 09:32 AM

Good idea. Anything catch your eye?

Several days (and pages) later... I finally get a bit of time *laughs*

All of the papers catch my eye really, but I think I'll start with one that hits closely on something I've said repeatedly during the conversation that I think is important to how we look at the issue:

20) Update - September 10, 2007: New study claims UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." A September 2007 analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review process entitled “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. According to the analysis, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.” The paper continued: "In [the IPCC's] Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." The analysis concluded: “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.” (LINK) (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html)

While it's not focusing on the science of the issue (I'll be happy to get to that later) it talks about the critical point of groupthink in science and how it can get rather bad on a highly politicized issue.

The reason I bring this up first is that the argument here shows how there can be problems with the way the scientific method interacts with human nature. Sure, in a pure form the Scientific Method is one of the best ways to find out things about the world (IMO), but as soon as human nature and politics get involved, things start going downhill. I don't think AGW is a conspiracy or anything, but I do get the impression there is a strong "grouping" mechanism going on with the IPCC, which (as is fairly obvious) is what the vast majority of AGW believers work off of when discussing their talking points.

I also posted a link before by someone talking about the problems with the IPCCs structure and politicized nature. And if I haven't posted it yet, there is a story about how some of the fundamental premises of the IPCC report are a lot weaker than many assume.

I'm interested to hear thoughts on this, as always.

mhaze

7th November 2007, 09:36 AM

I have some sort of contradiction into this issue.

The contradictions are not yours, they exist because other people decided to push the likes of
non solutions (Kyoto, carbon credits) to non problems (AGW of the CO2 variety)
ignore real solutions (nuclear) to real problems (fuel dependency)
de emphasize real problems (pollution, soot, Asian brown cloud) in favor of fantasy problems (CO2 AGW)

Locri

7th November 2007, 09:37 AM

Links for the last part of my post discussing IPCCs fundamental premises:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=32
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/157%20evt.sci.fraud.pdf

mhaze

7th November 2007, 09:40 AM

Sure, in a pure form the Scientific Method is one of the best ways to find out things about the world (IMO), but as soon as human nature and politics get involved, things start going downhill. I don't think AGW is a conspiracy or anything, but I do get the impression there is a strong "grouping" mechanism going on with the IPCC, which (as is fairly obvious) is what the vast majority of AGW believers work off of when discussing their talking points.

I also posted a link before by someone talking about the problems with the IPCCs structure and politicized nature. And if I haven't posted it yet, there is a story about how some of the fundamental premises of the IPCC report are a lot weaker than many assume.

I'm interested to hear thoughts on this, as always.

Pipirr, as a strong advocate of peer review, may want to weigh in on the differences between peer review in indepedent journals and what might be best called the committee approach to writing science a la government reports - the IPCC documents are a version of the latter.

It's news to me that anyone ever considered any any stretch of the imagination the IPCC documents to have been subjected to peer review.

Locri

7th November 2007, 10:01 AM

As to diagnostics, if the model craps out the OS will tell you where and why.

I'm curious as to why you say that. In a large amount of cases, bugs in programming will not necessarily crash a program. A program can often run happily along with a false set of data because the programmer messed up something in the code.

A computer does exactly what you tell it to do. It'll do exactly what you tell it to do just as fast if you are right or wrong.

Also, the OS probably won't tell you where or why, that's what debugging is for.

I also find it a little hypocritical that it's ok for a scientist to write a program when they aren't programmers, but arguments are often thrown out because we supposedly can't trust the word of a non-scientist that makes comments about scientific things.

stevea

7th November 2007, 11:11 AM

Against my better judgement I'll continue ...

Perhaps you should read the release notes and operating instructions. I expect if you're capable of reading source code in Fortran you're capable of finding them, yes? I certainly had no trouble, and it seems we disagree about what's in that source code. Do you really want me to post annotated code, and the source files and line numbers it came from? You do realize this will make you look like an idiot, correct?

Yes, please do post some *specific* code details where you believe I am in error.
Please note that *THIS* http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/GISTEMP_sources.tar.gz
Is the code I specifically referenced.

This is, as far as I can tell, the earliest version of Hansen's code released. Hansen, according to reports, objected to the release as it needed additional work. From comments within the text files this code and related data sets were updated in 2003 if not later. Funny that he would draw economically devastating conclusions from code that was not, 13 years later, ready for review. I am not interested in the later re-writes that have appeared for the purpose of this discussion.

Here is a little help for you. This is a list of every file included:
./GISTEMP_sources
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/USHCN2v2.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/antarc_comb.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/antarc_comb.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/antarc_to_v2.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/cmb.hohenp.v2.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/cmb2.ushcn.v2.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/dif.ushcn.ghcn.2005.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/do_comb_step0.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/dump_old.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/get_USHCN
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/get_offset_noFIL
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/hohp_to_v2.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/Ts.discont.RS.alter.IN
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/Ts.strange.RSU.list.IN
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/antarc1.list
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/antarc1.txt
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/antarc2.list
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/antarc2.txt
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/antarc3.list
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/antarc3.txt
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/combine_pieces_helena.in
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/mcdw.tbl
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/preliminary_manual_steps.txt
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/sumofday.tbl
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/t_hohenpeissenberg_200306.txt_as_received_July17_2 003
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/ushcn.tbl
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/input_files/v2.inv
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/step0_README.txt
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/to_next_step
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP0/work_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/EXTENSIONS.tar.gz
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/PYTHON_README.txt
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/alter_discont.py
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/bdb_to_text.py
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/comb_pieces.py
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/comb_records.py
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/do_comb_step1.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/drop_strange.py
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files/Ts.discont.RS.alter.IN
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files/Ts.strange.RSU.list.IN
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files/combine_pieces_helena.in
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files/mcdw.tbl
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files/sumofday.tbl
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files/ushcn.tbl
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/input_files/v2.inv
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/listStats.py
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/to_next_step
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/v2_to_bdb.py
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP1/work_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/PApars
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/PApars.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/do_comb_step2.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/flags.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/input_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/input_files/v2.inv
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/invnt.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/padjust
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/padjust.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/split_binary.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/t2fit.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/text_to_binary.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/toANNanom
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/toANNanom.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/to_next_step
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/tr2.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/trim_binary.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/work_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/annzon.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/do_comb_step3.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/input_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/results
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/to.SBBXgrid.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/to_next_step
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/trimSBBX
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/trimSBBX.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/work_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/zonav
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/zonav.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/SBBXotoBX.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/annzon.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/convert.HadR2_mod4.upto15full_yrs.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/convert1.HadR2_mod4.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/do.mult_year.TocnHR2.upd
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/do_comb_step4.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/do_comb_step5.sh
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/input_files
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/input_files/SBBX_LtSN.LnWE.dat.gz
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/input_files/oisstv2_mod4.clim.gz
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/trimSBBX
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/trimSBBX.f
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/zonav
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/zonav.f
./GISTEMP_sources/gistemp.txt

Here is a list of every occurence of "trace" in the tarball:
# grep -n -r -i trace ./GISTEMP_sources/*
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/PApars.f:34:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/PApars.f:127: TRACE=INFO(8)
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/PApars.f:193:C?*** Change data if necessary (e.g. trace flag for precip)
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP2/PApars.f:194:C?PRC IF(RDATA(M).EQ.TRACE) RDATA(M)=0.
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/annzon.f:34:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/to.SBBXgrid.f:56:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/to.SBBXgrid.f:162: TRACE=INFOI(8)
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/to.SBBXgrid.f:256:C?*** Change data if necessary (e.g. trace flag for precip)
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/to.SBBXgrid.f:257:C?PRC IF(RDATA(M).EQ.TRACE) RDATA(M)=0.
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/trimSBBX.f:37:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/zonav.f:45:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP3/zonav.f:112: TRACE=INFOI(8)
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/SBBXotoBX.f:55:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/SBBXotoBX.f:140: TRACE=INFO(8)
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/annzon.f:34:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/trimSBBX.f:37:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/zonav.f:45:C**** 8 = flag for precipitation trace
./GISTEMP_sources/STEP4_5/zonav.f:112: TRACE=INFOI(8)

So where are "the tracers" you claim appear here ? Please indicate the file and line number specifics. I insist.

Sonny, I was playing with Fortran when you weren't a gleam in your daddy's eye. I suggest you not try to tell your grandma how to suck eggs.

You apparently believe your stale old programming skills a special asset ? It's an idiotic claim IMO. FWIW Fortran wasn't invented until after my birth and I wrote Fortran2 on an IBM1620 in 1965/66. The difference is that I've learned better methods since and you apparently have stuck with 1960 methodology.

Welcome to scientific programming. They don't care if it's pretty. What they care about is the algorithms, and that those algorithms be transparent enough that if they need to update them for a change in the understanding of the physics, they can do so quickly. And that it run efficiently- and it will most likely do that, no matter how nasty the commenting is.

They aren't interested in the basic structure. They're interested in whether they can find what they need to modify if the physics changes, and if it runs fast. Everything else is candy.

What an idiotic claim. That isn't scientific programming, that's just old fashioned, quick & dirty, bad programming. Apparently you haven't learned much about software design since your ancient Fortran days. If anyone tried to pass code like this into a MRI image reconstruction system, or even a graduate thesis they'd be canned or caned. If you want to compare notes I'm quite certain you are the one lacking any recent experience with scientific software development (It's been part of my education and career for 37 years).

Not only do you ignore the release notes, the FAQ, and the manual for the software, you have the temerity to lie about it. Seriously, I hope you're not planning on sticking around- because I'm going to make an idiot of you if you do. It's not very pleasant to watch. I'll need the heavy rubber gloves; I think we can forgo the vaseline, all things considered.

Bring it on, you foulmouthed anal-oriented buffoon. *IF* you to stick to specifics instead of your wandering allusions to these secondary documents, then everyone will see that you are wrong. Show me the code !

Just point to the source code lines in the specified tarball that indicate "tracers" to you. That is all I ask. A file name and a line number will do.

You are cute, I'll give you that- but you've missed something important, which is the integrity to admit when I'm wrong and move on.

I've just given you the opportunity to prove your integrity again. You are clearly wrong - the code indicated has no tracers and microscopic level of diagnostics, and is just poorly structured.

But let's not cloak ignorance in nobility. You went to all the trouble to type in a response, including reasonably correct eq'n to a very simple physics (asteroid) question and got it blatantly wrong. No typo, it's clear that you don't know the material well enough to reason about it, and didn't even read/understand the eq'n you typed. Just like a parrot, as I said ! With a parrot at least we can put a cloth over the cage to have it shut up.

If your reply doesn't contain the source file name from above and line number of your mythical "tracers" then we can all see that you are wrong (not to mention remarkably rude and loud).

-S

Pipirr

7th November 2007, 11:35 AM

Pipirr, as a strong advocate of peer review, may want to weigh in on the differences between peer review in indepedent journals and what might be best called the committee approach to writing science a la government reports - the IPCC documents are a version of the latter.

I'll clarify, if I may. My 'strong advocacy' of peer review as expressed in these GW threads comes from a need to assign levels of credibility to arguments.

Say for example, if person A argues that the world isn't warming and presents a dataset that shows a decline in temperature, one of the first questions I have is whether or not that argument and dataset has been through peer review. This at least differentiates it from simply being 'something on a blog' or 'something in a book', where people can get all sorts of arguments into print essentially unchallenged. The process of peer review places more rigorous demands on an author in the first place, and if the arguments go on to be accepted by a scientist's peers, they have at least stood up to what should be expert scrutiny.

This doesn't mean that anything that goes through peer review comes out the other end as perfect and irrefutable. But the fact that it has gone through peer review makes me more likely to take it seriously.

It's been a useful metric when trying not to drown in the froth of AGW-anti AGW rhetoric; very useful, as most of what I have learnt about this subject I have acquired in this past year principally by following up on the arguments made in these threads.

One thing that has really stood out to me, and that's as an admitted non-expert, is that the proponents of AGW have the most evidence on their side. More of their arguments have been through peer review, published, and when taken together, comprise multiple, independent, interlocking datasets and lines of evidence.

I don't know if this is what David Rodale meant when he referred to the proponents of AGW as trying to create "an irrefutable hypothesis". AGW certainly is falsifiable (in simple terms, if the temperature drops for the next ten years that would be strong disconfirming evidence for the hypothesis), but at this stage I don't think it can be refuted by a single study, for example a re-analysis of a set of temperature proxies. There are too many other lines of evidence.

As far as the IPCC reports go, I find them very useful for getting an overview of the AGW hypothesis, and the arguments both for and against. It's a good starting point. It does not represent a perfect consensus of opinion, but then again, I can't think of a case where the IPCC reports have grossly misrepresented the state of the science, or reached conclusions that are just not supported by the evidence. Do please enlighten me if anyone thinks that there is. I would also expect, and hope, that if there were a growing body of strong, disconfirming evidence for various essential aspects of the AGW hypothesis, that this evidence will be reflected in future IPCC reports. It would have to be. Of course it would also need to be published first.

mhaze

7th November 2007, 11:56 AM

I'm curious as to why you say that. In a large amount of cases, bugs in programming will not necessarily crash a program. A program can often run happily along with a false set of data because the programmer messed up something in the code.

A computer does exactly what you tell it to do. It'll do exactly what you tell it to do just as fast if you are right or wrong.

Also, the OS probably won't tell you where or why, that's what debugging is for.

I also find it a little hypocritical that it's ok for a scientist to write a program when they aren't programmers, but arguments are often thrown out because we supposedly can't trust the word of a non-scientist that makes comments about scientific things.

Capeldodger may have been referring to the old "CORE DUMP". This was used to find errors when say, a large Fortran program would be decomposed into assembly language/machine language and executed. A core dump showed a snapshot of the actual machine language code, and often the dump would reference "back upwards" to the assembly and the Fortran lines.

Tracers were stuck in to tabulate where the program was going in real time.

I wrote mission critical aerospace Fortran, assembler and machine language on Dec PDP3 and many other platforms.

Buffoons did not last five minutes in that environment.

Someone around here wants to talk Fortran, eh?

Locri

7th November 2007, 12:08 PM

Capeldodger may have been referring to the old "CORE DUMP". This was used to find errors when say, a large Fortran program would be decomposed into assembly language/machine language and executed. A core dump showed a snapshot of the actual machine language code, and often the dump would reference "back upwards" to the assembly and the Fortran lines.

Tracers were stuck in to tabulate where the program was going in real time.

I wrote mission critical aerospace Fortran, assembler and machine language on Dec PDP3 and many other platforms.

Buffoons did not last five minutes in that environment.

Someone around here wants to talk Fortran, eh?

Fair enough... I guess I'm thinking in too modern of a fashion. At least in my programming experience, core dumps aren't used all that often... it's more sane to put in debugging routines and tracers (yes, I understood that completely) than to dig through a core dump.

mhaze

7th November 2007, 01:01 PM

Fair enough... I guess I'm thinking in too modern of a fashion. At least in my programming experience, core dumps aren't used all that often... it's more sane to put in debugging routines and tracers (yes, I understood that completely) than to dig through a core dump.

Right, but consider this. The old computers had core memory, which held it's values. With those machines, you could and did go toggling through the addresses with a row of toggle switches, reading the machine language. Even in this scenario, tracers were used to capture intermediate scenarios. To have a core dump implies that either

it's read directly from the core, as mentioned above. In this case, you couldn't easily load another program to print the core because you would be destroying some of the contents of the memory and all of the contents of the registers.
Later, with early hard drives, it became convenient to allow writing the core and register contents to the hard drive. Then even if crashed, the OS could be rebooted and with that step, a printer driver used to print out the core dump (often a 3-6 inch stack of paper).It may be difficult to grasp the nature of computing in an era when input was via card decks and punched tape, and output was primarily to the printer. Also, programmers were typically much more attuned to the machine intricacies as they applied to a particular language. For example, a Fortran programmer was well aware of how each line of Fortran broke down into a group of assembly language instructions, and probably knew the machine language codes by heart. Further, numerical accuracy and the verification of it was extremely important. If machines had say, 16 or 24 bit registers, one can easily see in a recursive math algorithm that errors would rapidly accumulate. These matters had to be compensated for.

All of the above refers to real programmers. Then there were the scientists, who wrote Fortran code. That's a whole different matter. Those guys were roughly comparable to the average person turning on a PC today and his extent of knowledge compared to today's geek.

It wouldn't be unusual for them to write A+B=C and think that was actually going to happen. They didn't know binary, octal or hex....

Schneibster

7th November 2007, 02:56 PM

Against my better judgement I'll continue ...You really shouldn't have bothered. You just analyzed the surface temperature analysis program; it's not modeling software. It takes the temperatures measured at stations as inputs, and produces 8000 zonal mean temeratures as its primary output.

The idea is, you then input the starting temperatures, and the other parameters (like CO2 concentration changes, solar activity, and so forth, that GISSTEMP doesn't have anything to do with) into your model, and run it. It produces its output, which you can then check against the output from GISSTEMP. If they don't match, then you have a problem with your model (assuming you've verified GISSTEMP). In other words, GISSTEMP serves both as a uniform means of making temperature charts of world temperatures over 8000 zones, using temperature measurements from weather stations, and also serves as... wait for it... DIAGNOSTIC SOFTWARE FOR A CLIMATE MODEL. The very thing you are claiming doesn't exist.

Great programmer, eh? Can't tell what the program being analyzed actually DOES. Despite a link to the documentation, and to the main page of the project.

If you'd like, you're welcome to have a look at the actual modeling software and comment on it. Let us know when you're done looking at what we're actually talking about, won't you?

That is, if you can find it.

CapelDodger

7th November 2007, 03:21 PM

I'm curious as to why you say that. In a large amount of cases, bugs in programming will not necessarily crash a program.

You only need diagnostics in those cases.

A program can often run happily along with a false set of data because the programmer messed up something in the code.

Programming is about writing code, not determining data. Bad code will generate false outputs, but that's not the same thing as false data.
A computer does exactly what you tell it to do. It'll do exactly what you tell it to do just as fast if you are right or wrong.
As it happens, the Hansen et al 1988 model turns out to have been right.
Also, the OS probably won't tell you where or why, that's what debugging is for.
If the program throws an exception - divide-by-zero, say - the OS will take a snapshot of registers so you can track down where it happened.
I also find it a little hypocritical that it's ok for a scientist to write a program when they aren't programmers, but arguments are often thrown out because we supposedly can't trust the word of a non-scientist that makes comments about scientific things.
No good argument is thrown out simply because it comes from a non-scientist. When non-scientist status is mentioned, it's after the argument has been dealt with. Most such arguments are bad arguments.

CapelDodger

7th November 2007, 03:44 PM

Right, but consider this. The old computers had core memory, which held it's values. With those machines, you could and did go toggling through the addresses with a row of toggle switches, reading the machine language. Even in this scenario, tracers were used to capture intermediate scenarios. To have a core dump implies that either

it's read directly from the core, as mentioned above. In this case, you couldn't easily load another program to print the core because you would be destroying some of the contents of the memory and all of the contents of the registers.
Later, with early hard drives, it became convenient to allow writing the core and register contents to the hard drive. Then even if crashed, the OS could be rebooted and with that step, a printer driver used to print out the core dump (often a 3-6 inch stack of paper).

Wow. Was it really like that?

A program was not going to be allowed to crash expensive and critical equipment such as computers. Any exception would be intercepted by something called the Executive, which ran in its own dedicated memory. What you got from the Executive was a report of register values and the exception id. From that you had to go back to the compilaton and linking reports to work out exactly where in the code it happened.

Then you could start to work out why ...

Also, programmers were typically much more attuned to the machine intricacies as they applied to a particular language. For example, a Fortran programmer was well aware of how each line of Fortran broke down into a group of assembly language instructions, and probably knew the machine language codes by heart.

Not me. Why bother? Different compilers will give you different results anyway, then there are various optimisers. FORTRAN is a tool. It doesn't matter how it works, what matters is what it does.

Further, numerical accuracy and the verification of it was extremely important. If machines had say, 16 or 24 bit registers, one can easily see in a recursive math algorithm that errors would rapidly accumulate. These matters had to be compensated for.

Register size doesn't limit the arithmetical accuracy; you can easily do, say, 128-bit arithmetic with 16-bit registers.

It wouldn't be unusual for them to write A+B=C and think that was actually going to happen. They didn't know binary, octal or hex....

It would be extremely unusual. And who needed binary, octal or hex? FORTAN is a tool that makes such intimate knowledge unnecessary. That's the whole point of a higher-level language.

CapelDodger

7th November 2007, 04:03 PM

You really shouldn't have bothered. You just analyzed the surface temperature analysis program; it's not modeling software. It takes the temperatures measured at stations as inputs, and produces 8000 zonal mean temeratures as its primary output.

I'm a little boggled here, so perhaps I'm misreading you : is that FORTAN screed quoted above not from a climate model at all?

Great programmer, eh? Can't tell what the program being analyzed actually DOES. Despite a link to the documentation, and to the main page of the project.

I get the impression stevea's a teacher, and we know the old saying about those who can and those who can't.

I've probably learnt to value documentation because it was such a rarity back in the day :). And comments are for wusses.

If you'd like, you're welcome to have a look at the actual modeling software and comment on it. Let us know when you're done looking at what we're actually talking about, won't you?

That's the sort of talk that's got my boggle going.

That is, if you can find it.

I have a strong feeling you've already found something in it. The odds on stevea finding a tracer plummeted when he added the "whatever that is". Which apparently doesn't preclude a claim that there aren't any (whatever they are).

mhaze

7th November 2007, 04:17 PM

Wow. Was it really like that?

A program was not going to be allowed to crash expensive and critical equipment such as computers. Any exception would be intercepted by something called the Executive, which ran in its own dedicated memory. What you got from the Executive was a report of register values and the exception id. From that you had to go back to the compilaton and linking reports to work out exactly where in the code it happened.

Then you could start to work out why ...

Not me. Why bother? Different compilers will give you different results anyway, then there are various optimisers. FORTRAN is a tool. It doesn't matter how it works, what matters is what it does.

Register size doesn't limit the arithmetical accuracy; you can easily do, say, 128-bit arithmetic with 16-bit registers.

It would be extremely unusual. And who needed binary, octal or hex? FORTAN is a tool that makes such intimate knowledge unnecessary. That's the whole point of a higher-level language.

I assume you're serious, right? Numerical accuracy with computers is an entire subject of study. Presence or absence of the high level language is pretty much irrelevant. We could and did access math packages from assembler (and also high level languages).

Short answer: Yes, Fortran code written by scientists could be highly suspect. That's why there was something called "Computer Science" that people get, like certified degreed brains in and stuff. Everything the machine does is done in base 2, that's why concepts such as 16 bit or 128 bit exist. I'm not sure how much it's worthwhile to go into this, though.

CapelDodger

7th November 2007, 04:34 PM

CapelDodger

7th November 2007, 05:15 PM

I assume you're serious, right?

I'm notoriously humourless. Which is to say, yes.

Numerical accuracy with computers is an entire subject of study.

I've studied a chunk of it. (Ditto binary arithmetic.) It's a trivial matter to do 128-bit arithmetic with 16-bit registers. In theory any finite-bit arithmetic can be done on 2-bit registers.

Presence or absence of the high level language is pretty much irrelevant.

No it isn't. Higher-level languages are there to deal with all that low-levelly stuff.

We could and did access math packages from assembler (and also high level languages).

Did you do anything useful in the process?

Short answer: Yes, Fortran code written by scientists could be highly suspect. That's why there was something called "Computer Science" that people get, like certified degreed brains in and stuff.

Such as me, B. Sc. Computer Science. Class of '76. My chosen path to the world of banking. Most of the people in my day were taking Computer Science as a Minor because they were scientists in a different field.

These people didn't find FORTRAN any more enigmatic than I did. The equals sign as representing an assignment rather than an equivalence is hardly revolutionary.

Anyway, in my day the language of choice for modelling was LISP. Not as accessible as FORTRAN, but not terribly esoteric.

Everything the machine does is done in base 2, that's why concepts such as 16 bit or 128 bit exist. I'm not sure how much it's worthwhile to go into this, though.

That's just noise for the sake of it.

What it can't blank out is the fact that the Hansen et al 1988 model knocked-up by scientists of all sorts has performed remarkably well. And why wouldn't it? By 1988 they had computer capacity we could only dream about a decade before. Lucky bastids :mad:.

Schneibster

7th November 2007, 06:07 PM

Against my better judgement I'll continue ...Well, so this is cozy. Now that we've established you can't figure out what a program does even if presented with a manual and the release notes, as well as a page for public consumption that SAYS what it does, let's examine your expertise at programming, shall we? I rather suspect I already know what we'll find out, but I'll try not to have any preconceived notions. :cool:

Yes, please do post some *specific* code details where you believe I am in error.Well, we could start, I suppose, with the fact that you've begun by looking at the WRONG FREAKING PROGRAM. That do for "*specific* code details where believe [you are] in error?"

This is, as far as I can tell, the earliest version of Hansen's code released. Overall, considering it's not a climate model, I would have to say that you can't tell very far.

Here is a little help for you. This is a list of every file included:That would be great if it were from the right program.

Here is a list of every occurence of "trace" in the tarball:
# grep -n -r -i trace ./GISTEMP_sources/*

So where are "the tracers" you claim appear here ? Please indicate the file and line number specifics. I insist.Given that none of the files in the climate model are in the list you have provided, which would be because you can't find the climate model (even with a mirror and both hands), I would have to answer that they're in the climate model files rather than the ones you are looking at.

You apparently believe your stale old programming skills a special asset ? Well, perhaps not quite so [I]stale, don'cha know. :D

It's an idiotic claim IMO. FWIW Fortran wasn't invented until after my birth and I wrote Fortran2 on an IBM1620 in 1965/66. The difference is that I've learned better methods since and you apparently have stuck with 1960 methodology.Son, you ain't got the least slightest idea what methodologies I've used, much less use now, and you ain't ever gonna find out.

What an idiotic claim. That isn't scientific programming, that's just old fashioned, quick & dirty, bad programming. Apparently you haven't learned much about software design since your ancient Fortran days. If anyone tried to pass code like this into a MRI image reconstruction system, or even a graduate thesis they'd be canned or caned. If you want to compare notes I'm quite certain you are the one lacking any recent experience with scientific software development (It's been part of my education and career for 37 years).Ahhh, CD was wrong. You aren't a teacher.

I have no interest in comparing penis lengths with the immature. Here, we have what we bring: native intelligence, a bit of wit, and some knowledge we've managed to pick up along the way. Some of us have enough wisdom to avoid grandiose claims that we can't prove anyway; I don't like you much, but I'll give you some free advice: I don't really care who the hell you are, and you could get in trouble for telling everyone what company you work for since they aren't likely to take kindly to the sort of publicity you've been giving them here, so don't bother. I don't hate you enough to egg you on, and you might be naive enough that you might not know why privacy is protected on this site.

Bring it on, you foulmouthed anal-oriented buffoon. *IF* you to stick to specifics instead of your wandering allusions to these secondary documents, then everyone will see that you are wrong. Show me the code !Heh, I linked to it in this very thread. But YOU knew better- you went and found something that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and now you think it's the crown jewels. Simple, easy, obvious: go read the front page of the project, then the documentation, and tell me what you think the GISsTEMPerature software does. Check out the inputs in STEP0. Have you figured out where they are yet, super-genius?

Just point to the source code lines in the specified tarball that indicate "tracers" to you. That is all I ask. A file name and a line number will do.Well, considering as how the software you found isn't a climate model, perhaps I'll ask you to see if you can't find one to comment on.

I've just given you the opportunity to prove your integrity again. You are clearly wrong - the code indicated has no tracers and microscopic level of diagnostics, and is just poorly structured.No, you've just given me an opportunity to prove what an idiot you are again. And as for being clearly wrong, at least I can find the right program to analyze, and at least I'm smart enough not to announce I'm a super-genius and then trip over my own shoelaces into a mud-puddle.

But let's not cloak ignorance in nobility. You went to all the trouble to type in a response, including reasonably correct eq'n to a very simple physics (asteroid) question and got it blatantly wrong. No typo, it's clear that you don't know the material well enough to reason about it, and didn't even read/understand the eq'n you typed. Just like a parrot, as I said ! With a parrot at least we can put a cloth over the cage to have it shut up. If you've got something to say about another thread, say it in that thread. We have this thing here, it's called staying on topic. You're remarkably naive about such things for such a super-genius who writes MRI image capture software and all like that. :D

If your reply doesn't contain the source file name from above and line number of your mythical "tracers" then we can all see that you are wrong (not to mention remarkably rude and loud).

-SWell, if you'd actually picked a real climate model to analyze, then there might be some slim chance that you might find something that it would take me more than thirty seconds to figure out. I might even make a mistake, and then you could berate me for being a stand-up guy and admitting when I was wrong. You know, I have to say that giving someone crap when they are more of a man than you'll ever be really gives us a good look at your character, super-genius. So go ahead. I've set the bar; I admitted when I was wrong. Do you have the stones to do that?

mhaze

7th November 2007, 08:50 PM

I might even make a mistake, and then you could berate me for being a stand-up guy and admitting when I was wrong. You know, I have to say that giving someone crap when they are more of a man than you'll ever be really gives us a good look at your character, super-genius. So go ahead. I've set the bar; I admitted when I was wrong. Do you have the stones to do that?

Set the bar, did you?

GW #543
Thank you for your prompt reply.

However, I still do not get it. You assert that ice of 110,000 years is melting for the first time in the Arctic. You are asked to prove that, and provide a reference that indicates the Larsen B ice may have been 400 years old or it may have been 12,000 years old. Larsen B is Antarctic. Wrong end of the planet. I would shrug this off just a mistake, no big deal.

Next subject.

Locri

7th November 2007, 09:58 PM

Programming is about writing code, not determining data. Bad code will generate false outputs, but that's not the same thing as false data.

Er.. yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, but I didn't get the wording quite right. Sorry about that. My thought process was that regardless of the input, if the program is flawed then the data set it is running with is flawed while in memory while the program is running. Same difference really.

And on the topic of numerical accuracy: It's true that you can be fairly accurate, but if you use too high of a level of programming language you have to be very careful. Some of the higher level stuff implements various rounding techniques in order to speed up processing and some processors do as well. Mind you, for the most part this isn't an issue unless you happen to be running an old P4 with the rounding bug that happened some time ago.

Either way, I think the general point of this topic is that programming (like setting up a proper science experiment) can be a tricky thing to set up properly. It would actually make a lot of sense if they had stuff set up for coding practices to try to reduce the number of errors. They might have things like that in place, but considering that it's rare enough in the professional programming world, it's not a hard logical leap to think that they might not do such a good job in the science world.

rockoon

7th November 2007, 11:19 PM

This is without refererence, but I suspect that the most common numerical error in regards to floating point is greatly underestimating the amount of error one gets when using a naive summing technique on large sets of these values.

A naive summation method is simply adding the values to a single accumulator:

for each float in list
sum += float

The problem with the methodology is that the deeper into the list of values you go, the more biased the error. In the pathological case the error exactly cancels the term being summed (that is, you end up doing .. 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 .. )

Perhaps the simplest summation algorithm which avoids the majority of the error bias involved with the naive method:

While (list.length > 1)
term1 = list.getsmallestitem()
float1 = list.item(term1)
list.delete(term1)
term2 = list.getsmallestitem()
float2 = list.item(term2)
list.delete(term2)
list.insert(float1 + float2)
sum = list.item(0)

The first algorithm scales as O(n), the second scales as O(n^2) .. so nobody uses the second one in practice ..

.. In general, floating point precision issues are most often "solved" by simply using a greater precision float .. 32-bit floats run into the bias relatively quickly (often reaching pathological situation at approximately 16.77 million terms)

stevea

8th November 2007, 02:58 AM

I have difficulty with that reasoning too. You talk about unsupported assertions, yet make a blindingly bald one in the very next paragraph. FWIW, I don't believe anyone wants to bring the planet's economies to a grinding halt, they are actually trying to protect them.

You've asked a sincere and reasonable question, so I'll reply. Note that the topic you ask about is political. I already posted about this, so "unsupported assertion" is inaccurate. I won't fault you or anyone for failing to read the ~60 pages of this thread !

I suspect we 'mostly' agree that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels substantially in recent decades as well as levels of other greenhouse gasses and in the process also released other pollutants. Reasonable people can quibble about the levels but that humans pollute is clear enough. That such pollution impacts human health and the supporting biosphere is also virtually undeniable. Now the additional claim that GHG pollution leads to AGW, and perhaps catastrophic AWG. No one (I hope) is in favor of this pollution, but there is a very real question of how urgent is reduction. Exactly what are we willing to pay is rationally related to the differential outcome we expect.

Anyone who thinks the CAGW thesis correct, should rationally want us to return to far lower net GHG release levels instantaneously. Even the AGW believers who accept the recent temperature trend is mostly anthropomorphic in origin must believe that continuing this trend will eventually be catastrophic. If you believe the temp hockey-stick increase Hensen regularly shows is anthropomorphic (see pg two of):
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_peakrevandgistemp_070907.pdf
then a rapid return to some pre-1960 level of carbon emission is critical. Hansen's graphics indicate his view that a sub-300ppm CO2 level is needed,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/gustavus_3oct07.pdf
yet he states, "CO2 below 450 ppm technically feasible", is "good news" ??? It's a bit like saying that we are driving toward a cliff, yet limiting our speed to 180kph is a good idea - nonsense.

Yet look at the IPCC group3 scenarios (fig 5.2):
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/116.htm
None of these ~40 scenarios returns to the pre-1960 level (~4.5GtC/yr) by 2100. The lowest net carbon emission scenarion of the IPCC (B1T Message I believe) has average carbon emissions at 7.65GtC/yr average for the next 93 years. This is a shocking 70% above 1960s levels average for the century. That cannot be acceptable if you believe the AGW. Yet the B1T scenarios involve radical reduction of economic and population growth (reduction actually!) far below historic norms and switch to non-fossil fuels. So even this scenario of tiny growth and reducing the population (from 1990 levels) cannot provide acceptable carbon reduction for the AWG adherents.

In the US for example we'd need to reduce both electrical generation and tranportations emissons in half from current(2005) levels to achieve overall 1960s carbon emission levels. That is a radical change that would require a major diversion of resources and capital for decades. Economic upheaval.

Much of the high per capita energy use by certain nations(US, Canada, Scandanavia, Australia) is structural. Cold climate, cities not built for common-transport, long distances between population centers. I am not suggesting energy savings plans aren't useful, but there are real limitations. Restructuring N.American sprawl cities for common transport systems is a century long task. Replacing buildings to more energy efficient specs is a century+ long task. Also consider the grain fuel ethanol (scam) and the economic problems already evidenced in corn foodstuff prices in Mexico from this meagre effort.

Yes, radical disruptive economic changes are required if you believe the AWG schema.

The work of Hansen is only a small part of the case for the IPCC. Australia, for example, has it's own independent temperature records and scientists. Guess what, they correlate with what Hansen has come up with.

I agree. I was only addressing Hansen's code and the few highly repetitive papers and presentations he has made available. CISPRO has a model I would like to examine (but is it available?).

In case it's not clear, I do not disbelieve Hansen's result, but neither am I an ardent supporter. I an a skeptic, not a disbeliever. This sort of confirmation by other teams is a necessary part of the accretion of evidence in science.

As I mentioned long before, climatology is not an experimental science (for some obvious reasons) so they must make many inferences from the limited data available. This leads to fairly weakly supported hypotheses which are often revised. We see similar problems with the issues of human nutrition and toxicity, cosmology, astronomy .... fields were results are re-written every decade or two.

Yes, perhaps Hensen's ideas are right, they are certainly a reasonable if not compelling explanation, but we are still placing a lot of weight on a relatively weak foundation.

-S

Megalodon

8th November 2007, 03:42 AM

Next subject.
How about an older one?

Here is Lyman.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/hc_bias_jtech_v1.pdf and
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/hc_integrals_v1.pdf
Any comments on the manuscripts?

So? You brought them up... Let me guess, like with the PDO, you don't agree with them...

Thank you for your prompt response

Schneibster

8th November 2007, 01:41 PM

Set the bar, did you?

GW #543
Thank you for your prompt reply.

However, I still do not get it. You assert that ice of 110,000 years is melting for the first time in the Arctic. I did not. I said:So how's this grab you: in 2005, the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica collapsed. Now, that ice has been there since the beginning of the last glaciation, and that's 100,000 years. This year, the Arctic Ocean icepack retreated to a point that it's estimated not to have reached since the Eemian Interglacial, which was before that same last glaciation. Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear people talking about global warming, and I see ice that's been there for a hundred thousand years just up and disappear, I gotta sit up and take notice, know what I mean? I encourage you to read that most carefully. I said precisely what I meant. I did not say that there is ice in the Arctic that has not melted in 110,000 years; nor did I say that there is ice in the Arctic that has not melted in 100,000 years. I did not say that there is 110,000 year old or 100,000 year old ice in the Arctic. I said, as you can easily read above, "...the Arctic Ocean icepack retreated to a point that it's estimated not to have reached since the Eemian Interglacial, which was before that same last glaciation." Anyone who knows anything about Arctic ice knows that that ice turns over on a regular basis; we've known that was true of most of it for half a century or more. What I asserted was that the icepack has not reached this low a level since the Eemian. That is not a statement of the age of any individual piece of ice; it is a statement of a pattern of behavior of the ice sheet overall. And you lied about what I said, right up there in black and white, period.

On the other thread, I said, Let's put it this way: Ice that hasn't melted since the end of the last glaciation is melting now. A LOT of it. Most of the ice in the Arctic melted this summer and fall, which hasn't happened in at least a hundred and ten thousand years. Is that abnormal enough for you? I encourage you to read that most carefully as well. I did not say that there is 110,000 year old ice in the Arctic; I said that the ice sheet as a whole has not behaved as it is now in 110,000 years.

And I have responded to this charge once before: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3065798&postcount=543
It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. Had you not lied repeatedly in the past, I might be more charitable and chalk it up to a misunderstanding on your part; however, you have, and have been proven to. I think this pattern of behavior is clear.

You are asked to prove that, and provide a reference that indicates the Larsen B ice may have been 400 years old or it may have been 12,000 years old. Larsen B is Antarctic. Wrong end of the planet. I would shrug this off just a mistake, no big deal.It's not my fault if you can't read. I stated both that there was 110,000 year old ice melting, IN THE ANTARCTIC, AND that there was a pattern of the WHOLE ICE SHEET IN THE ARCTIC that has not been seen in the same time period. If you'd like proof of the second statement, start here (http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/OverpecketalEOS05.pdf), on the first page: Despite 30 years of warming and ice loss, the Arctic cryosphere is still within the envelope of glacial-interglacial cycles that have characterized the past 800,000 years. However, although the Arctic is still not as warm as it was during the Eemian interglacial 125,000 years ago [e.g., Andersen et al., 2004], the present rate of sea ice loss will likely push the system out of this natural envelope within a century.
Climate models corroborate this projection with depictions of sea-ice-free summers within the same time frame [Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2005]. There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia.Note as well that after this year's melting, projections are no longer "within a century" but "by 2040." But that's hardly all. This article (http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch02_Final.pdf) gives persuasive evidence (and this evidence is duplicated elsewhere) that the Holocene Thermal Maximum did not occur all over the Arctic at the same time; it began in Alaska, a couple thousand years after the end of the last glaciation, and progressed across Northern Canada, not reaching Baffin Island until several thousand years later, at which point Alaska, the Chukchi Sea, and the Bering Straits had re-frozen; and the HTM was followed by a downturn in temperatures that is theorized to have forced the development of agriculture 4-6ka. Therefore, it is safe to state that at no time since the Eemian, which ended 109-120ka, has the Arctic ice coverage been as low as it is today, for the entire Arctic Ocean. Which is what I said.

You could also review http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/3/999/2007/cpd-3-999-2007.pdf for example. But the really compelling evidence is here (http://www.pcsn.ca/pubs_2006/Fisher,%20F.%20et%20al,%20Natural%20variability%20 of%20Arctic%20sea%20ice%20over%20the%20Holocene,%2 0EOS,%2087,%202006.pdf) (if you have trouble with the link, and I did, go to here (http://www.pcsn.ca/pubs_2006/) and select the link titled, "Fisher, F. et al, Natural variability of Arctic sea ice over the Holocene, EOS, 87, 2006.pdf"): The establishment of perennial Arctic sea ice cover in the late Tertiary led to the evolution of ice-adapted mammals,including the bearded seal, ring seal, walrus, polar bear, narwhal, beluga, and bowhead whale. Continued existence of this community is evidence that the sea ice cap has not disappeared during the Quaternary.The Quaternary is the current period, and extends to about 1.8ma (1,800,000 years ago). This implies that the HTM did not melt the entire Arctic Ocean; it could not have, or these species would not exist today. Further evidence in the paper dovetails with the characterization of the HTM as a rolling change across the Western Arctic rather than a thaw of the entire thing all at the same time; migration is cited as a key survival strategy; and it has to be obvious that it won't work if there's nowhere to migrate to. Note that this further implies that if the Arctic Ocean becomes entirely ice-free in the next thirty years (2040) to the next century, this will be unprecedented in the last 1.8 million years. Current projections are in this range.

With the combination of all this evidence, biological, sea ice model-based, seafloor core data, and ice cores from Greenland, Baffin, Ellesmere, and others, as well as the permafrost records and peat moss data that I have not even mentioned, I am confident that it is a true statement that the state of the Arctic Ocean last summer has not been seen since the Eemian, prior to the last glaciation, and since the Eemian ended 110,000 years ago, that supports my statement quite firmly.

The HTM exact ice extents at high resolution are not yet available, but seafloor cores from Alaska, Ellesmere, Baffin, Northern Siberia, Greenland, and the seas in between are being analyzed right now, and should give a good indication at high resolution of the way that changes propagated from 12ka to 6ka, which brackets the HTM. It is, however, clear from what we already know that the HTM "rolled" across the Western Arctic; there are sites that never unfroze, as well as differences of thousands of years between the times when the sites that did were clear of ice.

Next subject.Not so fast. First, you misrepresented what I said. Second, you claimed I had not presented evidence of what I said, but it is clear I did. Third, I have provided evidence you did not ever ask for because you were too busy misrepresenting what I said to ask for evidence of what I actually did say. So I'll ask the same question of you: do you have the stones to admit you were wrong? I have.

CapelDodger

8th November 2007, 05:35 PM

The HTM exact ice extents at high resolution are not yet available, but seafloor cores from Alaska, Ellesmere, Baffin, Northern Siberia, Greenland, and the seas in between are being analyzed right now, and should give a good indication at high resolution of the way that changes propagated from 12ka to 6ka, which brackets the HTM. It is, however, clear from what we already know that the HTM "rolled" across the Western Arctic; there are sites that never unfroze, as well as differences of thousands of years between the times when the sites that did were clear of ice.

Thanks for another most informative post.

Six thousand years for the world's essential fluids to settle down after a change as precipitate as a glacial/inter-glacial shift doesn't sound outrageous to me. Things have been quiet ever since - until very recently, of course.

CapelDodger

8th November 2007, 06:00 PM

Anyone who thinks the CAGW thesis correct, should rationally want us to return to far lower net GHG release levels instantaneously.

And I want world peace. So what?

Even the AGW believers who accept the recent temperature trend is mostly anthropomorphic in origin must believe that continuing this trend will eventually be catastrophic.

That's fair to say.

If you believe the temp hockey-stick increase Hensen regularly shows is anthropomorphic (see pg two of):

What is it with Hansen? The hockey-stick is Mann - remember that demon? - and what really matters is how temperatures have behaved over the last three decades. That's when the accumulation of CO2 first broke throuhg as a clear signal. We've boosted CO2-load by a full third now, and most of it within the last fifty years. This is what's going on. There's no refuge in the past, because there are no prior examples. Nobody did this before us. Not even the dinosaurs.

I agree. I was only addressing Hansen's code and the few highly repetitive papers and presentations he has made available.

Hansen's code for what?

CISPRO has a model I would like to examine (but is it available?).

Well? Is it? Is the gummint hiding it, perhaps?

In case it's not clear, I do not disbelieve Hansen's result, but neither am I an ardent supporter. I an a skeptic, not a disbeliever. This sort of confirmation by other teams is a necessary part of the accretion of evidence in science.

The accretion of evidence has been happening in the real world. That's what a predictive model is validated against, and for all the dismissal of predictions twenty years back as being non-computer-scientific those predictions have panned out. Do you think that's coincidence?

AGW is the ride we're already on. Look around you.

CapelDodger

8th November 2007, 06:24 PM

Yes, radical disruptive economic changes are required if you believe the AWG schema.

Is that a re-casting of "bringing modern society grinding to a halt"? As, apparently, the heartfelt desire of Hansen and his cohort of imps. It's a retreat, but in truth you should abandon the whole position.

The Stern Report gives the lie to this idea. The disruption would be no greater than has happened over the last thirty years for purely economic and political reasons.

(AGW schema? Typo for scheme, perhaps?)

I'm still waiting on what The Hansen Theory is. Is it the title of an upcoming Chrichton airport-novel? It fits the airport-novel naming convention - The [Proper Noun] [Precious Noun]. The Andromeda Strain, The Bourne Obsession, The Da Vinci Code, The Holy Bible.

CapelDodger

8th November 2007, 06:40 PM

This is without refererence, but I suspect that the most common numerical error in regards to floating point is greatly underestimating the amount of error one gets when using a naive summing technique on large sets of these values.

I strongly suspect you're posting out of your fundament.

Who does naive these days? It's a competitve, dog-eat-dog world out there. You gotta be right or you're out the door.

Your insight into the matter is not as esoteric as you seem to think. Floating-point arithmetic isn't mysterious, it's pure and well-documented invention.

Schneibster

8th November 2007, 06:46 PM

Let's be extremely frank here.

1. The easy oil is running out. We might or might not run out of oil, but whatever we do, it's going to cost more, and it likely won't be as good; less light fractions.
2. Natural gas is not a good solution for electrical power generation; it costs too much.
3. No renewable can replace coal; and coal is a mess whether it makes AGW or not.
4. If we're going to stop making pollution and using up oil, we need electric cars; CO2 and AGW just make it more urgent, it doesn't change the basic fact.
5. There is mass hysteria about nuclear energy, and has been for twenty years; as a result, the largest economy in the world can't build reactors in less than five years, and it may take as much as ten.

Screw global warming, we're in trouble anyway. Global warming just makes it harder to find a solution. Now we have to have carbon sequestration, plus we have to do it not only for coal power plants, but also for cement plants and fertilizer (ammonia) plants and steel mills and foundries. Now we can't just replace the coal plants with nuclear, we have to have enough more capacity to have electric cars.

We are in real trouble, and it's far worse than it would be otherwise because a bunch of greedy idiots sat on their fat flabby butts for fifteen years. I won't be surprised to see a billion people die of this, and in case you hadn't noticed some of the most likely to die have nuclear weapons.

This is gonna be one hell of a mess. We are screwed. Which I believe I said about six months ago.

rockoon

9th November 2007, 01:06 AM

Who does naive these days?

..just about every programmer?

It's a competitve, dog-eat-dog world out there. You gotta be right or you're out the door.

Except in very specific circumstances, you cannot get 'right' out of floating point work.. the best you can usualy do is minimize the errors involved.

Your insight into the matter is not as esoteric as you seem to think. Floating-point arithmetic isn't mysterious, it's pure and well-documented invention.

Companies like HP field "bug reports" from professional programmers that are actualy misunderstandings of these very issues. To quote from their floating-point guide: "The most common types of floating-point "bugs" reported to Hewlett-Packard are not bugs at all, but rather a class of programming mistakes." where they then go on to detail the common errors that programmers fall into when using floating point.

Well documented? Sure.
Well known? Nope.

Its the same issue with, for instance, buffer overflow exploits. The dangers are well documented so you would think that most programmers would take steps to avoid them. In practice that isnt true at all because while its well documented it isnt well known and even when the programmer does know, the issue simply doesnt get the attention it should.

a_unique_person

9th November 2007, 04:26 AM

..just about every programmer?

Except in very specific circumstances, you cannot get 'right' out of floating point work.. the best you can usualy do is minimize the errors involved.

Companies like HP field "bug reports" from professional programmers that are actualy misunderstandings of these very issues. To quote from their floating-point guide: "The most common types of floating-point "bugs" reported to Hewlett-Packard are not bugs at all, but rather a class of programming mistakes." where they then go on to detail the common errors that programmers fall into when using floating point.

Well documented? Sure.
Well known? Nope.

Its the same issue with, for instance, buffer overflow exploits. The dangers are well documented so you would think that most programmers would take steps to avoid them. In practice that isnt true at all because while its well documented it isnt well known and even when the programmer does know, the issue simply doesnt get the attention it should.

Sheer speculation. Because "it might happen", it has happened. Evidence, please.

rockoon

9th November 2007, 06:04 AM

Sheer speculation. Because "it might happen", it has happened. Evidence, please.

What did I say "might happen?"

Don't bother answering.. the answer is nothing. I didn't say anything of the sort. You seem to manufacture your own arguement quite a bit.

mhaze

9th November 2007, 07:11 AM

..just about every programmer?

Except in very specific circumstances, you cannot get 'right' out of floating point work.. the best you can usualy do is minimize the errors involved.

Companies like HP field "bug reports" from professional programmers that are actualy misunderstandings of these very issues. To quote from their floating-point guide: "The most common types of floating-point "bugs" reported to Hewlett-Packard are not bugs at all, but rather a class of programming mistakes." where they then go on to detail the common errors that programmers fall into when using floating point.

Well documented? Sure.
Well known? Nope.

Its the same issue with, for instance, buffer overflow exploits. The dangers are well documented....

Obviously you've been on the devious side of the numerical accuracy equation. But it's not unreasonable for better than average end users to be completely ignorant about these matters. They use Excel, it works, it computes; they type into a high level language something like

do 1 to 500;
((a-b)^3)/((c-d)^3);
end do;

and they just expect a "right answer".

I'm not even going to bother compounding the above program with error bounds respectively for a,b,c, and d....

Harpoon

9th November 2007, 02:32 PM

Please forgive this excessive length

Let's be extremely frank here.
1. The easy oil is running out. We might or might not run out of oil,
but whatever we do, it's going to cost more, and it likely won't be as
good; less light fractions.
2. Natural gas is not a good solution for electrical power generation;
it costs too much.
3. No renewable can replace coal; and coal is a mess whether it makes
AGW or not.
4. If we're going to stop making pollution and using up oil, we need
electric cars; CO2 and AGW just make it more urgent, it doesn't change
the basic fact.
5. There is mass hysteria about nuclear energy, and has been for twenty
years; as a result, the largest economy in the world can't build
reactors in less than five years, and it may take as much as
ten.

Great points, Schneibster. The hysteria about nuclear power is a good example of how the policy wonks have totally screwed up, and plan to keep up the practice.

I don't know how much attention our situation in eastern Nevada with Harry Reid is getting. I didn't get a chance to see the PBS "News Hour" report on this issue (they were in town last week), but I did catch the snipett on PBS' "Nightly Business Report" on Oct. 23.

The reporter, Stephanie Dhue, said "What happens in places like this will help determine coal's future."

Harry Reid has vowed to block construction of three coal plants being proposed in Nevada, two in our rural county. He says Nevada must lead in the changeover to renewables. And do it immediately and without question or debate.

Nevada has already set what I believe is the highest standard for utilities in the country (please correct me if I'm wrong). They must increase the share of 'green' energy in their mix annually by 3% until they provide 20% of their power thru alternative sources by 2015 and a
quarter of that must come from solar. They currently have 37 renewable projects under contract for a total of 580 megawatts, most of which would come from geothermal plants in Northern Nevada but also including solar plants, biomass and hydroelectric projects.

Nevada Power in LV hasn't made that mark yet and the legislature is considering sanctions. Part of the delay is the 60 MW Nevada Solar One project, which just came on line last June. It's the third largest solar project in the world (the company boasts), but it came in three years late.

Not good enough for Reid, who has marshalled the Sierra Club and about every other environmental group to fight the proposed coal projects.

That's an interesting anomally, as SPR has an older coal plant that the EPA has fined for exceeding pollution standards. The proposed Ely Energy Center (EEC) would allow SPR to take that plant off line. The other two, unrelated projects are not as defensible, as they intend to
sell their power on the open market.

Part of the EEC plan includes a transmission line connecting Northern Nevada with Southern Nevada. That will allow much of the excess geo power in Northern Nevada to be transmitted to Las Vegas. And it will enable renewable groups to piggyback on the transmission line.

Ausra, a solar outfit, is investigating sites near the proposed line and two wind farms also are interested.

Reid is determined. He denies there's any future in IGCC or carbon sequestration. Nevada utilities must instead switch to renewables immediately, which would derail the current state efforts to provide power to meet Nevada's growth and bring in more renewables.

He says he has introduced a bill in the Senate (I haven't seen it yet) that will mandate any power lines on public lands carry at least 75 percent renewable power -- and no nuclear, of course! The bill is to include funding for any "green" comany proposing a 1000MG facility to build its own transmission lines -- to be paid back with user fees.

So Reid says no more coal, but no nuclear either?

We've felt a little of his muscle in this. I'm editor of the local newspaper -- a 2,700 circulation weekly; not exactly an opinion setter.

Yet Reid has personally rebutted one of my columns -- about the British court's nine errors in an "Inconvenient Truth." I noted Gore deserves his Nobel for bringing AGW to the front burner (pun intended), but the movie is just a movie, contains several scientific errors and is alarmist.

The following week, I wrote an editorial about CO2. Many of our local people have mistakenly understood that CO2 is a poison. I just wrote a light piece based on the Wikipedia entry on CO2 and explained (non technically) its role in photosynthesis, our respiration and some uses we have for it -- like in Pop Rocks (sorry if that reference gets lost on non-US candy-eaters).

I recapped some of Wiki's past history of CO2 in the atmosphere, and noted there is 35% more since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Without trying to explain how GHG works in the atmosphere, I noted our planet would be frigid without them. I did make a blunder. Wiki said the earth's average temp would be 33C degrees colder without them. But knowing few of my readers use celsius, I clicked open my celsius-to-Fahrenheit calculator, typed in 33 and got 91.44, which I rounded to almost 100 degrees.

That would be fine for converting an actual temperature, but was 32 degrees off for a temperature difference. Knuckleheaded.

Dr. Michael Mann, in a LTE, noted that was one glaring error in the editorial, which was full of "a number of errors and misrepresentations, and a cherry-picking of the scientific evidence."

Ely is quite some distance from Penn State. I find it intriguing that Reid, arguably the second-most powerful man in the U.S. government, and an illustrious paleoclimatologist like Dr. Mann feel they must respond to what I'm writing for less than 3,000 rural Nevadans -- unless, it's the idea of a paced and reasonable transmission to renewables that must attacked whereever it pops up. We need policy not panic.

Reid's reaction I understand: he's a frequent subject of the editorial cartoons I draw. But Mann? I would think he has better things to do than sweat small-town newspaper opinions.

I've included links to the offending pieces and the reactions. You won't find them particularly interesting, but since I cited them, here they are.
CO2 editorial:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2007/10/31/opinion/opinion01.txt
Mann's letter:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2007/11/08/opinion/opinion04.txt
"Inconvenient Truth" column:
http://elynews.com/articles/2007/10/17/opinion/opinion02.txt
Reid's rebuttal:
http://elynews.com/articles/2007/10/24/opinion/oped02.txt

CapelDodger

9th November 2007, 04:13 PM

Great points, Schneibster. The hysteria about nuclear power is a good example of how the policy wonks have totally screwed up, and plan to keep up the practice.

You speak only of your policy wonks. French and Iranian policy wonks are well up for it.

Nuclear power went into abeyance for commercial reasons, not policies. That may change, but it hasn't changed yet.

Your best bet is to promote a nuclear power station in the heart of Las Vegas, with a casino and hotel on top of it. Gambling above an active core - that's a USP that could draw in billions of capital overnight.

CapelDodger

9th November 2007, 04:27 PM

..just about every programmer?

Is that an answer?

Except in very specific circumstances, you cannot get 'right' out of floating point work.. the best you can usualy do is minimize the errors involved.

Nothing revelatory there. The "usually" is redundant.

Companies like HP field "bug reports" from professional programmers that are actualy misunderstandings of these very issues. To quote from their floating-point guide: "The most common types of floating-point "bugs" reported to Hewlett-Packard are not bugs at all, but rather a class of programming mistakes." where they then go on to detail the common errors that programmers fall into when using floating point.

These are common errors of the benighted programmers that resort to a bug-report to HP. Not of professional programmers as a whole. Ask yourself : how large and representative is that sample?

Well documented? Sure.
Well known? Nope.

Yes, well known. Not in the sample you've referred to, but that's not representative. People who deal in floating-point arithmetic generally understand it.

Its the same issue with, for instance, buffer overflow exploits. The dangers are well documented so you would think that most programmers would take steps to avoid them. In practice that isnt true at all because while its well documented it isnt well known and even when the programmer does know, the issue simply doesnt get the attention it should.

:confused:

Buffer overflow exploits?

a_unique_person

9th November 2007, 05:33 PM

What did I say "might happen?"

Don't bother answering.. the answer is nothing. I didn't say anything of the sort. You seem to manufacture your own arguement quite a bit.

.just about every programmer?

"Might" was being generous. You have no evidence other than anecdotal hearsay.

Harpoon

9th November 2007, 06:29 PM

You speak only of your policy wonks. French and Iranian policy wonks are well up for it.
Nuclear power went into abeyance for commercial reasons, not policies. That may change, but it hasn't changed yet.
Your best bet is to promote a nuclear power station in the heart of Las Vegas, with a casino and hotel on top of it. Gambling above an active core - that's a USP that could draw in billions of capital overnight.

A nuclear power plant for the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power was our county's first attempt at diversifying our mining economy in the late '70s.

Three Mile Island killed that idea, with LADWP switching to a coal-fired plant plan. It took years to get the groundwater rights and various envirnomental permits. By then, after LA's big quake and Rodney King riot damage, LADWP's needs dropped.

Harry Reid pounded the final coffin nail in the early '90s by blocking access to the Southern Nevada power corridor. Ten years later, a new company approached the county to establish a coal-fired plant and the permiting process began again. Three years later in 2005, the state's biggest utility announced it wanted to build a coal plant here, run transmission lines and serve an associated wind farm.

Four years into the process, last August, Reid discovers AGW and demanded the plants get stopped, although they are complying with current law. His actions would make sense if he was suggesting a moritorium until emission standards are set, but instead he wants total compliance with his unilateral AGW views.

So your suggestion for an LV nuke plant has merit. But there will be no nuclear power in the United States while Harry Reid is Senate Majority leader. The fallout from surface nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site and lies by the Atomic Energy Commission turned many Nevadans of Reid's generation permanently against anything nuclear.

However, I'd like to site a nuclear plant somewhere that would give Reid a radioactive sphincter. :)

By the way, Dr. Mann thought I was being rude and has a story about my celsius gaff on RealClimate.org. I'm enjoying my 15 minutes of fame, or should I say shame?

Schneibster

10th November 2007, 03:44 AM

Great points, Schneibster. The hysteria about nuclear power is a good example of how the policy wonks have totally screwed up, and plan to keep up the practice. You've made a number of logical and factual errors in this piece.

First, Harry Reid's policies are based on global warming- but whether they are good or bad has nothing to do with whether AGW is true or false. And railing against a politician's policies is not a subject for a thread in SMM&T. It really does belong in politics. Scientific theories are not policies. Scientific theories are scientific theories, and policies are policies. If you don't like the policies, don't take it out on the scientific theory. And don't try to change it with fake data, either.

Second, you said Mann pointed out one error, but failed to mention the other he had also pointed out. That second error is the conflation of the current conditions with regard to CO2 with high levels of CO2 in the past. Not only has life on Earth evolved to deal with lower levels of CO2 over the last several million years, but we don't know of a period in Earth's past when the levels of CO2 rose as fast- or even within an order of magnitude of as fast- as they are now. And the only other times when it is even theorized to have happened were times of mass extinctions- The Great Dying, for example. Do you think it's a good idea to be creating conditions in our atmosphere that might be similar to those that obtained during a period called The Great Dying? And if you think that's unfair, I'll point out that it was you who chose to conflate current conditions with those of the past- I merely chose past conditions that illustrate my point. And they are equally similar to current conditions with those you chose. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Third, you failed (as far as I saw) to mention that the judge in that British case found that the standard education policies already in place dealing with the presentation of such films were sufficient, and did not order additional policies be enacted. So basically, the judge found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the film was so inflammatory that it needed to be banned, or even have special policies be enacted by the educational system regarding discussion of it. As far as I was concerned, that was the message from the judge. The bit about the nine points is spin. He probably put it in there so the plaintiff wouldn't go around whining. Give them something to do to keep them busy so they'll shut up.

Finally, it's worth noting that the CO2 we are emitting today will have impact for a long time; centuries, IIRC, though it may be only one. Certainly more than a human lifetime. Marry in haste, repent at leisure, they say. Some people, you go to bed with for one hour, you get a hundred year kid and he got brothers and sisters and they got uncles, they say. And one of the points about this is, the heat doesn't stop building up until equilibrium is reached, and that takes a long time. We may not have caught up to the CO2 released during the Civil War yet. We don't know. We suspect we have, but we DON'T KNOW. What we do know is that even if we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere right now, it won't stop heating up for at least a decade, and possibly a century. We also know we've almost certainly passed a tipping point; the Arctic is plain flat gone. If it could be ice free in summer by 2040, it's just about for sure it's gonna be ice free, no matter what we do now. What other tipping points exist? We don't know. We DON'T KNOW. We better stop soon, or we're liable to find out, and major climatic changes are going to upset apple carts all over the world.

Am I sure we're gonna go extinct because of AGW? Hell no. Matter of fact, I expect we won't. But it's sure starting to look like we, as a species, might be doing some major Malthusian die-off real soon. And that ain't gonna be pretty, and it ain't gonna be neat and clean. Wars and rumors of wars. Scary, scary stuff people are liable to do, particularly if we in the US are still part of the problem and not part of the solution when the time comes to start laying blame. That could get real sticky. And I get to pay right along with you guys for y'all running your mouths; they'll tar me with the same damn brush. You guys wanna shut up? Sorry, but that's how I see it. I figure I better have something to point to proves I was on the right side when they start stringing people up, you know? You might want to think about whether you might want something like that later on.

So I see cherry-picking, and I see distortion of scientific fact, and finally I see conflation of policy that may or may not be right with scientific theory in an effort to discredit that theory. Overall, sorry Harpoon, I'm not impressed. I smell agenda. The only saving grace is that you had the stones to publish what Reid and Mann had to say; and I give you a fair bit of cred for that. My only question is, did those appear in the same format as the two editorials you showed us? In other words, if your two editorials appeared in a print version of your paper, did the two letters as well? If so, you get full marks for integrity.

Now, thanks for the compliment. I think I returned one; certainly, I consider integrity an important gauge of a journalist, and I hope you do too. Obviously I don't agree with Reid on nuclear energy (as can be clearly seen on the nuclear thread). But I need to point out that I also don't agree with your AGW agenda. Whether I agree with you on Reid is footless, particularly on a forum other than politics. I won't chide you on the quality of your paper; that's your lookout, and I will say that you're considerably less of a problem than quite a few people out there who claim to be journalists with considerably less justification than you have in my humble and non-journalist opinion. Still, I'd like to see you separate the scientific argument from the policy argument; the two really have nothing to do with one another. Criticize Reid all you like for bad policies; but be sure you do it on good grounds. Don't politicize science. And try to make sure you understand what it says. That's all a reasonable person can ask, I think. And I don't think it's excessive.

mhaze

10th November 2007, 08:25 AM

But there will be no nuclear power in the United States while Harry Reid is Senate Majority leader.

By the way, Dr. Mann thought I was being rude and has a story about my celsius gaff on RealClimate.org. I'm enjoying my 15 minutes of fame, or should I say shame?

2 plants are being built in Texas now and overall in the US, 18 new ones in the permitting process.

CapelDodger

10th November 2007, 03:50 PM

So I see cherry-picking, and I see distortion of scientific fact, and finally I see conflation of policy that may or may not be right with scientific theory in an effort to discredit that theory. Overall, sorry Harpoon, I'm not impressed. I smell agenda. The only saving grace is that you had the stones to publish what Reid and Mann had to say; and I give you a fair bit of cred for that. My only question is, did those appear in the same format as the two editorials you showed us? In other words, if your two editorials appeared in a print version of your paper, did the two letters as well? If so, you get full marks for integrity.

Harpoon's OK. (Hi, Harpoon :).) His focus is local, activist and encyclopaedic - and why not?

It's a particular example of what'll happen generally - to no great effect. Political, diplomatic and economic systems just aren't up to coping with a problem like AGW. Policy will continue to be a plaything of power-brokers at all levels, which means much talk and no action.

mhaze

10th November 2007, 05:23 PM

Harpoon's OK. (Hi, Harpoon :).) His focus is local, activist and encyclopaedic - and why not?

It's a particular example of what'll happen generally - to no great effect. Political, diplomatic and economic systems just aren't up to coping with a problem like AGW. Policy will continue to be a plaything of power-brokers at all levels, which means much talk and no action.

I can't recall ever seeing selective quoting, cherry picking or agenda driven discussion from Harpoon.

Can't say the same about Mann and the Hockey Stick Team.

CapelDodger

10th November 2007, 05:47 PM

I can't recall ever seeing selective quoting, cherry picking or agenda driven discussion from Harpoon.

Can't say the same about Mann and the Hockey Stick Team.

An odd response to my post. It has no obvious, nor even devious, bearing.

To expand on my post, the irrational and contradictory behaviour that Harpoon observes locally is reflected everywhere, at all levels. There's no prospect of coherent strategies being put in place quickly enough to make any real difference. The political structures aren't there to do it. The price of oil will have far more influence - the economic structures are in place to ensure that.

mhaze

10th November 2007, 05:51 PM

Please forgive this excessive length

Great points, Schneibster. The hysteria about nuclear power is a good example of how the policy wonks have totally screwed up, and plan to keep up the practice.

I don't know how much attention our situation in eastern Nevada with Harry Reid is getting. I didn't get a chance to see the PBS "News Hour" report on this issue (they were in town last week), but I did catch the snipett on PBS' "Nightly Business Report" on Oct. 23.

The reporter, Stephanie Dhue, said "What happens in places like this will help determine coal's future."

Harry Reid has vowed to block construction of three coal plants being proposed in Nevada, two in our rural county. He says Nevada must lead in the changeover to renewables. And do it immediately and without question or debate.

Nevada has already set what I believe is the highest standard for utilities in the country (please correct me if I'm wrong). They must increase the share of 'green' energy in their mix annually by 3% until they provide 20% of their power thru alternative sources by 2015 and a
quarter of that must come from solar. They currently have 37 renewable projects under contract for a total of 580 megawatts, most of which would come from geothermal plants in Northern Nevada but also including solar plants, biomass and hydroelectric projects.

Nevada Power in LV hasn't made that mark yet and the legislature is considering sanctions. Part of the delay is the 60 MW Nevada Solar One project, which just came on line last June. It's the third largest solar project in the world (the company boasts), but it came in three years late.

Not good enough for Reid, who has marshalled the Sierra Club and about every other environmental group to fight the proposed coal projects.

That's an interesting anomally, as SPR has an older coal plant that the EPA has fined for exceeding pollution standards. The proposed Ely Energy Center (EEC) would allow SPR to take that plant off line. The other two, unrelated projects are not as defensible, as they intend to
sell their power on the open market.

Part of the EEC plan includes a transmission line connecting Northern Nevada with Southern Nevada. That will allow much of the excess geo power in Northern Nevada to be transmitted to Las Vegas. And it will enable renewable groups to piggyback on the transmission line.

Ausra, a solar outfit, is investigating sites near the proposed line and two wind farms also are interested.

Reid is determined. He denies there's any future in IGCC or carbon sequestration. Nevada utilities must instead switch to renewables immediately, which would derail the current state efforts to provide power to meet Nevada's growth and bring in more renewables.

He says he has introduced a bill in the Senate (I haven't seen it yet) that will mandate any power lines on public lands carry at least 75 percent renewable power -- and no nuclear, of course! The bill is to include funding for any "green" comany proposing a 1000MG facility to build its own transmission lines -- to be paid back with user fees.

So Reid says no more coal, but no nuclear either?

We've felt a little of his muscle in this. I'm editor of the local newspaper -- a 2,700 circulation weekly; not exactly an opinion setter.

Yet Reid has personally rebutted one of my columns -- about the British court's nine errors in an "Inconvenient Truth." I noted Gore deserves his Nobel for bringing AGW to the front burner (pun intended), but the movie is just a movie, contains several scientific errors and is alarmist.

The following week, I wrote an editorial about CO2. Many of our local people have mistakenly understood that CO2 is a poison. I just wrote a light piece based on the Wikipedia entry on CO2 and explained (non technically) its role in photosynthesis, our respiration and some uses we have for it -- like in Pop Rocks (sorry if that reference gets lost on non-US candy-eaters).

I recapped some of Wiki's past history of CO2 in the atmosphere, and noted there is 35% more since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Without trying to explain how GHG works in the atmosphere, I noted our planet would be frigid without them. I did make a blunder. Wiki said the earth's average temp would be 33C degrees colder without them. But knowing few of my readers use celsius, I clicked open my celsius-to-Fahrenheit calculator, typed in 33 and got 91.44, which I rounded to almost 100 degrees.

That would be fine for converting an actual temperature, but was 32 degrees off for a temperature difference. Knuckleheaded.

Dr. Michael Mann, in a LTE, noted that was one glaring error in the editorial, which was full of "a number of errors and misrepresentations, and a cherry-picking of the scientific evidence."

Ely is quite some distance from Penn State. I find it intriguing that Reid, arguably the second-most powerful man in the U.S. government, and an illustrious paleoclimatologist like Dr. Mann feel they must respond to what I'm writing for less than 3,000 rural Nevadans -- unless, it's the idea of a paced and reasonable transmission to renewables that must attacked whereever it pops up. We need policy not panic.

Reid's reaction I understand: he's a frequent subject of the editorial cartoons I draw. But Mann? I would think he has better things to do than sweat small-town newspaper opinions.

I've included links to the offending pieces and the reactions. You won't find them particularly interesting, but since I cited them, here they are.
CO2 editorial:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2007/10/31/opinion/opinion01.txt
Mann's letter:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2007/11/08/opinion/opinion04.txt
"Inconvenient Truth" column:
http://elynews.com/articles/2007/10/17/opinion/opinion02.txt
Reid's rebuttal:
http://elynews.com/articles/2007/10/24/opinion/oped02.txt

Mann also says the editorial's credibility is undermined by a "number of errors and misrepresentations, and a cherry-picking of the scientific evidence."

Total Nonsense.

You tried to put everything into a balanced perspective, he doesn't like the assertion that "CO2 isn't a poison". He's wrong, you are right. You miscalculated F and C, big deal. They want to make something of that? What a joke. Want a dozen of Mann's mistakes? Let's start with his statement to the Wegman Committee -

"I am no statistician".

In Mann's words, to his surprise you printed his letter and a "scathing rebuttal"?

If he wants to walk into (email into) Ely with his hockey stick, he needs to be ready to play hockey.

CapelDodger

10th November 2007, 06:09 PM

By the way, Dr. Mann thought I was being rude and has a story about my celsius gaff on RealClimate.org. I'm enjoying my 15 minutes of fame, or should I say shame?

You're handling it elegantly. Blush and move on. With one reason fewer for doubting AGW and its significance, of course.

rsaavedra

10th November 2007, 06:10 PM

CapelDodger

10th November 2007, 06:28 PM

Ely is quite some distance from Penn State. I find it intriguing that Reid, arguably the second-most powerful man in the U.S. government, and an illustrious paleoclimatologist like Dr. Mann feel they must respond to what I'm writing for less than 3,000 rural Nevadans -- unless, it's the idea of a paced and reasonable transmission to renewables that must attacked whereever it pops up. We need policy not panic.

It was your notoriety that prompted a response. Your modest publication was new meat for the contrarian choir, and they're short of it these days. Mostly they're gnawing over twenty-year old bones - when they're not digging up very gamey meat from the MWP.

A paced and reasonable transition is what everybody is talking about. Sadly, that's all they're doing. At the highest level talks are scheduled for discussion of negotiations of the 2012 replacement for Kyoto. Which, I think we'll all agree, was itself a rather damp squib.

CapelDodger

10th November 2007, 06:44 PM

Today I watched "An inconvenient truth", awesome documentary! The data and graphs provide very compelling evidence, and Gore's presentation in and of itself is truly excellent. Highly recommended.

Welcome to the lion's den.

PS. Shame on the US really for not having joined the Tokyo pact (at least by the time of the DVD, haven't checked whether anything has changed about that by now.)

The Kyoto pact is old news now - all eyes are turned to 2012 and the next pact. Which may be a treaty - that's yet to be negotiated, but upgrading a pact to a treaty does demonstrate that the matter's being taken seriously :).

Harpoon

10th November 2007, 07:03 PM

You learn nothing from praise, only from criticism. But a break in the learning process is appreciated, as well.
Thanks Schneibster, CapelDodger and mhaze.

mhaze

10th November 2007, 07:52 PM

Today I watched "An inconvenient truth", awesome documentary! The data and graphs provide very compelling evidence, and Gore's presentation in and of itself is truly excellent. Highly recommended.

PS. Shame on the US really for not having joined the Tokyo pact (at least by the time of the DVD, haven't checked whether anything has changed about that by now.)

PPS: See anything a bit odd about the scales on the side of those graphs?

Shame on you for suggesting we should have joined the Kyoto pact!

And now China has stated in no uncertain terms that they will not abide by any post Kyoto pact that restricts their emissions.

a_unique_person

10th November 2007, 09:54 PM

Mann also says the editorial's credibility is undermined by a "number of errors and misrepresentations, and a cherry-picking of the scientific evidence."

Total Nonsense.

You tried to put everything into a balanced perspective, he doesn't like the assertion that "CO2 isn't a poison". He's wrong, you are right. You miscalculated F and C, big deal. They want to make something of that? What a joke. Want a dozen of Mann's mistakes? Let's start with his statement to the Wegman Committee -

"I am no statistician".

In Mann's words, to his surprise you printed his letter and a "scathing rebuttal"?

If he wants to walk into (email into) Ely with his hockey stick, he needs to be ready to play hockey.

Try breathing it in, it is a poison. But that's irrelevant since the IPCC has never claimed it is a poison, or it isn't. They have just pointed out that it is making global temperatures rise.

Schneibster

10th November 2007, 10:29 PM

I have been informed by PM that the letters from Reid and Mann were published equally with the editorial; that bears public mention and acclaim. I am pleased to hear that, Harpoon. My compliments on your integrity stand. If my criticism helped, I'm glad.

Locri

11th November 2007, 12:22 AM

Try breathing it in, it is a poison. But that's irrelevant since the IPCC has never claimed it is a poison, or it isn't. They have just pointed out that it is making global temperatures rise.

It might be a poison to humans, but I'm sure the trees and grass and other plants would strongly disagree. It is kind of hard to understand exactly how CO2 is so often considered pollution when it is also a very critical gas for promoting life on the planet.

It reminds me of Penn and Teller getting signatures to ban di-hydrogen monoxide *grin*

a_unique_person

11th November 2007, 04:23 AM

It might be a poison to humans, but I'm sure the trees and grass and other plants would strongly disagree. It is kind of hard to understand exactly how CO2 is so often considered pollution when it is also a very critical gas for promoting life on the planet.

It reminds me of Penn and Teller getting signatures to ban di-hydrogen monoxide *grin*

Like I said, if it's poisonous or not is irrelevant.

mhaze

11th November 2007, 06:24 AM

Try breathing it in, it is a poison. But that's irrelevant since the IPCC has never claimed it is a poison, or it isn't. They have just pointed out that it is making global temperatures rise.

Which is why this is a bit odd, or perhaps a bit over reacting on Mann's part.

The original editorial didn't look like something that demanded a reply - it didn't attack Mann's "science".

Schneibster

11th November 2007, 07:18 AM

Which is why this is a bit odd, or perhaps a bit over reacting on Mann's part.

The original editorial didn't look like something that demanded a reply - it didn't attack Mann's "science".First, your puerile effort to promote a fight between me and Harpoon is noted, and is now exposed for everyone to see your lack of character and your manipulative ways.

Second, either you cannot read or you are lying again; I showed factual errors and cherry picking, which is precisely what Mann claimed. You claimed above that there were none; your precise claim was "nonsense."

Why are you here? You have nothing to contribute but lies, manipulation, and discord.

mhaze

11th November 2007, 07:55 AM

EcoEnquirer Environmental News (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/)

provides penetrating analysis of the pre released developing stories in global warming.

An organized network of skeptical deniers paid exclusively by Big Oil has infiltrated the multiple levels of plausible deniability in the Gore/IPCC/Soros spiderweb. Secret infiltration over a period of decades was funded completely by Big Oil in a carefully planned action led by ex Reagan operatives. A special prize of stuffed Polar Bears was provided to key operatives in the Soros/Gore/IPCC conspiracy.

The Polar Bears were stuffed with spread spectrum video transmission equipment coupled to dual PTZ (pan-tilt-zoom) cameras in the eyes, and powered without the need for batteries by global warming heat absorption and utilization systems designed for covert Gulf War operations.

Radical green operatives never guessed the true nature of the Polar Bears.

Speculators Push Sea Ice to $20/Ton (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/sea-ice-trade.htm)

New Board Game Craze Sweeping the Country (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/hurricane-blame-game.htm)

EPA Seeks to Have Water Vapor Designated a Pollutant (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm)

Global Warming Claimed to Increase Asteroid Impact Risk (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/global-warming-asteroid.htm)

Tornado Intensity Scale Expanded in Anticipation of Global Warming (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/tornado-intensity.htm)

Near-Normal 2006 Hurricane Season Blamed on Global Warming (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/normal-hurricane-season.htm)

EPA to Mandate Reductions in Emissions from Volcanoes (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-volcanoes.htm)

Evidence of Hurricanes Before Global Warming? (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/ancient-hurricane.htm)

Weather Radars to Help Fight Global Warming (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/weather-control-radar.htm)

'Operation Icelift' Launched to Save Antarctic Ice Sheet (http://www.ecoenquirer.com/operation-icelift.htm)

Harpoon

11th November 2007, 09:25 AM

Like I said, if it's poisonous or not is irrelevant.

It's not at all relevant to the AGW debate. It is relevant, however, in the narrow context I addressed.

Not through conspiracy, but through rumor in our 5,000 population, isolated community, many of my readers have come to believe that a plan to build two coal-fueled power plants in our valley would poison them with CO2.

Coal burning emits many poisonous gases -- all regulated by the EPA. If the existant regulations are too lax is a different discussion. But there are no emission standards for CO2 (which was the point of the piece). And that's the center of our local debate about the power plants.

While attending a local Oktoberfest, I overheard several citizens express fear that they and their familes would be "poisoned" by these unregulated and uncontrolled CO2 emissions.

In my editorial I attempted to explain a little about CO2's properties and everyday uses. I did note examples of deaths caused by CO2 through suffocation, not toxitity. And I clearly stated there has been a 35 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the beginning of industrialization.

Although, the Nevada Energy Commission has mandated 20 percent of the state's power must come from renewables by 2015, which I believe is the highest standard in the nation, Sen. Reid has vowed to block the plant's construction, which would derail the state's effort to do something... anything. As CapelDodger has noted it's all talk and no action.

Nevada's energy plan is only a baby step in the right direction, but it's better than the proposed federal standards.

But, as Schneibster has pointed out, that's a discussion for the political forum.

Saturated fat is not a poison. But put too much into your system, it will clog your arteries and kill you -- not through toxity, but just the mechanical process of dislodging a blot clot missile to your brain.

CO2's threat is similar in that it is not a poison, but our unbridled contribution of it to the atmosphere has created a unique and dangerous situation because of its properties as a GHG.

If there was cherry picking in my editorial, it was inadvertant. I used a single source, Wikipedia. My "agenda" for the editorial was to calm fears that breathing CO2 would be harmful. My larger "agenda" is to allow the construction of these plants in our valley and the addition of wind farms and solar facilities that plan to piggyback onto the plants' transmission lines.

While I have the expertise to comment and try to influence public policy, I do not have any formal scientific background, so I do not attempt to criticize any AGW research.

However, I do believe that the other side should always be heard -- even if it's a small minority and not part of a consensus, no matter the subject. I'll continue to do so. It's that "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," thing; an old-fashioned concept in our PC age.

However, instead of clogging this thread with more policy discussion, if you want to discuss it more, PM me or start a thread in an appropriate forum. Can we move on?

Pixel42

11th November 2007, 12:09 PM

rsaavedra

11th November 2007, 12:38 PM

The Kyoto pact is old news now - all eyes are turned to 2012 and the next pact. Which may be a treaty - that's yet to be negotiated, but upgrading a pact to a treaty does demonstrate that the matter's being taken seriously :).
Yes I'm realizing it's old news now, though for me it is new :p Will look into that upcoming 2012 pack/treaty. Thanks CapelDodger!

mhaze

11th November 2007, 03:11 PM

I've just finished working though the Open University's free course on the science behind climate change:

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

Highly recommended to anyone who wants the facts.

Here is the final question.

Judge for yourself the extent to which this "lesson set " is fair and unbiased science.
2.8 End of unit (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/glossary/showentry.php?courseid=2805&concept=Unit) question

Question 12

The writer and campaigner George Monbiot wrote the following (in The Guardian Weekly, 10 February 2000): ‘Every time someone in the West switches on a kettle, he or she is helpting to flood Bangladesh’. What is the link between switching on a kettle and sea level rise? Write down the various steps in the chain of cause and effects as a set of bullet points. Do you feel confident that you could cover all the links, if asked by a friend or colleague, say?
Now read the answer (javascript: showcontent('AnswerQUE003_005'))
Answer

‘Switching on a kettle’ is linked to sea-level (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/glossary/showentry.php?courseid=2805&concept=Level) rise by the following chain of 𠆇cause-and-effect’ relationships:

burning fossil fuels (e.g. in a power station) causes the release of CO2 to the atmosphere;
and has resulted in a build up of the gas since pre-industrial times;
the effect is a temporary reduction in the longwave emission to space, disturbing the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere and producing a positive radiative forcing of climate;
which has a warming effect, causing an increase in GMST;
higher temperatures, in turn, cause the thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land ice;
increasing the volume of water in the ocean, and leading to sea-level (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/glossary/showentry.php?courseid=2805&concept=Level) rise.

a_unique_person

11th November 2007, 04:43 PM

Looks fine to me. The science is all correct.

mhaze

11th November 2007, 06:32 PM

Looks fine to me. The science is all correct.

Certainly.

By Gore Science standards.

Pixel42

12th November 2007, 12:43 AM

Certainly.

By Gore Science standards.
Have you worked through the entire course? I have, and I can assure you that the scientific evidence for every one of those steps is given. The complexity of that evidence is not underestimated, and the sceptics' arguments are fairly presented. The Mann hockeystick dispute is thoroughly discussed, for example, with the arguments of both sides explained.

rockoon

12th November 2007, 12:44 AM

"Might" was being generous. You have no evidence other than anecdotal hearsay.

Evidence of what?

Please try to form complete paragraphs which have a topic sentence and supporting ideas.

rockoon

12th November 2007, 12:57 AM

These are common errors of the benighted programmers that resort to a bug-report to HP. Not of professional programmers as a whole. Ask yourself : how large and representative is that sample?

It was a single example of a company fielding reports from programmers that indicate a lack of knowledge about the limits of floating point.

mhaze mentions Excel.

Do you agree that Excel is a program written by professional programmers?

You are making a broad assumption about the state of professional programming that doesnt fit the evidence. You offer no evidence at all to support your assertation that programmers are doing things properly.

You didnt even notice that the O(N^2) algorithm I gave can be trivialy reduced to O(N log N) with proper leveraging of a binary tree structure, so I am quite certain that YOU have no idea what you are talking about and have over-stepped your bounds.

If you want the scoop on numerical accuracy with floating point, I suggest that you read the two bibles: The Art of Computer Programming, and Numerical Recipes in ...

Buffer overflow exploits?

newb?

a_unique_person

12th November 2007, 03:37 AM

It was a single example of a company fielding reports from programmers that indicate a lack of knowledge about the limits of floating point.

Once again, so what?

mhaze

12th November 2007, 06:36 AM

It was a single example of a company fielding reports from programmers that indicate a lack of knowledge about the limits of floating point.

mhaze mentions Excel.

Do you agree that Excel is a program written by professional programmers?

You are making a broad assumption about the state of professional programming that doesnt fit the evidence. You offer no evidence at all to support your assertation that programmers are doing things properly.

You didnt even notice that the O(N^2) algorithm I gave can be trivialy reduced to O(N log N) with proper leveraging of a binary tree structure, so I am quite certain that YOU have no idea what you are talking about and have over-stepped your bounds.

If you want the scoop on numerical accuracy with floating point, I suggest that you read the two bibles: The Art of Computer Programming, and Numerical Recipes in ...

Knuth. The Master.

A while back, just for kicks and grins, I tried to put a GPS algorithm into Excel. Essentially 3D sine function with very small angle since it is figured from the center of the earth.

THAT bombed right away. Which I had expected.

Which leads to the very good question: "The program (or model) gives us a result. How do we KNOW it is right?"

rockoon

12th November 2007, 07:20 AM

Once again, so what?

You didnt want to reply to my post to you, so instead you replied to my post to someone else..

...and you are wonder what its all about?

Perhaps if you followed through with your own message strings you would understand how to follow someone elses.

mhaze

12th November 2007, 10:55 AM

Have you worked through the entire course? I have, and I can assure you that the scientific evidence for every one of those steps is given. The complexity of that evidence is not underestimated, and the sceptics' arguments are fairly presented. The Mann hockeystick dispute is thoroughly discussed, for example, with the arguments of both sides explained.

No, I have gone through about half of it, including the Mann discussion, but I will go through the remainder. Assuming that is more or less the same, then I can tell you my opinion of this document.

It teaches propaganda, not science.

I'm not trying to be derisive here, but technically accurate. The document actually reads more like something from a religious teaching orientation than a discussion about science. It's been argued that this type of approach is suitable for certain age groups. I happen to disagree with that.

It's propaganda. The first hint is the use of emotionally laden arguments, like the one I quoted about us in the Western world being guilty of flooding Bangladesh.

Pipirr

12th November 2007, 12:06 PM

I've just finished working though the Open University's free course on the science behind climate change:

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

Highly recommended to anyone who wants the facts.

Thank you! I think I'll be spending some time with this.

The science looks correct, looks like a good overview of the topic.

Pixel42

12th November 2007, 01:03 PM

No, I have gone through about half of it, including the Mann discussion, but I will go through the remainder. Assuming that is more or less the same, then I can tell you my opinion of this document.

It teaches propaganda, not science
Please explain why the academics at the Open University would choose to teach propaganda instead of science.

Please give a single example of any statement made in the course which is not supported by the scientific evidence presented.

The final question is obviously an intentionally striking example of a cause-and-effect chain, but I see nothing emotional about the way the course is presented. If anything, the authors have gone out of their way to be dispassionate.

ETA: Useful summary of the sceptics' arguments and their counterarguments from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Locri

12th November 2007, 02:21 PM

ETA: Useful summary of the sceptics' arguments and their counterarguments from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

A lot of those point/counterpoints are pretty much the exact same thing you'll see at RealClimate. I don't have time to get into details at the moment, but there are counters to their counterpoints as well which obviously aren't listed.

Anyway, I am more interested on your thoughts as to the critiques mentioned here: The Skeptics Guide to AGW (http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1. 0.pdf)

I've posted this link several times, but have yet to see any rebuttals of the contents on this thread.

Locri

12th November 2007, 02:35 PM

More fodder for the Mann Hockey-Stick dead vs. alive discussion can be found here:

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and It's Implications (http://tinyurl.com/2szwh8)

The most disturbing quote so far in it is:

Important statements of uncertainty concerning the modelling
predictions in its Chapter 8, which had been agreed upon by the scientists, had been
removed from the published version. The coordinating lead author for Chapter 8,
Benjamin Santer, responded11 justifying this change on the basis that it made the
assessment clearer, thus ignoring clause 10 of the IPCC’s governing principles which requires the inclusion of such uncertainties. Edwards and Schneider12 said that the
removal of expressions of doubt were demanded by the politics of the day and were
thereby justified. If true, the IPCC process had not delivered the policy neutral report
that the governing principles required.

[snip]

David Deming has told a US Senate hearing14 that, some time after the
publication of his 1995 Science paper on Borehole temperatures, he was approached
by the media and other climate scientists interested in any anthropogenic warming
implications. He claims to have been contacted by one climate scientist who expressed
the view that “we must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. ”

If this is in fact right, I would think it would shake any sane person's belief that the IPCC is an unbiased organization whose reports we should trust. There is even more stuff in the paper itself.

CapelDodger

12th November 2007, 04:35 PM

It's not at all relevant to the AGW debate. It is relevant, however, in the narrow context I addressed.

I think this thread can encompass some politics - "Global Warming" is a wide term, there's another thread specifically for the science, and the Politics forum is something of a bear-pit :).

Not through conspiracy, but through rumor in our 5,000 population, isolated community, many of my readers have come to believe that a plan to build two coal-fueled power plants in our valley would poison them with CO2.

I guess with that small an audience you can really tap into their beliefs and opinions. Heck, you could phone half of them in a morning.

The thing is, and I'm sure you've noticed this, you're dealing with a bunch of rubes. (I can easily picture the rubes of Ely, Cardiff - it's a small world, isn't it? - falling for the same thing.) Therefore the need for an "It's Not Poisonous" piece. Not intended for a wider audience, but thrust onto the stage anyway.

CapelDodger

12th November 2007, 04:59 PM

More fodder for the Mann Hockey-Stick dead vs. alive discussion can be found here:

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and It's Implications (http://tinyurl.com/2szwh8)

The most disturbing quote so far in it is:

Something about models, and a claim about an unnamed scientist.

Nothing about the Mann et al reconstruction.

If this is in fact right, I would think it would shake any sane person's belief that the IPCC is an unbiased organization whose reports we should trust. There is even more stuff in the paper itself.

If indeed. I don't know the provenenace of Energy and Environment so it's hard to judge from that. I'm not about to plough through it, but there is this towrads the top :

"
It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the
structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be
acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science."

Since you've ploughed through it already, what is the IPCC not independent from? By the presented argument.

(You do realise, of course, that none of this is going to make the warming go away? Dissing the IPCC, gnawing on Mann and Hansen and the et al's back in the '80's, conjuring up dark conspiracies and a culture of fear in the scientific world ... It's not going to help. mhaze's cycles aren't going to help. David Rodale's Solar Cycling isn't going to help - quite the opposite on the upswing. The warming is going to go on, and contrarian influence will continue to wane as they recede further into the past.)

mhaze

12th November 2007, 05:12 PM

I think this thread can encompass some politics - "Global Warming" is a wide term, there's another thread specifically for the science, and the Politics forum is something of a bear-pit :).

I agree, that's the reason I started the science/gw thread. Also, really didn't want to bore people with some types of things, like ploughing through scientific papers and the like.

Inescapably, the weak arguments of AGW are wrapped up with politics.

CapelDodger

12th November 2007, 05:13 PM

It was a single example of a company fielding reports from programmers that indicate a lack of knowledge about the limits of floating point.

A lack of knowledge in the programmers that posted bug reports. Programmers that were no doubt new to the field, and possibly not long for it. Not a representative sample of programmers in general, especially not those who deal in the intricacies of floating-point arithmetic. It's not esoteric mathematics, after all. Any more than programming is an esoteric pursuit.

Time was we could sell it that way, and we did; back in the 70's we were like priests in the corporate world. Knowers of The Mysteries, and paid as such. Good times. They won't come again. I knew the party was drawing to a close when I first heard the term "user-friendly".

mhaze

12th November 2007, 05:21 PM

More fodder for the Mann Hockey-Stick dead vs. alive discussion can be found here:

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and It's Implications (http://tinyurl.com/2szwh8)

The most disturbing quote so far in it is-

David Deming has told a US Senate hearing that, some time after the
publication of his 1995 Science paper on Borehole temperatures, he was approached by the media and other climate scientists interested in any anthropogenic warming implications. He claims to have been contacted by one climate scientist who expressed the view that “we must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. ”

If this is in fact right, I would think it would shake any sane person's belief that the IPCC is an unbiased organization whose reports we should trust. There is even more stuff in the paper itself.

It's not an unnamed scientist that told him that, I'd just have to look around a bit for his name. Just for kicks and grins and giggles, let's check google -Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 107 for "medieval ice age".
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 578 for "european ice age"
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 383 for "european warm period".
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 453,000 for "little ice age"
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 125,000 for "medieval warm period"
Well, shucks. Guess Mann, Gore and the latest IPCC revisionist history attempts have not managed to convince people that Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period did not exist.

Funny, though if you go to the results for the "European warm period" and the "Medieval ice age", who comes up in the results - RC, rabbit, the usual suspects.

CapelDodger

12th November 2007, 05:38 PM

Inescapably, the weak arguments of AGW are wrapped up with politics.

There's none so blind as will not see. But you actually see, only backwards. It's remarkable.

The arguments against AGW - which is a present and observable fact - mostly consist of assaults on scientists integrity, implications of political influence on science, and argumentum ad wouldn't-it-be-awful. In the meantime AGW is going on all around, and has been for thirty years. Ever since the accumulation got large enough to start making its presence felt.

The weakness in your position is demonstrated when you try to shift attention away from this crucial period - averaging out sea-level rise since 1900, for instance, because that dilutes the recent increase with seventy-years when AGW influence was inconsequential. It has not been inconsequential over the last thirty years, and it's getting more influential as CO2 accumulates. It's swamping Solar Cycles, and all the other cycles, because none of them have this constant upward trend. Which isn't going to go away.

I've said my piece before on the politics of AGW : there'll be no coordinated global response, there will be local and regional responses to the consequences. As to the consequences, I won't get into what they might be but there will be consequences. A world with six-odd billion people used to one climate is not going to shift to another without some horrible grinding of the gears.

mhaze

12th November 2007, 05:58 PM

The weakness in your position is demonstrated when you try to shift attention away from this crucial period - averaging out sea-level rise since 1900, for instance, because that dilutes the recent increase with seventy-years when AGW influence was inconsequential. ......

No, that's peer reviewed science we have been discussing that does that. It's not correct to say it averages out level rise since 1900, either.

I understand your concern, but that's just not what the articles are trying to do or what I have any interest in doing.

If the published, peer reviewed studies indicate that you don't have as much "alarming sea level rise" to cling to, well, you just have to deal with it.

Shouldn't people be HAPPY if the scientists find that sea level rise is 1.3 mm with no recent increase instead of 2.8 to 3.1 mm and recent increases?

One does wonder.....

CapelDodger

12th November 2007, 06:04 PM

It's not an unnamed scientist that told him that, I'd just have to look around a bit for his name.

Do get back to us on that. And why he wasn't named at the time. there was probably a climate of fear behind it.

Just for kicks and grins and giggles, let's check google ...

There comes a time when one must put off childish things. So let's not.

Well, shucks. Guess Mann, Gore and the latest IPCC revisionist history attempts have not managed to convince people that Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period did not exist.

Most people haven't actually heard of them. If they did, they probably wouldn't care much.
Funny, though if you go to the results for the "European warm period" and the "Medieval ice age", who comes up in the results - RC, rabbit, the usual suspects.

Belief in the MWP and LIA is revisionist history. And amateurish. Before they became politicised the mainstream historical view was that these were regional phaenomena that were influential in that sense. Efforts were made to find the same historical effect in the wider world, and proved fruitless. A realisation dawned that they loomed large (the LIA more than the MWP, which was looked for later) in North Atlantic history, but not elsewhere.

Only since the "natural cycle" has been conscripted to the anti-AGW cause has there been such assiduous data-mining to come up with some odds-and-ends with serious error-bars, flourished as trophies. How many actual historians can you summon to your camp, if the call goes out?

You said once that CO2Science has an article a week confirming the MWP therefore it's important now. That was more than a week ago, I'm sure. What have they come up with since? Set 'em up, I'll try and knock 'em down.

Pipirr

12th November 2007, 06:05 PM

The arguments against AGW - which is a present and observable fact - mostly consist of assaults on scientists integrity, implications of political influence on science, and argumentum ad wouldn't-it-be-awful. In the meantime AGW is going on all around, and has been for thirty years. Ever since the accumulation got large enough to start making its presence felt.

That's about how I see it. I've been reading these threads for the past, what is it now, ten months, following up on the 'skeptical' arguments, and I'm not impressed. Nitpicking, misrepresentation and hiding in the past seems to be the thrust of it.

Whereas the 'other side' has a coherent synthesis of the vast majority of the peer reviewed literature on climate change.

Guess which one I'm going with...

CapelDodger

12th November 2007, 06:20 PM

No, that's peer reviewed science we have been discussing that does that. It's not correct to say it averages out level rise since 1900, either.

I understand your concern, but that's just not what the articles are trying to do or what I have any interest in doing.

If the published, peer reviewed studies indicate that you don't have as much "alarming sea level rise" to cling to, well, you just have to deal with it.

Shouldn't people be HAPPY if the scientists find that sea level rise is 1.3 mm with no recent increase instead of 2.8 to 3.1 mm and recent increases?

One does wonder.....

One does indeed wonder sometimes.

This is probably related to another thread? The "Science of ..." one? What the hey, it would make as little sense anyway.

People would probably be happy to find that sea-level rise has only been 1.3mm per year over the last thirty, but what people have found is that it's increased much faster. In that 2-3mm range.

I don't see their happiness quotient going up because some scientists (you say "the scientists", can you see how weird that is? The very concept of the scientists?) tell them that, properly averaged and adjusted, it didn't happen at all. I don't feel waves of relief coming off that image.

Locri

12th November 2007, 08:33 PM

Something about models, and a claim about an unnamed scientist.

Nothing about the Mann et al reconstruction.

Well, yes, I was just quoting from part of the paper that I thought was particularly disturbing. The idea that it's ok to remove uncertainty about things just because it's a political environment? Please... that's ridiculously unprofessional.

Furthermore, the quote is from the history section of the paper talking about what leads in to the Mann reconstruction existing... basically, the initial IPCC reports didn't have much to show in terms of verifying AGW because the temperatures were not very far off the MWP, so they needed some graph to show that the MWP and little ice age were just blips compared to the current warming trend. Oddly enough, the Mann hockey stick graph suddenly came about for the following report and the MWP and little ice age were downplayed, as if on cue almost.

Many people still believe that the MWP and little ice age didn't really exist or were very minimal. Which camp do you fall under for that?

Since you've ploughed through it already, what is the IPCC not independent from? By the presented argument.

It means it's not independent in the sense that with the group running the IPCC appears to have a bias towards the AGW hypothesis rather than being objective observers that are reporting what is going on in the scientific community to the world at large. Also, that some of the researchers that head up the IPCC reports or various chapters have a stake in the research and tend to highlight their own research very specifically (for example, the large presence of the Mann hockey-stick graph when he was heading up the IPCC report).

(You do realise, of course, that none of this is going to make the warming go away? Dissing the IPCC, gnawing on Mann and Hansen and the et al's back in the '80's, conjuring up dark conspiracies and a culture of fear in the scientific world ... It's not going to help. mhaze's cycles aren't going to help. David Rodale's Solar Cycling isn't going to help - quite the opposite on the upswing. The warming is going to go on, and contrarian influence will continue to wane as they recede further into the past.)

Except that, well, for the most part the IPCC are the people telling us that AGW is happening the way it is and that it'll cause the problems they say it'll cause. If you discredit that and take it away, AGW really isn't that big of a deal. I'm not sure about you, but the vast majority of the information in support of AGW that I see out there is directly referenced from the IPCC report. Heck, look at the first dozen or so pages of this thread... have you counted just how many responses are along the lines of "read the IPCC report, it'll answer everything for you"?

If the IPCC is indeed hiding facts and editing their IPCC reports to push the bias of the paper towards a specific direction, we should NOT trust the IPCC anymore. Simple as that.

Locri

12th November 2007, 08:38 PM

Belief in the MWP and LIA is revisionist history. And amateurish. Before they became politicised the mainstream historical view was that these were regional phaenomena that were influential in that sense. Efforts were made to find the same historical effect in the wider world, and proved fruitless. A realisation dawned that they loomed large (the LIA more than the MWP, which was looked for later) in North Atlantic history, but not elsewhere.

Nevermind the question in my previous post... I guess this answers it. Could you point me to a good paper that offers some evidence for that? (I'm guessing if you are saying it's been researched and proved fruitless there must be a paper out there, right? I don't mean this to sound snide mind you, I'm honestly curious to read some papers that talk about this.)

mhaze

12th November 2007, 09:16 PM

Rather than have you wade through some warmer script on this issue, here are the few pieces of scientific evidence in favor of that position -

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=767
So let’s turn the question around - what is the evidence AGAINST a warmer MWP?

(1) bristlecone and foxtail ring widths (especially those collected by Graybill in the 1980s) are wider in modern times than in medieval times. (OK, the NAS panel has discounted this, but it’s obviously been used over and over as evidence against a warmer MWP in the spaghetti studies.)

(2) ring widths at Yamal, adjusted for age, are wider than in modern times than in medieval times;

(3) the percentage of coldwater diatoms offshore Oman is higher in the 20th century than in MWP;

(4) dO18 levels in some of Thompson tropical ice cores and in the overall average is higher than modern levels;

(5) combinations of the above 4 proxies under a weighted average with small numbers of other mostly nondescript proxies show mid-20th century indices slightly higher than the highest corresponding index in the MWP (the spaghetti graphs);

(6) supposedly some evidence from Antarctica according to the NAS Panel, but they did not provide any evidence and I know what it is;

(7) 5000-year organics from Quelccaya (Thompson 2006, cited by NAS panel)
As usual, to find actual facts go to to skeptical site.

Of course, the evidence in favor of MWP far out weighs these.

mhaze

12th November 2007, 09:21 PM

One does indeed wonder sometimes.

This is probably related to another thread? The "Science of ..." one? What the hey, it would make as little sense anyway.

People would probably be happy to find that sea-level rise has only been 1.3mm per year over the last thirty, but what people have found is that it's increased much faster. In that 2-3mm range.

Facts interfere with your beliefs.

Schneibster

13th November 2007, 02:22 AM

I am more interested on your thoughts as to the critiques mentioned here: The Skeptics Guide to AGW (http://www.coyoteblog.com/Skeptics_Guide_to_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_v1. 0.pdf)

I've posted this link several times, but have yet to see any rebuttals of the contents on this thread.Very well. Let's begin with the definition of AGW that the author chooses to use:

Before we start,since this paper is by definition somewhat in opposition to the core of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, it would be useful to state in simple terms just what that theory is. The strong AGW hypothesis is roughly as follows:
1.The world has been warming for a century, and this warming is beyond any cyclical variation we have seen over the last 1000 or more years, and beyond the range of what we might expect from natural climate variations.Already we have a problem. What "natural climate variations?" The Earth's climate has, in the past, been considerably warmer than it is now; it's also been considerably colder, and both of those have happened in the very recent past, geologically speaking. In the deep past, it's been a great deal warmer, and a great deal cooler. Given that there were no people around at any of these times, it's fair to call all of that "natural."

What would be fair to say is that, given Earth's current orbit, current axial inclination, the current observed solar activity, the current configuration of the continents (having one over a pole is almost always indicative of an ice age in progress, for example), and the state of the atmosphere aside from the gases we are putting into it, we would expect the Earth to be cooler. We would also expect the temperature to be relatively stable. Instead, it appears to be warmer than we would otherwise expect, and it appears to be getting warmer still over time. It also appears, given our current state of knowlege of paleoclimate, that it is warmer now than any time in the last thousand years, and it may be warmer now than any time in the last hundred and ten thousand years; and if it is not now, and the temperature continues to climb as we have observed in the extremely recent past, a century or so, then it surely will be warmer than any time in the last hundred and ten thousand years.

2.Almost all of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, perhaps a half a degree Celsius,is due to man-made greenhouse gasses,
particularly CO2.First, this ignores the hiatus around and after WWII, caused apparently by the injection of sulfates and other aerosols into the atmosphere in large quantities. These aerosols artificially suppressed the temperature for a period perhaps as long as thirty years, up until the 1970s when pollution laws began to be put into place to deal with them. As a result, the first twenty years of the second half of the 20th century represent a statistical anomaly that is being ignored by this statement.

Second, CO2 is the largest individual contributor, but may not be as much as half of the problem. Other gases also have warming effects, and many artificial gases have been released that have strong warming effects, primarily chlorofluorocarbons. Methane is also a strong warming gas, and as the global population increases, and as the standard of living increases and more protein is consumed, more methane is produced for a variety of reasons. It is all of these together that are creating the problem, not CO2 alone.

3.In the next 100 years, CO2 produced by man will cause a lot more warming, from as low as three degrees C to as high as 8 or 10 degrees C.Again, CO2 is not alone. It is merely the majority culprit. There are other things that will have their own effects, and they also will most likely need to be dealt with; CO2 is merely the highest nail, and therefore gets the hammer first.

4.Positive feedbacks in the climate, like increased humidity, will act to triple the warming from CO2, leading to these higher forecasts and perhaps even a tipping point into climactic disaster Hmmm, a nit-pick; that's "climatic" disaster. "Climactic" refers to a climax, not a climate. Other than that, I don't see a problem, but I'd like a lot more specific statement of what precise feedbacks are involved here. There are feedbacks ranging from environmental, to climatic, to physical, that we know about- and doubtless yet more we do not. I think it is a vast oversimplification to limit the discussion essentially to a single specific feedback.

5.The bad effects of warming greatl outweigh the positive effects,and we are alread seeing the front end of these bad effects today (polar bears dying,glaciers melting,etc)It is entirely possible that we are already seeing an effect on the salmon catch from this, and that's quite a lot of protein that might not be available to eat soon if that's correct. The effects extend a lot further than polar bears and glaciers, right into your local supermarket, if that's the case. I'd like to see a much more realistic evaluation of what we may be talking about, in terms of food people eat every day, rather than far away polar bears and glaciers. This strikes me as propaganda.

6.These bad effects, or even a small risk of them, easily justify massive intervention today in reducing economic activity and greenhouse gas productionFirst, I don't see why economic activity has to be reduced to accomplish the goal of greenhouse gas reduction. Second, I don't think a fair review of the potential effects has been done here, and I don't think it was in the body of the document, either; screw polar bears and glaciers, let's talk about the supermarket and your dinner table. Third, I object to "easily" as propaganda; such a decision cannot be "easy" in any sense of the word, even if the effects were to be as dire as this individual apparently intends to make them out to be. Fourth, it's not a small risk any more; serious economic consequences loom on the horizon right now no matter what we do. The question now is not, can we avoid it, but rather, how bad is it going to get.

I don't see any sort of objectivity here. This just looks like another denier hit piece to me. I could go on and dissect the science, but why bother? It's obvious that with this start, it's going to be filled with misrepresentations of real science ("primarily CO2," "small risk," "polar bears and glaciers"), propaganda, and overlooked evidence. If I thought that the author would respond to criticism I might take the time; I don't, based on what I see here. The entire goal of the piece is not to promote skepticism, but to spread more propaganda and provide cover for people with a political agenda. That political agenda has gotten us to the point where the Arctic Ocean damn near melted entirely this past year. I see no point in playing this political game further; my response is now, "that's woo," just like when someone tries to stuff Jebus or crank physics or homeopathy up my nose.

mhaze

13th November 2007, 06:59 AM

That's about how I see it. I've been reading these threads for the past, what is it now, ten months, following up on the 'skeptical' arguments, and I'm not impressed. Nitpicking, misrepresentation and hiding in the past seems to be the thrust of it.

Whereas the 'other side' has a coherent synthesis of the vast majority of the peer reviewed literature on climate change.

Guess which one I'm going with...

Beats me.

Would you be going with Gore, the Valiant Defender of the Hockey Stick of Warmers, supported by overlapping and multiple confirming lines of research and a clear consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists throughout the world?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9183)

If so, then I suppose we should discuss the hockey stick, which must then also be supported by overlapping and multiple confirming lines of research and a clear consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists throughout the world.
.

Pipirr

13th November 2007, 07:37 AM

There you go with 'Warmers' again... and oh look, there's Al Gore too. Followed up by the hockey stick.

Pure gold :)

mhaze

13th November 2007, 07:41 AM

Beats me.

Would you be going with Gore, the Valiant Defender of the Hockey Stick of Warmers, supported by overlapping and multiple confirming lines of research and a clear consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists throughout the world?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png

If so, then I suppose we should discuss the hockey stick, which must then also be supported by overlapping and multiple confirming lines of research and a clear consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists throughout the world.
.

A bit of help - here are the talking points from Gristmill.org. Just copy and paste the script and presto! There's an answer.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236

Ooopss...those darn skeptics have already read that stuff and have answers ready, many of which are in the comments to the Grist threads. Oooppss....

Maybe Realclimate? That's safer because they censor comments, so searching Hockey Stick there would provide material for defense of the Hockey Stick, without the need to worry about any counterarguments because they would not have been in the comments because those comments are censored.

Indeed.... An entire website set up to defend the Hockey Stick....

Jimcalagon

13th November 2007, 08:39 AM

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 03:45 PM

Nevermind the question in my previous post... I guess this answers it. Could you point me to a good paper that offers some evidence for that? (I'm guessing if you are saying it's been researched and proved fruitless there must be a paper out there, right? I don't mean this to sound snide mind you, I'm honestly curious to read some papers that talk about this.)

Since I'm talking about history I'd have to point you to a number of books, probably too many to mention. I was taught in the 60's that a global LIA was a Eurocentric error; I don't recall the MWP coming up, but reading the history of the period there's no obvious sign of it. The scattered examples that are brought up to support the idea are not climate-related. Lots of other things were going on, as ever.

The LIA and MWP were first brought into the AGW debate to support the argument that "these things just happen, and they've happened before". The people that brought them up were not historians, they were people with vague memories of Frost Fairs and the Greenlanders getting frozen out - an old-fashioned view, but then many of them were old. World history is a lot more complicated than that.

If you look at the Mann et al reconstructions, and the other independent reconstructions, you'll see that the MWP and LIA are in there, just not with the prominence expected in the old-fashioned Eurocentric view. This immediately became not informative (as it is), but firm evidence of a scientific conspiracy. As it remains; Mann is one of the arch-demons of the anti-AGW case, along with Hansen and Al Gore. All the other scientists involved are simply minions.

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 04:14 PM

Apologies if this is old news but - the BBC has an article by an IPCC member, Dr. John Christy, who is sceptical about the climate modelling used and say that there has been political pressure to overemphasise the effects of warming BBC News - No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm)

Well that's a deep pile of pony. Unsuprisingly.

Right at the top

"scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead"

Confusing weather with climate. How stupid is that? In the middle of summer, can we predict whether it'll be cooler or warmer six months on? I think so, and yet this is such a complex system that - according to Christy's logic - we can't.

What sad-act's like Christy can't cope with is that the warming has been and is going on, not in models but in practice. Out in the biggest baddest analogue climate model there is. Who are you going to trust, Christy or your own lying eyes?

As for the rest : politicised science, conspiracy, group-think (the other side's, of course), Kyoto, yadda-yadda. Same old same old. No science. Nothing new. Purest dross.

Look at this :

'

The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".'

The conclusion is based on observations, not computer models. Fixated as he is on the unreal world of conspiracies and models, Christy apparently can't grasp that. And of course we can get a very good idea of what the causes are because we've been observing lots of things closely over the last thirty years - which is the relevant period, in which accumulated CO2 has broken through as a significant influence. Christy's "natural" is essentially woo; there's this natural "something" that's causing the energy accumulation, unobserved because we haven't recognised it.

It could be "mental energy", for instance - more people means more mental energy means a warmer world. Or maybe : more adolescents means more poltergeists, moving objects cause heat through friction, and so a warmer world.

As to Christy's anecdote about the three Europeans, I don't believe it for a moment. It's just too pat. Europeans, no less, and saying exactly what Christy wants to report? I don't think so.

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 04:36 PM

There you go with 'Warmers' again... and oh look, there's Al Gore too. Followed up by the hockey stick.

Pure gold :)

Noise for its own sake, really.

mhaze swore off Al Gore for a while back there, but it was always white-knuckle abstention.

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 04:47 PM

If so, then I suppose we should discuss the hockey stick, which must then also be supported by overlapping and multiple confirming lines of research and a clear consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists throughout the world.
.

The only valid reason for bringing up the hockey-stick is to support the argument that events like the current warming have occurred before and therefore AGW is not confirmed by said current warming. This requires that the Mann et al reconstruction (and the other independent reconstructions) are grossly in error.

Are there "overlapping and multiple confirming lines of research and a clear consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists throughout the world" to support that idea?

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 04:59 PM

Facts interfere with your beliefs.

No. I believe facts.

Is that all you've got?

I realise that you believe that sea-level rise was less than 1.3mm pa on average between 1993 and 2003, but I'd be interested to hear what facts that belief is based on.

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 05:34 PM

Well, yes, I was just quoting from part of the paper that I thought was particularly disturbing. The idea that it's ok to remove uncertainty about things just because it's a political environment? Please... that's ridiculously unprofessional.

You're referring to the IPCC report, not a paper. The purpose of IPCC reports is to collate the current science and present it in a comprehensible manner to the governments of the world. If some scientific language is removed to make the report more comprehensible, it's not surprising.

The paper you're quoting from has "Bias" in the title, and not in a scientific sense. Given that, are you going to take every interpretation in it as gospel?

Furthermore, the quote is from the history section of the paper talking about what leads in to the Mann reconstruction existing... basically, the initial IPCC reports didn't have much to show in terms of verifying AGW because the temperatures were not very far off the MWP, so they needed some graph to show that the MWP and little ice age were just blips compared to the current warming trend. Oddly enough, the Mann hockey stick graph suddenly came about for the following report and the MWP and little ice age were downplayed, as if on cue almost.

"They needed". Who are "they"?

Many people still believe that the MWP and little ice age didn't really exist or were very minimal. Which camp do you fall under for that?

The MWP and LIA are there to be seen in the Mann et al reconstruction. Not what they were cracked-up to be in the Eurocentric view. Which was mainstream historical opinion before the reconstruction.

It means it's not independent in the sense that with the group running the IPCC appears to have a bias towards the AGW hypothesis rather than being objective observers that are reporting what is going on in the scientific community to the world at large.

Don't you think the scientific community at large would object if the group appointed by politicians and diplomats was biased? After all, the IPCC only collates scientific research, it doesn't perform it.

The science behind AGW is very sound, going way back before it was a political issue, and the observations of the last few decades are equally sound.

Also, that some of the researchers that head up the IPCC reports or various chapters have a stake in the research and tend to highlight their own research very specifically (for example, the large presence of the Mann hockey-stick graph when he was heading up the IPCC report).

Mann headed-up the IPCC report? Did he dictate it?

Except that, well, for the most part the IPCC are the people telling us that AGW is happening the way it is and that it'll cause the problems they say it'll cause.

What's telling us that AGW is happening is the real world. And it's happening in line with the predictions of scientists, as collated and reported on by the IPCC - very conservatively. The scientific world in general is is shouting - in its inherently restrained manner - about the problems it will probably cause.

If you discredit that and take it away, AGW really isn't that big of a deal. I'm not sure about you, but the vast majority of the information in support of AGW that I see out there is directly referenced from the IPCC report. Heck, look at the first dozen or so pages of this thread... have you counted just how many responses are along the lines of "read the IPCC report, it'll answer everything for you"?

If the IPCC is indeed hiding facts and editing their IPCC reports to push the bias of the paper towards a specific direction, we should NOT trust the IPCC anymore. Simple as that.

If you think that the IPCC is behind it all you're not seeing the big picture. AGW is not simply a matter of IPCC, Mann, Hansen, Al Gore. Knock them all down to your own satisfaction and the warming will continue. That's because the climate only responds to the accumulated CO2, not to human attitudes towards it.

Pipirr

13th November 2007, 05:49 PM

Professor Martin Parry, Co-chair, IPCC Working Group II wrote this for the BBC today.

The IPCC:As good as it gets (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7082088.stm)

The process of producing the IPCC assessments is a long, painstaking and sometimes painful process.

It is careful and controlled but, of course, it is not perfect.

The three 1,000-page volumes do not always make gripping reading. However, they represent by far the most comprehensive and authoritative statement that we have about climate change, its potential impacts and how we can respond to the challenge.

Read more at the link about the processes behind the IPCC reports.

David Rodale

13th November 2007, 05:59 PM

Since I'm talking about history I'd have to point you to a number of books, probably too many to mention. I was taught in the 60's that a global LIA was a Eurocentric error; I don't recall the MWP coming up, but reading the history of the period there's no obvious sign of it. The scattered examples that are brought up to support the idea are not climate-related. Lots of other things were going on, as ever.

The LIA and MWP were first brought into the AGW debate to support the argument that "these things just happen, and they've happened before". The people that brought them up were not historians, they were people with vague memories of Frost Fairs and the Greenlanders getting frozen out - an old-fashioned view, but then many of them were old. World history is a lot more complicated than that.

If you look at the Mann et al reconstructions, and the other independent reconstructions, you'll see that the MWP and LIA are in there, just not with the prominence expected in the old-fashioned Eurocentric view. This immediately became not informative (as it is), but firm evidence of a scientific conspiracy. As it remains; Mann is one of the arch-demons of the anti-AGW case, along with Hansen and Al Gore. All the other scientists involved are simply minions.

If you look at the Mann et al reconstructions, and the other independent reconstructions, you'll see that the MWP and LIA are in there, just not with the prominence expected in the old-fashioned Eurocentric view. This immediately became not informative (as it is), but firm evidence of a scientific conspiracy. As it remains; Mann is one of the arch-demons of the anti-AGW case, along with Hansen and Al Gore. All the other scientists involved are simply minions.

Are there data that disagrees with the Mann et al hockey stick?

This one is particularly interesting:
http://www.ifir.edu.ar/~redes/ps/EPSL2005.pdf

It appears there are several:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp

Of course problems with Mann et al would shine brightly when tracking the threads at ClimateAudit, but are you interested in reading anything that contradicts the IPCC version (which BTW use the same flawed methodologies)?

a_unique_person

13th November 2007, 06:07 PM

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 06:30 PM

Are there data that disagrees with the Mann et al hockey stick?

This one is particularly interesting:
http://www.ifir.edu.ar/~redes/ps/EPSL2005.pdf

It appears there are several:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp

Of course problems with Mann et al would shine brightly when tracking the threads at ClimateAudit, but are you interested in reading anything that contradicts the IPCC version (which BTW use the same flawed methodologies)?

I took a quick flick through the CO2Science project, and it seems to be a bit heavy on caves.

The last gem I was presented with from CO2 Science concerned the Ural Mountain tree-line, and it assumed that trees spring into existence overnight when local temperature increase. Is there something less laughable you'd like to present?

(The other link got me nowhere.)

As I've pointed out before, the MWP and LIA are evident in the Mann et al reconstruction, they're just not as prominent as the anti-AGW camp demands. The MWP may well have been as warm as the world was twenty years ago, but it certainly wasn't as warm as it is now, let alone as warm as it'll be in another twenty years. Or even in three-to-eight years.

David Rodale

13th November 2007, 06:31 PM

The hockey stick is only a small part of the case. How much of AIT did it take up? The observations and records we have are more than enough to show an alarming rate of change.

With a MWP, AGW is worthless. That's why the big push to rewrite history and simply pretend it didn't exist. The hockey stick did that.

What observations and records? An unreliable surface temperature network?

Let me guess. The IPCC addressed UHI and land use change right? No they didn't. Cite the methods and procedures used to calibrate and maintain the temperature station network. It's a crapshoot at best. Do you also ignore the evidence of a very substandard system? Not one study providing this evidence was in the IPCC AR4. Why?

How did IPCC account for UHI? What gives you confidence the current temperature record is within ~+/-.06 degC? To those used to lab quality standards, the surface station network is a bad joke.

a_unique_person

13th November 2007, 06:33 PM

Are there data that disagrees with the Mann et al hockey stick?

This one is particularly interesting:
http://www.ifir.edu.ar/~redes/ps/EPSL2005.pdf (http://www.ifir.edu.ar/%7Eredes/ps/EPSL2005.pdf)

It appears there are several:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp

Of course problems with Mann et al would shine brightly when tracking the threads at ClimateAudit, but are you interested in reading anything that contradicts the IPCC version (which BTW use the same flawed methodologies)?

It's a very nice Java application, but what evidence is it based on?

mhaze

13th November 2007, 06:41 PM

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 06:41 PM

Ooopss...those darn skeptics have already read that stuff and have answers ready, many of which are in the comments to the Grist threads. Oooppss....

Your obsession with the provenance of arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, becomes increasingly evident. This argument is presented on Gristmill, ergo it's invalid, no thought required; this other argument is on ClimateAudit or CO2Science or whatever and is therefore valid, no thought required.

I guess we have to add some more arch-demons to the list : RealClimate and Gristmill.

David Rodale

13th November 2007, 06:43 PM

I took a quick flick through the CO2Science project, and it seems to be a bit heavy on caves.

The last gem I was presented with from CO2 Science concerned the Ural Mountain tree-line, and it assumed that trees spring into existence overnight when local temperature increase. Is there something less laughable you'd like to present?

(The other link got me nowhere.)

As I've pointed out before, the MWP and LIA are evident in the Mann et al reconstruction, they're just not as prominent as the anti-AGW camp demands. The MWP may well have been as warm as the world was twenty years ago, but it certainly wasn't as warm as it is now, let alone as warm as it'll be in another twenty years. Or even in three-to-eight years.

CO2science didn't perform the studies. It really bothers you there is evidence in direct conflict with your finite AGW hockey stick world, doesn't it?

Is there something wrong with the article I cited? What is it? Be specific.

What crystal ball are you using? More climate model soothsayer prophecies that need constant "updates" and "new and improved" predictions that can't be validated?

Really CD, after reading so many posts with "the climate models got it right", none of you have ever that I can recall produce specific models with specific prediction dates, what was predicted, what was wrong and what was right. With over 20 models and minions of monkeys on the keyboard, it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one that gets something right.

Again, AGW proponents simply ignore the fallibility of climate models in spite of the evidence supporting what I've been saying all along about them. Here's another. Read it and try to get past the AGW scripts you folks rely on:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf

The biggest problem with models is the fact that they are made by
humans who tend to shape or use their models in ways that mirror their
own notion of what a desirable outcome would be. (John Firor [1998],
Senior Research Associate and former Director of NCAR, Boulder, CO,
USA)

Instead of being empirically represented, sub-grid and insufficiently
understood phenomena are ‘parameterized’.

For example, the intricate microphysical processes that make up
clouds are not well understood, nor is the overall climatic effect of clouds.

Remember what I said? Climate models are basically numerical expressions of the programmer's preconceived notions.

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 06:54 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9183)

Is it my imagination or is there a reluctance among AGW here to actually defend the veritable icon of Warming, the Hockey Stick, presented in all its glory by the High Priest Gore himself?

Why should we bother? You've proclaimed him High Priest, and none of us are impressed. Including Al Gore.

If so that is completely rational and worthy of respect.

Your obsession with personalities is worthy of something very different.

Otherwise we can start at one end of the chart as displayed and go through the constitute portions and their lacK of scientific accuracy (very politely put...)

Hint: you won't be happy.

I'll be bored.

Take refuge in the past if you like; you've got nothing else, after all. There's no refuge for you in the last thirty years, nor will there be in the next. Nort even in the next three-to-eight. That Old Man CO2, he just keep warming along. At an unprecedented rate (in the recent geological past, which is all that concerns us).

CapelDodger

13th November 2007, 07:25 PM

CO2science didn't perform the studies. It really bothers you there is evidence in direct conflict with your finite AGW hockey stick world, doesn't it?

There's an infinite world that I've missed?

Is there something wrong with the article I cited? What is it? Be specific.

The first link hung; the other was to a CO2Science link page.

What crystal ball are you using? More climate model soothsayer prophecies that need constant "updates" and "new and improved" predictions that can't be validated?

The Hansen et al 1988 model outputs have proved out without any adjustments. That indicates that the science - and programming - behind the model was sound. The real world has confirmed the model.

I'm no more using a crystal ball than I would be in predicting that the Sun will come up tomorrow or that winter will be cooler than summer.

Really CD, after reading so many posts with "the climate models got it right", none of you have ever that I can recall produce specific models with specific prediction dates, what was predicted, what was wrong and what was right. With over 20 models and minions of monkeys on the keyboard, it shouldn't be difficult to find at least one that gets something right.

The Hansen et al 1988 model is a specific model that I - amongst others - have specifically referred to. What I haven't heard specified - despite asking - is the other models that didn't get it right. I've heard that they existed, and that the Hansen model is cherry-picked from them as the lucky one, but further detail is hard to elicit.

As I recall, the Hansen et al 1988 model predictions have been particularly notorious since 1988. Were there 19 other models waiting in the wings that, by chance, weren't called upon?

Again, AGW proponents simply ignore the fallibility of climate models in spite of the evidence supporting what I've been saying all along about them. Here's another. Read it and try to get past the AGW scripts you folks rely on:

Remember what I said? Climate models are basically numerical expressions of the programmer's preconceived notions.

Contrarians (such as youself) are obsessed with models, not people that understand AGW, not even people that observe the world around them. you're stuck in the past, arguing about predictions after the event.

mhaze

13th November 2007, 07:29 PM

If you look at the Mann et al reconstructions

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9183)

and the other independent reconstructions, you'll see that the MWP and LIA are in there, just not with the prominence expected in the old-fashioned Eurocentric view. This is the Mann hockey stick (Gore thinks it is Thompson, he is just confused).

Where is the MWP?

Here are Gore's words to help.The correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations over the last 1000 years - as measured by Thompson’s team - is striking. Nonetheless the so-called global warming skeptics often say that global warming is really an illusion reflecting nature’s cyclical fluctuations. To support their view, they frequently refer to the Medieval Warm Period.

But as Dr Thompson’s thermometer shows, the vaunted Medieval Warm Period (the third little red blip from the left below) was tiny in comparison to the enormous increases in temperature in the last half-century - the red peaks at the far right of the graph. These global-warming skeptics - a group diminishing almost as rapidly as the mountain glaciers - launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as the “hockey stick”, a graphic image representing the research of climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues. But in fact scientists have confirmed the same basic conclusions in multiple ways with Thompson’s ice core record as one of the most definitive. (AIT, The Book)

David Rodale

13th November 2007, 08:23 PM

There's an infinite world that I've missed?

The first link hung; the other was to a CO2Science link page.

The Hansen et al 1988 model outputs have proved out without any adjustments. That indicates that the science - and programming - behind the model was sound. The real world has confirmed the model.

I'm no more using a crystal ball than I would be in predicting that the Sun will come up tomorrow or that winter will be cooler than summer.

The Hansen et al 1988 model is a specific model that I - amongst others - have specifically referred to. What I haven't heard specified - despite asking - is the other models that didn't get it right. I've heard that they existed, and that the Hansen model is cherry-picked from them as the lucky one, but further detail is hard to elicit.

As I recall, the Hansen et al 1988 model predictions have been particularly notorious since 1988. Were there 19 other models waiting in the wings that, by chance, weren't called on?

Contrarians (such as youself) are obsessed with models, not people that understand AGW, not even people that observe the world around them. you're stuck in the past, arguing about predictions after the event.

No CD, it is your side obsessed with climate models. You just proved it with resurrecting Hansen once again. GCM's are the Holy Writ of AGW.

Once again, ending in 2006 with the correct zero starting point:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aebdc0202c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8716)

But as your side always say, 10 years isn't long enough right? Unless of course it's Hansen's unimpressive carnival guess.

Where are the cloud feedbacks? Precipitation calculations? Solar? It was nothing but a best guess based on an already established decadal temperature trend, but you treat his scenarios like error bars, which of course he doesn't include. There's nothing impressive about it.

By the end of next year it will have been 20 years and your unwaivering loyalty to Hansen will look even more silly.

Here's a public link to MediaFire for the Alps study:
http://www.mediafire.com/?0tzt03uq4yn

Yes, CD, CO2Science archives studies. Believe it or not, they are scientists. Let's try again. Click on one of the links available in the list here:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp
I realize you don't want to see them, but they won't go away if you close your eyes.

Climate models, any model for that matter, must include all relevant factors for them to be considered skillful. Hindcasting is not "validation"; the models are parameterized, or tuned, to get the results they want. Here again, on clouds, just one missing from climate models:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf

If you want to believe in 5-8 years temperatures will rise excessively, fine. However, there is nothing truthful in that statement; it hasn't happened yet and your saying that has no basis in science. Climate models are not evidence.

Let's recap Met O's predictions:
2003- "new" climate model more accurate; temperatures to continue to rise:
Didn't happen.

January 2007- 2007 will be warmest year on record, eclipsing 1998.
Didn't happen.

August 2007- "new and improved" climate model; global warming will return with a vengeance by ~2012, starting in 2009.
That's what you're hanging your hat on, and Met O is counting on SC24. Good luck, because that's all you've got left. It must mean global warming has stopped. How can that be?

If Hansen's model was right, why all the fuss constantly improving on current models? It would have saved a lot of money and Met O could have saved themselves the embarrassment. What did Hansen's model predict for 2007?

mhaze

13th November 2007, 08:24 PM

It appears there are several:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...a/mwp/mwpp.jsp (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp)

Of course problems with Mann et al would shine brightly when tracking the threads at ClimateAudit, but are you interested in reading anything that contradicts the IPCC version (which BTW use the same flawed methodologies)?
It's a very nice Java application, but what evidence is it based on?

The map links world wide (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...a/mwp/mwpp.jsp) to peer reviewed studies which show the MWP, thus contradicting the claim of Mann that the MWP was only European in nature.

That means we don't have an "unusual and historically unprecedented warming". And that means AGW went byby...

Next.

mhaze

13th November 2007, 08:49 PM

The map links world wide (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/timemap/mwpmap.html) to peer reviewed studies which show the MWP, thus contradicting the claim of Mann that the MWP was only European in nature.

That means we don't have an "unusual and historically unprecedented warming". And that means AGW went byby...

Next.

Link fixed. (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/timemap/mwpmap.html) Must have java to run. So there was a MWP and the Hockey Stick is junk science to put the matter very politely.

What's left for AGW?
Models
sea level rise
sea ice
Polar Bears?

Pipirr

14th November 2007, 06:07 AM

With a MWP, AGW is worthless.

Why?

Locri

14th November 2007, 07:23 AM

Thanks for replying... I was wondering how many times it would take of posting it before someone responded.

Already we have a problem. What "natural climate variations?" The Earth's climate has, in the past, been considerably warmer than it is now; it's also been considerably colder, and both of those have happened in the very recent past, geologically speaking. In the deep past, it's been a great deal warmer, and a great deal cooler. Given that there were no people around at any of these times, it's fair to call all of that "natural."

Do you not believe that there are natural climate variations? Did they suddenly stop happening after humans started industrializing?

First, this ignores the hiatus around and after WWII, caused apparently by the injection of sulfates and other aerosols into the atmosphere in large quantities. These aerosols artificially suppressed the temperature for a period perhaps as long as thirty years, up until the 1970s when pollution laws began to be put into place to deal with them. As a result, the first twenty years of the second half of the 20th century represent a statistical anomaly that is being ignored by this statement.

He talks about that later, in check the section labeled (go figure) "Sulfates, Aerosols, and Dimming" You do realize that the intro was just a summary, right?

Second, CO2 is the largest individual contributor, but may not be as much as half of the problem. Other gases also have warming effects, and many artificial gases have been released that have strong warming effects, primarily chlorofluorocarbons. Methane is also a strong warming gas, and as the global population increases, and as the standard of living increases and more protein is consumed, more methane is produced for a variety of reasons. It is all of these together that are creating the problem, not CO2 alone.

Again, CO2 is not alone. It is merely the majority culprit. There are other things that will have their own effects, and they also will most likely need to be dealt with; CO2 is merely the highest nail, and therefore gets the hammer first.

You answered your own question, CO2 is the highest nail and the one that gets pointed at so much by the AGW side that it is the nail he focuses on.

But, regardless of that if you go through and read the whole paper he talks about the different gases and isn't stuck on just CO2... it's just the one that he focuses on the most.

Hmmm, a nit-pick; that's "climatic" disaster. "Climactic" refers to a climax, not a climate. Other than that, I don't see a problem, but I'd like a lot more specific statement of what precise feedbacks are involved here. There are feedbacks ranging from environmental, to climatic, to physical, that we know about- and doubtless yet more we do not. I think it is a vast oversimplification to limit the discussion essentially to a single specific feedback.

1. Yes, that is just a nit-pick... "Climatic" can also refer to a tipping point or peak, so he's probably just being clever and witty with a nice double-entendre.

2. I'm glad you picked up on the feedbacks thing. That's kind of one of the major points in his article (and I don't see where you get him limiting it to just a single specific feedback). We have a very poor understanding of feedbacks right now, yet the AGW side wants to say that there are far more positive feedbacks when it comes to CO2 then negative feedbacks which would make for a fundamentally unstable system. Yes, we don't know feedbacks very well, so why does the AGW side rely on them so much?

It is entirely possible that we are already seeing an effect on the salmon catch from this, and that's quite a lot of protein that might not be available to eat soon if that's correct. The effects extend a lot further than polar bears and glaciers, right into your local supermarket, if that's the case. I'd like to see a much more realistic evaluation of what we may be talking about, in terms of food people eat every day, rather than far away polar bears and glaciers. This strikes me as propaganda.

You have a bizarre idea of propaganda. Yes, the areas where it would be best for people to farm might change with the climate change *gasp* But assuming that things will always stay the same if we aren't pumping CO2 and other chemicals into the air is naive. Fish populations change, animal populations change, the world's climate will change, but it doesn't always have to be our fault. It seems like the AGW and environmentalists in general feel that way though.

Locri

14th November 2007, 07:35 AM

The LIA and MWP were first brought into the AGW debate to support the argument that "these things just happen, and they've happened before". The people that brought them up were not historians, they were people with vague memories of Frost Fairs and the Greenlanders getting frozen out - an old-fashioned view, but then many of them were old. World history is a lot more complicated than that.

So, why was it that the MWP and LIA were in the first IPCC report (and accepted)?

“We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the
available historical temperature data, the evidence points consistently to a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.” 1990 IPPC Report, page 362

If you look at the Mann et al reconstructions, and the other independent reconstructions, you'll see that the MWP and LIA are in there, just not with the prominence expected in the old-fashioned Eurocentric view. This immediately became not informative (as it is), but firm evidence of a scientific conspiracy. As it remains; Mann is one of the arch-demons of the anti-AGW case, along with Hansen and Al Gore. All the other scientists involved are simply minions.

Please show me a reconstruction that isn't discussed in the paper I referred to that verifies that... I personally feel I've read enough evidence on the Mann et al reconstructions that I don't take them seriously and all of the other evidence that supports the Mann reconstructions are either still unpublished (yet sited in the IPCC report... how's that?) or are closely linked to the Mann et al team. This is discussed in depth in the paper I referred to.

Locri

14th November 2007, 07:51 AM

You're referring to the IPCC report, not a paper. The purpose of IPCC reports is to collate the current science and present it in a comprehensible manner to the governments of the world. If some scientific language is removed to make the report more comprehensible, it's not surprising.

Sure, the scientific language might be reduced down, but the language that imbues the text with a scientist's sense of uncertainty? Really?

The paper you're quoting from has "Bias" in the title, and not in a scientific sense. Given that, are you going to take every interpretation in it as gospel?

No, but it lines up with a lot of the science I've read related to the Mann et al reconstructions (and "independant" verifications) as well as having quotes from the IPCC itself that are enough to make me concerned about what's going on there.

The MWP and LIA are there to be seen in the Mann et al reconstruction. Not what they were cracked-up to be in the Eurocentric view. Which was mainstream historical opinion before the reconstruction.

See my response to your other post about this.

Don't you think the scientific community at large would object if the group appointed by politicians and diplomats was biased? After all, the IPCC only collates scientific research, it doesn't perform it.

Scientists are objecting, that's the thing. But scientific groupthink and political inanities are muffling them because they don't agree with this mystical "consensus" we keep hearing about. I've already pointed out several peer-reviewed papers that cast down on global warming. Heck, some scientists have gotten fired just for having Non-AGW viewpoints... (as I've said before)

Mann headed-up the IPCC report? Did he dictate it?

No, but he made the focus of the second IPCC report his research on paleoclimatology. Regardless, it seems a bit odd that the person heading up the IPCC report is also someone with major research invested into it, from a political view. If you want a balanced evaluation, you don't choose someone who would be likely focus on their own efforts over other people's.

If you think that the IPCC is behind it all you're not seeing the big picture. AGW is not simply a matter of IPCC, Mann, Hansen, Al Gore. Knock them all down to your own satisfaction and the warming will continue. That's because the climate only responds to the accumulated CO2, not to human attitudes towards it.

I could be nasty and nit-pick that the climate obviously does not respond to only accumulated CO2, but that would be silly wouldn't it?

What I want to know is, after several of the links I've posted, do you still trust the IPCC? It's ok if you trust the science behind it... I'm ok with that. But do you trust the IPCC itself? You've already marked them as a political entity (which I believe has changed since the beginning of this thread) and political entities are often likely to have agendas, yes?

mhaze

14th November 2007, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by David Rodale http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3152070#post3152070)
With a MWP, AGW is worthless.

Why?

Hansen et al 1988. The presumption that we have "unprecedented man made warming" was arrived at by looking at the standard deviation of several decades of weather. Based on that, some of the current numbers were found outside of 3 standard deviations, and Hansen concluded that it had to be man made. (I am skirting the gross errors in his logic as they are not relevant to this point.)

With a MWP, the natural variation of climate must be estimated such to include that extent of warming (and cooling for the LIA).

Current temperature numbers do not fall outside the range of natural variability. All the news reports and sensational stories about "Historically unprecented blah blah blah" are patently false.

varwoche

14th November 2007, 09:03 AM

CO2science didn't perform the studies. It doesn't matter. Their interpretations of studies conducted by others has already been demonstrated in this thread to consist of shameless distortions.

Links to CO2Science has no place on a skeptical forum unless the purpose is to mislead.

If you read something at CO2Science (or any other propaganda site) that you think is meritorious, you should track down a reliable source to link to instead of foisting these bozos on readers.

mhaze

14th November 2007, 09:17 AM

varwoche

14th November 2007, 09:55 AM

Your link to "GW Evidence" (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/) in my humble opinion is nothing but shameless distortions. Their interpretations of studies conducted by others has already been demonstrated in this thread to consist of shameless distortions.

Links to http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/ - "GW Evidence" has no place on a skeptical forum unless the purpose is to mislead.

If you read something at http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/ (or any other propaganda site) that you think is meritorious, you should track down a reliable source to link to instead of foisting these bozos on readers. I've seen attempts at winning cheap debate points before but this takes the pathos cake and then some.

Unlike CO2Science, GWStudies does not interpret/editorialize. Not one article. Not one paragraph. Not one sentence. It's simply a list I've created emanating from these debates (with, in all cases, links to source materials, or as close to source as I can find).

True though, GWStudies only lists studies that support A/GW. If you wish to volunteer, I'll set it up so that you can post contrary studies to the site.

Schneibster

14th November 2007, 03:04 PM

This is the Mann hockey stick (Gore thinks it is Thompson, he is just confused).You're funny. I guess Lonnie Thompson and Ellen Mosely-Thompson are just figments of CNN's imagination (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/science.medicine/pro.lthompson.html). Interestingly, it appears they don't study tree rings. They study ice; specifically, glaciology and ice cores.

It's very important to you that there only be ONE hockey stick, isn't it? Unfortunately, there are two, from completely different data sources.

mhaze

14th November 2007, 03:27 PM

You're funny. I guess Lonnie Thompson and Ellen Mosely-Thompson are just figments of CNN's imagination (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/science.medicine/pro.lthompson.html). Interestingly, it appears they don't study tree rings. They study ice; specifically, glaciology and ice cores.

It's very important to you that there only be ONE hockey stick, isn't it? Unfortunately, there are two, from completely different data sources.

Thanks. It really is pretty funny, isn't it?

Too bad it isn't Thompson's graph we've got here.

Schneibster

14th November 2007, 04:03 PM

Do you not believe that there are natural climate variations? Did they suddenly stop happening after humans started industrializing?What? This is an inauspicious beginning. Did you actually read what I said? It doesn't appear so from this.

He talks about that later, in check the section labeled (go figure) "Sulfates, Aerosols, and Dimming" You do realize that the intro was just a summary, right?So? Because it's "just a summary" it doesn't have to be accurate?

You answered your own question, CO2 is the highest nail and the one that gets pointed at so much by the AGW side that it is the nail he focuses on.You totally ignore the point, which is it's a strawman argument. No one but deniers claims that AGW is "all CO2."

But, regardless of that if you go through and read the whole paper I see no reason to bother to read it all if the writer can't be bothered to be accurate at the beginning.

he talks about the different gases and isn't stuck on just CO2... it's just the one that he focuses on the most.You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either that's what AGW is claimed to be, or it's not. The fact that it's not makes it irrelevant what arguments get presented later. If the presentation of the antithesis is incorrect, then there's no point in going on; the whole thing is a strawman argument.

1. Yes, that is just a nit-pick... "Climatic" can also refer to a tipping point or peak, so he's probably just being clever and witty with a nice double-entendre.Ummm, he used "climactic" not "climatic," which was my point in the first place- and "climatic" doesn't refer to tipping points or peaks, it refers to climate, period. "Climactic" refers to a climax, AKA tipping point or peak; and it does NOT refer to climate.

2. I'm glad you picked up on the feedbacks thing. That's kind of one of the major points in his article (and I don't see where you get him limiting it to just a single specific feedback). Ummm, because that's what he said?

We have a very poor understanding of feedbacks right now, I disagree. We design and build systems with both positive and negative feedback in them to encourage desirable characteristics and discourage undesirable ones all the time. Feedback is an extremely well-understood phenomenon.

If you mean, we have a very poor understanding of what feedbacks operate in the climate system, I'd both have to disagree with that statement, since I can name five just off the top of my head, to wit:
tropospheric water vapor and temperature
continental position and ice ages
ice and albedo
GWG concentrations and temperature
ocean temperature and CO2 absorption capacity
and point out that we seem to have a good enough understanding to make a climate model in the 1980s that appears to have correctly predicted what's happening now, twenty years later, in terms of temperature.

yet the AGW side wants to say that there are far more positive feedbacks when it comes to CO2 then negative feedbacks which would make for a fundamentally unstable system. Name a negative CO2 feedback. Now name a chlorofluorocarbon negative feedback. Now name a negative methane feedback.

As far as whether climate is a fundamentally unstable system, it would appear so. Have you noticed we're in an ice age, and the climate has been fluctuating back and forth between glaciations and interglacials for the last several million years? Looks pretty unstable to me.

Yes, we don't know feedbacks very well, so why does the AGW side rely on them so much?Ummm, because that's how the atmosphere works?

You have a bizarre idea of propaganda. I know it when I smell it. Strawman arguments are usually a good starting indication.

Yes, the areas where it would be best for people to farm might change with the climate change *gasp* Have you looked at the geology of the areas it's likely to change to? Could be a bit of a problem if the good growing place with regard to climate turns out not to have enough dirt, don't you think? It's a little hard to farm without dirt, in case you hadn't noticed.

But assuming that things will always stay the same if we aren't pumping CO2 and other chemicals into the air is naive. Strawman: no one claims they will.

Fish populations change, animal populations change, the world's climate will change, but it doesn't always have to be our fault. Strawman: no one claims it always is.

It seems like the AGW and environmentalists in general feel that way though.It seems like you like strawman arguments, and like you don't know much about geology or farming, not to mention climate. It doesn't seem like you've asked many questions about what environmentalists think; you've assigned them a position. And that is a strawman argument. You might want to ask some questions instead of assuming you know the answers.

Overall, it's apparent you don't have a clear understanding of what's involved in the conversation, and you don't seem to really care whether a source you cite is accurate or not. It doesn't seem to be particularly important to you precisely what a position you oppose consists of; you don't really appear (and neither does the author of the paper you cite) to have a clear idea of what AGW means. It's therefore difficult for me to understand what you think you're opposed to, since you don't seem to understand it well yourself. I suggest both you and the individual who wrote the article you cited have a great deal more study to do before you start saying AGW is wrong, to wit, you need a much better understanding of what it actually consists of, rather than a mythology you've made up and assigned to it.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 04:08 PM

No CD, it is your side obsessed with climate models. You just proved it with resurrecting Hansen once again. GCM's are the Holy Writ of AGW.

Let's revisit what I was responding to from you :

What crystal ball are you using? More climate model soothsayer prophecies that need constant "updates" and "new and improved" predictions that can't be validated?

It was you who brought up models (unsurprisingly given your fixation on them).

The Hansen et al 1988 model predictions have not been updated, they remain what they were in 1988. They can be validated against the real world outcome.

Once again, ending in 2006 with the correct zero starting point:
<A href="http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8716" target=_blank>http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470aebdc0202c.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_201473b70067acd0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8716)

But as your side always say, 10 years isn't long enough right? Unless of course it's Hansen's unimpressive carnival guess.

Not a carnival guess, and pretty impressive. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ for details, including

"From 1984 to 2006, the trends in the two observational datasets are 0.24+/- 0.07 and 0.21 +/- 0.06 deg C/decade, where the error bars (2) are the derived from the linear fit. The 'true' error bars should be slightly larger given the uncertainty in the annual estimates themselves. For the model simulations, the trends are for Scenario A: 0.39+/-0.05 deg C/decade, Scenario B: 0.24+/- 0.06 deg C/decade and Scenario C: 0.24 +/- 0.05 deg C/decade."

Note that real world temperatures, as observed, have been increasing at about 0.2C per decade.

Where are the cloud feedbacks? Precipitation calculations? Solar? It was nothing but a best guess based on an already established decadal temperature trend, but you treat his scenarios like error bars, which of course he doesn't include. There's nothing impressive about it.

Models are based on the physical principles involved as we understand them, and they're pretty well-understood. From RealClimate :

"These experiments were started from a control run with 1959 conditions and used observed greenhouse gas forcings up until 1984, and projections subsequently (NB. Scenario A had a slightly larger 'observed' forcing change to account for a small uncertainty in the minor CFCs)."

How this equates to "an already established decadal warming trend" escapes me, since the world didn't warm up much (if at all) between 1959 1975.

Cloud feedbacks are included, in that the model predicts the pole-ward movement of rain bands. Precipitation calculations are not within the remit of the model, that's essentially about temperatures. Meteorologists can make such calculations given any projected climate.

What cloud feedbacks do you think haven't been included, and what are the observed cloud feedbacks in the meantime?

By the end of next year it will have been 20 years and your unwaivering loyalty to Hansen will look even more silly.

The model's hardly going to go wildly wrong over the next few months, given that it deals in annual averages and 2007 is within the trend. Twenty years of success and some people are still going on about its inherent inaccuracies.

I realize you don't want to see them, but they won't go away if you close your eyes.

What you think you realise is your own strange business. I loked at some last night and I'm not impressed. Lots of editorial, and not good editorial either.

Climate models, any model for that matter, must include all relevant factors for them to be considered skillful. Hindcasting is not "validation"; the models are parameterized, or tuned, to get the results they want. Here again, on clouds, just one missing from climate models:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf

If you want to believe in 5-8 years temperatures will rise excessively, fine. However, there is nothing truthful in that statement; it hasn't happened yet and your saying that has no basis in science. Climate models are not evidence.

Three to eight years. That dates back to mhaze quoting a magazine article in support of his cherished 60-80 year cycle. In it the chap with the cycle said "the next five to ten years will tell if the ice is coming back", or words to that effect. Since the article was dated 2005 and we had record Arctic sea-ice retreat this summer, there's just three to eight years left for mhaze's cycle.

I haven't predicted excessive warming, just continued warming. There'll be impressive warming come the next long El Nino, but that could be anytime.

Three to eight years will also see off the "cooling since 1998" claim, and the general "no current warming" claims.

Let's recap Met O's predictions:
2003- "new" climate model more accurate; temperatures to continue to rise:
Didn't happen.

2005 was warmer than 2003, so they did continue to rise. And they will continue to rise, mark my words. The science behind that prediction is very sound.

January 2007- 2007 will be warmest year on record, eclipsing 1998.
Didn't happen.

That was based on El Nino conditions early in the year, but that El Nino turned out to be exceptionally short-lived. Not exactly a damning indictment of the Met Office.

August 2007- "new and improved" climate model; global warming will return with a vengeance by ~2012, starting in 2009.
That's what you're hanging your hat on, and Met O is counting on SC24. Good luck, because that's all you've got left. It must mean global warming has stopped. How can that be?

You're hanging your hat on SC24. What crystal ball are you depending on?

The Met Office is hanging its hat on a climate model, with predictions extending well beyond 2012. After which SC24, according to Solar Cyclists, will be cooling things down. The next eight years should test that idea to destruction.

Do Solar Cyclists have models to predict the next ten years, given various sunspot scenarios? With modern computers they could run many more than three scenarios, after all. Do they have any figures? Heaven forfend they're waiting on events and will retroactively claim all the warming as down to SC24. That's what I expect from you over the next five years, but I'd be interested in any actual predictions you're hanging your hat on.

If Hansen's model was right, why all the fuss constantly improving on current models? It would have saved a lot of money and Met O could have saved themselves the embarrassment. What did Hansen's model predict for 2007?

Because the Hansen et al model can be improved upon. Sopwith Camels did the job in their day, but later on we built Spitfires. Computers have moved on quite considerably since 1988. I don't have a graph to present, but trust me on that. I was there back in 1988, after all, working in the IT field.

Climate models can't be expected to predict the temperature of any particular year. The Hansen et al 1988 model has it about right, though. I realise this is a lucky guess in your opinion, but it's a guess that's stayed lucky.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 04:23 PM

mhaze

14th November 2007, 04:26 PM

Three to eight years. That dates back to mhaze quoting a magazine article in support of his cherished 60-80 year cycle. In it the chap with the cycle said "the next five to ten years will tell if the ice is coming back", or words to that effect. Since the article was dated 2005 and we had record Arctic sea-ice retreat this summer, there's just three to eight years left for mhaze's cycle.

A sidetrack, but Dr. Chad Dick had an article published which we missed at the time of that discussion. Quite interesting stuff, going through the old mariner logs to figure this type of thing out.

I'll get the full article shortly.

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, C01001, doi:10.1029/2004JC002851, 2006

Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas
Dmitry V. Divine and Dr. Chad Dick

Abstract Historical ice observations in the Nordic Seas from April through August are used to construct time series of ice edge position anomalies spanning the period 1750–2002. While analysis showed that interannual variability remained almost constant throughout this period, evidence was found of oscillations in ice cover with periods of about 60 to 80 years and 20 to 30 years, superimposed on a continuous negative trend. The lower frequency oscillations are more prominent in the Greenland Sea, while higher frequency oscillations are dominant in the Barents. The analysis suggests that the recent well-documented retreat of ice cover can partly be attributed to a manifestation of the positive phase of the 60–80 year variability, associated with the warming of the subpolar North Atlantic and the Arctic. The continuous retreat of ice edge position observed since the second half of the 19th century may be a recovery after significant cooling in the study area that occurred as early as the second half of the 18th century.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 04:39 PM

It's very important to you that there only be ONE hockey stick, isn't it? Unfortunately, there are two, from completely different data sources.

Haven't you heard? All datasets have to be cleared by Mann, and the scientists involved know what will happen to them if they don't present the right goods, capisce? Mann's deputising for Hansen, who's still busy blow-torching pack-ice in the Arctic. Meanwhile Al Gore, the eminence grise, surfs the champagne-circuit. Not much chance of losing a toe or finger there

The same can't be said for the guys turning in unwelcome data. It's no coincidence that ice-scientists have fewer digits than the average trend-line suggests. But it seems they've learned the lesson.

There's a climate of fear in the climate field, and guess what? It works.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 05:02 PM

A sidetrack, but Dr. Chad Dick had an article published which we missed at the time of that discussion. Quite interesting stuff, going through the old mariner logs to figure this type of thing out.

I'll get the full article shortly.

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, C01001, doi:10.1029/2004JC002851, 2006

Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas
Dmitry V. Divine and Dr. Chad Dick

Abstract Historical ice observations in the Nordic Seas from April through August are used to construct time series of ice edge position anomalies spanning the period 1750–2002. While analysis showed that interannual variability remained almost constant throughout this period, evidence was found of oscillations in ice cover with periods of about 60 to 80 years and 20 to 30 years, superimposed on a continuous negative trend. The lower frequency oscillations are more prominent in the Greenland Sea, while higher frequency oscillations are dominant in the Barents. The analysis suggests that the recent well-documented retreat of ice cover can partly be attributed to a manifestation of the positive phase of the 60–80 year variability, associated with the warming of the subpolar North Atlantic and the Arctic. The continuous retreat of ice edge position observed since the second half of the 19th century may be a recovery after significant cooling in the study area that occurred as early as the second half of the 18th century.

Not much to hang your hat on, is it?

"Can partly be attributed", "may be a recovery", and only for the Nordic Seas. So we could be looking at a North Atlantic cycle, not an Arctic one. Regional cycles can involve redistributions of energy, whereas global cycles must involve variation in total energy.

I don't doubt that the paper's good. Error bars and caveats galore, as is only proper when you're extrapolating a lot of your data from whaler's logs. Dr Dick has been quoted as saying (in essence) that if the ice-retreat doesn't turn around in the next three to eight years something new is going on. The obvious candidate being AGW, don't you think? After all, what else is there?

Schneibster

14th November 2007, 05:05 PM

Thanks. It really is pretty funny, isn't it?

Too bad it isn't Thompson's graph we've got here.Too bad you're wrong (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/28/10536). Look at the hockey sticks (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/28/10536/F6)! My goodness, they're everywhere!

You really ought to bother to do some research (http://www.google.com/) before you say something stupid like this.

a_unique_person

14th November 2007, 05:10 PM

The map links world wide (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...a/mwp/mwpp.jsp) to peer reviewed studies which show the MWP, thus contradicting the claim of Mann that the MWP was only European in nature.

That means we don't have an "unusual and historically unprecedented warming". And that means AGW went byby...

Next.

Given their looseness with other studies they have provided as evidence before, I would find it very hard to trust their presention of evidence. For a start, they divide up the sites by their own criteria as supporting directly or indirectly their interpretation the studies. That is, the indirect data is just what they think it says.

AGW, as directly measured and observed, stands entirely on it's own, completely independently of proxy data from the past.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 05:21 PM

If you mean, we have a very poor understanding of what feedbacks operate in the climate system, I'd both have to disagree with that statement, since I can name five just off the top of my head, to wit:
tropospheric water vapor and temperature
continental position and ice ages
ice and albedo
GWG concentrations and temperature
ocean temperature and CO2 absorption capacity
and point out that we seem to have a good enough understanding to make a climate model in the 1980s that appears to have correctly predicted what's happening now, twenty years later, in terms of temperature.

Further to that, the negative feedbacks predicted twenty years ago have failed to materialise. Changes in cloud-cover and Lindzen's Iris being examples.

Have you looked at the geology of the areas it's likely to change to? Could be a bit of a problem if the good growing place with regard to climate turns out not to have enough dirt, don't you think? It's a little hard to farm without dirt, in case you hadn't noticed.

Further to that :), if the grain-belt moves polewards it becomes smaller. That's in the nature of living on a sphere.

When it comes to agriculture, Siberia's cheap but a fixer-upper. Which is not to say the Chinese won't do that - they have plenty of loess top-soil to take with them, after all.

Pipirr

14th November 2007, 05:34 PM

Hansen et al 1988. The presumption that we have "unprecedented man made warming" was arrived at by looking at the standard deviation of several decades of weather. Based on that, some of the current numbers were found outside of 3 standard deviations, and Hansen concluded that it had to be man made. (I am skirting the gross errors in his logic as they are not relevant to this point.)

With a MWP, the natural variation of climate must be estimated such to include that extent of warming (and cooling for the LIA).

Current temperature numbers do not fall outside the range of natural variability. All the news reports and sensational stories about "Historically unprecented blah blah blah" are patently false.

So... the MWP proves Hansen wrong, and therefore "AGW is worthless"?

There is rather more to the hypothesis than just Hansen 1988.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 05:35 PM

AGW, as directly measured and observed, stands entirely on it's own, completely independently of proxy data from the past.

Absolutely, and thus the very evident refuge-in-the-past sought by contrarians. "Give me a proxy or give me death" being the watchword. They even prefer sunspot numbers to direct observations of solar output. Reality has not been kind to the denialist cause over the last few decades.

Nor has it been kind to Australians, but I've already said my piece on that. It's up to you whether you heed it or not :).

mhaze

14th November 2007, 06:01 PM

With a MWP, the natural variation of climate must be estimated such to include that extent of warming (and cooling for the LIA).

Current temperature numbers do not fall outside the range of natural variability. All the news reports and sensational stories about "Historically unprecented blah blah blah" are patently false.
So... the MWP proves Hansen wrong, and therefore "AGW is worthless"?

There is rather more to the hypothesis than just Hansen 1988.

The last two comments I made don't refer strictly to Hansen 1988. They address a fundamental question that we seek a high quality, evidence based furthering of --
What is natural variability in climate?

mhaze

14th November 2007, 06:11 PM

Given their looseness with other studies they have provided as evidence before, I would find it very hard to trust their presention of evidence. For a start, they divide up the sites by their own criteria as supporting directly or indirectly their interpretation the studies. That is, the indirect data is just what they think it says.

You are welcome to spot check a few of the peer reviewed citations and see if there are problems. I have an almost identical concern with surRealClimate and always do this there. So we're good on that.

AGW, as directly measured and observed, stands entirely on it's own, completely independently of proxy data from the past.

AGW can be supported or completely refuted by the past.

Obviously.

a_unique_person

14th November 2007, 06:14 PM

The last two comments I made don't refer strictly to Hansen 1988. They address a fundamental question that we seek a high quality, evidence based furthering of -- What is natural variability in climate?

You say it like it's an act of god that we can't understand. We have science, and we can measure and understand. Natural is well researched.

a_unique_person

14th November 2007, 06:16 PM

AGW can be supported or completely refuted by the past.

Obviously.

I don't see how, considering for the vast majority of the past there was no anthropo.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 06:34 PM

Sure, the scientific language might be reduced down, but the language that imbues the text with a scientist's sense of uncertainty? Really?

As long as the sense of uncertainty remains, but given that's at the 10-% uncertainty level (90+% certainty) - and the uncertainty does remain in the actual papers the IPCC collates, which the more important governments have their own scientific staff to evaluate - I wonder just what you're asking for. The point of the IPCC reports is to act as an interface between the scientific world and the political one.

No, but it lines up with a lot of the science I've read related to the Mann et al reconstructions (and "independant" verifications) as well as having quotes from the IPCC itself that are enough to make me concerned about what's going on there.

Have you considered the possibility that the quotes have been presented misleadingly? Have you considered that the science you've read may not be science at all? There's a lot more pseudo-science than science out there, because the science can be stated simply and succintly.

Scientists are objecting, that's the thing. But scientific groupthink and political inanities are muffling them because they don't agree with this mystical "consensus" we keep hearing about.

Well, there's your flag properly nailed to a mast. The "mythical" scientific consensus.

Political inanities? Do you mean the Bush Minor White House, because I'm with you there, but it doesn't really support your case. All major governments have their own scientific advisors, and few governments want AGW to be real. Russia, Canada, perhaps Argentina, but all the instincts of government are against any such new complication.

Who's being muffled? You've read enough "science" to have a cock-eyed view of reality, and that's the stuff you claim is being muffled. It's not mainstream because it's bollocks. It used to be mainstream, but unfolding reality has demoted it. That doesn't keep them off Fox News or out of WSJ editorials, of course, but that's a subtle form of muffling known as "loss of cred".

Do you really think that the increasing global focus on AGW is down to inane politicians? Bush Minor beat Al Gore in the White House race, after all. Does that make his team inane? The IPCC was set up by politicians just as any committee is : hoping the apparent problem will go away before it reports. It's reported four times now, and there's no sign of it being wound up yet.

I've already pointed out several peer-reviewed papers that cast down on global warming. Heck, some scientists have gotten fired just for having Non-AGW viewpoints... (as I've said before)

Bollocks. Scientists have been fired for being crap scientists - have you considered that? If someone stands in an empty valley and claims it's still full of glacier, is that an anti-AGW stance?

No, but he made the focus of the second IPCC report his research on paleoclimatology.

No, he didn't. The second IPCC report wasn't focused on paleoclimatology. You may have been told it was, but I suggest you check your sources.

Regardless, it seems a bit odd that the person heading up the IPCC report is also someone with major research invested into it, from a political view. If you want a balanced evaluation, you don't choose someone who would be likely focus on their own efforts over other people's.

So you choose someone who has no expertise in any of the science involved. You seem particularly desperate to find something shady in the IPCC, but a liar such as Pat Michaels you squirm to excuse

I could be nasty and nit-pick that the climate obviously does not respond to only accumulated CO2, but that would be silly wouldn't it?

Nobody has ever claimed that's the case, but it's a popular strawman. There are those who claim climate doesn't respond at all to CO2 because CO2 responds to climate (the notorious 800-year lag refuge). You may have come across them in your reading.

What I want to know is, after several of the links I've posted, do you still trust the IPCC? It's ok if you trust the science behind it... I'm ok with that. But do you trust the IPCC itself?

I trust the science, and the IPCC's reporting of it. I don't trust the people you've linked to.

You've already marked them as a political entity (which I believe has changed since the beginning of this thread) ...

Do you mean the IPCC was not a political entity when the thread started, or that I've changed my position? I strongly suspect the latter, but if that's the case it's not so. I have long ploughed the furrow that explains the IPCC as a body set up by governments under the auspices of the UN to collate the current science of climate and report on it. Naturally politicians and diplomats made sure they had some control over it. What they don't have control over, of course, is climate change.

It's often claimed that there are "IPCC models" and "IPCC-funded research" and, generally, that "it all comes from the IPCC". Just another refuge from the real world - which, you may have noticed, has continued to get warmer since the IPCC was established.

... and political entities are often likely to have agendas, yes?

"Entity" is such a useful catch-all, isn't it?

The IPCC was created by politicians. What do you imagine their agenda was when they did so? Surely not to promote AGW. IMO, the intention was delay - "We have taken action. We've set up a committee" - in the hope that it would go away. It hasn't, of course.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 06:38 PM

... surRealClimate ...

A silly name! Damn, you're so cutting I wonder why anyone dares engage with you at all. Masochists, I guess.

Pipirr

14th November 2007, 06:49 PM

AGW can be supported or completely refuted by the past.

Obviously.

Isn't this more of the "If MWP true then AGW = worthless" kind of argument?

Break this down for me, if you wouldn't mind.

Would you say, for example, that if the temperature 800* years ago was higher than now, then AGW is refuted?

Or:

if the temperature 800 years ago (or the last x number of years) was lower than now, then AGW is plausible?

Or neither?

(*or whatever year you like)

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 06:52 PM

I don't see how, considering for the vast majority of the past there was no anthropo.

Some people seem to wish they lived in the past, before all this AGW unpleasantness cropped up.

The relevant period, obviously, is the last few decades since anthropo-CO2 came of age. No great surprises there for science, but much discomfort for contrarians.

Models, shady politics, conspiracy, the past, a soon-forgotten future (the next three to eight years, mark my words, will make no difference to contrarians, just to their arguments), anything but the real world unfolding around us.

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 07:11 PM

The last two comments I made don't refer strictly to Hansen 1988. They address a fundamental question that we seek a high quality, evidence based furthering of --What is natural variability in climate?

Assuming you mean global climate (that being the issue at hand), natural climate variabilty reflects variation in total energy-content of the fluids that coat our planet.

Energy being a conserved entity (such a useful word) that directly implies that the energy-budget at any particular time influences the climate. In present times the energy-budget is in surplus. Why? Not because income has increased since we only have one client - the Sun - and it hasn't been paying more. So it must be reduced outgoings.

What could cause that? Step forward : AGW. 380+ppmCO2 (let alone the rest of it, CFC's, methane, bromides and such). A third up on pre-industrial levels.

What have you got as an alternative cost-cutting exercise?

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 07:34 PM

You really ought to bother to do some research (http://www.google.com/) before you say something stupid like this.

"Ought to"? That's to impose your value-judgements :mad:.

mhaze doesn't care about showing himself up as an idiot. You and I would, but that's personal-values territory.

I'm not worried about you discouraging mhaze, because there we have the ideal Duracell Bunny; barring accident he'll be going for way more than three to eight years. It's the principle of the thing that bothers me. I really dislike the "ought" word without context.

Had you prefaced this with "If you don't want to appear an idiot ..." I'd have had no problem :).

Schneibster

14th November 2007, 08:22 PM

The last two comments I made don't refer strictly to Hansen 1988. They address a fundamental question that we seek a high quality, evidence based furthering of --
What is natural variability in climate?
I disagree with this, but on different grounds than other respondents. My grounds are, we have good reason to believe that "snowball Earth" (the Cryogenian Period- I don't think I need to be specific about what that implies) and periods during the Mesozoic that had temperatures tens of degrees hotter than now have both occurred, and since there were no people then, one can hardly refer to them as "unnatural."

The real question is, given the current output of the Sun, and the current state of Earth's orbit, and the current natural environment, and the current things humankind is doing to the atmosphere, is it reasonable to expect that what we are doing is creating hotter conditions? And the answer appears to be, "yes."

CapelDodger

14th November 2007, 09:06 PM

I disagree with this, but on different grounds than other respondents. My grounds are, we have good reason to believe that "snowball Earth" (the Cryogenian Period- I don't think I need to be specific about what that implies) and periods during the Mesozoic that had temperatures tens of degrees hotter than now have both occurred, and since there were no people then, one can hardly refer to them as "unnatural."

The real question is, given the current output of the Sun, and the current state of Earth's orbit, and the current natural environment, and the current things humankind is doing to the atmosphere, is it reasonable to expect that what we are doing is creating hotter conditions? And the answer appears to be, "yes."

It certainly doesn't appear to be anything else that's doing it, and given the coverage and interest these days "anything else" will very quickly become apparent. Hasn't happened yet, despite the warming of the last few decades. Looks like it just ain't there.

Pixel42

15th November 2007, 04:01 AM

Heck, some scientists have gotten fired just for having Non-AGW viewpoints... (as I've said before)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias. For my part, I agreed to look into any concrete claims. Given the fury evidenced by sceptical commentators, I was expecting a deluge [...]

The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.

If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden.

Schneibster

15th November 2007, 05:58 AM

But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim. No kidding. Having asked this question myself and gotten no more than he has, I would have to say that the goal is open, but nobody seems to be able to kick the ball in.

mhaze

15th November 2007, 07:02 AM

Isn't this more of the "If MWP true then AGW = worthless" kind of argument? Break this down for me, if you wouldn't mind. Would you say, for example, that if the temperature 800* years ago was higher than now, then AGW is refuted?

Or:
if the temperature 800 years ago (or the last x number of years) was lower than now, then AGW is plausible? Or neither?

(*or whatever year you like)

I already did that with the Hansen 1988 "al-gor-ithm", using the reverse of the "logic" used to prove present day "AGW". However, if I understand your views correctly you (as do I) view Hansen's theory that 3 standard deviations difference in a few years of temperature constitute a "smoking gun" of global warming to be ridiculously absurd.
You'd like a better proof than that, right?

It just so happens that the current discussion is over a successor to the (weak) Hansen AGW assertions. The Mann et al Hockey Stick. As Schneib has noted, there are several hockey sticks. As Steve Mc Intyre has proven, Mann's "al-gor-ithm" results in hockey sticks when random noise is put into it.

Gore has promoted the Mann Hockey Stick, in his $100,000 per visit lectures and in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. In the picture and the accompanying text he says (As I quoted, and as as Schneib then makes note of) that it was verified separately by ice core data. Gore seems to have goofed and the graph he is displaying is Mann. So, he's proved Mann is right by using Mann. But his intentions are good, he means to prove Mann by showing Thompson.

Given this amount of confusion, I think we need to start by examining the "method of proof of AGW" used by Mann with his hockey stick. That means going back to the graph and examining it a bit.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9183)

The chart labels to the right hand side look a bit odd (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335). What to do?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_14224473c5084a7159.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9220)

Is it wise to refute this graph that Gore presents?

Pipirr has asked for some rebuttal of AGW. Carefully looking at Gore's hockey stick chart shows it is cooling, not warming.

What to do?

Pipirr

15th November 2007, 07:03 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm
Andres Millan:
"Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere," he wrote.

"Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory".

Pipirr

15th November 2007, 07:15 AM

I already did that with the Hansen 1988 "al-gor-ithm", using the reverse of the "logic" used to prove present day "AGW". However, if I understand your views correctly you (as do I) view Hansen's theory that 3 standard deviations difference in a few years of temperature constitute a "smoking gun" of global warming to be ridiculously absurd.
You'd like a better proof than that, right?

Well, what I really want is to understand the argument that DR was making (and that you seem to support), that if the MWP existed, then AGW is disproved. I would like a simple explanation as to why that would be so. The Hansen-based explanation that you gave earlier wasn't obvious.

I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm not interested in defending AGW to the death. What I want is to get a grip on this argument. For one thing, I can't quite believe that it is being put forward with any seriousness. Do you really think that the presence or absence of a MWP would prove or disprove AGW?

I'll give you this though: if theere was a MWP, and the temperature level and rate of increase exceeded that of the last few decades, then AGW would lose a good soundbite.

But that's all, as there is so much more to AGW than good soundbites.

Locri

15th November 2007, 08:03 AM

What? This is an inauspicious beginning. Did you actually read what I said? It doesn't appear so from this.

Yes, I did read what you said. But if the MWP and LIA exists, it makes sense that we'd be warming up again. I would agree that there is possibly some additional warming due to manmade GHG, but not to the extent that many AGW people believe. You said:

Already we have a problem. What "natural climate variations?"

In a way that seems to imply that either there are no natural climate variations or they aren't important. I disagree. See the above for why.

So? Because it's "just a summary" it doesn't have to be accurate?

From what it says, it seems to be accurate... here are some things you got wrong:

It is all of these together that are creating the problem, not CO2 alone.

Whereas the paper says:

2.Almost all of the warming in the second half of the 20th century, perhaps a half a degree Celsius, is due to man-made greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2.

I bolded the important part. Now, please explain how this is saying that it's CO2 alone? You were wrong.

I think it is a vast oversimplification to limit the discussion essentially to a single specific feedback.

And yet, the paper says:
4. Positive feedbacks in the climate, like increased humidity, will act to triple the warming from CO2, leading to these higher forecasts and perhaps even a tipping point into climactic disaster

Hmm... feedbacks, with an 's' I'm pretty sure that's the plural of feedback meaning that there is more than one. You were wrong.

You totally ignore the point, which is it's a strawman argument. No one but deniers claims that AGW is "all CO2."

And yet he didn't. You are wrong again.

For the moment I have to go but I'll try to address your other issues later. I should point out though that if I were using the Schneibster method of reading things, you've been wrong several times just at the beginning of your post, so I guess I don't have to read anymore of it, right?

mhaze

15th November 2007, 08:12 AM

Well, what I really want is to understand the argument that DR was making (and that you seem to support), that if the MWP existed, then AGW is disproved. I would like a simple explanation as to why that would be so. The Hansen-based explanation that you gave earlier wasn't obvious.

I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm not interested in defending AGW to the death. What I want is to get a grip on this argument. For one thing, I can't quite believe that it is being put forward with any seriousness. Do you really think that the presence or absence of a MWP would prove or disprove AGW?

I'll give you this though: if theere was a MWP, and the temperature level and rate of increase exceeded that of the last few decades, then AGW would lose a good soundbite.

But that's all, as there is so much more to AGW than good soundbites.

More than good soundbites? Yes, there are in AGW all the parts of a good monsters in the closet story told to young children to frighten them before they go to bed.

To accurately answer your question, though, here goes. There was a MWP as warm or warmer than today.

Assume it is desirable to prove that AGW was strictly by human factors.
Assume you are on the scientific team that was asked to prove that.

How would you do it?

Locri

15th November 2007, 08:12 AM

I'll give you this though: if theere was a MWP, and the temperature level and rate of increase exceeded that of the last few decades, then AGW would lose a good soundbite.

But that's all, as there is so much more to AGW than good soundbites.

I would agree, the MWP alone does not make for an ultimate argument to end AGW. I think the most important part is that it gives us a good idea that very warm temperatures have happened in the past for reasons we can't currently explain and therefore might happen again.

Some people like CD would have us believe that the past climate isn't important to understand. Although I would agree that the modern situation is different, it is silly to ignore the past. If we had an extremely good understanding of what was causing climate changes in the past we could do a better job of figuring out where the climate would be without the influence of manmade GHG and therefore we'd be able to better see just how much warming is natural and how much is caused by us.

Locri

15th November 2007, 08:25 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

Hmm... interesting article... I'll have to read it a bit more in depth when I have the time.

A quick search popped up this very quickly though:

Associate State Climatologist Fired for Exposing Warming Myths (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21207)

And that was just 30 seconds of searching pretty much.

Pixel42

15th November 2007, 10:17 AM

Associate State Climatologist Fired for Exposing Warming Myths (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21207)
Having read the story, I'd say a more accurate headline for it would be "Scientist fired for deliberately disobeying his boss's instructions".

If there is anything to this story, why did no-one bring it to Black's attention?

Schneibster

15th November 2007, 10:32 AM

Yes, I did read what you said. Really?

But if the MWP and LIA exists, it makes sense that we'd be warming up again. First, that's a non-sequitur. I see no reason why it would "make sense" that we'd be warming up again, IF the MWP and LIA exist. It's like saying, "If I had some ham, then I could fly to the moon." Doesn't follow, you see?

Second, what does that have to do with the paper you asked me to review? Speaking of a script, what is that? Did we get to the part in the script where you say, "LIA and MWP?" Or did you just dream that up on your own?

Third and finally, what does that have to do with whether you read and understood what I said, and how does it constitute a response to it?

I would agree that there is possibly some additional warming due to manmade GHG, but not to the extent that many AGW people believe. Again, what is this? How is this a reply to anything I said? What does this have to do with the conversation we were having, specifically, regarding this paper you asked me to review, and now wish to argue what my opinion should be with me about?

Do you often find that people you are talking to become confused? Do you regularly notice that they become impatient or frustrated when you make certain statements? Do you make an attempt to ensure that what you say has some sort of connection to what came before, but find after you've said it that you can't remember what that connection was?

In a way that seems to imply that either there are no natural climate variations or they aren't important. I disagree. See the above for why.Taken out of context, I suppose it does. Of course, if you'd actually read what I said instead of trying to cherry-pick something to have a fight about, you'd realize that I said nothing of the kind, but as I said, it doesn't appear to be very important to you that you understand an opposing position; you're SURE they're wrong, so that's GOOD ENOUGH, right?

From what it says, it seems to be accurate... Then again, perhaps not so much. It is not, as I said, an accurate representation of the opposing argument, and since I have been writing in support of that argument for several years, you'll pardon me if I observe that your statement to the contrary carries little weight, particularly in view of the demonstrated facts that you don't take the time and trouble to understand opposing positions yourself, and seem to inject random pieces of propaganda into your speech at inappropriate times.

I bolded the important part. And as far as I can see understood it, and responded to it, no better than you did me.

Now, please explain how this is saying that it's CO2 alone? What does the word "particularly" mean to you? I said what I thought was fair, and I showed how what was said was not.

You were wrong.Then again, perhaps not so much. Particularly has a very specific meaning, and it's one you've chosen to ignore. And that's OK, but if you're going to ignore it, then you don't get to say this. Of course, there's a bit of a problem even if you DON'T ignore it, because you don't get to say it then either.

You don't get to cherry-pick the parts you like, ignore the ones that aren't so good, and say it's "all good." It's not all good. Sorry.

Hmm... feedbacks, with an 's' I'm pretty sure that's the plural of feedback meaning that there is more than one. You were wrong.Given I see no mention of any feedback but water vapor, again, perhaps not so much. If you disagree, please show me in that statement you quoted where there is mention of any other.

You really, really need to work on this reading comprehension problem you're having.

And yet he didn't. You are wrong again.Really? Why don't you show in that statement of the antithesis, in a supposedly unbiased paper, where any other was mentioned.

I don't see it. And I looked.

That means it's an unfair statement of the antithesis.

That means it's a strawman.

Now, how was I wrong, again?

For the moment I have to go but I'll try to address your other issues later. I should point out though that if I were using the Schneibster method of reading things, you've been wrong several times just at the beginning of your post, so I guess I don't have to read anymore of it, right?Let me try your way:

I think birds are pretty. So you're wrong about AGW.

That work for you?

Pipirr

15th November 2007, 10:46 AM

I would agree, the MWP alone does not make for an ultimate argument to end AGW. I think the most important part is that it gives us a good idea that very warm temperatures have happened in the past for reasons we can't currently explain and therefore might happen again.

Some people like CD would have us believe that the past climate isn't important to understand. Although I would agree that the modern situation is different, it is silly to ignore the past. If we had an extremely good understanding of what was causing climate changes in the past we could do a better job of figuring out where the climate would be without the influence of manmade GHG and therefore we'd be able to better see just how much warming is natural and how much is caused by us.

I wouldn't presume to speak for CD, but I think his point isn't that past climate is not important, just that it is not adequate to explain present warming / CO2 levels. Any argument along the lines of "yes, but it was warmer in the past!" is surely incomplete, because it ignores the fact that the situation right now is very different.

As I understand it, a lot of research has been done on studying past climate, and that data can be used, for example, to constrain the range of climate sensitivity. This post at RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/) gives an example of that in practice.

At what point our level of knowledge can be described as "an extremely good understanding" is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'm more and more impressed at the depth of research that has been done in the field of climate change, and think it is becoming increasingly unlikely the past holds AGW-refuting surprises.

mhaze

15th November 2007, 11:49 AM

Having read the story, I'd say a more accurate headline for it would be "Scientist fired for deliberately disobeying his boss's instructions".

If there is anything to this story, why did no-one bring it to Black's attention?

By your logic, Hansen should obey the instructions of Bush, his boss.

Got a problem with that?

Lucifuge Rofocale

15th November 2007, 12:19 PM

At what point our level of knowledge can be described as "an extremely good understanding" is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'm more and more impressed at the depth of research that has been done in the field of climate change, and think it is becoming increasingly unlikely the past holds AGW-refuting surprises.

Not so. Each blog entry in ClimateAudit disqualifies points and points of AGW'rs assertions. Data has been cherry picked to accommodate AGW agenda.

Lucifuge Rofocale

15th November 2007, 12:24 PM

By your logic, Hansen should obey the instructions of Bush, his boss.

Got a problem with that?

Some time ago I posted several stories about scientifics fired or threatened for expressing dissenting views about the AGW dogma. The resident warmers expressed the same arguments to discredit the prosecution.

Anyway, what a retorted logic do you need to reduce the incident to a simple boss/subordinate affair?

Pipirr

15th November 2007, 02:24 PM

Not so. Each blog entry in ClimateAudit disqualifies points and points of AGW'rs assertions. Data has been cherry picked to accommodate AGW agenda.

ClimateAudit does make for interesting reading, but I won't be taking those blog entries too seriously until they have gone through peer review.

As papers, in journals, obviously, not reviewed on the blog by blog commenters. You know what I mean. I just don't give the same weight to ClimateAudit as I do to the peer reviewed literature. Of which there remains an impressive amount.

Pixel42

15th November 2007, 02:31 PM

By your logic, Hansen should obey the instructions of Bush, his boss.

Got a problem with that?
I did not express an opinion as to whether the scientist in question should, or should not, have obeyed his boss. I merely pointed out that "Scientist fired for deliberately disobeying his boss" would have been a more accurate headline than "Scientist fired for exposing warming myths". Because despite the obvious bias of the article there is enough information in it to work out that that is what actually happened.

I still want to know why no sceptic offered this case to Black as an example of the bias they insist exists. It suggests to me that the interpretation of the incident given in the article would not actually stand up to examination.

mhaze

15th November 2007, 02:42 PM

I did not express an opinion as to whether the scientist in question should, or should not, have obeyed his boss. I merely pointed out that "Scientist fired for deliberately disobeying his boss" would have been a more accurate headline than "Scientist fired for exposing warming myths". Because despite the obvious bias of the article there is enough information in it to work out that that is what actually happened.

I still want to know why no sceptic offered this case to Black as an example of the bias they insist exists. It suggests to me that the interpretation of the incident given in the article would not actually stand up to examination.

I have no idea about the issue of why no sceptic offered this case to Black or not, I was just trying to show a similar case from the opposite point of view.

Or to put it in contemporary language:

"Whistleblowers". Good or bad?

Generally most people would say good, I would think.

Lucifuge Rofocale

15th November 2007, 03:15 PM

AFAICS they are reviewed by fellow statisticians. The process works this way:
They find some bad calculus or data, then send the result to the originator of the paper and wait for the response of the original person or institution. That was what happened when NASA had to correct their temperature ranking.

ClimateAudit does make for interesting reading, but I won't be taking those blog entries too seriously until they have gone through peer review.

As papers, in journals, obviously, not reviewed on the blog by blog commenters. You know what I mean. I just don't give the same weight to ClimateAudit as I do to the peer reviewed literature. Of which there remains an impressive amount.

mhaze

15th November 2007, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Pipirr http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3158373#post3158373)
ClimateAudit does make for interesting reading, but I won't be taking those blog entries too seriously until they have gone through peer review.

As papers, in journals, obviously, not reviewed on the blog by blog commenters. You know what I mean. I just don't give the same weight to ClimateAudit as I do to the peer reviewed literature. Of which there remains an impressive amount.

AFAICS they are reviewed by fellow statisticians. The process works this way:
They find some bad calculus or data, then send the result to the originator of the paper and wait for the response of the original person or institution. That was what happened when NASA had to correct their temperature ranking.

Interesting distinction.

Obviously there was no "published peer reviewed paper" when McIntyre found the NASA temperature errors. What would have been the point of it?

Let's say the divergence problem is noted in a critical tree ring series used in the Mann reconstruction (the "hockey stick"). Climateaudit on their own has updated the proxies by going into the field and taking tree ring cores, sending them to labs, using the same trees as in the Mann work.

McIntyre simply posts the results on his website along with all supporting documentation and evidence.

What is the point of a published, peer reviewed article in this case?

Pipirr

15th November 2007, 04:58 PM

Interesting distinction.

Obviously there was no "published peer reviewed paper" when McIntyre found the NASA temperature errors. What would have been the point of it?

Let's say the divergence problem is noted in a critical tree ring series used in the Mann reconstruction (the "hockey stick"). Climateaudit on their own has updated the proxies by going into the field and taking tree ring cores, sending them to labs, using the same trees as in the Mann work.

McIntyre simply posts the results on his website along with all supporting documentation and evidence.

What is the point of a published, peer reviewed article in this case?

They could publish a paper titled " An independent evaluation of tree ring proxies of historical CO2 levels in the Pacific north west".

Which then, having been published, would have to be considered by climatologists, climate modellers and even such institutions as the IPCC and may then lead to a re-assessment of hockey sticks.

Because right now, what McIntyre posts on his blog won't carry as much weight in the scientific community as getting things peer reviewed and published.

Seriously, is any of this really contentious? It seems bloody obvious to me. If ClimateAudit finds something that refutes AGW, publish it. Why confine the findings to a blog?

Pipirr

15th November 2007, 05:02 PM

Interesting distinction.

Obviously there was no "published peer reviewed paper" when McIntyre found the NASA temperature errors. What would have been the point of it?

Maybe not much point publishing a paper that only pointed out a calculation error in a temperature data set.

I suppose the distinction relates to the significance of the finding. If the NASA temperature errors were really key to some pillar of AGW, then one could take that key paper, run the new data through and publish a re-analysis.

In point of fact, there's nothing to stop anybody doing just that, if the NASA temperature error really is key to some aspect of AGW.

mhaze

15th November 2007, 09:38 PM

They could publish a paper titled " An independent evaluation of tree ring proxies of historical CO2 levels in the Pacific north west".

Which then, having been published, would have to be considered by climatologists, climate modellers and even such institutions as the IPCC and may then lead to a re-assessment of hockey sticks.

Because right now, what McIntyre posts on his blog won't carry as much weight in the scientific community as getting things peer reviewed and published.

Seriously, is any of this really contentious? It seems bloody obvious to me. If ClimateAudit finds something that refutes AGW, publish it. Why confine the findings to a blog?

Just to be sure we are on track on the same issue.

The "divergence problem" 1960 to present (approximately) with tree ring proxy?

Pipirr

16th November 2007, 04:57 AM

Locri

16th November 2007, 07:56 AM

Whatever. Make up your own title. The point being, if it is a significant finding, its publishable, and should be published if you want it to be taken seriously.

Why the aversion to peer review?

Blogging isn't going to replace it anytime soon.

Well, at the very least McIntyre has done some peer review papers in the past (relating to the Mann et al reconstruction) and his work was even doubly verified by two independent reviews and yet many still hang on to the Mann reconstruction.

I would agree that he should publish more papers, but it seems that even having peer reviewed papers specifically pointing out something as being wrong doesn't change peoples minds sometimes.

Locri

16th November 2007, 08:03 AM

*snip*

Right... so, I was going to reply to the rest of your post, but from your initial reply I can already tell you aren't actually interested in a reasoned discussion and apparently have trouble doing things as simple as reading a clearly written sentence. No sense wasting anymore time on that part of the thread.

mhaze

16th November 2007, 08:18 AM

Whatever. Make up your own title. The point being, if it is a significant finding, its publishable, and should be published if you want it to be taken seriously.

Why the aversion to peer review?

Blogging isn't going to replace it anytime soon.

I do not agree with you on this specific matter. That is, for this issue of the updating of the tree rings.

Presume that McIntyre publishes the results from the dendro lab on his website.

Presume that the results clearly indicate that the historical reconstruction of temperature using tree rings as a proxy are wrong.

The published, peer reviewed papers on the subject which asserted that use of tree rings was a way of finding historical temperature just shot into File 13.....

It does not get any simpler than that.

Schneibster

16th November 2007, 08:27 AM

Right... so, I was going to reply to the rest of your post, but from your initial reply I can already tell you aren't actually interested in a reasoned discussion and apparently have trouble doing things as simple as reading a clearly written sentence. No sense wasting anymore time on that part of the thread.I didn't see any point in the first place, but since you insisted on having it reviewed, I did. If you weren't going to like the review in the first place, why ask? You were perfectly capable of seeing what I saw, if you had thought critically. If you can't think critically, why post on a science forum on a skeptical web site?

Locri

16th November 2007, 08:42 AM

As long as the sense of uncertainty remains, but given that's at the 10-% uncertainty level (90+% certainty) - and the uncertainty does remain in the actual papers the IPCC collates, which the more important governments have their own scientific staff to evaluate - I wonder just what you're asking for. The point of the IPCC reports is to act as an interface between the scientific world and the political one.

I suggest going through and reading at least the first few pages of the paper I linked to. It talks about some of the policy decisions that were made in terms of how the IPCC reports on the scientific reports and this basically is breaking one of their own rules in how they report things.

Have you considered the possibility that the quotes have been presented misleadingly? Have you considered that the science you've read may not be science at all? There's a lot more pseudo-science than science out there, because the science can be stated simply and succintly.

Yes, I have considered that actually. From what I can tell, the story told by McIntyre and others is far more logical than doing things like citing unpublished papers in order to back up the Mann et al reconstruction.

Well, there's your flag properly nailed to a mast. The "mythical" scientific consensus.

*yawn* Right... see here: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966)

Who's being muffled? You've read enough "science" to have a cock-eyed view of reality, and that's the stuff you claim is being muffled. It's not mainstream because it's bollocks. It used to be mainstream, but unfolding reality has demoted it. That doesn't keep them off Fox News or out of WSJ editorials, of course, but that's a subtle form of muffling known as "loss of cred".

Have I EVER referenced Fox News or a WSJ editorial? No. I've cited peer-reviewed papers and documents from people that have been actively correcting mistakes made in the climate science field.

Nobody has ever claimed that's the case, but it's a popular strawman. There are those who claim climate doesn't respond at all to CO2 because CO2 responds to climate (the notorious 800-year lag refuge). You may have come across them in your reading.

You missed the point of that comment completely... it was a joke because you said (probably off the cuff):

That's because the climate only responds to the accumulated CO2, not to human attitudes towards it.

I was joking about nit-picking it because I know you didn't mean it like that... I guess jokes don't fly to well here.

Do you mean the IPCC was not a political entity when the thread started, or that I've changed my position? I strongly suspect the latter, but if that's the case it's not so. I have long ploughed the furrow that explains the IPCC as a body set up by governments under the auspices of the UN to collate the current science of climate and report on it. Naturally politicians and diplomats made sure they had some control over it. What they don't have control over, of course, is climate change.

Yes, I meant that you must have changed your position. I seem to recall you arguing that IPCC was a scientific organization and therefore we could trust it. I can't recall the exact post and I hope you'll forgive me if I don't dig through 3000 posts to find the right one. But we agree that the IPCC is a political organization then (regardless of the correctness of what they report)?

Just another refuge from the real world - which, you may have noticed, has continued to get warmer since the IPCC was established.

And you keep on going back to this red herring, I am not arguing that it's not gotten warmer. That's a pointless statement that has no relevance to what I was saying.