Global warming

[Schneibster]

Thanks for that. As you might expect, the Torygraph and I have been estranged since I left home :).This was good for a laugh; most people on this side of The Pond would need it explained to them, I'm fortunate enough to have at least some dim understanding of politics in Britain.

And I'm reminded why ...

I lived in Kent for two years before I escaped to University. It was traumatic.

New Labour "Thought Police". That's the unpleasant flavour I recall from those days. Ugh.Interesting. They're running the same games in rural and semi-rural areas over there as they are over here. I wonder if all rural areas are rife with conservatives of one stripe or another...

[mhaze]

You say you've "read both sides", but there is only one side. Michaels presented a graph showing only Scenario A (high emissions) against the outcome and did not present the other scenarios. Deliberate deception. Otherwise he'd have presented all scenarios - but he didn't. No blah-blah-blah. Nada.

No confusion. Michaels presented the Hansen et al graph with Scenarios B and C erased. It's a matter of public record. He made no mention of emission scenarios at all, just "this is Hansen's projection which is radically different from the outcome". A lie. Intentional and prepared in advance .

What's the "other side" of that? There isn't one, is there? You just made that up.

Pat Michaels is a liar. Live with it.

Well, it won't bother me for you to show that he's a liar at all. But no, I'm not making this up.

Since AUP was notably silent on the actual Congressional testimony, I've gone and pulled it. I don't see any support for your or AUP's position. Please check it and see if perhaps I've missed something.

Patrick Michael's Congressional Testimony, July 29, 1998 http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html

Graphs included with testimony.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998-2.html

Note that Hansen's graph used by Michaels is clearly labeled "Scenario A".

Remember that the Michael's testimony was in 1998, and was referring to Hansen's testimony given in 1988.

Would you like the 1988 Hansen testimony as well?

Again, it wouldn't bother me at all for you to show him to be a liar, but I just do not seem to see it. I see where he is someone a lot of AGW people would like to discredit any way possible, no doubt about that.

[Megalodon]

Well, it won't bother me for you to show that he's a liar at all. But no, I'm not making this up.

Since AUP was notably silent on the actual Congressional testimony, I've gone and pulled it. I don't see any support for your or AUP's position. Please check it and see if perhaps I've missed something.


From your link (bold mine):

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted.Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The inclusion of the words "Scenario A" are of no relevance, since there is no mention of other scenarios or intervals of confidence.

It was a lie by omission. He wanted to make his case appear stronger, and he was dishonest...

[Schneibster]

And by the way, here is Hansen 1988 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html) for your reading pleasure. Note please that THREE scenarios are presented.

Note also the following text from the paper:
"These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (~1.5%/yr) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~4%/yr). Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined; it represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and other trace gas emissions to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e. the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000. Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases. " [I took the liberty of changing the exponential form of per year, yr^-1, to the fractional form, /yr, for clarity and ease of typing. Text is from the second paragraph on page 9345.]

If the Congressional testimony is available on line, I'm sure someone will link or reproduce it here; but considering what Hansen said in the paper, is it really plausible that he'd say something different in front of Congress? And then there's the matter of Michaels' graph only referring to Scenario A, which is pretty conclusive in the light of the paper linked above. I don't believe I'd give the time of day to anything Michaels had to say.

[CapelDodger]

Well, it won't bother me for you to show that he's a liar at all. But no, I'm not making this up.

You're making up the "other side" of the "Michaels is a liar" case that you claim to have read. I'm not surprised that the Cato Institute reproduces his testimony without a mendacity-warning, but where do they argue that he isn't a liar, based on that testimony? They'd have to bring up Scenario B if they did that, and that's really not in their interests. What's in their interests is mendacious weaseling that provides comfort for those who seek it. Michaels testimony serves that purpose admirably. Lots of people still think that the Hansen et al 1988 model was badly wrong about climate change in the 90's. Which it wasn't.

Since AUP was notably silent on the actual Congressional testimony, I've gone and pulled it. I don't see any support for your or AUP's position. Please check it and see if perhaps I've missed something.

What's missing is Scenarios B and C. An absence is easy to miss, I suppose, and difficult to see.

Michaels must have known about the other scenarios, and that Scenario B was the best match to the actual emissions and the temperature record. Yet he said what Megalodon has bolded for you. That the model made one prediction which was wildly inaccurate. A deliberate, considered, and indefensible lie.

[CapelDodger]

If the Congressional testimony is available on line, I'm sure someone will link or reproduce it here; but considering what Hansen said in the paper, is it really plausible that he'd say something different in front of Congress?

Is it plausible, if he had, that he wouldn't have been caught out like Michaels has been? Hansen is under constant observation by the denialist camp gagging to use something like that against him - just as we're happy to use Michaels's behaviour against him and his ilk, such as the Cato Institute - but I don't see it.

And then there's the matter of Michaels' graph only referring to Scenario A, which is pretty conclusive in the light of the paper linked above. I don't believe I'd give the time of day to anything Michaels had to say.

Michaels is certainly partisan and untrustworthy. I wouldn't use him as a reference. Whatever he says I'll assume he's lying and look to his sources for the facts. After all, he obviously doesn't care if he's caught out lying - as he obviously would be - as long as his target audience doesn't get to hear about it. Or if it does, hears about it at third- and fourth-hand as a vile calumny pushed by AGW Believers who hate honest scientists :mad:.

Which Michaels isn't, by the way. Not an honest scientist, I mean. He's a lying weasel.

[CapelDodger]

It was a lie by omission. He wanted to make his case appear stronger, and he was dishonest...

The so-far unspoken question is why did he want to make this case, in the guise of a scientist but in the manner of a lawyer?

(Hansen is regularly accused of manipulation, mendacity and idelogical motivations by people who call on Michaels in evidence. It must seem truly weird to anyone without a good grasp of human nature :).)

What are his motivations?

Attention-seeking? I wouldn't rule out a fair chunk of that. He'd be Joe Schmuck, BSc if he wasn't a contrarian pin-up.

Ideology? I don't think it's a coincidence that mhaze links to his testimony via the Cato Institute.

Financial reward? Nothing so crude as a cash-filled envelope but I'm sure he's doing better than Joe Schmuck.

Sexual favours? Hopefully we won't sink to such levels. It's not as if we're Republicans. We're better than that. M'kay? :)

[mhaze]

From your link (bold mine):

The inclusion of the words "Scenario A" are of no relevance, since there is no mention of other scenarios or intervals of confidence.

It was a lie by omission. He wanted to make his case appear stronger, and he was dishonest...

Looking into it, I find that Congressional Record online only goes back to 1994, and we would be looking for 8-11-88 records for Hansen's talk. That may be in the library here. Anyway, we don't have Hansen's testimony.

But here is where I have a question mark.

Assume that Hansen went in and gave his talk saying "Here is what I believe". Michaels later does his thing with scenario A only.

That is a misrepresentation of Hansen.

Alternately, assume Hansen went in 1988 and discussed three possible future scenarios based on emissions going up, down, or staying about the same. (EG the "business as usual" issue). His chart has those three projections. If these are model projections, there is no "here is my opinion, here is what I believe". There are just model projections.

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

That's where I have a little question mark.

Which of the two above scenarios occurred?

[CapelDodger]

This was good for a laugh; most people on this side of The Pond would need it explained to them, I'm fortunate enough to have at least some dim understanding of politics in Britain.

Much brighter than dim, I'm sure.

In theory the Tory word should have negative connotations on your side, since that's what the Loyalists were called back in the founding days. In practice ... porbably not so much.

Interesting. They're running the same games in rural and semi-rural areas over there as they are over here. I wonder if all rural areas are rife with conservatives of one stripe or another...

It's a definite thing in my experience (which is essentially of rural Brittany and Britain) for various reasons. In areas where farming is still the major feature it's the natural conservatism of a peasant society; in the Home Counties (around London) it's the natural conservatism of rich people.

In cities people can have a lot of control over their environment, which makes social experiment relatively safe. In the country, which is subject to the vagaries of weather and demand, stability is the object of desire.

That's how I've seen it, anyway, and I'm not the first :).

[CapelDodger]

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

That can be discussed? :confused:


What's the point of discussing scenarios that didn't match the actual emissions?

Obviously, if you want to deceive - as Michaels clearly did when he testified - you'll only discuss one scenario, and that one that didn't match reality. But otherwise why discuss the might-have-beens that weren't?

That's where I have a little question mark.

Which of the two above scenarios occurred?

I have three little question marks.

:confused:

Congressional records may only of limited availability online, but the denialist camp has the resources to get to the Library of Congress to check on Hansen's testimony. Heck, they were there at the time - the anti-AGW campaign is hardly new - and hanging on every word.

If Hansen had only presented Scenario A to Congress when the paper Schneibster linked to mentioned three with Scenario A being the most extreme the denialist camp would have been on it like a cheap suit. "Alarmism!" they'd have screamed.

But they didn't. Otherwise you'd have heard about it. You've heard about Beck's vapourings, after all, and Hansen being alarmist in 1988 would ring far, far louder than that. You'd have heard it, I'd have heard it, everybody would have heard it. Hansen's testimony would be available via the Cato Institute, with much associated commentary.

You haven't seen that, have you? Kinda suggests it's not there, doncha think?

[a_unique_person]

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

That's where I have a little question mark.

Which of the two above scenarios occurred?

No, Hansen offered, as Trenberth has since restated, that half the problem with making climate projections based on anthropogenic causes is that you can't predict too well what we will do. Hence, the three scenarios, A, B, C, which depend on our behaviour. B was the most likely one, according to Hansen, we'd just do exactly what we always did.

[Megalodon]

Alternately, assume Hansen went in 1988 and discussed three possible future scenarios based on emissions going up, down, or staying about the same. (EG the "business as usual" issue). His chart has those three projections. If these are model projections, there is no "here is my opinion, here is what I believe". There are just model projections.

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

Now you are really bending over backwards...

If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying... No excuses are pertinent since, AFAIR, the semblance of the inputs was also not discussed. This is no suprise, since it would actually call attention to the fact that other projections were made...

[mhaze]

Now you are really bending over backwards...

If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying... No excuses are pertinent since, AFAIR, the semblance of the inputs was also not discussed. This is no suprise, since it would actually call attention to the fact that other projections were made...

Okay, I must be missing something so tell me where this is wrong.

Scientist X produces model that based on inputs Ain, Bin, Cin gives outputs Aout, Bout, Cout for several decades of temperature. Input in question is emissions, output is temperature.

Scientist X talks about model to Congress.

Ten years later Scientist Y also talks about the model to Congress.

Emissions were similar to Ain, so he only uses A. Output was similar to B. Scientist Y says model did poorly.

Scientist X says model did great, although input was Ain and output was Bout.

I need some help with this....

Otherwise, I conclude that perhaps we have some opinionated and abrasive personalities here who got into a spat and didn't reconcile their differences. But I'm not interested in social relations, just model data in and out.

[mhaze]

No, Hansen offered, as Trenberth has since restated, that half the problem with making climate projections based on anthropogenic causes is that you can't predict too well what we will do. Hence, the three scenarios, A, B, C, which depend on our behaviour. B was the most likely one, according to Hansen, we'd just do exactly what we always did.

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

[Megalodon]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

Now your just making things up (well, technically, "now" is innacurate, but well...).

From Hansen's paper:

Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.

Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases

The fact that all of the plates in the paper are from the scenario B only strengthens the point.

[varwoche]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow. Megalodon beat me to it.

This is what happens when you rely on propagandists like Junkscience, Heartland, and CO2 Science whom you are so fond of. You wind up propagating lies.

Your inability to admit to Michaels' deception speaks volumes.

[mhaze]

Now your just making things up (well, technically, "now" is innacurate, but well...).

From Hansen's paper:

The fact that all of the plates in the paper are from the scenario B only strengthens the point.

:confused:what "paper" is this?

[CapelDodger]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

That's not true, and even if it were it would make no difference to the what had actually happened by the time Michaels got up on his back legs before Congress and deliberately lied about what the Hansen model predicted.

It's actually immaterial what emission scenario Hansen thought most likely before the event. As it happened he gave it as his opinion that Scenario B - the middle scenario - was the most likely, and so it turned out.

Michaels presented Scenario A as the prediction after the event, when in fact Scenario B (not mentioned by Michaels) better fitted those events - and, of course, far better fitted the climate record of the 90's. He knew what he was doing. He was lying.

What's more, he knew it was blatant. What he presumably calculated is that his target audience - of which you're a member - wouldn't spot it, and would only hear about it at second-hand as "mud" being thrown by AGW Believers.

In evidence for this presumption I can call on your recent posts on the matter. And you're actually one of those who gets out from ClimateAudit (and associated clubhouses) occasionally. Most of Michaels et al's audience don't get out at all. They've seen his testimony, believe it, and tell their friends. Which is what Michaels wanted.

A lie gets around the world before the truth can get its boots on - Mark Twain.

[CapelDodger]

Now you are really bending over backwards...

If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying... No excuses are pertinent since, AFAIR, the semblance of the inputs was also not discussed. This is no suprise, since it would actually call attention to the fact that other projections were made...

One of which, of course, better fitted the outcome both in terms of emissions and climate.

I'll use your response to mhaze's post to reiterate mine. No need to respond :).

In terms of scenarios Michaels was giving testimony after the event. He knew Scenario A was immaterial. If we could rewind and run the big bad analogue model with recent Asian growth hurried up by a decade or so, Scenario A would quite possibly be relevant. As it is, not so much. Like so many projected Cold War scenarios its in the bin.

In my response I also drew attention to mhaze's "only one scenario can be discussed". Obviously, after the event only one scenario is worth discussing. But that "can be" hints at the Inquisition and the frisson associated with heresy. It's a flavour that runs all through the contrarian camp. Their view is not the mainstream view, but is correct, therefore their message is being suppressed.

mhaze probably doesn't even realise he's doing it.

[CapelDodger]

:confused:what "paper" is this?

The one Schneibster linked to a page or so back.

[mhaze]

The one Schneibster linked to a page or so back.

Oh. I must have missed it, but you should be referring then to Hansen 1988, where he says in conclusion.
"Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability. The single best place to search for the greenhouse effect appears to be the global mean surface air temperature. If it rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is about 0.4C for 99% confidence (3 sigma) it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship, i.e., a "smoking gun", in current vernacular."
I guess we could use this paper as the basis for figuring out if "Michaels lied". I'd rather have the congressional testimony, but this apparently has to do.

Was there a "smoking gun"?

Clearly if so, Michaels had no business coming down harshly on Hansen.

[CapelDodger]

Oh. I must have missed it, but you should be referring then to Hansen 1988, where he says in conclusion."Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability. The single best place to search for the greenhouse effect appears to be the global mean surface air temperature. If it rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is about 0.4C for 99% confidence (3 sigma) it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship, i.e., a "smoking gun", in current vernacular."
I guess we could use this paper as the basis for figuring out if "Michaels lied". I'd rather have the congressional testimony, but this apparently has to do.

You already have the testimony, you linked to it via the Cato Institute, remember? Michaels lied.

Was there a "smoking gun"?

Clearly if so, Michaels had no business coming down harshly on Hansen.

Michaels lied, but that's the business he's in. He claimed that the Hansen et al model predicted a 0.4C temperature rise during the 90's - which it didn't.

Do you see how that works? That knowingly saying something that isn't true it makes someone a liar? That someone being, in this case, Pat Michaels. Why you find this so difficult to grasp is beyond me. But I can't help thinkng you're going to try to explain.

Given your previous claim that you don't really care if Michaels is a liar or not, your desperate wriggling is truly weird. Perhaps you'd be better served by dropping the subject - no acknowledgement of Michaels's mendacity required - and turning to what you make of the quote from Hansen that you posted.

[mhaze]

You already have the testimony, you linked to it via the Cato Institute, remember? Michaels lied.

No, I have the Michaels 1998 testimony and wanted to compare it with the Hansen 1988 testimony. The latter isn't online, our Cong. Record online only goes back to 1994.


Michaels lied, but that's the business he's in. He claimed that the Hansen et al model predicted a 0.4C temperature rise during the 90's - which it didn't....... Perhaps you'd be better served by dropping the subject - no acknowledgement of Michaels's mendacity required - and turning to what you make of the quote from Hansen that you posted.

You say that Michaels claimed that the Hansen model predicted a 0.4C rise during the 1990s and therefore he lied.

What does Hansen 1988 say?
The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2C for doubled CO2....climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2C, say 1.5-2C, in order to modify our conclusions significantly.

.... The model predicts, however, that within the next several years the global temperature will reach and maintain a 3 sigma level of global warming, which is obviously significant. Although this conclusion depends upon certain assumptions, such as the climate sensitivity of the model and the absence of large volcanic eruptions....it is robust for a very broad range of assumptions about CO2 and trace gas trends..
Hansen et al 1988....

[Schneibster]

Emissions were similar to Ain, so he only uses A. Output was similar to B. Scientist Y says model did poorly.

Scientist X says model did great, although input was Ain and output was Bout.You have not produced any documentation that says that the input was like Scenario A, nor has Michaels; in fact, the input is like Scenario B. If you feel there is proof that CO2 production was like scenario A, please provide some documentation of this assertion.

I need some help with this....I can see that. You are confusing hypotheticals with facts.

Otherwise, I conclude that perhaps we have some opinionated and abrasive personalities here who got into a spat and didn't reconcile their differences. But I'm not interested in social relations, just model data in and out.No, you're not, because if you were, you wouldn't have asserted, against all the facts and without substantiating information, that the input was like Scenario A.

[Schneibster]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.And by the way, here is Hansen 1988 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html) for your reading pleasure. Note please that THREE scenarios are presented.

Note also the following text from the paper:
"These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (~1.5%/yr) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~4%/yr). Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined; it represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and other trace gas emissions to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e. the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000. Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases. " [I took the liberty of changing the exponential form of per year, yr^-1, to the fractional form, /yr, for clarity and ease of typing. Text is from the second paragraph on page 9345.]I added bolding this time because you seem to have missed the crucial statement the first time.

[mhaze]

Repeating my post with bolding already in place for you to add these to your selected - quotes from Hansen 1988.

What does Hansen 1988 say?The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2C for doubled CO2....climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2C, say 1.5-2C, in order to modify our conclusions significantly.

.... The model predicts, however, that within the next several years the global temperature will reach and maintain a 3 sigma level of global warming, which is obviously significant. Although this conclusion depends upon certain assumptions, such as the climate sensitivity of the model and the absence of large volcanic eruptions....it is robust for a very broad range of assumptions about CO2 and trace gas trends..
It is difficult to reconcile your quote and mine without reaching th conclusion that the paper is a rambling and poorly conceived group of alarmist commentary with a base of a scientific model buried somewhere within.

Did Hansen get the 3 sigma level of global warming for 1988-1998? If so, his model worked. If not, well, it did not work as he said it would in this paper. He's got a little wiggle room with his paragraphs about the Three Scenarios but destroys that with his sweeping forecasts of doom doesn't he?

This still doesn't answer the question about Michaels Lying. Do you happen to be able to show if the paper in question, Hansen 1988, was attached to and submitted with the Congressional testimony, or does it just happen to be a paper they produced in the same year?

[Schneibster]

You said, "Hansen said A is most likely." I produced a quote where Hansen says, "B is most likely." The level of certainty is immaterial; and your quote doesn't mention the three scenarios, nor differentiate them, and as such is immaterial to the conversation.

[CapelDodger]

No, I have the Michaels 1998 testimony and wanted to compare it with the Hansen 1988 testimony. The latter isn't online, our Cong. Record online only goes back to 1994.

Michaels damns himself by his own testimony. Hansen's testimony ten years previously has nothing to do with it. Your refusal to look at Michaels's testimony until you're shown something else is simply weird.

You say that Michaels claimed that the Hansen model predicted a 0.4C rise during the 1990s and therefore he lied.

It did, for Scenarrio A, which was not the scenario that had transpired.


What does Hansen 1988 say?

What does it matter what Hansen said in 1988 when it comes to Michaels lying ten years later? Scenarion A had not occurred in the meantime - that had occurred was much more similar to Scenario B - and Michaels implicitly claimed that it had by presenting the Scenario A prediction as the only prediction. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
You do realise that things happened between 1988 and 1998? They may both seem ancient history to you, but there's still a decade's difference during which things happened. Posited scenarios fell by the wayside - including Scenario A. Which prediction did Michaels present to Congress as the prediction? The Scenario A prediction. Lying scumbag that he is, no better than the worst kind of lawyer.

[CapelDodger]

You said, "Hansen said A is most likely." I produced a quote where Hansen says, "B is most likely." The level of certainty is immaterial; and your quote doesn't mention the three scenarios, nor differentiate them, and as such is immaterial to the conversation.

mhaze is engaged in classic displacement. For all his protestations of disinterest in whether or not Michaels is the posturing sleazebag that he so clearly is, mhaze does care on a deep level. The mendacity of any particular denialist is of no great moment to such as us, who were never deceived. For mhaze, admitting Michaels's duplicity is to admit to being deceived. Once that's admitted to, whole structures of conviction start to tremble. Not an attractive proposition.

mhaze can't see Michaels's 1998 Congressional performance as the one-act play it was, sufficient unto itself. He has to search out a diversion, and if that involves the demand for irrefutable evidence that Hansen didn't drop his pants and moon Congress in 1988, so be it. After all, if it's not on YouTube anything could have happened.


Happily goring my own post for once - Peace Prize for Al Gore and the IPCC? Holy ******* ****** ******* ! It knocks the run-for-President scenario on the head - that small a role? Best left to a Clinton - but I was always very dubious about that anyway. Al Gore, secular saint (or anti-saint) and kingmaker, with (a very aged) Nelson Mandela's blessing ... Pair that with the practical power of the IPCC and global dominion is a serious - if ambitious - target.

Anyhoo, it looks like we chose the right horse way back, and for very good reasons. And, again, holy ********* :jaw-dropp .

[mhaze]

So Hansen didn't say Scenario A was the "business as usual" scenario in the hearings?

[Schneibster]

Which hearings?

[mhaze]

1988 Congressional speech by Hansen, the presentation that was later criticized by Michaels in 1998 again to Congress, leading to the Paul Krugman NYT article where the first accusations of Michaels lying were made.

[Schneibster]

Then produce the transcripts of the 1988 Congressional testimony (it wasn't a speech) to prove your point, or admit that there is no evidence to support your assertion. The phrase "business as usual" does not appear in Hansen (1988). At that time, Hansen was still stating that more information and better models needed to be obtained to give more certain results. That one of his three scenarios even approximated the truth is a testament to the effectiveness of the approach.

[mhaze]

I have no problem with Michaels being shown to be a liar or not being shown to be a liar. I have a big problem with spinning and distorting the output of computer models for political purposes and I'm sure you would share that sentiment.

The subject has drifted slightly to the discussion of Hansen et al 1988. Ultimately, I agree with you that the proof, disproof or confused middle ground is in the Hansen 1988 testimony, and it may be possible to get that.

One thing that disturbs me about the trend of this conversation. The rabid certainty of some posters coupled with their numerous factual errors, given the lack of key documents -

JREF Warmers:A Unique Person: Michaels was a liar, Hansen presented three scenarios, with the most likely a reasonable estimate of the actual temperature. Michaels tried the old 'airbrusing' technique to remove the other projections.

Megaloon:If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying...Now your just making things up (well, technically, "now" is innacurate, but well...)....The fact that all of the plates in the paper are from the scenario B only strengthens the point.

varwoche: Your inability to admit to Michaels' deception speaks volumes.

Capeldodger: He was lying.Michaels lied, but that's the business he's in. He claimed that the Hansen et al model predicted a 0.4C temperature rise during the 90's - which it didn't. Lots of people still think that the Hansen et al 1988 model was badly wrong about climate change in the 90's. Which it wasn't.

Schneibster: there's the matter of Michaels' graph only referring to Scenario A, which is pretty conclusive in the light of the paper linked above. I don't believe I'd give the time of day to anything Michaels had to say.
You've asserted that the burden of proof is on me to prove Michaels was not a liar. So far, the case that Hansen lied is very weak. But not all the facts are in yet. If Hansen et al 1988 was submitted in addition to the oral presentation, then your case is slightly stronger. Was it?

Warmers ask that people believe Michaels lied without any proof, and think that skeptics must prove it otherwise. That's pretty funny...

[Schneibster]

Just kinda forgot all about the proof above that all three trend lines were presented, didn't ya. I'm sure that was just a mistake on your part.

[mhaze]

Just kinda forgot all about the proof above that all three trend lines were presented, didn't ya. I'm sure that was just a mistake on your part.

No, not at all. It is the presence of the three trend lines in the 1988 paper that lends weak level of support to the assertion that Michaels lied.

Here is what I get as a summary of the "Michaels Lied" assertion, taking into account inputs from various people on this subject:
Hansen et al 1988 said "scenario B was the most plausible".
Hansen et al 1988 is exactly the same as the Congressional testimony. Hansen focused on Scenario B in his testimony.
Michaels rebutted Hansen's 1988 testimony using Scenario A only and referred to it as Hansen's "business as usual" scenario.
Ignore contractions, wild assumptions and unproven conclusions in Hansen et al 1988.
Ignore everything Michaels said because Michaels is a liar.
Believe everything Hansen said because Michaels is a known liar.Conclusions:

Michaels was a liar because he asserted Hansen pushed Scenario A as the "business as usual" scenario when actually Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B.

Also, Michaels was a liar because he was a known liar.

Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B so his predications were dead on.

Is that pretty accurate? If not, please offer your critique because I would like to reduce this issue down to the basic facts and get all the spin and hype out of the way.

[luddite]

I think if climate change deniers want to stand a hope in hell of convincing most people that GW is a hoax, they need to begin by demonstrating why there is a huge conspiracy to convince people that it's true, and why the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators have never been exposed.

Meanwhile the motivations of celebrated climate change deniers like Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz and Tim Ball are routinely uncovered.

[Schneibster]

No, not at all. It is the presence of the three trend lines in the 1988 paper that lends weak level of support to the assertion that Michaels lied.This goes to a pattern of behavior. It's not just Michaels. The reason that I'm so often combative and dismissive of your posts is because you participate in this pattern of behavior. Observing this pattern of behavior in (I'll be nice) AGW skeptics is a great deal of the reason that I have the attitude I do. It seems to me that "proving you're right" is more important than "finding out what's really going on." If it weren't, the rhetorical tricks and ad hominem arguments I always seem to encounter in AGW skeptic posts would be unnecessary. There's no other possible justification for them but deep knowledge that the facts simply don't support AGW skepticism. See my signature: unquestioning belief is proof not of faith, but of doubt. To put it another way, methinks thou doth protest too much.

Here is what I get as a summary of the "Michaels Lied" assertion, taking into account inputs from various people on this subject:I'll answer them as best I can; I'm going to avoid the "list" formatting because it's inconvenient to reply in format.
Hansen et al 1988 said "scenario B was the most plausible".Correct, demonstrated in the paper.
Hansen et al 1988 is exactly the same as the Congressional testimony. Hansen focused on Scenario B in his testimony.Hansen and others who have seen the text of the testimony assert he did; I have no personal knowledge of that, but no reason to disbelieve it. First of all, it is consistent with the contemporary paper. Second, it's a matter of public record, and no one but an idiot would lie about it when it's easy enough to prove. Third, if they had lied about it, the AGW skeptics could easily go to the Library of Congress and get the testimony, and we'd all hear about it forever. Instead we get more rhetoric and a further lie in Michaels' later writings on the 1998 testimony. I would say that the preponderance of evidence shows that in fact, that's precisely what Hansen did.
Michaels rebutted Hansen's 1988 testimony using Scenario A only and referred to it as Hansen's "business as usual" scenario.The record is clear; that's exactly what he did. It is also strongly indicative that the phrase "business as usual" in this connection does not appear in Hansen's stream of papers until years later. It was a current phrase in his writings in 1998, but doesn't appear in papers from 1988 as far as I have been able to tell. (The PDF of the paper from 1988 was not OCRed, so I can't do a text search on it; I may OCR it to settle my mind on the subject, if I can find my OCR software.)
Ignore contractions, wild assumptions and unproven conclusions in Hansen et al 1988.I saw no such, and I had to substantially read the 1988 paper in order to look for the phrase "business as usual." Facts, i.e. the output of the model, the inputs to the model, the justification of those inputs in terms of real-world measurements, and the operational details of the model, are clearly delimited from opinion, speculation, and even conclusions drawn; the grounds for such conclusions are carefully laid out, and the degree of certainty is established and is not inconsonant with the evidence presented. In other words, it's a peer-reviewed scientific paper; these are the features one expects to find in such a paper. Reviewers are on the lookout for unsupported conclusions and unidentified conjectures, opinions, and speculation. Papers that contain such are either corrected not to contain it to the satisfaction of all reviewers, or rejected for publication.

This strikes me as more rhetorical nonsense from you. You've been asked to provide evidence of such and have not done so to anyone's satisfaction; you've misquoted and left important details out when quoting. This isn't proof of Hansen's malfeasance; it's proof of your own. I would call it dishonest except that I'm not absolutely convinced you're aware you're doing it.

Ignore everything Michaels said because Michaels is a liar.In a court of law, this is called "impeaching testimony." And yes, the goal of an opposing attorney when showing that a witness cannot have told the truth on a key point in their testimony does have the effect of calling all their testimony into doubt. But it's not "because he's a liar;" that's an unquantifiable characterization. It's because he lied; that's a provable act.

Believe everything Hansen said because Michaels is a known liar.This is more rhetorical BS. No one here has said anything of the kind.

Conclusions:

Michaels was a liar because he asserted Hansen pushed Scenario A as the "business as usual" scenario when actually Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B. No, Michaels lied because he asserted that Hansen a) used the phrase "business as usual" and b) because he presented what he claimed was Hansen's graph, when in fact the graph he presented had important data removed from it. Whether he is a liar or not is a characterization; whether he lied or not is a provable matter of fact.

Also, Michaels was a liar because he was a known liar.And yet more rhetorical BS. And a strawman implying circular reasoning.

Hansen talked mostly about Scenario B so his predications were dead on.We don't know that for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony because it's not available on line and no one has gone to the LoC and scanned it and presented it here. However, the preponderance of evidence says that this is correct.

Is that pretty accurate? If not, please offer your critique because I would like to reduce this issue down to the basic facts and get all the spin and hype out of the way.Critique offered. My expectation is that you will offer more rhetorical tricks; surprise me.

[CapelDodger]

I think if climate change deniers want to stand a hope in hell of convincing most people that GW is a hoax, they need to begin by demonstrating why there is a huge conspiracy to convince people that it's true, and why the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of co-conspirators have never been exposed.

Meanwhile the motivations of celebrated climate change deniers like Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz and Tim Ball are routinely uncovered.

Another blinding glimpse of the obvious :).

The cloistered nature of clmate contrarianism is becoming increasingly apparent, not least with the Nobel Peace Prize award. There were also two major international jollies in the last month or so, one sponsored by the UN and one by the White House. AGW is full-on mainstream now. Twenty years ago it was edging in with the establishment of the IPCC - when there's enough real concern to demand action set up a committee. Action taken. With luck by the time it reports the problem will have gone away.

No such luck. Ten years, and two reports, later further action has to be taken. Apply first fall-back action : set targets. Which are, by definition, some way off. Kyoto Protocol. Action taken.

Ten years further on the problem still hasn't gone away. So high-level discussions about talks to work out how an action-plan will be negotiated are under way. That shows commitment. Throwing a bone to Al Gore and the IPCC simply underlines how seriously the powers-that-be are taking this subject. As does corporate greenwash advertising.

All this when JunkScience and CO2Science and ClimateAudit and the Cato Institution and the Heritage Thingy and any number of inter-linked clubhouses have the real self-referential low-down? Not on this planet. Even the Bush White House has abandoned that refuge, its response being to launch a spoiler. How mainstream is that? Pretty damn' much, IMO.

Singer, Seltz, Gray, Lindzen ... the pillars of denialism are becoming increasingly aged, which demonstrates a very poor recruitment rate. Contrarians, of course, ascribe that to the tyranny of the scientific establishment.

[CapelDodger]

I have no problem with Michaels being shown to be a liar ...

You very clearly do. Otherwise you wouldn't still be wriggling.

I have a big problem with spinning and distorting the output of computer models for political purposes and I'm sure you would share that sentiment.

Which Michaels did. Look at his testimony. He claimed the model predicted something that it didn't predict. A lie. He then used that to discredit the model. That's why he told the lie.

The subject has drifted slightly to the discussion of Hansen et al 1988. Ultimately, I agree with you that the proof, disproof or confused middle ground is in the Hansen 1988 testimony, and it may be possible to get that.

You're the one that's trying to bring up Hansen's testimony in 1988. Hansen et al 1988 - not Hansen's 1998 testimony - is what Michaels lied about in 1998. Michaels claimed that there was only one prediction in the 1988 model, which was a lie, and also claimed - for obvious reasons - that it was the scenario least like what had actually occurred during the intervening ten years.

One thing that disturbs me about the trend of this conversation. The rabid certainty of some posters coupled with their numerous factual errors, given the lack of key documents -

There is only one key document (availabe for perusal via the Cato Institute website) which is Michaels's lying testimony in 1998. His testimony did not refer to Hansen's testimony in 1988, it referred to the Hansen et al model of that year. And Michaels lied about what that model predicted.

You've asserted that the burden of proof is on me to prove Michaels was not a liar.

Mostly we're just astonished at how resilient you are to the obvious fact that Michaels lied to Congress in 1998.

So far, the case that Hansen lied is very weak.

Do what now? Hansen wasn't there when Michaels lied to Congress. This wasn't a court-case. Hansen says he only heard about Michaels's misrepresentation later, and I see no reason to doubt him.

But not all the facts are in yet. If Hansen et al 1988 was submitted in addition to the oral presentation, then your case is slightly stronger. Was it?

Michaels didn't present Hansen's testimony to Congress in 1988, he presented Hansen et al. And lied about it. Why, then, do you keep bringing up Hansen's 1988 testimony? It's irrelevant.

As I've pointed out before, if Hansen's 1988 testimony had focused on Scenario A - as Michaels's did ten years later, even though Scenario A had not transpired - it would have been denounced by alert observers as alarmist. It wasn't. Hansen's 1988 testimony is not a safe refuge.

Warmers ask that people believe Michaels lied without any proof, and think that skeptics must prove it otherwise. That's pretty funny...

That's just sad.

There is absolute proof that Michaels lied. This isn't science, where proof is elusive, this is someone blatantly lying. Look at Michaels's 1998 testimony about the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report. Then look at the report. Michaels lied in 1998.

[CapelDodger]

Second, it's a matter of public record, and no one but an idiot would lie about it when it's easy enough to prove.

I have to take issue with that. There can be considered blatant lies that serve a purpose. I call Michaels 1998 and mhaze in evidence. We can see how blatant it is, but the target audience doesn't. Think Swift-Boat Liars for Bush, it's the same phaenomenon.

What I'm impressed by is mhaze's resilience. He's pretty much alone on this thread now, but endeavours to persevere. The other usual suspects favour less challenging terrain, new threads by "innocents" asking a few pointed - but innocent - questions. As the saying goes in Wales (and probably in Australia) "A fresh sheep-pile gathers more flies".

[Schneibster]

You are a cynic, sir. I have to admit, however, that you've been right on that score more than I have. ;)

[luddite]

Just while we discuss endlessly the possibility that global warming is a hoax, let's just pause for a moment to consider the consequences if it's not.

Recent reports from Australia saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) final Assessment due out Nov. 7 will show that we have already eclipsed the CO2 concentration of 450 PPM CO2, that we had previously hoped to remain under. The report will show that we have played the waiting game for too long. It will show that the politicians introducing mediocre measures for hopeful mitigation that will take decades to accomplish is simply too little too late.

http://www.countercurrents.org/blair121007.htm

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just while we discuss endlessly the possibility that global warming is a hoax, let's just pause for a moment to consider the consequences if it's not.



http://www.countercurrents.org/blair121007.htm


http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Commentary/Chicken_Little/Chicken_Little.jpg

[mhaze]

I had to substantially read the 1988 paper in order to look for the phrase "business as usual."

We don't know that for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony because it's not available on line and no one has gone to the LoC and scanned it and presented it here. However, the preponderance of evidence says that this is correct.

Critique offered. My expectation is that you will offer more rhetorical tricks; surprise me.



So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

From that position you leap to a conclusion of guilt on Michaels part; while I stay with an opinion of not guilty until it is proven.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it. In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Your critique is accepted, thank you. And I suspect that you will offer more rhetorical tricks, surprise me.

[Safe-Keeper]

Jerome, if you're going down that road (childish remarks and off-topicness), it's straight to my ignore list. Not that you'd care.

[Pipirr]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it. In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.


Here are Hansen's own words on the subject: (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)


In late 1998, I was asked to debate the well-known greenhouse skeptic Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. I summarize here some key points in the debate, "A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming".

I agreed to participate in this debate with Dr. Michaels after learning that he had used (or misused) a figure of mine in testimony to the United States Congress. The figure showed the first predictions made with a 3-D climate model and time-dependent climate forcings — it was a figure from a paper that we had published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1988 and it had been a principal basis for testimony that I gave to the United States Senate in 1988.

The figure that we published is reproduced here as Fig. 1. It shows the simulated global mean temperature for three climate forcing scenarios.

Scenario A has a fast growth rate for greenhouse gases.

Scenarios B and C have a moderate growth rate for greenhouse gases until year 2000, after which greenhouse gases stop increasing in Scenario C.

Scenarios B and C also included occasional large volcanic eruptions, while scenario A did not.

The objective was to illustrate the broad range of possibilities in the ignorance of how forcings would actually develop. The extreme scenarios (A with fast growth and no volcanos, and C with terminated growth of greenhouse gases) were meant to bracket plausible rates of change. All of the maps of simulated climate change that I showed in my 1988 testimony were for the intermediate scenario B, because it seemed the most likely of the three scenarios.

But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty".


I'm going with the majority here. Michaels is a liar.

[Megalodon]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

We know the facts. Michaels was criticizing a model with 3 scenarios and omitted 2. That is enough to say he is a liar. Even if Hansen said in his testimony that Scenario A was going to happen as sure as the day is going to rise tomorrow, that would be irrelevant. And schizophrenic, given his publication the same year.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it. In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

So you throw the mud, and when it doesn't stick you retreat to "wait for the testimony to come in". Classy... I wonder why you didn't wait for the testimony before asserting that Hansen said that the scenario A was the most probable?

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Maybe they are as flexible with facts as you were in this case?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, if you're going down that road (childish remarks and off-topicness), it's straight to my ignore list. Not that you'd care.

Did you read the link?

:)

[mhaze]

Pipirr, Megaloon - Thanks for your interest in the subject. However, I should have the 1988 Hansen testimony in a day or two and prefer to wait, study it and respond at that time.

Since there is a very notable absence of this document in the many discussions that have occurred on the Internet (including a notable silence from Tim Lambert, when he was asked to produce it), it should be interesting what bearing it has on the assertion that Michael's lied.

The current version of this meme was generated by Paul Krugman, well noted for smearing and distorting facts to promote certain directions in politics,

I woldn't take anything Krugman says at face value, but apparently, a lot of people here do. Article and summary of it follows -

Krugman (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html?hp) ("Swift Boating the Planet") says global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels of UVA committed "fraud pure and simple" against NASA climatologist James Hansen, and that the phony charge "has become a staple of climate change skeptics, from Michael Crichton to Robert Novak." Krugman says Michaels "presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place...

The original paper showed a range of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen squarely in the middle of that range. So how did Dr. Michaels make it seem as if Dr. Hansen's prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper described as being 'on the high side of reality.'"

[mhaze]

Did you read the link?

:)

Like this quote from the rambling monologue?
We’ve already gone past the tipping point, now it is a matter of the survival of our species and all the others that share on this earth.

[Pipirr]

Pipirr, Megaloon - Thanks for your interest in the subject. However, I should have the 1988 Hansen testimony in a day or two and prefer to wait, study it and respond at that time.
[snip]

The current version of this meme was generated by Paul Krugman, well noted for smearing and distorting facts to promote certain directions in politics,



Do be so good as to report back on what Hansen presented in 1988.

As for Krugman being responsible for the 'current version of this meme', it's worth noting that the link I provided was from a debate held in 1998. Hansen took part in the debate to correct Michael's misrepresentation of his 1988 testimony.

Michael's lie has been challenged and shown to be such from the time it was first uttered, and a little fact checking would have put this canard to rest a long time ago. I can only assume that people like Michael Crichton et al., who have done such good work in disseminating it, do not have much of an interest in the truth.

[mhaze]

Do be so good as to report back on what Hansen presented in 1988.

As for Krugman being responsible for the 'current version of this meme', it's worth noting that the link I provided was from a debate held in 1998. Hansen took part in the debate to correct Michael's misrepresentation of his 1988 testimony.


I'll report back and post the testimony.

As for the debate, I have read the actual debate, thus Hansen's "commentary" on the debate are without merit insofar as the issue at hand. Hansen and Michael's exchange during the debate on the Scenario A issue is relevant, but let's put off discussing that until all the facts are in.

[Schneibster]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony. That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.No, it's not. You've ignored the rest of the evidence, which is your typical rhetorical trick.

From that position you leap to a conclusion of guilt on Michaels part; while I stay with an opinion of not guilty until it is proven.I leapt nowhere. I presented further evidence and drew a conclusion from it. This is a strawman; you ignored presented evidence.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further, because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not, I would just like to see the actual proof of it. Given that you are not accepting or even acknowledging presented evidence, I think you've just proven that in fact, it DOES matter to you whether Michaels lied or not. And again, whether Michaels is a liar or not is a characterization; this cannot be a matter of fact. The matter in question is whether he lied, not whether he is a liar. As I said, you ignore points that you don't like. If you'd care to address ALL the evidence, perhaps your posts would acquire some meaning; this one has none.

In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Yes, they do; and you're ignoring them, so that means that you have an opinion that is not based on the facts.

Since you agree with me on the absence of facts I do not. I presented facts and you have ignored them.

required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.If you can produce them, feel free. In the absence of further facts, I see no reason to do any further research; in the presence of a proven lie, supported by testimony from two sources, the testimony of your witness is impeached. End of conversation, unless you can produce reliable evidence otherwise.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.Yes, it is. If testimony disproving Hansen's account existed, there can be no question that it would have been produced. This would have vindicated Michaels, and considering the subsequent attacks on his character, he has to have had strong motivation to produce it; furthermore, he was right there in the right place to collect it if it existed. That he has not, but instead simply told another easily provable lie shows that a) it does not exist, and b) he doesn't care if he can be proven a liar, because his audience is not capable of critical analysis. Like you for example.

Your critique is accepted, thank you. And I suspect that you will offer more rhetorical tricks, surprise me.No, no rhetorical tricks at all. Just the facts, which you will of course ignore because they do not fit your uncritical world-view.

[Schneibster]

I'll report back and post the testimony.

As for the debate, I have read the actual debate, thus Hansen's "commentary" on the debate are without merit insofar as the issue at hand. Hansen and Michael's exchange during the debate on the Scenario A issue is relevant, but let's put off discussing that until all the facts are in.I'm sorry, but I have no trust in any "evidence" you might provide. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly capable of constructing fake "evidence," and you absolutely for certain will cherry-pick and distort the meaning by omitting important qualifications of statements. There can be no question of this, considering your previous behavior; I'll be happy to produce examples if necessary to substantiate that statement.

So whatever you produce had better be from an absolutely unimpeachable source. I'm not interested in any document you claim to have scanned; photoshop is ubiquitous. I'm not interested in any document on any GW "skeptic" site for the same reason. Produce the actual transcripts of testimony from an uninterested third party's site or from a US government archive, or don't bother wasting your time or ours.

[Schneibster]

I have never read anything anyone named Krugman has written, to the best of my knowledge. I have examined Hansen (1988), Michaels' 1998 testimony, and further statements made on-line by Michaels; these have constituted my research into this matter. I am uninterested in any "debate" between Michaels and Hansen; I have little doubt that Michaels is a better debater than Hansen, he certainly knows how to lie.

[CapelDodger]

You are a cynic, sir.

You're most kind. One tries ...

There are three messages in "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time". The last is the one that's mostly focused on, and the first is doubtful (some people can't be persuaded of anything, scam or not), but the middle one is dead on. Some people can be fooled and stay fooled - a fact well and profitably exploited since way back.

To my mind it's easily explicable, and even derivable from human nature. People are most easily fooled into beliefs that they find attractive, so unconvincing them is an uphill struggle. Admitting - even to yourself - that you've been fooled is an unpleasant experience. And then there's the whole monkey group-think aspect.

Of course denialists will contend that this describes our problem - that we've been fooled into believing in AGW and all the science that predicted it. Mark my words.

Cynicism spares us the discomfort of being fooled. When I hear something that appeals to me on a gut-level I subject it to even closer examination than usual.

[David Rodale]

I'm sorry, but I have no trust in any "evidence" you might provide. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly capable of constructing fake "evidence,"

Now that Schneibster has implied MHaze fabricates evidence, who else is willing to step forward and join Schneibster?

What's the matter Schneibster, do you realize you've been snookered and now must resort to the lowest level of repulsive tactics? Circling the wagons now?

Since I'm on your ignore list, maybe someone would be kind enough to quote it for him.

[CapelDodger]

So you admit that we don't know the facts for sure, since no one has presented his actual testimony.

We know the facts of Michaels's testimony - this includes you - since it's available via the Cato Institute link you provided. It's during this testimony that Michaels lied. He did not refer to Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress but to the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report - available online and previously linked to by Schneibster. These are two very distinct things. You don't need Hansen's Congressional testimony to make a judgement, and the only viable one is that Michaels lied in his testimony.

That's essentially the same thing I've been asserting.

It's nothing of the sort. Hansen's testimony has no more relevance to Michaels's mendacity than the green-cheesiness of the Moon's far-side. What you keep asserting is that you won't examine Michaels's testimony until you've examined Hansen's testimony from a decade earlier.

From that position you leap to a conclusion of guilt on Michaels part; while I stay with an opinion of not guilty until it is proven.

It is proven, by Michaels's own words.

I'll wait for the testimony to come in to comment further ...

You've already got it. You linked to it, for crying out loud.

... because as I noted when I started this topic, it doesn't matter to me if Michaels is proven to be a liar or not ...

It clearly does matter to you or you wouldn't be getting into such contortions to avoid admitting it - even to yourself.

... I would just like to see the actual proof of it.

It's been presented to you - even pushed in your face. Your inablility to see it is something you should maybe ponder on.


In other words, peoples opinions on the issue really do not matter to me, the actual facts determine the matter. Since you agree with me on the absence of facts required to go further, let us wait until those facts are in and agree that there is no basis for speculation.

That's a pretty sad and transparent attempt at weaseling. Have you learnt no technique during your time spent in denialist clubhouses? The facts pertaining to Michaels's lying testimony are available to all of us - in his testimony and in the Hansen et al report he lied about.

It is rather interesting, by the way, that in the many blogs where this issue has been discussed, no one has produced the actual 1988 testimony of Hansen.

Sinister ... But then again, since Hansen's testimony is irrelevant, not interesting at all. Your fixation on it is what's peculiar.

Your critique is accepted, thank you. And I suspect that you will offer more rhetorical tricks, surprise me.

I think more irony to come from that source is pretty much a given. We may have passed a tipping-point.

[David Rodale]

We know the facts of Michaels's testimony - this includes you - since it's available via the Cato Institute link you provided. It's during this testimony that Michaels lied. He did not refer to Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress but to the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report - available online and previously linked to by Schneibster. These are two very distinct things. You don't need Hansen's Congressional testimony to make a judgement, and the only viable one is that Michaels lied in his testimony.



It's nothing of the sort. Hansen's testimony has no more relevance to Michaels's mendacity than the green-cheesiness of the Moon's far-side. What you keep asserting is that you won't examine Michaels's testimony until you've examined Hansen's testimony from a decade earlier.



It is proven, by Michaels's own words.



You've already got it. You linked to it, for crying out loud.



It clearly does matter to you or you wouldn't be getting into such contortions to avoid admitting it - even to yourself.



It's been presented to you - even pushed in your face. Your inablility to see it is something you should maybe ponder on.




That's a pretty sad and transparent attempt at weaseling. Have you learnt no technique during your time spent in denialist clubhouses? The facts pertaining to Michaels's lying testimony are available to all of us - in his testimony and in the Hansen et al report he lied about.



Sinister ... But then again, since Hansen's testimony is irrelevant, not interesting at all. Your fixation on it is what's peculiar.



I think more irony to come from that source is pretty much a given. We may have passed a tipping-point.

Sinister ... But then again, since Hansen's testimony is irrelevant, not interesting at all. Your fixation on it is what's peculiar.
You said Michaels lied. You called him a fraud. This was in direct reference to Hansen's 1988 Senate testimony for which Michaels commented on. Looking over all the posts, it is your side that has been fixated on the subject. MHaze asked if anyone has actually read Hansen's (nobody on this forum has) Senate statement to verify the accusations against Michaels, and questioned if the ferocity of attacks were justified. Did you ever stop and think that maybe Krugman is the one distorting the truth? Of course not.

I think more irony to come from that source is pretty much a given. We may have passed a tipping-point.
Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988.

[CapelDodger]

Now that Schneibster has implied MHaze fabricates evidence, who else is willing to step forward and join Schneibster?

I am Spartacus!

The way mhaze distorts other people's posts is tantamount to fabricating evidence. Fortunately he's so inexpert that nobody's fooled by it.

What's the matter Schneibster, do you realize you've been snookered and now must resort to the lowest level of repulsive tactics? Circling the wagons now?

I take that back. Apparently you're fooled by it.

And apparently you think accusing people of fabricating evidence is a repulsive low-life tactic. Duly noted. It's always good to see when people demonstrate a sense of integrity.

Not something Michaels has got, obviously, otherwise he wouldn't lied to Congress or anybody else. Sadly, he did.

Since I'm on your ignore list, maybe someone would be kind enough to quote it for him.

Well, there it is.

[Schneibster]

We know the facts of Michaels's testimony - this includes you - since it's available via the Cato Institute link you provided. It's during this testimony that Michaels lied. He did not refer to Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress but to the Hansen et al 1988 model and associated report - available online and previously linked to by Schneibster. These are two very distinct things. You don't need Hansen's Congressional testimony to make a judgement, and the only viable one is that Michaels lied in his testimony. Wow, I didn't catch that. You're right:

At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. By "produced," I thought he meant "produced as evidence for review by Congress," not "produced and referred to in his paper." It's clear, however, that that's precisely what he meant, and you are correct, we don't need Hansen's 1988 Congressional testimony.

I'll stop short of criticizing mhaze for not noticing it, however, since I didn't.

[CapelDodger]

You said Michaels lied. You called him a
fraud.

Yes to both, repeatedly.

This was in direct reference to Hansen's 1988 Senate testimony for which Michaels commented on.

It was in direct reference to Michaels's 1998 testimony. Here's the Michaels money-shot:

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."

"That model." Not "that testimony". There's the lie.

Looking over all the posts, it is your side that has been fixated on the subject. MHaze asked if anyone has actually read Hansen's (nobody on this forum has) Senate statement to verify the accusations against Michaels, and questioned if the ferocity of attacks were justified. Did you ever stop and think that maybe Krugman is the one distorting the truth? Of course not.

Have you ever considered that McIntyre is distorting the truth with rhetorical tricks? Be honest.


Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988.

Where? In your house?


eta: I have read Hansen's 1988 testimony, back in '88 when I was already a mature and cynical adult with an informed interest in the subject.

[CapelDodger]

I'll stop short of criticizing mhaze for not noticing it, however, since I didn't.

Don't beat yourself up; I've spent far more time amongst lawyers (socially, of course) than is the norm :).

[David Rodale]

Yes to both, repeatedly.



It was in direct reference to Michaels's 1998 testimony. Here's the Michaels money-shot:



"That model." Not "that testimony". There's the lie.



Have you ever considered that McIntyre is distorting the truth with rhetorical tricks? Be honest.




Where? In your house?


eta: I have read Hansen's 1988 testimony, back in '88 when I was already a mature and cynical adult with an informed interest in the subject.

Are you saying Hansen didn't mention his models in his statement to the Senate?

BTW, you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to join Schneibster and imply MHaze fabricates what he posts?

It's not warming
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470d98b386ac0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8748)

[CapelDodger]

As for the debate, I have read the actual debate, thus Hansen's "commentary" on the debate are without merit insofar as the issue at hand. Hansen and Michael's exchange during the debate on the Scenario A issue is relevant, but let's put off discussing that until all the facts are in.

One fact that was in when Michaels gave his 1998 testimony was that Scenario A hadn't happened. And yet he presented the Scenario A prediction as being the prediction of the Hansen et al model. A lie.

Here's the Michaels money-shot again :

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."


You can check it out, the Cato Institute site carries the testimony in full.

[CapelDodger]

Are you saying Hansen didn't mention his models in his statement to the Senate?

No.

BTW, you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to join Schneibster and imply MHaze fabricates what he posts?

Perhaps "I am Spartacus!" is too allusive an answer. More bluntly : I stand with Schneibster on this. Any of us can see how mhaze tries to twist posts (including his own, after the fact) to new meanings. If that's not facrication, what is?

It's not warming
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470d98b386ac0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8748)

That must be a great comfort to you.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Schneibster
I'm sorry, but I have no trust in any "evidence" you might provide. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly capable of constructing fake "evidence,"


Now that Schneibster has implied MHaze fabricates evidence, who else is willing to step forward and join Schneibster?

What's the matter Schneibster, do you realize you've been snookered and now must resort to the lowest level of repulsive tactics? Circling the wagons now?

Since I'm on your ignore list, maybe someone would be kind enough to quote it for him.


Here is the evidence that Schneibster does not care about evidence.

The argument is over.

His mind is made up, and if evidence surfaces that contradicts his pre-drawn conclusion it will be discounted.

I recommend this song (http://www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/sounds/yourepitiful.mp3")


http://www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/sounds/yourepitiful.mp3

[CapelDodger]

The current version of this meme was generated by Paul Krugman, well noted for smearing and distorting facts to promote certain directions in politics ...

The belief that "Michaels lied to Congress" is a meme generated by Krugman is in itself a meme. One you are apparently wedded to. How long for is anybody's guess.

The devious nature of this defensive strategy is revealed by your use of "current version". By it you reveal that you know full well that "Michaels lied to Congress" was in play before Krugman's comments. In fact it was in play from the moment Michaels gave his blatantly lying testimony.

I woldn't take anything Krugman says at face value, but apparently, a lot of people here do. Article and summary of it follows -

I take Michaels's 1998 testimony to Congress at face value and Michaels lied like a lowlife lawyer. It's all there in his own words.

[CapelDodger]

Jerome, if you're going down that road (childish remarks and off-topicness), it's straight to my ignore list. Not that you'd care.

He's posted a thing with a song attached now.

I think it's safe to write-off any chance of rational discourse with the capitalised one.

[a_unique_person]

Are you saying Hansen didn't mention his models in his statement to the Senate?

BTW, you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to join Schneibster and imply MHaze fabricates what he posts?

It's not warming
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470d98b386ac0.jpg

I've seen cherry picking before, but that takes the cake.

[Schneibster]

He's posted a thing with a song attached now.

I think it's safe to write-off any chance of rational discourse with the capitalised one.I'd have to agree with that.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

He's posted a thing with a song attached now.

I think it's safe to write-off any chance of rational discourse with the capitalised one.

The point is there is not a rational discourse occurring. I am more than capable of engaging in such an endeavor if it were occurring. I find the dismissal of evidence prior to its presentation evidence that there is no rationality happening here.

I just wanted to point this out.

Carry on.

[mhaze]

Here is the evidence that Schneibster does not care about evidence.

The argument is over.

His mind is made up, and if evidence surfaces that contradicts his pre-drawn conclusion it will be discounted.

I recommend this song (http://www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/sounds/yourepitiful.mp3%22)

http://www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/sounds/yourepitiful.mp3

Yep. Good song, too.

[Schneibster]

So, basically what you're saying is that your plan was to scan the testimony, photoshop it, and present it as evidence. Otherwise, why do you care?

[David Rodale]

I've seen cherry picking before, but that takes the cake.

Here it is, sans satire. Would you like trend lines added? Remove the El Nino's (a non-GW phenomenon), and what do you think would happen to the graph?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234712dc60d3f99.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8783)

Just for grins, look at my previous post and see what happened after Sept 1988. What do you think will happen after Sept. 2007, temperatures are going to rise?;)


BTW, below is a solar activity/temp vs CO2/temp correlation. What shall we make of it? FYI, an r=.22 is File 13.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ea094937a29.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8310)

[a_unique_person]

Here it is, sans satire. Would you like trend lines added? Remove the El Nino's (a non-GW phenomenon), and what do you think would happen to the graph?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234712dc60d3f99.jpg


Exactly what you wanted to happen to it, apparently. You can't remove the El Nino, they are a part of the feedback cycle, and are predicted to become more frequent and stronger, which is exactly what is happening.

[CapelDodger]

The point is there is not a rational discourse occurring. I am more than capable of engaging in such an endeavor if it were occurring. I find the dismissal of evidence prior to its presentation evidence that there is no rationality happening here.

I just wanted to point this out.

Carry on.

If this is in regard to Michaels lying to Congress, presumably the "evidence" you refer to is the Hansen 1988 testimony. As I've patiently and rationally pointed out this is not relevant, since Michaels lied about the model prediction, not about Hansen's 1988 testimony.

Here's that Michaels money-shot again :

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."


That prediction was for Scenario A, which Michaels knew had not transpired, yet he presented it as being the prediction of the model. A lie.

[Megalodon]

Here it is, sans satire. Would you like trend lines added? Remove the El Nino's (a non-GW phenomenon), and what do you think would happen to the graph?

Not much.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814713639c75812.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8789)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814713635373fc3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8787)

from b0=-01421, b1=0.0012 to b0=-0.1410, b1=0.0011

Of course, very significant...

The data is from the file linked in your image. It's still warming, any way you look at it.

BTW, below is a solar activity/temp vs CO2/temp correlation. What shall we make of it? FYI, an r=.22 is File 13.

No, you showed Artic temperature vs solar activity, and actually stopped at 2000.

[Megalodon]

Just in case anybody is curious, that gives you roughly 0.14ºC per decade.

Now, where did I place the CO2 values...

[mhaze]

Just in case anybody is curious, that gives you roughly 0.14ºC per decade.

Now, where did I place the CO2 values...

And Hansen's number for natural decadal variation was 0.13C. Tung 2007, computed decadal variation due to the solar activity alone at around 0.20C.

Did you intend to prove David Rodale's point?

[Megalodon]

And Hansen's number for natural decadal variation was 0.13C.

It was? was that before or after he asserted that Scenario A was the most plausible?

Your credibility is nil Mhaze, so you better get some links...

Did you intend to prove David Rodale's point?

He had no point. He made a question, thinking that he knew the answer. He blew it.

[Megalodon]

Tung 2007, computed decadal variation due to the solar activity alone at around 0.20C.

First Google link http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240003

But an August 9 New Scientist article on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." The New Scientist reported that Tung says his finding, in the New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming."

From the third Google link http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=121

They concluded that from solar minimum to maximum (eg - from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C. Conversely, from solar maximum to minimum (eg - from 2001 to 2007), the reduced forcing from the sun cools global temperatures by 0.18°C. This 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend.

Once again, you're flexible with the facts.

[mhaze]

It was? was that before or after he asserted that Scenario A was the most plausible?

Your credibility is nil Mhaze, so you better get some links...

He had no point. He made a question, thinking that he knew the answer. He blew it.

You should scurry off to find some links that show differing numbers for natural variation, if you can.

Or do you hold that natural variation is zero? Then of course, you might have a point. Some warmers do indeed hold that natural variation is zero. Do you?

[mhaze]

First Google link http://mediamatters.org/items/200708240003
From the third Google link http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=121
Once again, you're flexible with the facts.

You are presenting more data that there is a range of natural variation? More data to prove my point that David Rodale is correct in saying that there is no warming?

As for Tung 2007, the subject is not his overall conclusions, but the range of natural variability. I am well aware of the overall extent of his work and find it pretty laughable. That is a separate subject. We could discuss it if you like.

You did not simply answer the basic question - Or do you hold that natural variation is zero? Then of course, you might have a point. Some warmers do indeed hold that natural variation is zero. Do you?

Why not just indicate what you think natural variation may be, provide the basis for your opinion, and then we could look at the alleged global warming based on that and see where our opinions may differ.


Originally Posted by David Rodale
BTW, below is a solar activity/temp vs CO2/temp correlation. What shall we make of it? FYI, an r=.22 is File 13.
No, you showed Artic temperature vs solar activity, and actually stopped at 2000.
Isn't Arctic temperature supposedly a prime indicator of alleged global warming?

[mhaze]

It was? was that before or after he asserted that Scenario A was the most plausible?

Your credibility is nil Mhaze, so you better get some links...


I see, Magalodon, that you have taken my sound advice from post #90 of the "A few Questions" thread -All good warmers should racket up use of debate tactic such as smears. That is about all that is left.
As you have mentioned, your dissertation will not write itself. You will have to defend it, and it will not defend itself.

Smear tactics will not work for your defense of your dissertation. Here is your chance to practice and perfect good tactics for this important and difficult job ahead.;)

[David Rodale]

Not much.

from b0=-01421, b1=0.0012 to b0=-0.1410, b1=0.0011

Of course, very significant...

The data is from the file linked in your image. It's still warming, any way you look at it.



No, you showed Artic temperature vs solar activity, and actually stopped at 2000.

Scroll down to my last post, the last link concerning Arctic ice melt through 2007, particularly concerning the last few years for which a lot of news headlines and AGW blogs make much fanfare.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94182&page=12

You still didn't answer the question. Correlation r=.22 means there is essentially no link between CO2 and temperature fluctuations. Solar activity on the other hand has a strong correlation.

Since correlation is not causation, what direct evidence can you provide that supports the hypothesis CO2 drives temperature? It doesn't exist.

For all the supposed peer reviewed studies supporting AGW, if it were tallied up, your side really does more talking than presenting evidence. Mostly what we get are lectures, ad hom attacks galore, unsupported assumptions, and a whole lot of speculation.

[mhaze]

Soon GRL 2005 I have not had the pleasure of reading, but will have to get a copy.

A mid .70s correlation of arctic temperatures with solar activity, and a 0.22 correlation of CO2 with arctic activity.

Why would anyone want to stand behind the "CO2 drives climate" hypothesis?

Because they want to be losers?

[Schneibster]

Ummm, correlation is not causation? I believe you were the last one to use that particular bon mot.

[mhaze]

Soon GRL 2005 I have not had the pleasure of reading, but will have to get a copy.

A mid .70s correlation of arctic temperatures with solar activity, and a 0.22 correlation of CO2 with arctic activity.

Why would anyone want to stand behind the "CO2 drives climate" hypothesis?

Because they want to be losers?

But I have to be fair here.

David Rodale is the first to have answered the challenge to show some correlation between CO2 and temperature. Now we must revise the Challenge to ask for a better relationship than 0.22.

:D

[rcronk]

Forgive the lurker interruption, but I have a few quick questions. As a currently agnostic flip-flopping human-caused global warming observer, here are some questions and ideas for you all:

1. Based on what you all have seen here at JREF, what's the ballpark estimate of the percentage of how many here at JREF support the theory that human activities are causing global warming?

2. Has anyone figured out why there is such a discrepancy in source data in the global warming debate? For example, I read an article that said that in the year 2000 they recorded the highest solar output seen in the past 1000 years but then I've also read that there's been no increase in solar output since 1978. This is just one of many many examples of source data discrepancy. Anyone else seeing this?

The global warming debate is turning out to be very weird. It almost smells like a woo debate. It seems, however, that the science and logic aren't as much of a problem as the source data discrepancies. I've heard that it's global socialism trying to control and bring down industrialized nations to force equality and I've also heard that it's just earth-friendly folks just trying to keep others from wrecking the planet.

What's the deal? Shouldn't this be at least somewhat straightforward? How can I read two completely different sets of source data about temperatures, CO2 levels, solar output levels, etc. and only the people on each side of the debate are quoting the data that support their own side of the debate. I see little objectivity and rarely see people dealing with the "other side's" data. It's like the two sides are dealing with data from two different planets.

I smell strong bias on both sides of this human-caused global warming debate. Any ideas on why this is? Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?

[Schneibster]

Forgive the lurker interruption, but I have a few quick questions. As a currently agnostic flip-flopping human-caused global warming observer, here are some questions and ideas for you all:

1. Based on what you all have seen here at JREF, what's the ballpark estimate of the percentage of how many here at JREF support the theory that human activities are causing global warming?Haven't a clue, and wouldn't care to characterize.

2. Has anyone figured out why there is such a discrepancy in source data in the global warming debate? For example, I read an article that said that in the year 2000 they recorded the highest solar output seen in the past 1000 years but then I've also read that there's been no increase in solar output since 1978. This is just one of many many examples of source data discrepancy. Anyone else seeing this?Yes. Sources must be checked incredibly carefully; frank denial of scientific data is occurring, just as it does in denial of evolution, assertion of the value of homeopathy, and other such subjects. I will not speculate on the motives for this.

The global warming debate is turning out to be very weird. It almost smells like a woo debate. It is. Look at the scientific literature, and then look at the denial sites, and more importantly, look at the types of arguments that are being used to deny it.

It seems, however, that the science and logic aren't as much of a problem as the source data discrepancies. I've heard that it's global socialism trying to control and bring down industrialized nations to force equality and I've also heard that it's just earth-friendly folks just trying to keep others from wrecking the planet.For me, it's quite a ways beyond being "earth friendly" or trying to "save the planet." Honest scientists are being smeared, literally defamed, by individuals who claim that they have manipulated their research; and not just a few such scientists, but an entire discipline.

What's the deal? Shouldn't this be at least somewhat straightforward? How can I read two completely different sets of source data about temperatures, CO2 levels, solar output levels, etc. and only the people on each side of the debate are quoting the data that support their own side of the debate. I see little objectivity and rarely see people dealing with the "other side's" data. When the "data" is made up by people whose goal is to obfuscate, what would you see done differently?

It's like the two sides are dealing with data from two different planets.Yes; one from the scientific literature, and the other not.

I smell strong bias on both sides of this human-caused global warming debate. Any ideas on why this is? Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?The scientific literature is peer-reviewed. Either you believe scientists try to find out what's going on, and accurately publish their results, or you don't. If you don't, there's not much further to be said.

[rcronk]

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully someone else will answer question #1 since I've come to respect the views of the people here.

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture. Which side do I believe? I mean, mistakes are made and dissent is the key to eliminating mistakes. You can't just say "well it's peer reviewed, so just believe it" because regarding 9/11, many claimed peer review when it really wasn't. The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.

One side cites "a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these 'scientists' know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine." Is this true or smear?

[CapelDodger]

Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988.

Every other month of 2007 was warmer than its equivalent in 1988. In fact adding the variances for months 1-9 in 1988 and 2007 yields 1.4 and 2.8 respectively. The variance in August 2007 was twice that in 1988 (0.32 and 0.16 respectively).

See http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt for the details. It's the source data for the graph you posted. (Do you have a link to the source for the graph itself? It's difficult to tell much from a picture.)

Notice how many negative variances there are in the 80's and early 90's, tailing-off up to 1998, after which there are hardly any negative variances at all.

The world is warming. One month taken in isolation doesn't alter that fact.

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully someone else will answer question #1 since I've come to respect the views of the people here.

You could count the contributors on each side of the argument yourself - it's not very difficult to classify most of them :). On the AGW side there's me, of course, a_unique_person, Schneibster, varwoche, and Megalodon amongst recent contributors. On the anti-AGW side are mhaze, David Rodale, Lucifage Rocifale, and jerome recently; rockoon and Diamond have been pretty quiet for a while but no doubt they're still out there. Apologies to those I've missed.

Frankly, I don't think it's a useful measure. Some subjects attract enthusiasts, and AGW is one of them. 9/11 is another.

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture.

They are there. They're just not as prominent as European tradition has them. Mann et al is a global reconstruction, and demonstrates that the Western European experience of these periods was not representative of the global experience. In the case of the LIA there's also the matter of the European historical perception, which is exaggerated for a number of reasons. Not least of those is the spread of Calvinist apocalypticism which promoted every bad harvest or violent storm into a harbinger of imminent doom. In truth, Europe suffered far more from war than from climate in the 16thCE.

Which side do I believe? I mean, mistakes are made and dissent is the key to eliminating mistakes. You can't just say "well it's peer reviewed, so just believe it" because regarding 9/11, many claimed peer review when it really wasn't. The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.

One side cites "a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these 'scientists' know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine." Is this true or smear?

And the other side cites a petition signed by Donald Duck and Darth Vader. Dismiss such nonsense. Look to the science - and, of course, the world around you.

[mhaze]

Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?

Yes, they are at www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org). That is a correct answer to this question. For an example, look at the section entitle "A little Secret" down on the home page. This explains a current project which is "bringing the tree ring proxies up to date". Tree ring measurements are used to tell historical temperatures, but almost all of the studies end in the 1960s or 1970s.

Here is the general problem explained in simple language.

A certain rule set and algorithm is used to compute say, temperature at 1104AD from tree rings. That rule set, applied to tree rings from 1980-2007, should show accurately today's known temperatures. If it does not, then clearly the rule set and algorithm must be modified. If it is modified, then what is the result on the prior calculation of the 1104AD temperature?

For some reason, climate scientists just haven't got around to going out and "bringing the tree ring proxies up to date". They say they do not have funding, or there is no need for it. Consider the response of Mann (yes, the hockey stick Mann) on this issue:Most reconstructions only extend through about 1980 because the vast majority of tree-ring, coral, and ice core records currently available in the public domain do not extend into the most recent decades. While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations.
The challenge that Steve McIntyre placed on his small group of unpaid amateurs was to see if they could go out, and resample the tree ring sets that are of importance for the studies such as those used by the IPCC with this constraint -Hit the Starbucks on the way out to the field in the morning, and hit the Starbucks on the way back in after doing the "costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations".
The participants reported success in the difficult part, that of hitting the Starbucks on the way out and also back in. Getting the tree ring cores they reported was quite easy.

McIntyre has this suggestion - Let’s see how they perform in the warm 1990s -which should be an ideal period to show the merit of the proxies. I do not believe that any responsible policy-maker can base policy, even in part, on the continued use of obsolete data ending in 1980, when the costs of bringing the data up-to-date is inconsequential compared to Kyoto costs.
Now I would ask this question. Why do people hate him and want to smear him? Because such work can easily bring the whole house of cards down? But does that imply that no one expects the work to confirm prior scientific results? If so, why such a presumption?

[CapelDodger]

The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.

One side cites "a letter..."

Nobody peer-reviews a letter (or petition, or documentary). Peer-review pertains to scientific papers. It's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being taken at all seriously. Peer-review weeds out obvious factual errors and logical mis-steps, erroneous or missing citations, and such-like stuff. If a paper passes that and is published that's when the serious picking-apart starts.

Ideally a scientific paper presents experimental results that are theoretically reproducible, but in the case of climate-change there's just the one experiment going on. We can't rewind to, say, 1988 and try a different scenario - what we've had is what we've got. And, along th same vein, we'll get what's coming to us.

We can observe the experiment but we can't tweak the parameters. Which is not to say that we can't learn from it.

[rcronk]

Thanks everyone for your answers - looks like I need to remain in lurker mode and keep listening and reading for now.

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org/) is an unbiased source? If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?

[Schneibster]

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully someone else will answer question #1 since I've come to respect the views of the people here.Your tone so far has been respectful and agnostic; may I suggest you add a poll thread? It's not very scientific, but it will give you an idea. And your not being combative will encourage more from both sides to express their opinions without having to wrangle. I'd do it, but I'm liable to be regarded as a controversial figure by those on the other side.

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture. Which side do I believe? I mean, mistakes are made and dissent is the key to eliminating mistakes. You can't just say "well it's peer reviewed, so just believe it" because regarding 9/11, many claimed peer review when it really wasn't. The paragraph below sheds doubt on peer review but that's only if it's true.Ordinarily, what happens is that a few papers come out on one and another side of an issue, and there's conversation and perhaps mild controversy. More data is gathered, and as the knowledge on the subject improves, the controversy generally clears up and the truth, or as much of it as we can figure out, emerges. As this happens, a consensus forms among the scientists in that field; it's never unanimous, and because of the nature of science, you can never be absolutely certain that some fact won't come along and throw everything into a cocked hat later, but scientists go to a lot of trouble to try to avoid that. There's a lot of language in scientific papers that seems like hedging to most people; that's why. We can't know everything, and even our best theories sometimes turn out wrong. What we're talking about here, however, after a lot of data have been gathered and scrutinized, is something on the order of the Sun not rising tomorrow; sure, it could happen, but it's really pretty unlikely.

Peer review is a process where the data gathering and analysis techniques and the conclusions drawn are examined by other scientists. They look for holes in the data gathering process, and the analysis process, and places where a conclusion was drawn that's not supported by the data provided. They look for places where data that should have and could have been gathered was not. If they find anything like that, then a dialog ensues; basically, either it gets fixed or explained to their satisfaction, and that generally involves changing the paper and perhaps even doing more research, or the paper doesn't get published. Is this a guarantee it's right? Of course not; no one can guarantee the Sun will come up tomorrow, but it's pretty likely.

However, in this particular case, efforts have been made for financial and political reasons to corrupt this process. Scientists have been threatened with having their funding cut if they published certain conclusions, or been forced to alter their papers before submitting them to peer review, and this is not speculation, it is sworn testimony under penalty of perjury in front of Congressional committees. Lies have been told in front of those same committees, as has been documented on an active thread on this forum. Distortions of scientific papers by selective quoting ("cherry picking"), the use of rhetorical tricks, and misrepresentations of scientific statements are common, on the 'Net, in the news media, and by both public and private figures. The root reasons this campaign has been undertaken are financial; this has driven action by political and ideological forces dependent for political campaign funds upon those likely to be adversely affected if AGW is generally accepted and measures to combat it undertaken.

And the end result indicates this effort has been a success. People just like you are only now, after more than a decade, coming to realize that the scientists were right all along. They haven't yet started to figure out how much less it would have cost to do something about it back then, how much more it's going to cost now. Some, because of their ideology, still don't believe it; though these days, they are a shrinking minority. And I want to be very clear here: this was a politically, financially, ideologically driven campaign to conceal the truth from the public; in other words, a cover-up. And now, the people who engaged in it are trying to cover that up, too. And they knew it was the truth from the start; don't you ever believe otherwise. They knew they were lying, and there's no question about it. And they did it for money and power, because they're greedy and they thought no one would find out, and now they're doing everything they can so no one will.

One side cites "a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these 'scientists' know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine." Is this true or smear?I am not familiar with this story; I am aware of a letter cited by anti-GW forces which was claimed to be signed by a similar number of scientists, contesting global warming, which turned out much this way, with doctors, engineers, and people who could not be verified as existing among the signatories, but none on the GW side. If such a thing was done, no matter by whom, it was deplorable, and an obvious attempt to produce non-factual "evidence." Could you cite the article where this is claimed so that it can be validated or debunked?

[CapelDodger]

You should scurry off to find some links that show differing numbers for natural variation, if you can.

The relevant point is that Tung is dealing with the variation across a cycle - in this case the solar cycle of about 11 years. A cycle returns to its starting point. You're keen enought to attribute current observations to longer cycles - 60-80 years or 1500 (plus or minus 500) years - that are returning to their start-points that you surely understand what a cycle is.

Or do you hold that natural variation is zero? Then of course, you might have a point. Some warmers do indeed hold that natural variation is zero. Do you?

Blatant strawman. Nobody claims this. Nobody claims that climate didn't vary before the Industrial Revolution, or the Agricultural Revolution 8-10 thousand years ago. Of course there's natural variation, and natural cycles.

When a natural cycle keeps re-starting from a higher base - as is the case with the solar cycle - something else is in play. In this case, of course, it's increasing CO2-load. Just as predicted from the underlying science.

[Schneibster]

Thanks everyone for your answers - looks like I need to remain in lurker mode and keep listening and reading for now.It gets pretty acrimonious. If you don't like that, then that's probably your best course.

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org/) is an unbiased source? Absolutely not. It's run by an oil company executive and an individual who did fake science for Phillip Morris to try to deny that cigarettes cause cancer and heart disease. I leave the results to your imagination.

If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?I seriously doubt it; the anti-AGW folks believe that the peer-reviewed science is biased. As a counterbalance to the other side, I suggest http://www.realclimate.org and could suggest a few others if you'd like.

[Pipirr]

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org/) is an unbiased source? If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?

climateaudit? I would not agree that it is unbiased, especially if one includes the comments. If you take McIntyre only, this is his description of the website: "Through the use of proxy data, statistics, as well as commentary and discussion, Steve McIntyre tries to show how human induced global warming does not add up."

So yes, he has taken a side and uses the website to demonstrate his point.

It's a blog, it's not peer reviewed, and the commenters tend to be of a like mind.

So, unbiased? Hell no.

[Pipirr]

As a counterbalance to the other side, I suggest http://www.realclimate.org and could suggest a few others if you'd like.


Agreed. I think it does a good job of presenting the peer reviewed climate science.

[CapelDodger]

Thanks everyone for your answers - looks like I need to remain in lurker mode and keep listening and reading for now.

P.S. Do people on both sides of the issue agree that www.climateaudit.org (http://www.climateaudit.org/) is an unbiased source? If not, is there a site that both sides could agree is unbiased?

ClimateAudit is very far from unbiased. It's nit-picking, cherry-picking, self-basting denialism with a snide-order [sic] of character-assassination with conspiracy dressing. Superficially attractive to some, but don't go there without wearing protection.

[Schneibster]

Superficially attractive to some, but don't go there without wearing protection.I'm thinking Leslie Nielsen's full-body protection from The Naked Gun.

[CapelDodger]

Agreed. I think it does a good job of presenting the peer reviewed climate science.

Agreed indeed, but it's only one step below Al Gore on the Denialist Demonisation Index. About on a par with Hansen.

There'll be no meeting of minds on an unbiased website. In the end you have to go to the science, and in particular the current observations. Of the Sun, of cosmic rays, of Arctic ice-extent/cover, of temperatures. RealClimate is good source for links, and some very cogent argument and commentary, but in the end you have to look behind it.

Getting out much is also good :). As a gardener (from a long line) and walker I don't need McIntyre or anybody else to tell me that the climate's changing rapidly. McIntyre will probably claim to prove me deluded from a decade or so up the line, but I don't pay that much never-mind.

[CapelDodger]

I'm thinking Leslie Nielsen's full-body protection from The Naked Gun.

;)

I'm thinking the full CBN kit. The sort of armour that mhaze dons before he leaves ClimateAudit to come here.

Come to think of it ... isn't this the most unbiased site to come to? Talk about the whole rich tapestry of life ...

[Pipirr]

RealClimate is good source for links, and some very cogent argument and commentary, but in the end you have to look behind it.


Aye, but that's where it gets tricky. Hard though it may be to believe, seeing as I have occasionally posted in this thread, I'm not actually a climate scientist. ;) I appreciate the exposition of the literature that realclimate provides...

[CapelDodger]

You still didn't answer the question. Correlation r=.22 means there is essentially no link between CO2 and temperature fluctuations. Solar activity on the other hand has a strong correlation.

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12234

'"We decided to do a simple and direct analysis of the potential role of the Sun in recent climate change without using any model output," says Lockwood.

Lockwood and colleague Claus Fröhlich, at the World Radiation Center in Switzerland, used direct measurements only for their study. As Lockwood puts it: "This is just what the spacecraft have seen."

Looking at data from the past 40 years, the two researchers noticed that solar activity did what Lockwood describes as a "U-turn in every possible way" in the mid-1980s.

"The upshot is that somewhere between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could have affected climate have been going in the wrong direction. If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now," Lockwood told New Scientist."'

One is bound to wonder how your "strong correlation" is arrived at. I get the picture, but where did you get it from :confused:?

Since correlation is not causation, what direct evidence can you provide that supports the hypothesis CO2 drives temperature? It doesn't exist.

It exists in the observable world. Just as predicted by the underlying science. Where the heck else is the extra energy coming from if not from retention? Not from extra income.

For all the supposed peer reviewed studies supporting AGW, if it were tallied up, your side really does more talking than presenting evidence. Mostly what we get are lectures, ad hom attacks galore, unsupported assumptions, and a whole lot of speculation.

That's your perception.

My perception is that the anti-AGW camp spends a lot of time in the past (some of it very distant, even before my time), casts aspersions on honest scientists, quotes dishonest scientists, brings up Al Gore a lot, personalises the argument generally, and doesn't get out much.

In the end it's all just shadows cast into a cave, isn't it?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming

So, the sun does not cause the globe to warm.

That's a knee slapper.

Maybe if they gave the information a less silly title one would not know that it was propaganda.

[BobK]

climateaudit? I would not agree that it is unbiased, especially if one includes the comments. If you take McIntyre only, this is his description of the website: "Through the use of proxy data, statistics, as well as commentary and discussion, Steve McIntyre tries to show how human induced global warming does not add up."

So yes, he has taken a side and uses the website to demonstrate his point.

It's a blog, it's not peer reviewed, and the commenters tend to be of a like mind.

So, unbiased? Hell no.

You really shouldn't be attributing to McIntyre that supposed quote by him, unless you can provide a link to him saying it. Which you can't. Do you really think he talks about himself in the third person? His primary concern is checking the validity of the data. He makes no assumption as to the main cause of recent warming.

He has already shown some of the assumptions being touted as proof of man being the main cause of GW as being of dubious quality. e.g. lack of error bars, cherry-picked data, not reviewed by skilled statisticians etc. Why would anyone want to rush a multi-trillion dollar program into effect without first ascertaining to best ability the validity of the data causing the necessity for action?

[a_unique_person]

His chief concern to me appears to be his obsession with Hansen and posting "where's waldo" every so often.

Why would anyone rush into a multi trillion dollar program? It's an interesting question, the Iraq invasion was happening in a few months, with conservatives accepting everything they were told, AGW research has been going on for decades now, and we are still told there hasn't been enough of it.

The expenditure on reducing CO2 emmissions will actually mostly be beneficial, as it will bring about cheaper and better ways of using energy, a massive cost saving.

[mhaze]

You really shouldn't be attributing to McIntyre that supposed quote by him, unless you can provide a link to him saying it. Which you can't. Do you really think he talks about himself in the third person? His primary concern is checking the validity of the data. He makes no assumption as to the main cause of recent warming.

He has already shown some of the assumptions being touted as proof of man being the main cause of GW as being of dubious quality. e.g. lack of error bars, cherry-picked data, not reviewed by skilled statisticians etc. Why would anyone want to rush a multi-trillion dollar program into effect without first ascertaining to best ability the validity of the data causing the necessity for action?

From the www.climateaudit.org faq (http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=1002)

Does your work disprove global warming?
We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.

[a_unique_person]

So, the sun does not cause the globe to warm.

That's a knee slapper.

Maybe if they gave the information a less silly title one would not know that it was propaganda.

The earth is warming. The sun is not increasing it's output. Why the change in one and not the other?

[David Rodale]

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12234



One is bound to wonder how your "strong correlation" is arrived at. I get the picture, but where did you get it from :confused:?



It exists in the observable world. Just as predicted by the underlying science. Where the heck else is the extra energy coming from if not from retention? Not from extra income.



That's your perception.

My perception is that the anti-AGW camp spends a lot of time in the past (some of it very distant, even before my time), casts aspersions on honest scientists, quotes dishonest scientists, brings up Al Gore a lot, personalises the argument generally, and doesn't get out much.

In the end it's all just shadows cast into a cave, isn't it?

Reply to Lockwood and Frohlich:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
So it's really not settled is it? There are other papers in direct conflict with L&F as well which can be easily accessed.

Now, we've all been inundated with news flashes and scientist's opinions about the Arctic. Much has been made about the recent melting, but nothing as to what caused it. AGW folks automatically assume (and really good at that) it must be a result of global warming caused by increased CO2 levels, however the latest data shows in fact that is not the case. From another thread, nobody replied. Any comments?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071001.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031138.shtml
I have the full article and can post excerpts, but not in it's entirety. No reference is made to "global warming", "anthropogenic", CO2 levels etc. or anything else relating to AGW.
Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

The new study differs significantly from other recent studies that only looked at the Arctic's total sea ice extent.

[David Rodale]

The earth is warming. The sun is not increasing it's output. Why the change in one and not the other?

The earth is not warming as I have already provided evidence for. If you're going to propagate a statement over and over, include the evidence. Otherwise it is nothing but conjecture.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The earth is warming. The sun is not increasing it's output. Why the change in one and not the other?

Because planetary climate is very complex and does not change immediately upon new inputs.

Why are other planets in our solar system currently warming?

[mhaze]

Come to think of it ... isn't this the most unbiased site to come to? Talk about the whole rich tapestry of life ...

It's a blog that has not banned you, so it is certainly unbiased toward you.

First of all, if one was to consider unbiased sites, it would be necessary to exclude those which ban comments opposite from the point of view that the site espouses.

Realclimate has always banned such comments, therefore it does not qualify as the "Unbiased site" that our new guest asks for. Climateaudit does not ban comments, excepting for improper language and the like. Therefore, Climateaudit is unbiased.

A further illustration that climateaudit is unbiased is the simple reality that actual work is performed there, as opposed to discussion. The intent of a project is fully explained, then the work is done, and the full results are posted publicly for anyone to view. No results are hidden away if they do not confirm the hypothesis.

Gristmill comes to mind as another possible, the home of the famous "how to sound dumb reading our stupid script when you argue with a climate skeptic". Here the comments often overwhelm the script, which is pretty stupid of course. But people waltz into JREF trying to read it into their responses. They do the same with Realclimate, by the way. Such people usually give up after a few exchanges or, when their script runs out, revert to smearing, baiting and personal attacks.

Climateaudit often has working climate scientists contributing to the blog, where Gristmill is more the average crowd.

[CapelDodger]

Aye, but that's where it gets tricky. Hard though it may be to believe, seeing as I have occasionally posted in this thread, I'm not actually a climate scientist. ;) I appreciate the exposition of the literature that realclimate provides...

As another informed amateur, so do I. (I missed you out, didn't I :o? Occasional, but always cogent.)

When things wash up from the blogosphere that aren't egregious nonsense but still smell, RealClimate is my first go-to. It's the people there - not least the commentators - who do the reference-searching for me. They also do some exemplary demolitions. Respect, big-time.

The esteemed tamino at Open Mind http://tamino.wordpress.com/ is another must-read, just for the sake of it. Front-line stuff, while RealClimate is more like staff-officer territory.

[a_unique_person]

Because planetary climate is very complex and does not change immediately upon new inputs.

Why are other planets in our solar system currently warming?

You mean, why are some warming and others aren't?

[mhaze]

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12234


Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?

[a_unique_person]

The earth is not warming as I have already provided evidence for. If you're going to propagate a statement over and over, include the evidence. Otherwise it is nothing but conjecture.

So you disagree with TGGWS and other Cosmic Rays theories?

[a_unique_person]

Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?

Yeah, right. In some people's minds.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You mean, why are some warming and others aren't?

You have evidence that others aren't?

[a_unique_person]

You have evidence that others aren't?

You made the claim. You didn't say all planets, did you? Do you have evidence that they all are?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You made the claim. You didn't say all planets, did you? Do you have evidence that they all are?

I made the claim that others are. Sorry, you found the wrong patsy for your game.

You implied a claim that some planets are not warming. Are you now backing from that implied claim?

[CapelDodger]

It's a blog that has not banned you, so it is certainly unbiased toward you.

First of all, if one was to consider unbiased sites, it would be necessary to exclude those which ban comments opposite from the point of view that the site espouses.

Realclimate has always banned such comments, therefore it does not qualify as the "Unbiased site" that our new guest asks for.

Untrue. You should check your sources. Somebody's been telling you porkies.

Climateaudit does not ban comments, excepting for improper language and the like.

The like?

Therefore, Climateaudit is unbiased.

Therefore?

A further illustration that climateaudit is unbiased is the simple reality that actual work is performed there, as opposed to discussion. The intent of a project is fully explained, then the work is done, and the full results are posted publicly for anyone to view. No results are hidden away if they do not confirm the hypothesis.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide an example of that narrative. A project being posited, the work (research? statistical analysis? modelling?) being done, and results not confirming the hypothesis being published and discussed. It would be informative.

As I recall, Lucifage Roficale mentioned a while back that McIntyre, fresh from cooling the lower-48 back in the 90's, was about to do the same for Africa. And yet so far nothing. Is that one of the projects you refer to?

Gristmill comes to mind as another possible, the home of the famous "how to sound dumb reading our stupid script when you argue with a climate skeptic".

It's rather more about the stupid script that contrarians follow. The same old same old, for decades now, as the real world - the big bad analogue model - moves on.

[David Rodale]

So you disagree with TGGWS and other Cosmic Rays theories?

I said it's not settled.

You said it's warming, it is not.

I'm also interested in comments concerning the latest Arctic ice melt study in my previous post, but it must be invisible.

[CapelDodger]

Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?

It was no doubt debunked in the ClimateAudit environment, but not in the real world. Perhaps more to the point, not in the out-of-the-world where the satellites sit and watch the sun. Day and night. Observing and reporting, free from bias (which requires oxygen).

Go on, give us a laugh, how was it debunked? (Beware : some of us have read this particular script beforehand.)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

1. Based on what you all have seen here at JREF, what's the ballpark estimate of the percentage of how many here at JREF support the theory that human activities are causing global warming?

80% agree with MMGW from my limited time here

2. Has anyone figured out why there is such a discrepancy in source data in the global warming debate? For example, I read an article that said that in the year 2000 they recorded the highest solar output seen in the past 1000 years but then I've also read that there's been no increase in solar output since 1978. This is just one of many many examples of source data discrepancy. Anyone else seeing this?

The source data is not the problem. It is the interpretation that is the problem.

The global warming debate is turning out to be very weird. It almost smells like a woo debate. It seems, however, that the science and logic aren't as much of a problem as the source data discrepancies. I've heard that it's global socialism trying to control and bring down industrialized nations to force equality and I've also heard that it's just earth-friendly folks just trying to keep others from wrecking the planet.

A well done propaganda campaign always throws everything at the wall to find what sticks. What sticks becomes talking points and sound bites.


What's the deal? Shouldn't this be at least somewhat straightforward? How can I read two completely different sets of source data about temperatures, CO2 levels, solar output levels, etc. and only the people on each side of the debate are quoting the data that support their own side of the debate. I see little objectivity and rarely see people dealing with the "other side's" data. It's like the two sides are dealing with data from two different planets.

It is generally correct data. It is the presentation of said data that presents different conclusions.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Twain


I smell strong bias on both sides of this human-caused global warming debate. Any ideas on why this is? Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?

The central focus of your inquiry should be what is each side asking for. Many times this will allow for the discernment of the truth.

[mhaze]

It was no doubt debunked in the ClimateAudit environment, but not in the real world. Perhaps more to the point, not in the out-of-the-world where the satellites sit and watch the sun. Day and night. Observing and reporting, free from bias (which requires oxygen).

Go on, give us a laugh, how was it debunked? (Beware : some of us have read this particular script beforehand.)

Here's what you do, CD. Actually read the paper, then read the various responses. Don't waste my time if you just want to read your Realclimate script, take the lazy way out and not read Lockwood, then try to weasel around.

Make a post in the Science GW thread and I'll be glad to discuss it. I'm sure others will too. In this thread, I think the details would really bore people that are not technically inclined.

Fair enough?

[mhaze]

80% agree with MMGW from my limited time here

Might be accurate.

But Schneibee, AUP, CarpelDodger (not sure about Varoche) are by their own admission, Climate Alarmists. In other words, they go way way beyond what the IPCC projects and actually believe there is a serious possibility all the polar ice will melt, the seas may go up by 20 feet in 30 years, etc.

These views are obviously not supported by mainstream science.

Alarmists who believe in "tipping points", that would be a tiny fraction of JREF. Possibly only these several individuals.

[CapelDodger]

You said it's warming, it is not.

Oh yes it is.

I'm also interested in comments concerning the latest Arctic ice melt study in my previous post, but it must be invisible.

Something that drew my attention was a record low in Arctic ice-extent that was 27% below the previous record low, back in 2005.

An event like that takes some explaining away. Can solar-cycle science really take that sort of load?

[stevea]

When it comes to the published science there are no political motives.

Ho - what a laugh. You've naivete is remarkable. Most academic pursuits are highly political including the sciences. I've been on the receiving end of this one - you are simply wrong. Your credulity is the basis for much of the misplaced trust in the "consensus of science". IMO the bias is most evident as a lack of published opposing views rather than primary errors in the peer reviewed work. Still this flaw is a fatal to the truth.


If the IPCC has any political motives, one would presumably be its own perpetuation. Given that its patrons are governments it will tend toward telling them what they want to hear.

So your local water district and waste disposal services tell your local govt what it wants to hear ? No, bureaucracies regularly ask for more money for more projects and expansion. Of course the UN has a need for power, and one classic method for a power-grab is fear-mongering. It has worked for J.Ceasar as well as G.Bush; why not the UN ? I am NOT saying that this is the predominant motive nor am I saying the IPCC report is wrong. I am pointing out that the UN could be motivated to promote the most scary scenario for the purpose of consolidating more power in the UN.

Climate defines the bounds within which the weather can vary. Climate is to weather as a prison yard is to prisoners.

By that definition we know almost nothing about climate. Most data of past weather is based on secondary evidence, whether tree ring, plant range of gases trapping in ice - all of these wash out the temporal peaks and produce only evidence for averaged climate.

It's not proof, but it's been strong enough evidence to see the establishment of the IPCC and just about every politician making noises about their concern. Even the White House has gone hands-up to the reality of AGW. Even the Australian government has signed up to it.

So your basis for evaluating the truth of an argument involves determining a concensus ? Asking all the politicians ? If so you should not be posting to a forum dedicated to debunking fallacious beliefs. You are instead promoting methods that leads directly to fallacious beliefs.

It's good evidence that something's changed. Land-use, climate, whatever, the actuaries will be on it and the odds will drop rapidly. As one who's spent many happy hours socialising with actuaries (they're more fun than one might expect) I can assure you of that. The "century" rating is based on statistics, and when three occur in a decade the statistics have changed.

No it's not evidence of anything special at all and you should try hanging out with actuaries who have actually studies statistics. Your claims show a ridiculous misunderstanding of basic probability. Having several improbable events appear in a short period does NOT change the underlying probability. Such things are effectively guaranteed to happen over long-enough time periods. Mis-recognizing a series of improbable random events as a pattern is precisely what conspiracy theorist do, not actuaries.

You must compare the odd-seeming result against the chance that these are normal variation within the original statistic. Yes, 3 century floods in a decade is improbable but it really must occur once every 10k years or perhaps much more often if there is a clustering of non-independent events. Just because you observe this after a few millenia of historical observation does not make the statistics wrong and no competant actuary would claim so.

I don't need the AGW religion and I'm too old to be scared by ghost stories.
You'll need to produce the same sort of statistical demonstration that other sciences require.

[Pipirr]

You really shouldn't be attributing to McIntyre that supposed quote by him, unless you can provide a link to him saying it. Which you can't. Do you really think he talks about himself in the third person? His primary concern is checking the validity of the data. He makes no assumption as to the main cause of recent warming.



I found the quote here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=climateaudit

It's the first search result on google. The quote that I used is the site description that was displayed.

If McIntyre didn't write that, then who did? Isn't the site description written by the author of the site?

[Schneibster]

Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?Debunked? Where? Let's see some links to peer-reviewed literature if you're going to make a claim like that. You didn't provide any when it was first brought up, also by CD. I searched on Lockwood for the last three months in SMM&T (this forum) and found nothing but Piers Corbyn, who totally screwed up his "forecasts" for August, and who (because he keeps his data secret) has nothing but claims to oppose to Lockwood & Froehlich's hard data. In addition, it appears that their data is also in line with an earlier study by Lassen and Christensen.

I see no debunking. Where is this, ClimateFraudit? WeatherInaction?

[Schneibster]

Here's what you do, CD. Actually read the paper, then read the various responses. Don't waste my time if you just want to read your Realclimate script, take the lazy way out and not read Lockwood, then try to weasel around.

Make a post in the Science GW thread and I'll be glad to discuss it. I'm sure others will too. In this thread, I think the details would really bore people that are not technically inclined.

Fair enough?Hey, you made the claim, then failed to support it. Claim therefore denied. You lied, again. And yes, that's the script.

[mhaze]

I found the quote here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=climateaudit

It's the first search result on google. The quote that I used is the site description that was displayed.

If McIntyre didn't write that, then who did? Isn't the site description written by the author of the site?

No, there are no meta tags that use these phrases in the source of the html. There are several other ways a site description can be picked up (http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20070115EditingYourWebsiteDescriptiononGoogle.html ) or automatically generated.

I don't think it is possible to know how that phrase was created, but Bobk is correct, it does not look like something that Steve McIntyre would approve of.

You've found something good though, an error. I'll bring it to Steve's attention. It is definitely contrary to what he views as the intent of his work.

Thanks.

[CapelDodger]

Might be accurate.

But Schneibee, AUP, CarpelDodger (not sure about Varoche) are by their own admission, Climate Alarmists. In other words, they go way way beyond what the IPCC projects and actually believe there is a serious possibility all the polar ice will melt, the seas may go up by 20 feet in 30 years, etc.

These views are obviously not supported by mainstream science.

Alarmists who believe in "tipping points", that would be a tiny fraction of JREF. Possibly only these several individuals.

You condemn yourself as a liar from your own mouth. A worthy disciple of Pat Michaels.

I notice that you've resorted to Diamond's infantile practice of name-calling. If you think youself capable of taking on that mantle you are sadly mis-informed. You don't have it in you to be that whacko. You've no imagination. No technique eiher, but neither did Diamond. Nor TitanPoint before him.

Schneibster, a_unique_person, and I don't predict anything more alarming than the mainstream science does. That - to people in the real world - is alarming enough. To such as you, it's alarming and therefore not true.

You could do with getting over your severe case of Ringmaster Syndrome. You weren't just rubbing cheeks in private with jerome back there, you're outside the clubhouse now. You're not just lying about me - and Schneibster, and a_unique_person - behind my back, you're doing it to my face in public.

That's gloves-off as far as I'm concerned. Go on, tell me that doesn't scare you. Tell me you're channeling ClimateAudit so I can't win. McIntyre is your staff and rod.

TitanPoint used to channel John Daly against me, and look what happened to him.

[Pipirr]

No, there are no meta tags that use these phrases in the source of the html. There are several other ways a site description can be picked up (http://www.searchnewz.com/topstory/news/sn-2-20070115EditingYourWebsiteDescriptiononGoogle.html ) or automatically generated.

I don't think it is possible to know how that phrase was created, but Bobk is correct, it does not look like something that Steve McIntyre would approve of.

You've found something good though, an error. I'll bring it to Steve's attention. It is definitely contrary to what he views as the intent of his work.

Thanks.

Welcome!

[Schneibster]

You must compare the odd-seeming result against the chance that these are normal variation within the original statistic. Yes, 3 century floods in a decade is improbable but it really must occur once every 10k years or perhaps much more often if there is a clustering of non-independent events. Just because you observe this after a few millenia of historical observation does not make the statistics wrong and no competant actuary would claim so.You're probably right; I'm no statistician, but I've spent enough time around them and statistics in general to have a good grasp of the subject.

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?

And when you talk about the politics of getting something published in a peer-reviewed journal, there's something important you've forgotten. If someone could actually do credible research and prove AGW is wrong, at this late date, the journal that published it would get a LOT of publicity, and a LOT of cred. That's the thing about science; if the contrarian turns out to be right, s/he gets famous. There aren't any, despite continuing claims of it.

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- but if you produce that evidence, then there you have it, and everybody else goes scrambling around to figure out where they screwed it up. It's pretty rare, though.

[CapelDodger]

I forgot to count stevea into the anti-AGW camp earlier. That cancels out my omission of Pipirr.

[luddite]

I have been looking at both sides and one side uses the hockey stick graph, the other side says that that graph was based on flawed data and doesn't even show the medieval warm period or little ice age. I've seen the graph and it's looks to be true that the medieval warming period and little ice age aren't there - if they were, it would paint a very different picture. Which side do I believe?

Which side do you believe?

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occuring. See this article entitled BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change by Naomi Oreskes, published in the Journal "Science" in December 2004.

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Or read this statement issued jointly by 13 scientific academies in the world for the G8 summit in 2007, including the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Royal Society of the UK, the Royal Society of Canada, and the major scientific academies of Germany, Japan, France, Italy, China, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico and India. It reads:

In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasising that climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group 1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC. Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very
likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/G8_Academies%20Declaration.pdf

Or read the statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in
extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

Or listen to an interview with John Holdren, the president of the AAAS on the issue:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1855511.htm

Or read the transcript:

The current situation of the world in relation to the climate problem is that we're in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog, and the fog is the scientific uncertainty about the details that prevent us from knowing exactly where the cliff is. The climate change sceptics are telling us that the fog is a consolation and that we shouldn't worry because we're uncertain about the details, but of course any sane person driving a car toward a cliff in the fog and knowing that the brakes are bad, that it takes the car a long time to stop, will start putting on the brakes, trying to slow the car, without knowing exactly where the cliff is but just in the hope that by putting on the brakes we'll be in time to keep from going over the cliff. You don't have to be sure that you can still avoid going over the cliff to put on the brakes, you want to do it in any case. And that's what the world should be doing with respect to the emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing this climate problem. There's a chance we'll go over the cliff anyway but prudence requires that we try to stop the car.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1855511.htm

There are legitimate doubters out there, some of whom are scientists. They represent a tiny and shrinking minority. I hope I don't misrepresent anyone when I say that I think everyone on this forum fervently hopes this tiny minority is right.

But anyone who implies that the numbers of scientists who are GW doubters is anywhere close to the number who accept it is distorting the truth.

Furthermore, if GW is occuring, the consequences of inaction are so high that prudence would call for reducing emissions even if you're unconvinced.

[mhaze]

Schneibster, a_unique_person, and I don't predict anything more alarming than the mainstream science does. That - to people in the real world - is alarming enough. To such as you, it's alarming and therefore not true.


What is wrong with defining Alarmist as going well beyond the limits of prediction of the mainstream science as embodied in the IPCC Feb 2007 report?

[mhaze]

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?


Yep, I predicted it first.

WARMERS RUNNING FOR THE SEA ICE.

Next - the Polar Bears!

BY THE SCRIPT.

[BobK]

I found the quote here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=climateaudit

It's the first search result on google. The quote that I used is the site description that was displayed.

If McIntyre didn't write that, then who did? Isn't the site description written by the author of the site?

If you had bothered to click the link and actually go there you would have found one of the people commenting in the thread inserted that as a quote from yet another site. McIntyre never said anything of the sort. All it would have taken is a simple search for part of the quote in that thread to come up with the correct, but still second-hand attribution.

[David Rodale]

Oh yes it is.

Something that drew my attention was a record low in Arctic ice-extent that was 27% below the previous record low, back in 2005.

An event like that takes some explaining away. Can solar-cycle science really take that sort of load?

Why not read the latest Arctic ice study rather than blathering? It's beginning to look like all you folks can do is give lectures and call people liars. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence Arctic warming is caused by AGW. Put up or shut up as MHaze would say.

According to the latest information, the rapid recent ice melt was caused by atmospheric conditions causing wind patterns to move the ice starting early in the last century. The article makes no mention whatsoever of AGW causes.

Do you have a comment on the article? Schneibster has me on Iggy; maybe his psychiatrist recommended it.

Here, one more time:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031138.shtml
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
I have the full article and can post excerpts. No reference is made to "global warming", "anthropogenic", CO2 levels etc. or anything else relating to AGW, but there's quite a bit about solar absorption and oceanic oscillations.
Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

The new study differs significantly from other recent studies that only looked at the Arctic's total sea ice extent.



Another, by Soon 2005
Willie W.-H. Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml
Abstract
This letter offers new evidence motivating a more serious consideration of the potential Arctic temperature responses as a consequence of the decadal, multidecadal and longer-term persistent forcing by the ever-changing solar irradiance both in terms of total solar irradiance (TSI, i.e., integrated over all wavelengths) and the related UV irradiance. The support for such a solar modulator can be minimally derived from the large (>75%) explained variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic surface air temperatures (SATs) by TSI and from the time-frequency structures of the TSI and Arctic SAT variability as examined by wavelet analyses. The reconstructed Arctic SAT time series based on the inverse wavelet transform, which includes decadal (5–15 years) and multidecadal (40–80 years) variations and a longer-term trend, contains nonstationary but persistent features that are highly correlated with the Sun's intrinsic magnetic variability especially on multidecadal time scales.

[Pipirr]

If you had bothered to click the link and actually go there you would have found one of the people commenting in the thread inserted that as a quote from yet another site. McIntyre never said anything of the sort.


You assume that I never read climateaudit?

Hey, I learned something today. Site descriptions on google can be picked up from somewhere other than the website itself, and are not necessarily created by the author. I never knew that. And who knows, if mhaze passes it on, maybe Steve McIntyre will add a description of his own that is more appropriate.

After all, heaven forfend someone should get the wrong idea about climateaudit.


All it would have taken is a simple search for part of the quote in that thread to come up with the correct, but still second-hand attribution.


I have no idea what you are failing to say here.

[BobK]

You assume that I never read climateaudit?

Hey, I learned something today. Site descriptions on google can be picked up from somewhere other than the website itself, and are not necessarily created by the author. I never knew that. And who knows, if mhaze passes it on, maybe Steve McIntyre will add a description of his own that is more appropriate.

After all, heaven forfend someone should get the wrong idea about climateaudit.





I have no idea what you are failing to say here.

We seem to have a misunderstanding. I made no assumption you have never been to climateaudit. Clicking the link would have taken you to the site. I did make the assumption you were aware they have a search box with an option to search the site.(upper right corner of main page) There you could have entered the search text and it would have given you a link to the thread where the text could be found. By then doing a search using key combination Ctl-F in the thread page you could insert the text and it would take you to the comment containing the text and you would know who actually quoted it from another site.

FYI. I guess here is where the the supposed quote originated. It appears to be another persons description of the site and not McIntyre's. Link (http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Climate_Change_Skeptics/)

[Megalodon]

You are presenting more data that there is a range of natural variation? More data to prove my point that David Rodale is correct in saying that there is no warming?

As for Tung 2007, the subject is not his overall conclusions, but the range of natural variability. I am well aware of the overall extent of his work and find it pretty laughable. That is a separate subject. We could discuss it if you like.


I am going to be charitable and explain this to you as if I didn't know you're not interested.

The paper in question identified, through a lot of work, a natural variation in temperature due to the solar variation. This means that going from a solar minimum to a solar maximum would account for an increase of roughly 0.18º, in around 6 years. Conversely, going from a solar minimum to a solar maximum to a solar minimum would account for a decrease of roughly 0.18º.

The reason why they had so much work is that, due to global warming, the trend is not clearly perceived. That because, despite your antics, there has been a constant increase in temperature for the last 3 decades. This includes almost 3 complete solar cycles, with the corresponding 6 fluctuations of plus or minus 0.18ºC.

That's it, in a few paragraphs...

[Megalodon]

I see, Magalodon, that you have taken my sound advice from post #90 of the "A few Questions" thread -All good warmers should racket up use of debate tactic such as smears. That is about all that is left.
As you have mentioned, your dissertation will not write itself. You will have to defend it, and it will not defend itself.

Smear tactics will not work for your defense of your dissertation. Here is your chance to practice and perfect good tactics for this important and difficult job ahead.;)

Are you really going to claim that you didn't claim that Hansen said that Scenario A was the most plausible? Is it a smear to tell you that I don't care for your assertions, since many of them proved to be false?

You are the one lying right now, by saying that I'm smearing you. Again: your assertions have no credibility, because they were so often wrong in the past.

You're depressing...

[Megalodon]

Mostly what we get are lectures, ad hom attacks galore, unsupported assumptions, and a whole lot of speculation.

Unsupported assumptions? Like implying that the temperature trend didn't show warming, or that El Niño made a huge difference in the temperature trend?

I got your data, made the graphs and called your bluff. There is a definite rising trend. Actually the best fit was quadratic, suggesting a greater rate of warming in the last couple of decades, but I thought the linear trend would carry the point nicely. I was wrong.

BTW, please do stop with the hissy fits. Nobody is using ad homs, except for those who think that labeling one entire field of science as either incompetent or corrupt.

[a_unique_person]

I made the claim that others are. Sorry, you found the wrong patsy for your game.

You implied a claim that some planets are not warming. Are you now backing from that implied claim?

I'm just trying to pin down exactly what you said.



Why are other planets in our solar system currently warming?



Maybe you could clear up exactly what you mean then?

[David Rodale]

Unsupported assumptions? Like implying that the temperature trend didn't show warming, or that El Niño made a huge difference in the temperature trend?

I got your data, made the graphs and called your bluff. There is a definite rising trend. Actually the best fit was quadratic, suggesting a greater rate of warming in the last couple of decades, but I thought the linear trend would carry the point nicely. I was wrong.

BTW, please do stop with the hissy fits. Nobody is using ad homs, except for those who think that labeling one entire field of science as either incompetent or corrupt.

Where are your graphs? If temperatures stay the same for the next 100 years, there will always be an upward trend, but will diminish with time. However, it would still be accurate to say it has warmed. Who has said there has been no warming since 1979? If it cools at the same rate, you will be able to say there's a warming trend for many years; it's meaningless.

It's not warming. Please point it out for us. Would it be fair to say we're in a large cooling trend since 1998? I said it is not warming, it is not. Which direction will temperatures move from Sept. 2007, up or down? Notice the temperature in Sept. 2008. Which direction did temperature move, up or down?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470d98b386ac0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8748)

You skipped right over the Arctic article. Is there any particular reason why?

[Schneibster]

It's not warming. Please point it out for us.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323470d98b386ac0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8748)
Sure. It's right there at the end. See how the beginning is lower, and the end is higher? There ya go.

Not very bright, are you? Don't waste five-dollar words on a five-cent intellect, Megalodon. This one wouldn't know a quadratic if it jumped up and bit him on the ***.

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Please keep the conversation civil.

[David Rodale]

Sure. It's right there at the end. See how the beginning is lower, and the end is higher? There ya go.

Not very bright, are you? Don't waste five-dollar words on a five-cent intellect, Megalodon. This one wouldn't know a quadratic if it jumped up and bit him on the ***.

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Shall I insert a trend from when it peaked in 1998?

The entire satellite record is there in the open. No tricks, no cherry picking. There is nothing Megalodon can do other than to alter the data. Clearly, there is no additional warming occurring since 1998. The trend is flat. It is no warmer in Sept. 2007 than it was in Sept. 1988.

Met O stated recently natural variation has overcome global warming, but that it will return sometime between ~2009-2014. Logically then, one would assume that means it is currently not warming, yes?

You skipped the article on the Arctic. You also did not respond to the three articles posted earlier concerning past climates of the Arctic which all state the Holocene period was much warmer than current.

[mhaze]

Are you really going to claim that you didn't claim that Hansen said that Scenario A was the most plausible? Is it a smear to tell you that I don't care for your assertions, since many of them proved to be false?

You are the one lying right now, by saying that I'm smearing you. Again: your assertions have no credibility, because they were so often wrong in the past.

You're depressing...

You can easily go back and look at what I said concerning Hansen and Scenario A, and it's relevance to the overall situation. I've noted that I do not intend to discuss this subject further until the actual testimony of Hansen 1988 arrives, at that point we can reopen it.

And actually, I thought the approach by Tung in attempting to "back out" a signal for global warming quite interesting. That does not mean I agree with it, and the details of his approach could of course be discussed. I noted that he pegged natural variation at 0.2C. Not having the paper in front of me, perhaps it was 0.18C.

Why do you want to skirt the larger issue, the question that I asked as to what was your opinion about natural variation in temperature?

[mhaze]

Nobody is using ad homs,

Really?

[Schneibster]

Shall I insert a trend from when it peaked in 1998?

The entire satellite record is there in the open. No tricks, no cherry picking. There is nothing Megalodon can do other than to alter the data. Clearly, there is no additional warming occurring since 1998. The trend is flat. It is no warmer in Sept. 2007 than it was in Sept. 1988. So? People keep telling you that climate is something that happens over decades and centuries, and you keep claiming it's something that happens from year to year. You really need to fix that. And by the way, there's still that melting ice thing you're having trouble with.

Met O stated recently natural variation has overcome global warming, but that it will return sometime between ~2009-2014. Logically then, one would assume that means it is currently not warming, yes? So it just suddenly stopped, huh? Suuuuuure. That's why the ice all melted, right?

By the way, have you heard of the solar cycle? You know, the 11-year one? Any idea where we are in that cycle? Yep, that's right- at the bottom. That means that it's about .18C cooler than it will be in a couple years- and it's gonna get about .36C warmer by about 5 or 6 years from now. Why don't you see if you can figure out how warm that will be? And remember, that's just the baseline. The constant trend is upward.

You skipped the article on the Arctic. You also did not respond to the three articles posted earlier concerning past climates of the Arctic which all state the Holocene period was much warmer than current.Oh, I think you'll find you got about all the response you can handle and a bit more if you go look.

[mhaze]

By the way, have you heard of the solar cycle? You know, the 11-year one? Any idea where we are in that cycle? Yep, that's right- at the bottom. That means that it's about .18C cooler than it will be in a couple years- and it's gonna get about .36C warmer by about 5 or 6 years from now. Why don't you see if you can figure out how warm that will be? And remember, that's just the baseline. The constant trend is upward.


1. We are coming out of a little ice age that concluded in the mid 1850s.
2. It was somewhat colder then because it was a "little ice age".
3. It should be getting slightly warmer now.

Care to quantify the extent of those natural variations for us? Please include the 60-80 year climate cycles, as well as the various length solar cycles, and then explain what correlation you get with your results.

After determining the extent of natural variation, You might possibly find agreement that "what was left" could be attributed to man made causes. Not having addressed the basic issue of natural variation, you do not make a case for man being the cause of the recent warming trends.

And those recent warming trends, seem to have (for Warmers) most unconveniently gone away.

[Schneibster]

1. We are coming out of a little ice age that concluded in the mid 1850s.
2. It was somewhat colder then because it was a "little ice age".
3. It should be getting slightly warmer now.Evidence? Linkies? Any peer-reviewed paper that agrees with this set of rather wild assertions? I showed you mine.

Care to quantify the extent of those natural variations for us? Please include the 60-80 year climate cycles, as well as the various length solar cycles, and then explain what correlation you get with your results.

After determining the extent of natural variation, You might possibly find agreement that "what was left" could be attributed to man made causes. Not having addressed the basic issue of natural variation, you do not make a case for man being the cause of the recent warming trends. You provide some links to substantiate what you said above, and I'll see about it. Otherwise, this is just another tissue of lies and I'll not waste my time on it.

Oh, and by the way, what you're asking for has been done. That's what scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals are for. You know, Mann, and Hansen, and all those guys? Yep, that's what they did.

And those recent warming trends, seem to have (for Warmers) most unconveniently gone away.Climate seems to be a concept you're having trouble with in addition to probability and physics and just a basic understanding of science in general. I ask you, if you don't understand what climate is, why are you even talking about global warming?

[Megalodon]

Where are your graphs?

You quoted from the post where my graphs where posted. That makes you either blind or...

[rcronk]

I'm just started a poll thread on global warming to get a feel for who's on which side and I'm going to ask each participant in the poll to give their best one or two arguments that support their position AND the best one or two issues that go against their position. Once the poll dies down, I'll gather the issues on both sides and write up a numbered list and ask that people provide the best counter arguments against each of people's best arguments.

Perhaps doing it in an ordered way like this will help at least me (and hopefully others) to see both sides of the issue more clearly. Then again, maybe not. :)

[David Rodale]

So? People keep telling you that climate is something that happens over decades and centuries, and you keep claiming it's something that happens from year to year. You really need to fix that. And by the way, there's still that melting ice thing you're having trouble with.

So it just suddenly stopped, huh? Suuuuuure. That's why the ice all melted, right?

By the way, have you heard of the solar cycle? You know, the 11-year one? Any idea where we are in that cycle? Yep, that's right- at the bottom. That means that it's about .18C cooler than it will be in a couple years- and it's gonna get about .36C warmer by about 5 or 6 years from now. Why don't you see if you can figure out how warm that will be? And remember, that's just the baseline. The constant trend is upward.

Oh, I think you'll find you got about all the response you can handle and a bit more if you go look.

I don't have a problem with the ice melt, you do.
What are the current conditions in Antarctica? Record ice gain or loss?

You're making predictions for the next 5 or 6 years. Doesn't that contradict:
People keep telling you that climate is something that happens over decades and centuries, and you keep claiming it's something that happens from year to year.

Since the oceans are not warming, what conclusion can be drawn from that? Is it possible we are witnessing the beginning of reversal of the PDO?

Solar cycle 23 has not reached minimum. You must be counting on a very strong SC24?

The current warming trend is flat. Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988. Not much wiggle room there.

The rest of your post is conjecture.

[Locri]

Debunked? Where? Let's see some links to peer-reviewed literature if you're going to make a claim like that. You didn't provide any when it was first brought up, also by CD. I searched on Lockwood for the last three months in SMM&T (this forum) and found nothing but Piers Corbyn, who totally screwed up his "forecasts" for August, and who (because he keeps his data secret) has nothing but claims to oppose to Lockwood & Froehlich's hard data. In addition, it appears that their data is also in line with an earlier study by Lassen and Christensen.

I see no debunking. Where is this, ClimateFraudit? WeatherInaction?

How about this:
The vast bulk of research to date, however, points to greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil, and natural gas – as the main force behind the current warming trend, most climate scientists say.

Still, over the past decade some researchers say they've found puzzling correlations between changes in the sun's output and weather and climate patterns on Earth. These links appear to rise above the level of misinterpreted data or faulty equipment.

(I can't post links quite yet, but I'm pretty sure this is my 15th post, so I'll put a link to the article in a separate reply.)

Just adding some more stuff to the discussion for fun ^_^

Oh, and @rcronk: I think you'll find if you compare CP's list of people on either side with their responses to your questions, you'll see a pretty dead on correlation to how they responded. Interesting, isn't it?

I'm quite sure there are no truly unbiased websites that really cover this topic as it seems to be a very polarized/polarizing topic.

I'd peg myself as "AGW Agnostic leaning towards anti-AGW"

[Locri]

Link to the CSM article: Are sunspots prime suspects in Global Warming? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html)

[Schneibster]

I don't have a problem with the ice melt, you do.They're so cute when they're that age. What problem would that be, David?

What are the current conditions in Antarctica? Record ice gain or loss?What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

You're making predictions for the next 5 or 6 years. Doesn't that contradict:Not really, and the fact that you don't know why is precisely your problem.

Here's the deal: there are regular cycles that are based on things that don't vary much, and other ones based on things that do. Some things are more regular than others. What you have to do is look and find out which are which. But that's a problem for you, because in order to be able to do that, you have to have judgment. You know, you have to be able to look at a chart and see the patterns, and see trends. And you have a huge problem with that, obviously, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be arguing with me about global warming.

To start with, why don't you tell me a good parameter to use to evaluate the smoothness of a graph.

Since the oceans are not warming, what conclusion can be drawn from that? I have no idea, it's your unproven assertion, why don't you enlighten us all? Oh, but first: please provide of that, you know, evidence stuff.

Is it possible we are witnessing the beginning of reversal of the PDO? Again, haven't a clue, it's your unsupported assertion. And again, evidence, please.

Solar cycle 23 has not reached minimum. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Sun_Loses_Its_Spots_As_Solar_Cycle_23_Bottoms_With _A_Cold_Wet_Southern_Winter_999.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Onset_of_Next_Solar_Activity_Cycle_Observed_999.ht ml
The minimum observation was from July 25th. The onset from August 22nd.

Not only aren't you very good at figuring out science or reading papers, you also have astonishingly bad google-fu.

You must be counting on a very strong SC24?And why must I, David?

The current warming trend is flat. Sept. 2007 is no warmer than Sept. 1988. Not much wiggle room there. Let's see if you can give us a good data-based definition of the smoothness of a graph and then we'll chat about current trends. At this point, it's my strong opinion that you have absolutely no idea how to even read a graph, much less make any reasonable statements about its characteristics. Prove me wrong. Talk about smoothness.

The rest of your post is conjecture.What "rest of my post," David?

[mhaze]

Which side do you believe?

There are legitimate doubters out there, some of whom are scientists. They represent a tiny and shrinking minority. I hope I don't misrepresent anyone when I say that I think everyone on this forum fervently hopes this tiny minority is right.

Furthermore, if GW is occuring, the consequences of inaction are so high that prudence would call for reducing emissions even if you're unconvinced.

Luddite, you make an interesting point here. I've snipped out your comments about various organizations and their public statements and bolded the part that interested me.

There are many radical Warmers who really do not hope that skeptics are correct and that there is no warming. Some of them are on this forum.

Sad isn't it?

That there would be people who were not happy unless the planet was perceived to be in a crisis.

[CapelDodger]

Ho - what a laugh. You've naivete is remarkable. Most academic pursuits are highly political including the sciences. I've been on the receiving end of this one - you are simply wrong. Your credulity is the basis for much of the misplaced trust in the "consensus of science".

Science can't be lumped-in with such academic pursuits as History or Economics, which certainly are politicised. Science is built brick by brick on establised foundations, with each brick relating to the others around it. It can't be suddenly revised and re-arranged, as History can. The science behind AGW isn't one single brick that can be removed without repurcussions rippling through the whole structure. In fact, one of the greatest difficulties for the anti-AGW camp is doing that - removing the theoretical basis for AGW while leaving the theoretical (and practical) basis for other subjects intact.

Consider, for example, one of mhaze's expressed idiocies. Unconvinced - and why should he be? - that CO2 has the same physical properties outside the laboratory as inside it he proposes an experiment which involves firing an infrared laser into the atmosphere and observing how much infrared is reflected back by CO2. (Yes, I know, but waddaya gonna do?) What kind of infrared laser, one wonders? The obvious candidate is a CO2-laser. Infinite regression looms ...

There have been attempts to politicise Science in the past - the most obvious being by the Nazis, and we know where that got them. Science could not have progressed as far and fast as it has over the last few centuries if it was politicised. It would have spent far too much time and effort up blind alleys.

IMO the bias is most evident as a lack of published opposing views rather than primary errors in the peer reviewed work. Still this flaw is a fatal to the truth.

A rather more obvious reason for this lack is tht there's nothing there to be said.

So your local water district and waste disposal services tell your local govt what it wants to hear ? No, bureaucracies regularly ask for more money for more projects and expansion. Of course the UN has a need for power, and one classic method for a power-grab is fear-mongering. It has worked for J.Ceasar as well as G.Bush; why not the UN ? I am NOT saying that this is the predominant motive nor am I saying the IPCC report is wrong. I am pointing out that the UN could be motivated to promote the most scary scenario for the purpose of consolidating more power in the UN.

The IPCC was established under the auspices of the UN, but it was national governments that wanted it. The UN - as in so many matters - is merely a useful forum. The UN has no power, and isn't going to get any. It's a ramshackle construct riddled with nepotism and careerism. What can it gain from falsely exaggerating - or manufacturing - AGW? National governments negotiated the Kyoto Protocol, and national governments signed-up or didn't. The UN has nothing to do with this (nor anything important, really).

Unlike water supply or waste disposal services, the IPCC is something national governments can easily do without. If it exaggerated AGW those governments - which have their own scientific advisers - would gladly shut it down. After all, who needs AGW? Governments have enough to contend with as it is. Throwing climate change into the mix when economic growth is the be-all and end-all is not something anybody ordered. They would like it to go away, but their own scientific advisors have persuaded them that it won't.

Also unlike normal services, the IPCC doesn't ask for money to fund projects or expansion. It's institutions that do that, institutions such as NASA, universities, and other research centres. That's where the work is done that the IPCC collates and reports on to national governments.


By that definition we know almost nothing about climate. Most data of past weather is based on secondary evidence, whether tree ring, plant range of gases trapping in ice - all of these wash out the temporal peaks and produce only evidence for averaged climate.

We know a great deal about climate - it's long been a matter of immediate human concern, after all. With the scientific advances of the last couple of centuries, particularly thermodynamics, we've established the principles behind it.

So your basis for evaluating the truth of an argument involves determining a concensus ? Asking all the politicians ? If so you should not be posting to a forum dedicated to debunking fallacious beliefs. You are instead promoting methods that leads directly to fallacious beliefs.

I certainly pay attention to a consensus that is unwelcome to the group involved. A comfortable consensus is easily ignored, but when people become convinced of something they'd rather not be so - and there will always be siren voices telling them that it ain't - I take notice. Very few people - and even fewer politicians - are attracted to the idea that AGW is a constraint on industrial growth. Any more than they were when smog, acid rain or ozone depletion were brought up. Those were smaller issues than AGW but there was still enormous political inertia when it came to even acknowledging that there was a problem. The same inertia has been evident with AGW and yet it's been overcome. That's significant.



No it's not evidence of anything special at all and you should try hanging out with actuaries who have actually studies statistics. Your claims show a ridiculous misunderstanding of basic probability. Having several improbable events appear in a short period does NOT change the underlying probability. Such things are effectively guaranteed to happen over long-enough time periods. Mis-recognizing a series of improbable random events as a pattern is precisely what conspiracy theorist do, not actuaries.

I rather think actuaries at some of the oldest and most prestitgious City insurance institutions have a firm grasp of statistics, including Poisson distributions.

You must compare the odd-seeming result against the chance that these are normal variation within the original statistic. Yes, 3 century floods in a decade is improbable but it really must occur once every 10k years or perhaps much more often if there is a clustering of non-independent events. Just because you observe this after a few millenia of historical observation does not make the statistics wrong and no competant actuary would claim so.

A competent actuary would indeed consider that. They're not looking to calculate profits over thousands of years, they're looking to the middle-term. If these events fade into the statistical background over time that will be taken into account, but right now there's an alarm-bell ringing. Check out weather-related insurance premiums and red-lining - in a very competitive market.

I don't need the AGW religion and I'm too old to be scared by ghost stories.

Religion? Ghost stories? It doesn't require gullibility to be convinced of AGW.

You'll need to produce the same sort of statistical demonstration that other sciences require.

Isn't statistics an academic pursuit? And thus sullied, in your opinion, by political considerations? Are these "other sciences" somehow unsullied?

There seems to be a degree of inconsistency between your first paragraph and your last.

[Schneibster]

There are many radical Warmers who really do not hope that skeptics are correct and that there is no warming. Some of them are on this forum.

Sad isn't it?

That there would be people who were not happy unless the planet was perceived to be in a crisis.You say stuff like this, and make a big deal about how mean I'm being on the other thread? You're a real hypocrite, you know that?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by David Rodale http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3062299#post3062299)
Met O stated recently natural variation has overcome global warming, but that it will return sometime between ~2009-2014. Logically then, one would assume that means it is currently not warming, yes?

So it just suddenly stopped, huh? Suuuuuure. That's why the ice all melted, right?


By the way, have you heard of the solar cycle? You know, the 11-year one? Any idea where we are in that cycle? Yep, that's right- at the bottom. That means that it's about .18C cooler than it will be in a couple years- and it's gonna get about .36C warmer by about 5 or 6 years from now.

Really? Care to elaborate on your prediction?

Perhaps provide something of a 95 or 99% confidence level, and the background data for it. That would indeed be interesting.

[Schneibster]

Not really. You've opened the box on how mean I'm being on the other thread. Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to accuse people who oppose you of wanting a disaster to happen? That's what I want to discuss.

[CapelDodger]

do not hope that skeptics are correct and that there is no warming.[/b] Some of them are on this forum.

Names? Come on, you've falsely accused named individuals of being "self-confessed alarmists", so why stop there? Give us the benefit of your Psych 101 analysis of people's motivations.

Show me yours, I'll show you mine.


Sad isn't it?

What is particularly sad is the dependence of such as you and David Rodale on ClimateAudit because you don't get out much.

That "debunking" of the satellite observations of the Sun's output - any more detail on that? You surely you didn't just get it from ClimateAudit commentary. (OK, not that surely, but for all I know there's a limit to your gullibility. Not yet demonstrated, but still a possibility.)

That there would be people who were not happy unless the planet was perceived to be in a crisis.

On that, I agree. It's hard to explain the War On Terror otherwise.

[CapelDodger]

Here's what you do, CD. Actually read the paper, then read the various responses. Don't waste my time if you just want to read your Realclimate script, take the lazy way out and not read Lockwood, then try to weasel around.

Make a post in the Science GW thread and I'll be glad to discuss it. I'm sure others will too. In this thread, I think the details would really bore people that are not technically inclined.

Fair enough?

Just give me a link to a debunking. That won't bore anybody.

Alternatively you could just provide the highlights of the "debunking" that you claimed on this thread. What was it that persuaded you? I don't ask for detail from you, since the best I could expect is cut-and-paste. You're a simple chap, so what simple points persuaded you of Lockwood et al's untruthiness? Where did the solar scientists and their satellites go wrong?

Failing that, a link would do. Even if it's to ClimateAudit.

[CapelDodger]

Really? Care to elaborate on your prediction?

Perhaps provide something of a 95 or 99% confidence level, and the background data for it. That would indeed be interesting.

We could just wait for three-to-eight years and know for certain.

The 60-80 year Arctic Ice cycle you're wedded to : do you have 90% confidence-level data for that? 80%? Anything at all beyond Dr Dick's explicitly uncertain (scientists do not lose respect by association with such as you) 60-80 year cycle?

I'm sure you find it 100% comfort-level, but that's not the same thing.

[CapelDodger]

Not really. You've opened the box on how mean I'm being on the other thread.

Lets not get into a turf-war, m'kay? mhaze has justified my being mean to him on this thread, and I have it in hand. There's a lot to be said for division of labour.

Now that I hear you're being mean to mhaze over there, I'll look in as soon as I get time. Not to contribute, just to watch.

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to accuse people who oppose you of wanting a disaster to happen? That's what I want to discuss.

I'm not at all sure "hypocritical" is the right term. "Mean-minded" seems to me more appropriate, where "mean" means paltry (as in "mean rations") and/or ungentlemanly.

[Schneibster]

Lets not get into a turf-war, m'kay? mhaze has justified my being mean to him on this thread, and I have it in hand. There's a lot to be said for division of labour.Cool, all yours. I'll chime in if I've got anything technical to contribute.

Now that I hear you're being mean to mhaze over there, I'll look in as soon as I get time. Not to contribute, just to watch.I don't mind; feel free. You occasionally see past something I was looking at and have a good contribution to make.

I'm not at all sure "hypocritical" is the right term. "Mean-minded" seems to me more appropriate, where "mean" means paltry (as in "mean rations") and/or ungentlemanly.My thinking was more that it's being used as a debating tactic rather than an honest criticism of someone else's behavior. I suppose it amounts to the same thing.

[CapelDodger]

How about this:


(I can't post links quite yet, but I'm pretty sure this is my 15th post, so I'll put a link to the article in a separate reply.)

And it worked :)! Hi from me.

I'd peg myself as "AGW Agnostic leaning towards anti-AGW"

That I find interesting. Unless there's an unpersuaded audience looking in, we regulars here are just indulging ourselves. mhaze et al are coming from their convictions, and nothing will change that. Responding to them is an intellectual exercise (nothing wrong with that) but won't change anything. I'm convinced of AGW by what I see as good reasons.

As an agnostic, in the middle ground, what is it in the arguments that leans you towards anti-AGW and away from AGW? A rough-cut of your impressions - and I promise I won't leap at your throat :). Or even try to convert you.

The conviction stuff is old hat, and at the other end is Joe Prole, just as predictable. It's the middle ground that's interesting.

[CapelDodger]

Cool, all yours. I'll chime in if I've got anything technical to contribute.

I don't mind; feel free. You occasionally see past something I was looking at and have a good contribution to make.

Absolutely; by "contribution" I intended to refer specifically to being mean to mhaze. As to anything else, synergy is the thing. In principle I'm opposed to the multiplication of AGW threads, but if in practice it means two arenas to be mean to mhaze in, in our different styles, I'm well good with that.

My thinking was more that it's being used as a debating tactic rather than an honest criticism of someone else's behavior. I suppose it amounts to the same thing.

It's a diversion, just like stevea's politicisation of Science by association (just another "academic pursuit"). Debating tactics is pretty much what we're up against - and on that I can contribute. In technical terms I'm an informed amateur. Debating tactics, on the other hand, I've got down cold. There's nothing new under the Sun where that's concerned. All there is is detail.

I spent many of my formative years in an Old School that was designed to produce lawyers, politicians, and Oxford theologians. Sophistry wasn't an accusation, it was a compliment. I learnt about debating tactics, and how to counter them, from a defensive position.

Which is where we both stand, shoulder-to-shoulder with others in the shield-wall. The denialist camp is always on the attack, always responding to events, always rubbishing other people's work - and, of course, the people that did it.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3061139#post3061139)
Something that drew my attention was a record low in Arctic ice-extent that was 27% below the previous record low, back in 2005.

An event like that takes some explaining away. Can solar-cycle science really take that sort of load?
Apparently so, if you just check the literature. From David Rodale's msg that you were notably silent on. No comment?
Willie W.-H. Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023429.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml)
This letter offers new evidence motivating a more serious consideration of the potential Arctic temperature responses as a consequence of the decadal, multidecadal and longer-term persistent forcing by the ever-changing solar irradiance both in terms of total solar irradiance (TSI, i.e., integrated over all wavelengths) and the related UV irradiance. The support for such a solar modulator can be minimally derived from the large (>75%) explained variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic surface air temperatures (SATs) by TSI and from the time-frequency structures of the TSI and Arctic SAT variability as examined by wavelet analyses. The reconstructed Arctic SAT time series based on the inverse wavelet transform, which includes decadal (5–15 years) and multidecadal (40–80 years) variations and a longer-term trend, contains nonstationary but persistent features that are highly correlated with the Sun's intrinsic magnetic variability especially on multidecadal time scales.

[mhaze]

We could just wait for three-to-eight years and know for certain.

The 60-80 year Arctic Ice cycle you're wedded to : do you have 90% confidence-level data for that? 80%? Anything at all beyond Dr Dick's explicitly uncertain (scientists do not lose respect by association with such as you) 60-80 year cycle?

I'm sure you find it 100% comfort-level, but that's not the same thing.

Yes, I believe you were in the thread when we went over the correlation.

Have you forgotten?

[mhaze]

Of course there's natural variation, and natural cycles.
When a natural cycle keeps re-starting from a higher base - as is the case with the solar cycle - something else is in play. In this case, of course, it's increasing CO2-load. Just as predicted from the underlying science.


Would Hansen agree with you?

[Schneibster]

Apparently so, if you just check the literature. From David Rodale's msg that you were notably silent on. No comment?
Willie W.-H. Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023429.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml)
This letter offers new evidence motivating a more serious consideration of the potential Arctic temperature responses as a consequence of the decadal, multidecadal and longer-term persistent forcing by the ever-changing solar irradiance both in terms of total solar irradiance (TSI, i.e., integrated over all wavelengths) and the related UV irradiance. The support for such a solar modulator can be minimally derived from the large (>75%) explained variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic surface air temperatures (SATs) by TSI and from the time-frequency structures of the TSI and Arctic SAT variability as examined by wavelet analyses. The reconstructed Arctic SAT time series based on the inverse wavelet transform, which includes decadal (5–15 years) and multidecadal (40–80 years) variations and a longer-term trend, contains nonstationary but persistent features that are highly correlated with the Sun's intrinsic magnetic variability especially on multidecadal time scales.Just a couple quick questions: why are surface air temperature readings better than satellite readings for determining solar variation? And why is a letter (not a paper) from two years ago more authoritative on solar variation than a peer-reviewed paper from this year?

[Megalodon]

Shall I insert a trend from when it peaked in 1998?

The entire satellite record is there in the open. No tricks, no cherry picking. There is nothing Megalodon can do other than to alter the data. Clearly, there is no additional warming occurring since 1998. The trend is flat. It is no warmer in Sept. 2007 than it was in Sept. 1988.


Altering the data?

You sir, are a dishonorable waste of oxygen. I presented the graphs based on the data of your link, showing that your claim was a bluff from a blundering nitwit who didn’t have the skill to actually make a pair of charts to verify his own obtuse claim.

I am a scientist, and I will let no one - even an anonymous buffoon – challenge my honesty in handling data. The only change made to the data (the arbitrary removal of 1998) was requested by you! I know that you weren’t expecting someone to actually make the plots, but then, you’re not exactly a master-mind.

As parting remarks:

I give you your pet claim of the warmth of Septembers, plotted properly, with a trend to help you. It won’t, but I had the free time, and it’s fun helping you in your quest to look like a fool.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814715cd9281d19.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8818)


I give you also the temperatures as plotted from September 1996, 97, 98 and 99. See, it’s not worth bluffing. Your little tricks are childish.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814715d04911d68.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8819)

I am done with you

[Megalodon]

Really?

I lost count of the times I explained this:

An ad hom is not an insult. If I dismiss a claim because the guy is an idiot, it’s an ad hom. If I refute his claim with my own argument, and in the process call him an idiot, it’s an insult. To be a logical fallacy it has to be the core of the argument at hand.
BTW, if I say that only morons go around waving accusations of logical fallacies they don’t understand, it’s poisoning the well.

[mhaze]

Just a couple quick questions: why are surface air temperature readings better than satellite readings for determining solar variation? And why is a letter (not a paper) from two years ago more authoritative on solar variation than a peer-reviewed paper from this year?

Referring to what paper from this year?

[Schneibster]

Referring to what paper from this year?Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007.

[mhaze]

Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007.

Ahh...

The one you said this about...

Originally Posted by mhaze
Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?
Debunked? Where? Let's see some links to peer-reviewed literature if you're going to make a claim like that. You didn't provide any when it was first brought up, also by CD. I searched on Lockwood for the last three months in SMM&T (this forum) and found nothing but Piers Corbyn, who totally screwed up his "forecasts" for August, and who (because he keeps his data secret) has nothing but claims to oppose to Lockwood & Froehlich's hard data. In addition, it appears that their data is also in line with an earlier study by Lassen and Christensen.

I see no debunking. Where is this, ClimateFraudit? WeatherInaction?
But the link to the rebuttal was already provided by David Rodale. Did you not see it?

[Locri]

I lost count of the times I explained this:

An ad hom is not an insult. If I dismiss a claim because the guy is an idiot, it’s an ad hom. If I refute his claim with my own argument, and in the process call him an idiot, it’s an insult. To be a logical fallacy it has to be the core of the argument at hand.
BTW, if I say that only morons go around waving accusations of logical fallacies they don’t understand, it’s poisoning the well.

Hopefully I'm not putting any words in mhaze's mouth, but I'd imagine he, like many others, was probably using the colloquial version of ad hom in which any personal attack regardless of if it dismisses a claim or not is considered to be an ad hom.

Either way, I don't think insulting someone is really conducive to a reasoned discussion.

[Megalodon]

Hopefully I'm not putting any words in mhaze's mouth, but I'd imagine he, like many others, was probably using the colloquial version of ad hom in which any personal attack regardless of if it dismisses a claim or not is considered to be an ad hom.

Then he would be wrong, as it so often happens. The fact that many others are wrong too doesn't help. Words exist to communicate meaning. A logical fallacy is much more serious in a debate than an insult. Accusing others of this logical fallacy implies that those accused didn't bother argue the point. This is false, since all his points have been argued.

[/QUOTE]Either way, I don't think insulting someone is really conducive to a reasoned discussion.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely. But sometimes it's the only way to go. Please see my last post to DR, above, for an example.

[mhaze]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814715cd9281d19.jpg[/url]

I give you also the temperatures as plotted from September 1996, 97, 98 and 99. See, it’s not worth bluffing. Your little tricks are childish.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2814715d04911d68.jpg


May I ask, where does this data come from? In the raw data link, as I recall there were 24 data points per month, and the first three were composites. There are on each of your Sept. graphs many more than 24 data points.

Looking at DR's link, and just taking the first three data items,

1988 Sept. 0.27 0.57 0.09
2007 Sept. 0.24 0.41 0.14

More interestingly, here is (paraphrasing) just a set of 30 some numbers for yearly temperatures, or 360 taking the monthly series, for the last three decades.

And no one can agree on what they say.

Almost like "stock market technical analysis".

Certainly it should be possible to take a raw data set and generalize from it in a way that everyone agrees on, then proceed from there. We can't even seem to do that.:confused:

[Megalodon]

May I ask, where does this data come from? In the raw data link, as I recall there were 24 data points per month, and the first three were composites. There are on each of your Sept. graphs many more than 24 data points.

The data comes from the link written in DR's "Septembers graph". It has the monthly global temperature values since December 1978. I used the values of all Septembers since 1979 to make the plot, instead of cherry-picking two.
This global value is the one used to make the graph he posted.

The other plots include all months since the dates identified in each.

And no one can agree on what they say.

Isn't it peculiar that you didn't make that analysis when he posted his graph?

Certainly it should be possible to take a raw data set and generalize from it in a way that everyone agrees on, then proceed from there. We can't even seem to do that.:confused:

Now we cannot? Where were your objections before? If you have a problem with the dataset, take it up to your friend. I used the dataset he provided to show everybody that his claims where laughable. Nothing more.

Although I have the impression you're talking about a different dataset.

[rcronk]

FYI - the human caused global warming poll I just started is here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96152

The vote is currently tied at 8 for and 8 against. If you haven't done so already, please go vote and post your strongest argument in support of your theory and the strongest argument against your theory. Thanks.

[Locri]

That I find interesting. Unless there's an unpersuaded audience looking in, we regulars here are just indulging ourselves. mhaze et al are coming from their convictions, and nothing will change that. Responding to them is an intellectual exercise (nothing wrong with that) but won't change anything. I'm convinced of AGW by what I see as good reasons.

As an agnostic, in the middle ground, what is it in the arguments that leans you towards anti-AGW and away from AGW? A rough-cut of your impressions - and I promise I won't leap at your throat :). Or even try to convert you.

The conviction stuff is old hat, and at the other end is Joe Prole, just as predictable. It's the middle ground that's interesting.

Sadly, it'll have to be a rough cut... as I've lamented before, I don't really have enough time to follow this stuff as closely as I'd like.

Some basic things which I believe, just as a foundation:
1. The Earth has, in the past few decades and very likely quite awhile before that, been warming.
2. Humans do contribute a fair amount of exhaust of various sorts to the atmosphere. That we definitely know ^_^
3. Pollution is a bad thing in general... it's been shown to cause problems on a local level so it's not all that hard to believe that it could have some effect on a global scale.
4. In terms of CO2 and it's effects, although I would generally agree that it might be warming the atmosphere to a certain extent, I think it really ends up being a rather trivial amount of warmth added to the natural cycles.

And of course, regardless of if AGW is true or not, anything we do to reduce bad emissions that cause things like smog is generally a good thing. But doing it specifically in the name of AGW bugs the heck out of me because I don't think AGW has a solid enough foundation. If I'm going to do something, I'd rather do it for a known true reason rather than some potentially trumped up, politicized, notion.

So, on to the arguments that make me lean towards Anti-AGW:

1. In all honestly, just the way some of the AGW camp behave is almost an argument against them. I'm not talking about the people on the forum here, but the scientists and the scientific climate involved in the discussion. Regardless of what you might think of McIntyre (for example) he has pointed out some fairly major things that are wrong with the data and methodology that is used. The fact that getting scientists to release the information for how their conclusions were reached seems to be a bit like pulling teeth (I'm specifically referencing Hansen & Mann, et al. here) one has to wonder.

In general, I find that if someone is trying so desperately to hide things that there is something to be hidden. It's just not scientific to do things that way... the whole point of the peer review process is to be open enough so other people can attempt to come up with the same results and it seems like in a lot of instances this just isn't happening.

When things like that happen, I instantly become suspicious.

3. Although I'd like to believe that our scientific world is a Dawkin-ish world in which science can do no wrong and the methodology of science will always result in factual data, I realize that this isn't how things are. There is a very depressing amount of groupthink and extortionism in the scientific community in that if you disagree with something mainstream, you are often ridiculed without thought. The same things happen with many branches of academia and science: Disagree with the professor and get bad grades, agree and get good grades. Hmm, I wonder which one I'm going to do?

There are certainly enough stories of people who aren't Anti-AGW but still do small things like pose just a little skepticism being run out of a job. It almost gives a near religious aura to the AGW camp in that if you don't agree completely, you are completely wrong and sinful. Anytime something reaches something like that religious aura, reason and logic tend to fly out the window, which makes me suspicious.

3. Feedbacks:

This is probably one of the more important ones, as the first two are only appeals to the people surrounding the issue and the nature of humanity for groupthink and "sideism"

At this point the issue seems to go something like this: CO2 is a forcing GHG that causes a bunch of positive feedback that (in some extreme cases) leads to a tipping point of some horrible catastrophes.

But that doesn't really make much sense. I believe it was mhaze that posted a link to this awhile ago:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/table-of-conten.html

To me, the discussion of feedbacks in there seems completely logical. In general, a system with so many positive feedbacks as to cause the problems that the AGW people are concerned about would be a fundamentally unstable system. Considering that the Earth has been around for several billion years and has probably encountered a fair number of massive climate altering events from outside (asteroids smashing into the earth anyone? Yellow Stone Volcano erupting?) and has managed to stabilize the climate again, it makes far more sense that there are a lot more negative feedbacks than the positive ones.

Also, the discussion of the gradual tapering of CO2's effect on temperature in that link is pretty interesting too.

4. Natural variance

A lot of AGW people seem to come at the problem from the stance that the world would stay exactly the same in terms of climate had humans never existed. The climate has been continually changing since the Earth formed and (barring some giant climate control system) will very likely always be changing until it's engulfed by the expanding sun.

Even if humans do have an effect on temperature, my thought is that it would probably just be a small amount riding on top of the natural changes. I think that many of us agree that the little ice age existed so naturally we would have warmed up since then.

Ok.. I have more fodder I could put out, but this is already going significantly longer that I anticipated.

I do suggest reading the link above... I found it to be a fairly level headed discussion of issues involving the critique of AGW.

[varwoche]

I do suggest reading the link above... I found it to be a fairly level headed discussion of issues involving the critique of AGW. For scientifically sound information, I think you'd be FAR better served by turning to experts rather than a blog written by a small business owner. (Said in the abstract, as I didn't read much on the blog.) Such as:

Woods Hole (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm) - beginner's guide to understanding global warming

NOAA (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) - GW faq

EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) - GW summary

NASA (http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/glob_warmfaq.html) - greenhouse effect

[Locri]

For scientifically sound information, I think you'd be FAR better served by turning to experts rather than a blog written by a small business owner. (Said in the abstract, as I didn't read much on the blog.) Such as:

Woods Hole (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm) - beginner's guide to understanding global warming

NOAA (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) - GW faq

EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) - GW summary

NASA (http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/glob_warmfaq.html) - greenhouse effect

I'll take a look at those links, but at the same time you are kind of proving a point in your completely disregard for the link I mentioned.

The line of thought that someone MUST be a scientist before we listen to them is an appeal to authority and it falls under and ad hominum to disregard something because they aren't a scientist (funny, ad homs just came up recently... and yes, it is an attack on someone to say you won't pay attention to them because they aren't a scientist).

Like in many other areas that have the potential for groupthink as I mentioned above, this becomes a terrible problem. It becomes a cache-22 in the instances where people have their funding cut or are forced out of their job because they disagree with AGW. You don't read or pay attention to them because they aren't scientists, but they can't become scientists because mainstream groupthink prevents them from publishing things in such a way.

Seriously, do at least read some of the paper before dumping it. The guy is not only a small business owner, but an engineer with a specialty in feedback mechanisms. He makes a lot of logical points that I feel are not generally addressed, probably because people do exactly the same thing you are doing right now.

[Locri]

Woods Hole (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/index.htm) - beginner's guide to understanding global warming


Quick notes on some things before my lunch break is done...

In looking at the first link already I can see some issues. One of the first graphs showing the correlation between CO2 and Temperature makes the all too common mistake of not noting anything about the 800-year lag. That 800-year lag makes a HUGE impact on how one reads the graph because it shows that in the past it has been temperature driving CO2 and not the other way around like they want you to believe. This graph shouldn't be used anymore because it's terribly misleading.

Also:

The average surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1°F in the past century. To many, a 1°F temperature change may seem trivial. However, consider "the year without a summer" - 1816. Atmospheric ash from a volcanic eruption in Southeast Asia decreased solar radiation reaching the earth's surface, lowering the global mean temperature. As a result, frost occurred in July in New England and crop failures occurred throughout the world. Yet the temperature change caused by this eruption was less than 1°F (Stommel et al. 1979).

They are comparing a 100 year change to an extremely fast change and in doing so try to mislead the audience that the 1°F change stretched out over a span would cause similar problems.

These are really simple errors that appear to be there only for the purposes of misleading and alarming people.

[CapelDodger]

In looking at the first link already I can see some issues. One of the first graphs showing the correlation between CO2 and Temperature makes the all too common mistake of not noting anything about the 800-year lag. That 800-year lag makes a HUGE impact on how one reads the graph because it shows that in the past it has been temperature driving CO2 and not the other way around like they want you to believe. This graph shouldn't be used anymore because it's terribly misleading.

Thanks for your earlier response - I'd have been happy with something far more rough-cut :) - and I'll respond to it shortly. I just want to get this out of the way first.

As you say, in the past CO2 has responded to temperature. It's been a feedback to some other influence. But we're not living in the past. The situation we're in now is one where CO2-load is increasing for reasons entirely separate from climate. It's the result of our industrialised scoiety, which is based on energy obtained from fossil-fuels. The past can only tell us so much about this unique situation.

What the past tells us is that CO2 has acted as a positive feedback. It amplifies other influences. Introduced directly, it becomes a forcing, a direct influence in itself. It's like turning up the knob on an amplifier. And if "they" are scientists, they don't want you to believe anything else.

That's why the 800-year lag isn't terribly relevant to the current situation. There are those who like to make it appear so, and you seem to have been influenced by their output. What's important is that CO2 is demonstrably an amplifier of other influences, and we've already turned the knob up by a third. (It goes up to 11, but we're some way short of that :).)

[CapelDodger]

I am done with you

Oh, please don't have done! This is masterly stuff. Bravo!

Please keep sticking it to him. And, by extension, his mentor.

[mhaze]

Although I have the impression you're talking about a different dataset.

My point exactly.

[mhaze]

I'll take a look at those links, but at the same time you are kind of proving a point in your completely disregard for the link I mentioned.

Seriously, do at least read some of the paper before dumping it. The guy is not only a small business owner, but an engineer with a specialty in feedback mechanisms. He makes a lot of logical points that I feel are not generally addressed, probably because people do exactly the same thing you are doing right now.

To the best of my knowledge (Warmers are welcome to correct me on this) there are NO control systems engineers, ie, specialists in feedback loops, on the AGW Warmer bandwagon.

That should tell you something....

I've also noticed a curious reluctance of Warmers to acknowledge new 2007 peer review published work that reduced, eliminated or reversed their cherished positive feedbacks. This is a real problem because it is essentially denying reality.

I've reproduced the core of the Warmer's belief set below, it is the IPCC Radiative Forcing chart. This is the latest version of Feb 2007. Recent published work has changed several of these factors, and the net result seems to be that the total effect of man's changes to the environment, including CO2, are negligible.

One would think that people would be happy to hear such a thing.

Warmers find every way to duck and dodge this simple issue.

Double click to enlarge the chart.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6998)

[mhaze]

Seriously, do at least read some of the paper before dumping it.

That's like asking a True Believer to read things by atheists.

It ain't gonna happen.

[CapelDodger]

Sadly, it'll have to be a rough cut... as I've lamented before, I don't really have enough time to follow this stuff as closely as I'd like.

Far more detailed than I could reasonably ask for.

So, on to the arguments that make me lean towards Anti-AGW:

1. In all honestly, just the way some of the AGW camp behave is almost an argument against them. I'm not talking about the people on the forum here, but the scientists and the scientific climate involved in the discussion. Regardless of what you might think of McIntyre (for example) he has pointed out some fairly major things that are wrong with the data and methodology that is used. The fact that getting scientists to release the information for how their conclusions were reached seems to be a bit like pulling teeth (I'm specifically referencing Hansen & Mann, et al. here) one has to wonder.

In general, I find that if someone is trying so desperately to hide things that there is something to be hidden. It's just not scientific to do things that way... the whole point of the peer review process is to be open enough so other people can attempt to come up with the same results and it seems like in a lot of instances this just isn't happening.

When things like that happen, I instantly become suspicious.

3. Although I'd like to believe that our scientific world is a Dawkin-ish world in which science can do no wrong and the methodology of science will always result in factual data, I realize that this isn't how things are. There is a very depressing amount of groupthink and extortionism in the scientific community in that if you disagree with something mainstream, you are often ridiculed without thought. The same things happen with many branches of academia and science: Disagree with the professor and get bad grades, agree and get good grades. Hmm, I wonder which one I'm going to do?

There are certainly enough stories of people who aren't Anti-AGW but still do small things like pose just a little skepticism being run out of a job. It almost gives a near religious aura to the AGW camp in that if you don't agree completely, you are completely wrong and sinful. Anytime something reaches something like that religious aura, reason and logic tend to fly out the window, which makes me suspicious.

As I read this, your perceptions of the scientific world, the process behind the AGW prognosis, and the way the argument has been presented is swaying you. Is that a fair interpretation?

(My opinion is that the public image of science has taken a severe battering because of AGW. Not because it deserves it, but because it serves some people's purpose to assault it. My perception of the way the anti-AGW argument has been presented is probably less charitable than yours of the scientific world. As I say, that's my take, and the main reason I engage in the discussion - in defence of science.)

3. Feedbacks:

[snip]

4. Natural variance

Thanks for all that. It gives me a good picture of your thinking on the subject, and it's also nice to have a polite conversation for a change :).

[CapelDodger]

To the best of my knowledge (Warmers are welcome to correct me on this) there are NO control systems engineers, ie, specialists in feedback loops, on the AGW Warmer bandwagon.

That should tell you something....

The fact that you consider the best of your knowledge as of interest to anybody tells us a lot about you.

[Locri]

Thanks for your earlier response - I'd have been happy with something far more rough-cut :) - and I'll respond to it shortly. I just want to get this out of the way first.

Sorry... I can't help it. Sometimes I just ramble on and on ^_^


That's why the 800-year lag isn't terribly relevant to the current situation. There are those who like to make it appear so, and you seem to have been influenced by their output. What's important is that CO2 is demonstrably an amplifier of other influences, and we've already turned the knob up by a third. (It goes up to 11, but we're some way short of that :).)

You're missing the point of what I brought up. Regardless of the truth of what you say (I'm not so sure about the positive feedback stuff, as I mentioned already) the site is being misleading with its use of the chart.

If you haven't yet, look at the chart (top one) here. (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm)

If you read the paragraph above it, the chart is used in a way to imply that CO2 was the driving factor in the past and fails to mention anything that you just wrote about things being different this time around. I'm hoping you agree that if we are going to be explaining something, we should do so without misleading them, right?

The should either put in the explanation that you just gave me (with links to back it up of course) or take out the chart entirely. They are not being responsible by providing information in the way they currently are.

If you want to we can talk about the 800 year lag some more, but I already brought that up in the past with no satisfactory conclusion (as far as I am concerned).

[CapelDodger]

Would Hansen agree with you?

I rather think so.

Are you trying to make a case that Hansen denies the existence of natural forcings? I'm lost for any other interpretation of your question.

If so, come out and say it; if not, WTF is this question for?

[Locri]

NOAA (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) - GW faq

EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) - GW summary

NASA (http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/glob_warmfaq.html) - greenhouse effect

Some additional comments now that I've had time to look at these links.

The first one is just a summary of the IPCC report. The second one references pretty much only, you guessed it, the IPCC report. In fact, in their "What we know about the climate" section, there is only ONE single reference. (Which, I feel redundant in saying, is the IPCC report.)

The third one also largely references the IPCC report, but oddly enough puts in lots of links to things like Blogs and Wikipedia. Apparently those sources are ok if it's Pro-AGW but if it's Anti-AGW we can't take them seriously? Hypocrisy is not very becoming.

So, I guess pretty much all of that leads back to the IPCC report. Which, I understand, is a review of multiple scientific studies. However, from what I've seen I feel the IPCC is a very politicized organization. Regardless of that, I find it a bit strange that so many places just point to the IPCC report without any separate references as almost an appeal to authority rather then looking at the actual science behind it.

I might be able to trust the IPCC more if they didn't do things like remove key graphs from report to report without any information as to why the changes were made. Also, it's strange how the warnings are so dire when the reports have gotten continuous reductions on the impact of global warming in each revision. I hope to read it more at some point just to have my bases covered, but as I said earlier... if you act like you have something to hide, there is a good chance you do.

[Locri]

As I read this, your perceptions of the scientific world, the process behind the AGW prognosis, and the way the argument has been presented is swaying you. Is that a fair interpretation?

(My opinion is that the public image of science has taken a severe battering because of AGW. Not because it deserves it, but because it serves some people's purpose to assault it. My perception of the way the anti-AGW argument has been presented is probably less charitable than yours of the scientific world. As I say, that's my take, and the main reason I engage in the discussion - in defence of science.)

Not just the scientific world, but humanity in general. I've studied a lot of psychology and have had enough experience in academic settings to understand that facts are not always checked throughly.

It's hard for me to trust a viewpoint that keeps on changing the goalposts. First the Mann Hockey stick... shoot, disproven... um? How about that correlation to CO2 historically through Ice cores? The 800 year gap? Darn... um, how about these Hansen graphs?

Not only that, but the AGW side rarely seems to admit these defeats and say they were wrong, instead they choose to hide the fact that they even existed in most cases, or change the circumstances around it to make it viable again.

I don't see why the Anti-AGW position should cause you such concern because it's simply a skeptical viewpoint. Admittedly it doesn't offer any other solutions, but it shouldn't hurt to question things in some cases right? Especially when people have been wrong before? That's science... if the science doesn't stand up to questioning, throw it out and try again. Many in the AGW camp act like it's a huge offense to even question things, which is scary in itself.

Thanks for all that. It gives me a good picture of your thinking on the subject, and it's also nice to have a polite conversation for a change :).

Indeed ^_^

[a_unique_person]

Some additional comments now that I've had time to look at these links.

The first one is just a summary of the IPCC report. The second one references pretty much only, you guessed it, the IPCC report. In fact, in their "What we know about the climate" section, there is only ONE single reference. (Which, I feel redundant in saying, is the IPCC report.)

The third one also largely references the IPCC report, but oddly enough puts in lots of links to things like Blogs and Wikipedia. Apparently those sources are ok if it's Pro-AGW but if it's Anti-AGW we can't take them seriously? Hypocrisy is not very becoming.

So, I guess pretty much all of that leads back to the IPCC report. Which, I understand, is a review of multiple scientific studies. However, from what I've seen I feel the IPCC is a very politicized organization. Regardless of that, I find it a bit strange that so many places just point to the IPCC report without any separate references as almost an appeal to authority rather then looking at the actual science behind it.



Not from the scientists choice. It was set up by the World Meteorological Society, with the UN providing the facilities it needed to run such a large project. That it is politicised is more from the point of those who don't want to be told what they are hearing, IMHO.



I might be able to trust the IPCC more if they didn't do things like remove key graphs from report to report without any information as to why the changes were made. Also, it's strange how the warnings are so dire when the reports have gotten continuous reductions on the impact of global warming in each revision. I hope to read it more at some point just to have my bases covered, but as I said earlier... if you act like you have something to hide, there is a good chance you do.

I have no idea where you got that from.

The warnings are based on what they know, and to what extent they know it. It would be remiss of them to not tell us the possibilities of problems, purely on the basis that they can't predict them confidently. However, as the range of predictions narrows, their confidence in the predictions rises.

Don't discount, also, the withering glare of those who will tear to shreds any scientist who gets it wrong. I think it is also a factor that understating the case will be a way of avoiding what are very personal and vindictive attacks on anyone who puts his head up as a target. Just look at the vitriol directed at Hansen.

And does avoiding stating the risks actually gain us anything. As the Arctic ice anomoly this year shows, underestimating the risks could be a lot worse than overestimating them.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/warming-turns-barrier-reef-acidic/2007/10/17/1192300858496.html



WATERS around the Great Barrier Reef are becoming acidic at a higher-than-expected rate.
Ocean acidification, a side-effect of global warming, occurs when excess carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean and becomes carbonic acid.
It is potentially devastating for the marine environment, affecting corals, crustaceans and plankton in particular.
Professor Malcolm McCulloch of the Australian National University said the findings were worrying.
"It appears this acidification is now taking place over decades rather than centuries as originally predicted." he said.



Risk management, which is the business all governments are in, doesn't normally only deal with the most likely scenario. If that was all they did, they would be derelict in their duty.

[CapelDodger]

You're missing the point of what I brought up. Regardless of the truth of what you say (I'm not so sure about the positive feedback stuff, as I mentioned already) the site is being misleading with its use of the chart.

If you haven't yet, look at the chart (top one) here. (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm)

If you read the paragraph above it, the chart is used in a way to imply that CO2 was the driving factor in the past and fails to mention anything that you just wrote about things being different this time around.

The paragraph concerned includes this :

"But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years."

Which is very much about things being different this time.

I can see how you could interpret the way the correlation is presented as suggesting that CO2-variation is the driving force. It doesn't go into Milankovich cycles, but it is a brief introduction, and this page does need to be seen in the context of the first (which explains the inaptly named Greenhouse Effect).

I'm hoping you agree that if we are going to be explaining something, we should do so without misleading them, right?

Absolutely.

The should either put in the explanation that you just gave me (with links to back it up of course) or take out the chart entirely. They are not being responsible by providing information in the way they currently are.

It's meant to be a brief introduction (and by the way, don't expect many links from me either, I'm old-school). And in truth the real relevance of the correlation is that CO2-load does influence climate, confirming the Greenhouse Effect. The passage I quoted above brings the subject into the present.

If you want to we can talk about the 800 year lag some more, but I already brought that up in the past with no satisfactory conclusion (as far as I am concerned).

I can't guarantee satisfaction but ...

To my mind, the 800-ish year lag is a diversion. In that, it's a good example of the way the anti-AGW argument is presented. It's a lawyer's trick. (That's probably a British idiom, but every culture has its equivalent :).) Bring up an irrelevance, get it talked about, and pretty soon people think it matters. OJ and the Bloody Glove, the Diana Inquest, that sort of thing. The Woods Hole presentation fades into insignificance in comparison.

Turn your critical eye on ClimateAudit and junkscience (et al). Look for the misleading presentations. It's a far easier crop to harvest than Wood Hole's.

[CapelDodger]

Risk management, which is the business all governments are in ...

Agreed, but risk of what to whom? Ideally "whom" would be society in general - humanity in general, given an extensive enough government - but in practice not so much. The "risk" is always the same - that the good times go away.

... doesn't normally only deal with the most likely scenario.

Agreed again : the "Round them all up and shoot them" principle of government resonates through history.

If that was all they did, they would be derelict in their duty.

I'm way more cynical than you, aren't I :)?

[a_unique_person]

Not just the scientific world, but humanity in general. I've studied a lot of psychology and have had enough experience in academic settings to understand that facts are not always checked throughly.

It's hard for me to trust a viewpoint that keeps on changing the goalposts. First the Mann Hockey stick... shoot, disproven... um? How about that correlation to CO2 historically through Ice cores? The 800 year gap? Darn... um, how about these Hansen graphs?



The hockey stick has been re-investigated, and validated by independent researchers. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf Chapter 6.6

It's a big drum the deniers always beat, but it doesn't even make the case for AGW. The rate of change that is measured is enough to make the case for concern.

800 year gap. It's a concept that seem to be hard for people to understand for some reason. CO2 can be a feedback, like water vapour, and that's what it usually is. At present, we are pumping it out of the ground and into the atmosphere via fossil fuels. That's not going to be in the geological record, but it's being measured now. Hansen? He's put up with vitriol worthy of the anti christ. Hansen is 1/1000 th of the scientific case. Ignore him if you want, the case still stands.




Not only that, but the AGW side rarely seems to admit these defeats and say they were wrong, instead they choose to hide the fact that they even existed in most cases, or change the circumstances around it to make it viable again.

I don't see why the Anti-AGW position should cause you such concern because it's simply a skeptical viewpoint. Admittedly it doesn't offer any other solutions, but it shouldn't hurt to question things in some cases right? Especially when people have been wrong before? That's science... if the science doesn't stand up to questioning, throw it out and try again. Many in the AGW camp act like it's a huge offense to even question things, which is scary in itself.



Indeed ^_^

I read that New Scientist has said we need sceptics for the AGW case, like all science does. But why do the deniers grasp at every straw, no matter how thin and feeble? If they would stick to the science, they would be much better value. Instead we have

Self contradicting claims
A parade of obvious nutters like Piers Corbyn offered up as experts
Papers published by Lyndon Larouche
Patently laughable papers such as Beck and his CO2 record.
TGGWS as evidence
Lunatic conspiracy theories.
An obsession with Al Gore
16 year old children as authorities
Nitpicking at details
Accusations that there is a gravy train that demands more and more money for research
Demands for more research because the case isn't proven yetWhere is the science? It's pretty damn thin on the ground. And people such as Christy, who went on for years about his impeccable satellite record disproving warming, never actually let on to his fans that the satellites don't measure the temperature directly, but that it is done via mathematically inferring the temperature because the satellites aren't capable of reading the temperature directly, and he got it wrong. Christy comes up with an 'iris' effect, but no actual science on how it works or evidence that it exists.

[CapelDodger]

Not just the scientific world, but humanity in general. I've studied a lot of psychology and have had enough experience in academic settings to understand that facts are not always checked throughly.

I haven't studied psychology, but I've experienced and observed humans for fifty years. Only quite recently at this distance, as opposed to up the pub or across a dinner-table face-to-face interactions, but in the end it's not really that different.

It's hard for me to trust a viewpoint that keeps on changing the goalposts.

That's where I see unease creeping in, the old "it's not about that, it's about this" gambit. I learnt long ago to pin protaganists down to the original "that". As in : if it's not about that, why did you bring it up in the first palce?

First the Mann Hockey stick... shoot, disproven... um? How about that correlation to CO2 historically through Ice cores? The 800 year gap? Darn... um, how about these Hansen graphs?

The Mann et al reconstruction has been disproven? What about the independent reconstructions that support it, have they gone the same way? What's the relevance of the 800-ish year CO2 response-lag to the present situation? What Hansen graphs?

Not only that, but the AGW side rarely seems to admit these defeats and say they were wrong, instead they choose to hide the fact that they even existed in most cases, or change the circumstances around it to make it viable again.

There's been a thing going on recently about getting mhaze to admit that Pat Michaels blatantly lied to Congress back in 1998. Getting blood out of a stone is a doddle in comparison. Michaels's lying is there for all too see, courtesy of the Cato Institute, but mhaze won't have it.

Where has the AGW side had to admit defeat? We've been at it for twenty years or more, and it just keeps getting warmer. The big bad analogue model just keeps confirming our position.

I don't see why the Anti-AGW position should cause you such concern because it's simply a skeptical viewpoint.

It's not sceptical, it's agressive and destructive. Turn your scepticism on the anti-AGW camp. What have they got?

Admittedly it doesn't offer any other solutions, but it shouldn't hurt to question things in some cases right?

You spotted that absence of alternatives, but you still seem to have taken on the attitude. The shifting of goalposts by the anti-AGW camp is obvious - egregious, even - so what questions are left to be asked?

Especially when people have been wrong before?

The anti-AGW argument twenty years ago was that there wouldn't be any warming, and has only more recently shifted into explaining it away. Singer's Saviour Cycle, stuff like that. "It's the Sun" (Nope, damn that direct observation.)

That's science... if the science doesn't stand up to questioning, throw it out and try again. Many in the AGW camp act like it's a huge offense to even question things, which is scary in itself.

The science of AGW stands up very well. The science of anti-AGW ... well, there isn't any.

I won't be offended if you present some.

[mhaze]

As the Arctic ice anomoly this year shows...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/climate-watch/warming-turns-barrier-reef-acidic/2007/10/17/1192300858496.html


From another Australian, quoting from ClimateAudit -

paul (http://none/) says: October 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
From an Australian blog site: I was born in Feb 1955 in the middle of the worst flood in 150 years in our region. The previous worst flood in 150 years was in 1948. By the time I turned 12 we were in the middle of the worst drought in 150 years in our region since 1934. By the time I turned 18 we had snow falling in our coastal city, unheard-of in history since 1959.

When I was 19 we suffered the first cyclone in history since 1938, which sent a large ship aground and trashed half the city (previous unheard-of cyclones wrecked about 112 ships over 100 years according to maritime records). In 1989 we had a deadly earthquake, the first in history since 1926, and 1886 before that.

Climate does weird things all the time. People need to get used to it, especially if they live past the age of 20.
Some people just have the sense to blame natural events on natural variations in climate. Others blame people.

[a_unique_person]

From another Australian, quoting from ClimateAudit -

paul (http://none/) says: October 10th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
From an Australian blog site: I was born in Feb 1955 in the middle of the worst flood in 150 years in our region. The previous worst flood in 150 years was in 1948. By the time I turned 12 we were in the middle of the worst drought in 150 years in our region since 1934. By the time I turned 18 we had snow falling in our coastal city, unheard-of in history since 1959.

When I was 19 we suffered the first cyclone in history since 1938, which sent a large ship aground and trashed half the city (previous unheard-of cyclones wrecked about 112 ships over 100 years according to maritime records). In 1989 we had a deadly earthquake, the first in history since 1926, and 1886 before that.

Climate does weird things all the time. People need to get used to it, especially if they live past the age of 20.
Some people just have the sense to blame natural events on natural variations in climate. Others blame people.

Which is why you need the science to analyse the data objectively. The food growing parts of Australia are undergoing the worst drought period on record. There have been worse single years, but never a sustained period of low rainfall like this one. There is an average rainfall that is quite healthy, but it's now falling on desert areas where no-one lives.

[mhaze]

Which is why you need the science to analyse the data objectively. The food growing parts of Australia are undergoing the worst drought period on record. There have been worse single years, but never a sustained period of low rainfall like this one. There is an average rainfall that is quite healthy, but it's now falling on desert areas where no-one lives.'

And your guys build rabbit fences, to keep the rabbits out of the crops, and then find that all the rain falls on the side the rabbits are on, not on the crops.

And no one really understands why, or does anything to fix it.

Right? And it ain't got nothing to do with any AGW, but it is definitely an effect of man's actions.

[David Rodale]

Altering the data?

You sir, are a dishonorable waste of oxygen. I presented the graphs based on the data of your link, showing that your claim was a bluff from a blundering nitwit who didn’t have the skill to actually make a pair of charts to verify his own obtuse claim.

I am a scientist, and I will let no one - even an anonymous buffoon – challenge my honesty in handling data. The only change made to the data (the arbitrary removal of 1998) was requested by you! I know that you weren’t expecting someone to actually make the plots, but then, you’re not exactly a master-mind.

As parting remarks:

I give you your pet claim of the warmth of Septembers, plotted properly, with a trend to help you. It won’t, but I had the free time, and it’s fun helping you in your quest to look like a fool.


I give you also the temperatures as plotted from September 1996, 97, 98 and 99. See, it’s not worth bluffing. Your little tricks are childish.

I am done with you

My apologies, I didn't see those in your earlier post since I do have other activities other than JREF.

First, I didn't say you alter data; there was no animus intended or implied. I said the only way you can show there is currently a warming trend for the last several years is to alter the data, and believe I specifically pointed out since 1998. If I used 1998 as the baseline, that would make it appear the trend is drastically negative; now that would be disingenuous.

Secondly, I never said there is no warming trend. It surely has since 1979. However, being a scientist, you should know how to spot when a trend is changing. Currently, that is happening. The slope and trend are included. Statistically there is no warming. Sorry to break the news, but it is what it is.

Adjusting for El Ninos, which I didn't do not being a "climatologist" (the adjustments are out there), the trend tightens further. No matter.

Below are step series beginning with Sep99. It's so easy, even a scientist can do it. Notice something? Note that UAH has not yet adjusted for diurnal correction, but it shouldn't be much.

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)

Below are simple column charts that even a child can do:
Again, UAH has not adjusted yet, but is still pretty close to RSS.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716c0ce30d7c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8833)

Is RSS your flavor?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716c0ed51458.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8834)

I didn't label the cell, but at the lower right corner of the data is the slope. UAH=+.006 and RSS=-.002. What does that mean? There is no warming in the current decade

Now, what do you think is going to happen between now and say, March 2008? Are temps going to rise or fall? What will happen to the trend? By what logic is used here, even if a .14/dec downward trend occurs, you could still claim the "earth is warming" for the next 20 years.

No offense, but how in the blazes can you expect to analyze anything using a scatter?

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

[a_unique_person]

'

And your guys build rabbit fences, to keep the rabbits out of the crops, and then find that all the rain falls on the side the rabbits are on, not on the crops.

And no one really understands why, or does anything to fix it.

Right? And it ain't got nothing to do with any AGW, but it is definitely an effect of man's actions.

There are two reasons rainfall patterns are changing.

Asian pollution is drifting down to the more or less uninhabited NW, bring rainfall. The South Westerly cold fronts are drifting South, meaning areas that relied on their rainfall are experiencing more drought.

[a_unique_person]

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

You like making up what people think.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You like making up what people think.

That was the best comment you could come up with from that data filled post?

:tongue-ti

[mhaze]

My apologies, I didn't see those in your earlier post since I do have other activities other than JREF.

First, I didn't say you alter data; there was no animus intended or implied. I said the only way you can show there is currently a warming trend for the last several years is to alter the data, and believe I specifically pointed out since 1998. If I used 1998 as the baseline, that would make it appear the trend is drastically negative; now that would be disingenuous.

Secondly, I never said there is no warming trend. It surely has since 1979. However, being a scientist, you should know how to spot when a trend is changing. Currently, that is happening. The slope and trend are included. Statistically there is no warming. Sorry to break the news, but it is what it is.

Adjusting for El Ninos, which I didn't do not being a "climatologist" (the adjustments are out there), the trend tightens further. No matter.

Below are step series beginning with Sep99. It's so easy, even a scientist can do it. Notice something? Note that UAH has not yet adjusted for diurnal correction, but it shouldn't be much.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716be0c414dd.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfaacc782.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716bfd375ab8.jpg

Below are simple column charts that even a child can do:
Again, UAH has not adjusted yet, but is still pretty close to RSS.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716c0ce30d7c.jpg

Is RSS your flavor?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_103234716c0ed51458.jpg

I didn't label the cell, but at the lower right corner of the data is the slope. UAH=+.006 and RSS=-.002. What does that mean? There is no warming in the current decade

Now, what do you think is going to happen between now and say, March 2008? Are temps going to rise or fall? What will happen to the trend? By what logic is used here, even if a .14/dec downward trend occurs, you could still claim the "earth is warming" for the next 20 years.

No offense, but how in the blazes can you expect to analyze anything using a scatter?

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

Is this not just a numerical confirmation of the high correlation of the ascending sine wave fit to the data on this graph? (NOT sure the MSU data was used for this chart, can check but probably does not matter).

Side note: Consider all the pop AGW-science that talks about "current century warming". Look at the graph below.

The low point, right at 1900, maximizes "current century warming".

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446efc4e08067f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8387)

[Schneibster]

But the link to the rebuttal was already provided by David Rodale. Did you not see it?Yes, I saw those laughable graphs in it, too. The data stop fitting on the right half. Which is precisely what Lockwood and Frolich said.

See here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%E2%80%99t-die-so-easily/), as well. A few important quotes:

There is still no long-term trend in the GCR, not even in the Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s response (see also figure below). This seems to be acknowledged now.

The LF2007 paper and the response focus on just the last 2-3 decades for which there were direct measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI= solar energy summed over all wavelength), but if they had read my paper on this issue in GRL 2005, they would have seen that there has not been any trend in solar activity or GCR since 1952 (also seen in the figure below).

In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover (IPCC AR4), and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere. The only explanation we can offer is an enhanced greenhouse effect.

And you didn't respond to why you think measurements of TSI from the ground are better than ones from a satellite above the atmosphere.

[Megalodon]

My apologies, I didn't see those in your earlier post since I do have other activities other than JREF.

Since you quoted from the same post that had the graphs, I find that hard to believe.

First, I didn't say you alter data; there was no animus intended or implied. I said the only way you can show there is currently a warming trend for the last several years is to alter the data, and believe I specifically pointed out since 1998. If I used 1998 as the baseline, that would make it appear the trend is drastically negative; now that would be disingenuous.

Yes, you did, and I showed that you were wrong... again. I plotedd the data for you, and it is never drastically negative. Or negative, to begin with.

Secondly, I never said there is no warming trend. It surely has since 1979. However, being a scientist, you should know how to spot when a trend is changing. Currently, that is happening. The slope and trend are included. Statistically there is no warming. Sorry to break the news, but it is what it is.

You didn't "say" anything, but you implied a lot. You implied that without the 98 El Niño the trend would change drastically. It doesn't.

Being a scientist, I know how to integrate the knowledge of and around a subject. Since we are in a solar minimum, it would be expected for the trend to be negative from September 2000. It's not. And unfortunately, it's because of AGW.

Below are step series beginning with Sep99. It's so easy, even a scientist can do it. Notice something? Note that UAH has not yet adjusted for diurnal correction, but it shouldn't be much.

I call to attention that you are now using another database. I really don't care why, though... I'm getting used to your flopping around. Anyway, There is nothing in your graphs that doesn't appear in mine. I realize you have a problem with scatter plots, but they have the advantage that you can actually see the monthly data, and not the averages. But that might hinder whatever point you think you are making.

There is no warming in the current decade

Only if your idea of decade is fom 2001 to 2007. And even then, we would expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity. But we don't see it.

What will happen to the trend? By what logic is used here, even if a .14/dec downward trend occurs, you could still claim the "earth is warming" for the next 20 years.

You don't get it, do you? Your whole problem is that you keep asking what will happen with the trend, assume an answer, and are shown to be wrong! Stop it. The trends don't behave as you said they would, even when I stacked the deck in your favor. Now, of course, you are making "rethorical" questions about the future, again implying an answer. Given your track record when you actually have the data, I will not put any money on your forecasts.

No offense, but how in the blazes can you expect to analyze anything using a scatter?

Why would your shortcomings offend me?

Now, if the US was used as an example, you really wouldn't like that.

Why would you use local temperatures to estimate a global process? Wait, I know... has something to do with your dishonesty?

[David Rodale]

Since you quoted from the same post that had the graphs, I find that hard to believe.



Yes, you did, and I showed that you were wrong... again. I plotedd the data for you, and it is never drastically negative. Or negative, to begin with.



You didn't "say" anything, but you implied a lot. You implied that without the 98 El Niño the trend would change drastically. It doesn't.

Being a scientist, I know how to integrate the knowledge of and around a subject. Since we are in a solar minimum, it would be expected for the trend to be negative from September 2000. It's not. And unfortunately, it's because of AGW.



I call to attention that you are now using another database. I really don't care why, though... I'm getting used to your flopping around. Anyway, There is nothing in your graphs that doesn't appear in mine. I realize you have a problem with scatter plots, but they have the advantage that you can actually see the monthly data, and not the averages. But that might hinder whatever point you think you are making.



Only if your idea of decade is fom 2001 to 2007. And even then, we would expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity. But we don't see it.



You don't get it, do you? Your whole problem is that you keep asking what will happen with the trend, assume an answer, and are shown to be wrong! Stop it. The trends don't behave as you said they would, even when I stacked the deck in your favor. Now, of course, you are making "rethorical" questions about the future, again implying an answer. Given your track record when you actually have the data, I will not put any money on your forecasts.


Why would your shortcomings offend me?


Why would you use local temperatures to estimate a global process? Wait, I know... has something to do with your dishonesty?

It's not warming.

Why would you use local temperatures to estimate a global process? Wait, I know... has something to do with your dishonesty?
Only a tree ring can do that
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323471750ecb5cb9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8836)

[mhaze]

Only if your idea of decade is fom 2001 to 2007. And even then, we would expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity. But we don't see it.

It certainly should be possible for people to agree on what a simple group of data points says. Meg, you seem to not want to do that, for whatever reason - the simple fact that "it's not warming", what is complicated about that?

Then you say "we should expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity" - this related to the question that Schneib just responded to, about Lockwood 2007 and the response to it.

Is your opinion that solar influences should be immediate and commesurate to a change in solar activity? It has been argued that solar and temperature diverged around 1970, thus the difference must be due to AGW "since there could be nothing else".

A lot of people would say that's an obvious logical fallacy. What do you think about it?

[mhaze]

There are two reasons rainfall patterns are changing.

Asian pollution is drifting down to the more or less uninhabited NW, bring rainfall. The South Westerly cold fronts are drifting South, meaning areas that relied on their rainfall are experiencing more drought.

Agreed. But neither of which rationing CO2 on a global basis will have any effect on.

[Schneibster]

Really? Care to elaborate on your prediction?

Perhaps provide something of a 95 or 99% confidence level, and the background data for it. That would indeed be interesting.As far as background data, I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots, and the fact that we're at the bottom of the solar cycle (technically headed back up, just past it).

It certainly should be possible for people to agree on what a simple group of data points says. Meg, you seem to not want to do that, for whatever reason - the simple fact that "it's not warming", what is complicated about that? I'd say DR's response above pretty much says it all. Not much there, is there? You did notice I never got an answer to how to quantify the smoothness of a graph, didn't you? I would say that it's basically a marked lack of ability to read a graph, and I'm not surprised by a concomitant lack of ability to read a scatter plot.

And I note you don't seem to have an answer to either LF2007, or to why ground insolation data from two years ago should be better than satellite irradiance from this year.

Then you say "we should expect a decrease of temperature due to the decrease in solar activity" - this related to the question that Schneib just responded to, about Lockwood 2007 and the response to it.Actually, Megalodon was following hir own line of reasoning, and came to the same conclusion. Interesting how science all actually fits together, isn't it? See, that's a hallmark of a successful theory. It makes predictions in areas other than the initial confirming predictions. You'd know that if you knew any science.

[David Rodale]

As far as background data, I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots, and the fact that we're at the bottom of the solar cycle (technically headed back up, just past it).

I'd say DR's response above pretty much says it all. Not much there, is there? You did notice I never got an answer to how to quantify the smoothness of a graph, didn't you? I would say that it's basically a marked lack of ability to read a graph, and I'm not surprised by a concomitant lack of ability to read a scatter plot.

And I note you don't seem to have an answer to either LF2007, or to why ground insolation data from two years ago should be better than satellite irradiance from this year.

Actually, Megalodon was following hir own line of reasoning, and came to the same conclusion. Interesting how science all actually fits together, isn't it? See, that's a hallmark of a successful theory. It makes predictions in areas other than the initial confirming predictions. You'd know that if you knew any science.
It's interesting how L&F cherry picked data to support their hypothesis and ignored data and other research contradicting it. Isn't that true?

Can IPCC now claim it now has a high level of scientific understanding of solar?

BTW, it's not warming.

[rcronk]

I'm about to gather up arguments from the GW poll here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96152

I noticed that there are a few in the heated debate over here who have not voted. The vote is currently 15 to 14 - a lot more even than I had originally thought it would be. If you haven't voted yet, I'd like to have you counted and your strongest argument documented so we can have a good list of arguments for and against to work with. Thanks for your help.

ETA: I have gathered up the current arguments and though the vote is roughly 1:1, the number of arguments are roughly 2:1 opposed to AGW.

[David Rodale]

As far as background data, I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots, and the fact that we're at the bottom of the solar cycle (technically headed back up, just past it).


I'll go with Megalodon's scatter plots
Below are two charts, one scatter, the other line. Both are using the same data.
Both result in the same trend. What is so difficult to understand? You can't analyze much using a scatter diagram in this example; it looks like a messy desk.

No Schneibster, we have not yet reached solar minimum of SC23. It's not expected until Spring 2008 or later. They are not limited to 11 years either.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10323471789b9b837a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8841)

[fsol]

Below are two charts, one scatter, the other line. Both are using the same data.
Both result in the same trend. What is so difficult to understand?

Both charts show a warming trend? Admittedly, it is fairly small and not knowing what the values on the axis represent it could be really significant or not very significant.

You can't analyze much using a scatter diagram in this example; it looks like a messy desk.In my experience scatter charts are more "honest" as they don't have imaginary lines linking the data points to fool your mind into making correlations that aren't there.

Edit: I'm not convinced correlations is the word I want there. Perhaps trends would be better?

No Schneibster, we have not yet reached solar minimum of SC23. It's not expected until Spring 2008 or later. They are not limited to 11 years either.This relates to the chart that mhaze sometimes puts up showing the 60-80 year cycle?

I don't understand the fascination with that either. It clearly shows a warming trend from one cycle peak to the next, implying to me at least that there is something else going on as well causing the warming trend.

[mhaze]

This relates to the chart that mhaze sometimes puts up showing the 60-80 year cycle?

I don't understand the fascination with that either. It clearly shows a warming trend from one cycle peak to the next, implying to me at least that there is something else going on as well causing the warming trend.

For starters, notice that the often quoted number of 0.6 C for current century warming is measured trough to peak. Yes, there is a longer term upward factor present which is explainable by longer term climate cycles. There is no direct relationship that I know of between this curve fit and eleven or 22 year solar cycles.

[fsol]

For starters, notice that the often quoted number of 0.6 C for current century warming is measured trough to peak. Yes, there is a longer term upward factor present which is explainable by longer term climate cycles.

Which cycles please. I could just say that it was explainable by the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels by man...and there the conversation would grind to a halt unless each of us expanded on their own points a little.

There is no direct relationship that I know of between this curve fit and eleven or 22 year solar cycles.

OK thanks. So many cycles, so little time to check who's talking about which particular one.

[mhaze]

I'll respond later today in detail, I am on the road on a little handheld now.

[David Rodale]

Both charts show a warming trend? Admittedly, it is fairly small and not knowing what the values on the axis represent it could be really significant or not very significant.

In my experience scatter charts are more "honest" as they don't have imaginary lines linking the data points to fool your mind into making correlations that aren't there.

Edit: I'm not convinced correlations is the word I want there. Perhaps trends would be better?

This relates to the chart that mhaze sometimes puts up showing the 60-80 year cycle?

I don't understand the fascination with that either. It clearly shows a warming trend from one cycle peak to the next, implying to me at least that there is something else going on as well causing the warming trend.

I can't imagine this being any easier to understand.

Both charts show a warming trend? Admittedly, it is fairly small and not knowing what the values on the axis represent it could be really significant or not very significant.
The charts are there only to illustrate the final stat results are equal. Please refer to the original post concerning the changing trend. Megalodon completely ignored the data after 1998 and evidently is missing the point. If you can find a scientist that contends the current trend is anything more than flat, please post the link.

In my experience scatter charts are more "honest" as they don't have imaginary lines linking the data points to fool your mind into making correlations that aren't there.
If you’re looking for cause and effect, yes. For analyzing relationships between two variables, a scatter diagram is very useful, as well as looking for root causes of an identified problem. Because time and temperature in this case are the variables, a scatter diagram is not useful. Does temperature affect time? No. Does time affect temperature? No. Can one cause the other? No. Are we looking for a relationship between them? No. Using a scatter diagram in the examples offers nothing useful in this discussion, and makes it virtually impossible to analyze the data; it’s a storm cloud of confusion. It does nothing at all to clarify the raw data. Where are you being fooled by the line chart? A scatter diagram won't improve that in this discussion.

This relates to the chart that mhaze sometimes puts up showing the 60-80 year cycle?
No. The only purpose of my post was to illustrate the trend has flattened.

I don't understand the fascination with that either. It clearly shows a warming trend from one cycle peak to the next, implying to me at least that there is something else going on as well causing the warming trend
The fascination (obsession?) with the temperature rise has been on the AGW side. Now that it’s not going as predicted, there must be an explanation. Met O has acknowledged the trend is flat and there will be cooling for the next few years. They hypothesize the oceans are causing a “temporary” stalling of AGW, but will return in earnest sometime after ~2009(?). Well, if oceans are causing the current flat trend and the coming “temporary” cooling, what is causing the oceans to cool? They certainly aren’t warming, and if the oceans aren’t warming, what’s going to cause the trend to reappear? It's a bit odd Met O's predictions just happen to coincide with Solar Cycle 24, but they don't mention SC23 or SC24. If SC24 is weak per Schatten, Chatterjee and others, they'll be back giving yet another reason, but of course never crediting the sun; that would be sacrilege.
low solar activity= global cooling
high solar activity = CO2 = "magic"?

[Locri]

Which is very much about things being different this time.

I can see how you could interpret the way the correlation is presented as suggesting that CO2-variation is the driving force. It doesn't go into Milankovich cycles, but it is a brief introduction, and this page does need to be seen in the context of the first (which explains the inaptly named Greenhouse Effect).


Regardless of explaining the greenhouse effect, that section is misleading. It says very little about the history of Temp and CO2 relations, especially considering that it's supposed to be a brief introduction to people who supposedly don't know much about it, they wouldn't be able to draw the same conclusions you do based on what you know.


I can't guarantee satisfaction but ...

To my mind, the 800-ish year lag is a diversion. In that, it's a good example of the way the anti-AGW argument is presented. It's a lawyer's trick. (That's probably a British idiom, but every culture has its equivalent :).) Bring up an irrelevance, get it talked about, and pretty soon people think it matters. OJ and the Bloody Glove, the Diana Inquest, that sort of thing. The Woods Hole presentation fades into insignificance in comparison.


No, it's not a trick. I'll go into this further on another response, but it is highly relevant.


Turn your critical eye on ClimateAudit and junkscience (et al). Look for the misleading presentations. It's a far easier crop to harvest than Wood Hole's.

Funny you bring up ClimateAudit... frankly, I see more transparency in action and more scientific reasoning and willing to admit fault there then I do at places like RealClimate.

[Locri]

Since both you and AUP commented on some of the same things, I'll hit them both here rather than being redundant.


The Mann et al reconstruction has been disproven? What about the independent reconstructions that support it, have they gone the same way?



The hockey stick has been re-investigated, and validated by independent researchers. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch06.pdf Chapter 6.6

It's a big drum the deniers always beat, but it doesn't even make the case for AGW. The rate of change that is measured is enough to make the case for concern.

I'm not sure the reconstruction proved anything to start out with. I read the section you mentioned, but it's not addressing the issue that McIntyre brought up from what I can see. It says that other people have managed to reconstruct the same graph using a method very close to Mann, right? The whole reason the hockeystick was discredited in the first place was because McIntyre could put in RANDOM DATA and it would result in a hockey stick.

So theoretically, a chimpanzee with a dartboard could reconstruct Mann's hockey stick. The issue isn't that it's hard to reproduce, it's that anything you throw at his method results in the same thing.


What's the relevance of the 800-ish year CO2 response-lag to the present situation?



800 year gap. It's a concept that seem to be hard for people to understand for some reason. CO2 can be a feedback, like water vapour, and that's what it usually is.


CD, your history on the subject must be a bit shaky. When the icecore graph initially came out and they didn't have such precise measurements on the timings (in order to realize the gap was there in the first place) they used that as evidence that CO2 is strongly tied to Temp and very likely is what caused it.

When the timings were narrowed down and they realized there was a 800 YEAR gap (that's a rather large gap you know) then they brought in the whole positive feedback thing. This is an example (as I said) of changing the goal posts.

And in regards to feedbacks... Please answer honestly, did either of you read the link I posted? A system with as much positive feedback as most AGW people are theorizing would be an inherently unstable system.

The fact is, if high CO2 causes such problems, why has the temperature been able to fall back to normal levels in the past when the CO2 levels are so high? The past is highly relevant here and to ignore it is to invite all sorts of problems. There are obviously some massive negative feedback mechanisms that scientists apparently only understand in a very minimal way.


What Hansen graphs?


Er, sorry... that was a slight misphrasing. I meant to refer to the recent correction of post 2000 temperatures. I find it rather odd just how quietly the correction was done (if you look on AGW sites) and how downplayed it is. People have obviously made mistakes, it's ok to say if you have but they are doing their damnedest to make it look like they were right all along.


There's been a thing going on recently about getting mhaze to admit that Pat Michaels blatantly lied to Congress back in 1998. Getting blood out of a stone is a doddle in comparison. Michaels's lying is there for all too see, courtesy of the Cato Institute, but mhaze won't have it.


I'm not mhaze, go talk to him about that. You are trying to derail the topic with this.

For now though, I have to go... I'll write more later.

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure the reconstruction proved anything to start out with. I read the section you mentioned, but it's not addressing the issue that McIntyre brought up from what I can see. It says that other people have managed to reconstruct the same graph using a method very close to Mann, right? The whole reason the hockeystick was discredited in the first place was because McIntyre could put in RANDOM DATA and it would result in a hockey stick.

Any random data creates a hockey-stick?

So theoretically, a chimpanzee with a dartboard could reconstruct Mann's hockey stick. The issue isn't that it's hard to reproduce, it's that anything you throw at his method results in the same thing.

But we've actually observed the blade of the Hockey-Stick get longer over the last twenty years. Method has nothing to do with that.

CD, your history on the subject must be a bit shaky. When the icecore graph initially came out and they didn't have such precise measurements on the timings (in order to realize the gap was there in the first place) they used that as evidence that CO2 is strongly tied to Temp and very likely is what caused it.

Long before ice-cores became available the most commonly held theory was that Milankovich cycles - involving cyclical orbital variations - were the regular forcing behind the regular glaciation/inter-glacial pattern. The problem with that theory was that the associated variations in solar-input were too slight to explain the extent of climate change. Amplification by a positive CO2 feedback was one suggested explanation, with reasonable physical backing. Warming oceans will release dissolved CO2 by evaporation, as will marginal permafrost as it melts.

It was only with the ice-core data that this feedback could be quantified, and it is sufficient to nail Milankovich cycles as the main driver of climate change during this Ice Epoch (during which there have been many Ice Ages).

When the timings were narrowed down and they realized there was a 800 YEAR gap (that's a rather large gap you know) then they brought in the whole positive feedback thing. This is an example (as I said) of changing the goal posts.

I'm afraid it's you that has the history and the sequence wrong. CO2 feedback to Milankovich forcings was postulated before ice-cores were available. As I recall, Milankovich did his main work on this subject in the 20's. No goalposts have been changed. Milankovich (among others) did the work on orbital variations in an attempt to explain the observed regular glacial/inter-glacial cycle, but Milankovich cycles clearly weren't the whole story. CO2 feedback was posited as being another part of the story but the data wasn't there to confirm or dismiss it. With ice-cores the data became available. The lag wasn't surprising given that feedbacks, by definition, kick in after the initial event.

A good example of the scientific process at work.

And in regards to feedbacks... Please answer honestly, did either of you read the link I posted? A system with as much positive feedback as most AGW people are theorizing would be an inherently unstable system.

No it wouldn't, given the inertia of the world's oceans - thermal inertia and the dissolved-CO2 inertia. This is demonstrated by the 800 year lag in CO2 response to Milankovich warming.

The fact is, if high CO2 causes such problems, why has the temperature been able to fall back to normal levels in the past when the CO2 levels are so high?

What's a "normal" level?

Climate can cool,as it does during inter-glacials, despite CO2-load remaining relatively high. The cooling is down to other causes - Milankovich cycles being the theoretical front-runner - and CO2, being a positive feedback, responds after the event. As orbital variation reduces insolation the the climate cools, oceans gradually draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, the permafrost margin moves south drawing more CO2 out of the atmosphere, and the reduced greenhouse effect amplifies the cooling.

The past is highly relevant here and to ignore it is to invite all sorts of problems. There are obviously some massive negative feedback mechanisms that scientists apparently only understand in a very minimal way.

If there were massive negative feedback mechanisms we'd never see a shift from glacial to inter-glacial conditions. It's that shift which demonstrates that there are positive feedbacks, of which CO2-load is one. They're not evident in the short-term because of the system's inertia. CO2 can only migrate between ocean and atmosphere across the ocean surface, obviously, which slows the response.

Er, sorry... that was a slight misphrasing. I meant to refer to the recent correction of post 2000 temperatures. I find it rather odd just how quietly the correction was done (if you look on AGW sites) and how downplayed it is. People have obviously made mistakes, it's ok to say if you have but they are doing their damnedest to make it look like they were right all along.

Are you referring to the error in calculating late-90's temperature across the contiguous-48 US states? That's a recognised error, and nobody's trying to conceal it. (Whether David Rodale includes the necessary corrections in his "no warming this decade" graphs - courtesy, I suspect, of McIntyre - is another matter.) In global terms it means squat.



I'm not mhaze, go talk to him about that. You are trying to derail the topic with this.

It was you who introduced the idea that scientists won't admit their defeats. So I used it to poke mhaze with. That doesn't make me a bad person. OK, maybe I'm not a nice person ...



For now though, I have to go... I'll write more later.

I never doubted it :).

[a_unique_person]

Agreed. But neither of which rationing CO2 on a global basis will have any effect on.

The reasons the southerly weather patterns are changing is climate change. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

I'm not sure the reconstruction proved anything to start out with. I read the section you mentioned, but it's not addressing the issue that McIntyre brought up from what I can see. It says that other people have managed to reconstruct the same graph using a method very close to Mann, right? The whole reason the hockeystick was discredited in the first place was because McIntyre could put in RANDOM DATA and it would result in a hockey stick.

So theoretically, a chimpanzee with a dartboard could reconstruct Mann's hockey stick. The issue isn't that it's hard to reproduce, it's that anything you throw at his method results in the same thing.



It's been validated since then, using a different statistical method, with pretty much the same result, a line that looks like a 'hockey stick'.

[a_unique_person]

CD, your history on the subject must be a bit shaky. When the icecore graph initially came out and they didn't have such precise measurements on the timings (in order to realize the gap was there in the first place) they used that as evidence that CO2 is strongly tied to Temp and very likely is what caused it.

When the timings were narrowed down and they realized there was a 800 YEAR gap (that's a rather large gap you know) then they brought in the whole positive feedback thing. This is an example (as I said) of changing the goal posts.

I don't know where you got that story, but it's complete fiction. It's well known that CO2 is usually not a driver of climate change, but a feedback. The ice core data is useful in associating warm periods with CO2 levels. That is, CO2 is a factor in the hotter periods of the earths history. If it is a forcing or a feedback is another issue.

[a_unique_person]

Er, sorry... that was a slight misphrasing. I meant to refer to the recent correction of post 2000 temperatures. I find it rather odd just how quietly the correction was done (if you look on AGW sites) and how downplayed it is. People have obviously made mistakes, it's ok to say if you have but they are doing their damnedest to make it look like they were right all along.


The data is always imperfect. If it was never updated or revised, I would be worried.

[CapelDodger]

Regardless of explaining the greenhouse effect, that section is misleading. It says very little about the history of Temp and CO2 relations, especially considering that it's supposed to be a brief introduction to people who supposedly don't know much about it, they wouldn't be able to draw the same conclusions you do based on what you know.

It actually says a lot about the correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2-load, given the context - that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the greenhouse effect has a strong influence on climate. Nowhere does it claim that variation in CO2-load drives historical climate-change, but it does point out that the recent change in CO2-load is unprecedented in recent geological history.

What I find remarkable is that anyone would be swayed towards the anti-AGW argument by this particular presentation while not being swayed against said argument by, for instance, Pat Michaels - something of a leading light in anti-AGW circles - blatantly lying to Congress back in '98. Since when the Hansen et al model Michaels lied about has continued to prove itself as seriously impressive given the very limited computer resources available at the time.

No, it's not a trick. I'll go into this further on another response, but it is highly relevant.

Yes, it is a lawyer's trick. It's relevant because of what it tells us about the anti-AGW argument - take refuge in the past, in Antarctica, off-planet if it comes to that (which it has) - but not because it's relevant to AGW. A is for Anthropogenic.

Funny you bring up ClimateAudit... frankly, I see more transparency in action and more scientific reasoning and willing to admit fault there then I do at places like RealClimate.

Frankly, that doesn't surprise me. "John Daly is dead, long live Steve McIntyre." :)

I'm revealing my age by that. Time was that this John Daly character played the central role thate McIntyre - still in short trousers back then - seems to play now. This was when denying that there'd be any warming was good enough; these days the intervening warming has to be explained away. It's a greater challenge, which John Daly wouldn't have been up to (he'd have tried, I'll give him that, Daly was very committted; in terms of his own reputation he died at the right time, just like Robert Kennedy) but McIntyre is. Better educated, better funded, more intelligent, but focused on the past - on what hasn't happened before, as if what's happening now ever did. Which it didn't.

I think we can all agree that HomSap and the associated industrial society is a unique event. Atmospheric CO2-load being increased by a third for reasons unrelated to climate change - but very much related to industrial society. Nobody will find that in any ice-cores.

That's what we're faced with, and are experiencing. A new situation. There's no refuge in the past, no old-folks' wisdom to refer to. The best we have to go on when predicting the outcome is the accumulated knowledge called Science. That's what we had twenty years ago, and it hasn't proved wanting in the meantime.

[CapelDodger]

I'll respond later today in detail, I am on the road on a little handheld now.

That's pretty much as I picture you; little, and handheld.

[CapelDodger]

If you can find a scientist that contends the current trend is anything more than flat, please post the link.

[snip]

The only purpose of my post was to illustrate the trend has flattened.

What is it you're pushing, flat or flattened? Have you abandoned all hope of a negative trend?


Megalodon has already demonstrated why scientists contend that the current trend is positive. On this very thread. No link required.

[Schneibster]

Below are two charts, one scatter, the other line. Both are using the same data.
Both result in the same trend. What is so difficult to understand? You can't analyze much using a scatter diagram in this example; it looks like a messy desk.That's because you don't know how to make scatter charts. Look at Megalodon's. That's how you make a scatter chart.

No Schneibster, we have not yet reached solar minimum of SC23. It's not expected until Spring 2008 or later. They are not limited to 11 years either.Again, since you didn't read it the first time:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3063394&postcount=1917
Look in the middle of the post. There are two links to the arrival of the minimum in July and the start of the next cycle in August.

I don't know why I bother; you obviously can't read.

[Schneibster]

It's interesting how L&F cherry picked data to support their hypothesis and ignored data and other research contradicting it. Isn't that true?You'll need to provide a link to show that they did. I read their data gathering techniques, and followed up in their referenced sources, and I see no evidence to support your claim.

Can IPCC now claim it now has a high level of scientific understanding of solar? I have no idea. As far as I can tell, we're not discussing any of the IPCC reports; we're discussing LF2007. Since it came out after the latest IPCC report, we'll need to wait for the next one to see if they pick up on it.

BTW, it's not warming.Prove it. You haven't so far.

[mhaze]

The reasons the southerly weather patterns are changing is climate change. :rolleyes:

Some have said that and some have said that climate change was not the case, among the scientists who have studied the matter, as you well know.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3068138#post3068138)
There's been a thing going on recently about getting mhaze to admit that Pat Michaels blatantly lied to Congress back in 1998. Getting blood out of a stone is a doddle in comparison. Michaels's lying is there for all too see, courtesy of the Cato Institute, but mhaze won't have it.

I'm not mhaze, go talk to him about that. You are trying to derail the topic with this.


Interesting. I have received the oral testimony of Hansen from 1988, and it is quite different than expected. There is one or two pages which are a bit blurred, and I'm going to have to ask for them to be redone.

But just looking at this, here are my preliminary comments. I'm not sure how to address JREF Warmers arguments about "Michaels lying", because although they are of like mind that some type of lying happened, their comments are all over the map on how exactly it happened. Then again, that really doesn't matter, does it.

There were no lies by Michaels.

[Megalodon]

Megalodon completely ignored the data after 1998 and evidently is missing the point.

Thank you... now any doubts that you are a liar are dispelled.

...it’s a storm cloud of confusion. It does nothing at all to clarify the raw data.

This comment applies brilliantly to whatever argument you think you are making.

No. The only purpose of my post was to illustrate the trend has flattened.

Another lie. You claimed that the 98 El Niño caused the 30 year warming trend. When I proved you wrong, you claimed that plotting the data from 98 on would cause the trend to be flat or negative. Knowing your tactics I plotted the trends from 96, 97, 98 and 99, and you still came up with the accusation that I ignored the data after 1998. In the meantime, you managed to claim that the future trend will be negative, despite your appaling record with the data you have access to.

So I assume that your only purpose is to look like a fool, which you manage quite nicely.

The fascination (obsession?) with the temperature rise has been on the AGW side. Now that it’s not going as predicted, there must be an explanation.

There is. It was provided.

Met O has acknowledged the trend is flat and there will be cooling for the next few years. They hypothesize the oceans are causing a “temporary” stalling of AGW, but will return in earnest sometime after ~2009(?). Well, if oceans are causing the current flat trend and the coming “temporary” cooling, what is causing the oceans to cool? They certainly aren’t warming, and if the oceans aren’t warming, what’s going to cause the trend to reappear?[QUOTE]

First of all, they are warming, only at a slower rate than the atmosphere (suprise, suprise).

Second, there is a very large pool of ancient cold water surfacing every day - you might want to check thermohaline circulation - that, coupled with a period of low solar activity, could possibly have stalled the warming. But since you don't seem to be familiar with this mechanism (thus asking what is causing the oceans to cool), I will take the scientists opinion on the matter.

[QUOTE]It's a bit odd Met O's predictions just happen to coincide with Solar Cycle 24, but they don't mention SC23 or SC24. If SC24 is weak per Schatten, Chatterjee and others, they'll be back giving yet another reason, but of course never crediting the sun; that would be sacrilege.
low solar activity= global cooling
high solar activity = CO2 = "magic"?

Now you are just rambling...