Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 167

Thread: Global Warming Conspiracy

  1. #1 Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Who knows how much of the alarmist community is in on the fakery. Recently, more than 100 megabytes of data were hacked, showing that it is all made up.

    Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

    Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

    Mega Uploads: File description: climate audit whistleblower FOIA wuwt FOI2009.zip


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Sigh.
    I suppose evolution is false, too.



    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...omment-page-3/
    As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution).

    <...>

    More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

    Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

    <...>

    No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

    The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.


    But, wait... There's more:


    http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...s-tell-us.html
    n the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels. We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect. The planet is still accumulating heat. What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating. Greenland ice loss is accelerating. Arctic ice loss is accelerating. Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic ice loss is accelerating.

    When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments, a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture.

    Act now... and we'll throw in FREE shipping! Yes, that's right... FREE shipping!!


    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...cru_emails.php
    The global warming denialists have predictably gotten very excited about the emails that were stolen from CRU, declaring that they prove that there's a big climate scientist conspiracy (presumably to install a COMMUNIST WORLD GOVERNMENT). We don't know whether or not the thief altered the emails, but since there isn't really anything incriminating it's likely that they are all genuine.

    Most of the fuss has been generated by taking emails out of context and bad faith interpretations of what was written.


    And if you want the real take on all of this which really offers perspective, go here:


    http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-...ment-thinking/
    If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.
    For those who are only paying minimal attention, that last one is satire... a parody of this ridiculous nonsense applied to the works of Isaac Newton... but it's damn funny.


     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I was not aware that "fraud" is an equivelent term for "global conspiracy".

    Inow, you are once again up to your old trick of bait and switch. You changed the OP's question into something you can discredit and attacked the red herring instead. It fits you like a cheap suit and it hurts your credibility.

    Clearly the Hadly Center researchers and the others they communicate with are invested in global warming and benefit when their predictions are accurate. Now that many of their predictions are failing to match data collected and processed by third parties, their private conversations about that reality is valid discussion. How come the data they process and present does not correlate well with this third party data?

    The question is are these researchers being completely honest? Are they completely forthwrite?

    There is no shortage of groups and institutions who will defend these researchers, but what is the objective truth? Only time will tell.
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Now you're just making stuff up, cypress... trying to deflect attention on to me instead of the fact that the denialists are yet again making a big stink about nothing.

    Try reading the links shared. It pretty much covers what you've argued above. I don't share references because they make a post look pretty. I share them because they address the issue under discussion.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    One of the people in the damning E-Mails is Gavin Schmidt, owner of RealClimate!
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    your point being ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Now you're just making stuff up, cypress... trying to deflect attention on to me instead of the fact that the denialists are yet again making a big stink about nothing.
    They are making a big stink, but how do we know it is nothing. Your links never take them head on. I don't see anything in the links that address the questions I asked.
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I was not aware that "fraud" is an equivelent term for "global conspiracy".
    both words are part of the OP - "conspiracy" in the title and "fraud" in the first link
    so what's wrong with addressing both ?

    whatever the hackers found, they didn't find any sign of a conspiracy or fraud
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I was not aware that "fraud" is an equivelent term for "global conspiracy".
    both words are part of the OP - "conspiracy" in the title and "fraud" in the first link
    so what's wrong with addressing both ?
    OK fair point

    whatever the hackers found, they didn't find any sign of a conspiracy or fraud
    I wouldn't expect a conspiracy, but admissions of intentional and unintentional errors or bias are likely. Some of the quotes and the vigorous defense of them seem to confirm this already. Have the full texts been released?
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    not that i'm aware of - they're looking into what exactly has been hacked
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  12. #11  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    From my second link above:


    One email responds in poor taste to the death of a well known skeptic. There's scathing discussion of skeptics such as Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke, including imaginings of violence. However, the crucial question is whether these emails reveal that climate data has been falsified. The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
    What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

    The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

    More was covered in the first link I shared, including within the quote I included.


    Finally, just in case there are still people in this world who actually read the links people share, even more information is available here:

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...mselves-again/
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    They are making a big stink, but how do we know it is nothing.
    Because we have read the cherrypicked stuff they took out of context to be the most damning, and even that stuff is nothing.

    And because we were expecting some such "breaking news" about now - it's been about four months since the last "600/200/2000/ scientists sign petition exposes global warming fraud" media blitz.
     

  14. #13 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Who knows how much of the alarmist community is in on the fakery.
    And the sun, sea level, atmospheric GHG levels.... they're all in on it too. Vast conspiracy, mate, absolutely vast.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Finally, just in case there are still people in this world who actually read the links people share, even more information is available here:

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...mselves-again/
    Links are not proof either, especially when the author doesn't understand what they support. In the case of the MATLAB code, that is what the modeler inputs. Not the programs source code.

    Why should I trust that as an argument when the simple details are incorrectly illustrated?
     

  16. #15 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Who knows how much of the alarmist community is in on the fakery.
    And the sun, sea level, atmospheric GHG levels.... they're all in on it too. Vast conspiracy, mate, absolutely vast.
    In on it? Not everyone. How many people actually take the time to understand multiple disciplines of the Geosciences. You know, there are so many more. However, I laugh when people cite Climatologists. To get a BS in many colleges only requires one more course to study with the remaining courses those that give you a BS as a meteorologist.

    How many times are meteorologists wrong? How often do colleges teach information that is later found in error?

    Funny how there isn't consensus in the theory. Too many scientists believe otherwise.

    Oh... If consensus was fact anyway, would the earth be flat? That what scientists used to believe, right?
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    In the case of the MATLAB code, that is what the modeler inputs. Not the programs source code.
    i happen to know a thing or 2 about matlab code, and i definitely read the quoted part

    ... a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote ...
    as writing a program using matlab - you tidy up and comment code so that other people can follow how your code is supposed to work

    no code monkey would ever use "coding" in the context of entering data
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  18. #17 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Who knows how much of the alarmist community is in on the fakery.
    And the sun, sea level, atmospheric GHG levels.... they're all in on it too. Vast conspiracy, mate, absolutely vast.
    In on it? Not everyone. How many people actually take the time to understand multiple disciplines of the Geosciences. You know, there are so many more. However, I laugh when people cite Climatologists. To get a BS in many colleges only requires one more course to study with the remaining courses those that give you a BS as a meteorologist.

    How many times are meteorologists wrong? How often do colleges teach information that is later found in error?

    Funny how there isn't consensus in the theory. Too many scientists believe otherwise.

    Oh... If consensus was fact anyway, would the earth be flat? That what scientists used to believe, right?
    Oh my.
     

  19. #18 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    How many times are meteorologists wrong?
    Meteorology Climatology


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather
    Weather is a set of all the phenomena occurring in a given atmosphere at a given time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
    Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.

    Projecting weather in the coming week is not the same thing as projecting climate in the coming decade(s). Let me clarify via analogy.

    Let's say you are standing at a beach beside the ocean. Next to you is a wall which gets hit by incoming waves. I ask you to draw a line representing where the next wave will hit. You are allotted a degree of error, say plus/minus 8 inches. You can come close, but very often you are wrong... and in addition the accuracy of your line placement will shift as the day proceeds (due to the rising and lowering tide). That's meteorology (weather prediction).

    Now, let's say you're standing at the same wall, and instead of me asking you to draw a line where the next wave will hit, I ask you to draw a line representing where the average of all waves will hit in the coming year. This is much easier to do. This is a closer representation to climatology.

    We can tell you what the averages will be over time, and just because I can't tell you at precisely which time a drop of rain will fall at your front door next Tuesday does NOT mean I cannot tell you (on average) how much rain is projected to fall in your neighborhood in the coming year.

    Please try not to conflate meteorology with climatology. It does not speak well of your credibility on this topic, and I hope the above example has provided you with an example of why this is the case... an example which is not laden with the bias and preconceptions of climate change denialism.
     

  20. #19 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Oh... If consensus was fact anyway, would the earth be flat? That what scientists used to believe, right?
    Which scientists were these? No, really. Can you name them? Go ahead. I have an interest in the history of science and would be fascinated to know which scientists though this.
     

  21. #20 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    How many times are meteorologists wrong?
    Meteorology Climatology


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather
    Weather is a set of all the phenomena occurring in a given atmosphere at a given time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
    Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.

    Projecting weather in the coming week is not the same thing as projecting climate in the coming decade(s). Let me clarify via analogy.

    Let's say you are standing at a beach beside the ocean. Next to you is a wall which gets hit by incoming waves. I ask you to draw a line representing where the next wave will hit. You are allotted a degree of error, say plus/minus 8 inches. You can come close, but very often you are wrong... and in addition the accuracy of your line placement will shift as the day proceeds (due to the rising and lowering tide). That's meteorology (weather prediction).

    Now, let's say you're standing at the same wall, and instead of me asking you to draw a line where the next wave will hit, I ask you to draw a line representing where the average of all waves will hit in the coming year. This is much easier to do. This is a closer representation to climatology.

    We can tell you what the averages will be over time, and just because I can't tell you at precisely which time a drop of rain will fall at your front door next Tuesday does NOT mean I cannot tell you (on average) how much rain is projected to fall in your neighborhood in the coming year.

    Please try not to conflate meteorology with climatology. It does not speak well of your credibility on this topic, and I hope the above example has provided you with an example of why this is the case... an example which is not laden with the bias and preconceptions of climate change denialism.
    I suggest you look through your choice of a college and see the courses required for both degrees.
     

  22. #21 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Oh... If consensus was fact anyway, would the earth be flat? That what scientists used to believe, right?
    Which scientists were these? No, really. Can you name them? Go ahead. I have an interest in the history of science and would be fascinated to know which scientists though this.
    Are you telling me there was no time in history that well educated minds didn't believe otherwise?

    I'll give you two. Leucippus and Democritus.

    Really now. Anyone who believe consensus is science, doesn't know science.
     

  23. #22 Re: Global Warming Conspiracy 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Are you telling me there was no time in history that well educated minds didn't believe otherwise?

    I'll give you two. Leucippus and Democritus.

    Really now. Anyone who believe consensus is science, doesn't know science.
    Logical fallacy alert. Suddenly you have changed from scientists to well educated minds. Was this because you realised it was stretching the definition a tad to far to claim these early Greeks were scientists? They certainly didn't practice anything we would recognise as science.

    Philosophers? I'll give you that. Prone to speculation with little benefit from actual observation? Very much so. Aha! But that is quite close to what you think science is.

    Now, I may speak no Greek and read little more, but even I know Leucippus and Democritus were teacher and pupil, and that so little of the works of either survive that they are pretty much considered as one.

    So there you have it. In response to my request that you should name scientists who thought the world was flat, you come up with effectively one philosopher who might have thought that way, though you don't actually produce any evidence to support that contention. Impressive.

    Logical fallacy alert. You are the one bringing up consensus science, not me. Don't try deflecting attention away form the central argument. It won't work.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The flat earth example is a poor one. There are lots of situations in the last 100 years when what was believed as a consensus by scientists was later disproved. For example ; when continental drift was first mooted, it was totally discarded by geologists since they all knew (had consensus) that the continents were stable. In a similar way, medical scientists 'knew' that ulcers were caused by stress, and there was consensus araound this explanation, till Helicobacter pylori was discovered to be the cause.

    Consensus is a lousy argument for any theory.
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The flat earth example is a poor one. There are lots of situations in the last 100 years when what was believed as a consensus by scientists was later disproved. For example ; when continental drift was first mooted, it was totally discarded by geologists since they all knew (had consensus) that the continents were stable.
    The technical word for a statement like this in the Earth sciences is crap.

    Arthur Holmes had postulated mantle convection currents as the mechanism for continental drift in 1929.
    Bull had echoed this as part of his theory of orogenesis in 1931.
    D.T. Griggs had demonstrated in 1939, with appropriately scaled lab experiments, how mantle convection currents might work. (Perkeris and Hales did earlier, less convincing work on the subject.)

    The opposition came, for the most part, from the geophysicists. to claim it was 'totally discarded by geologists' is wholly wrong.
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The flat earth example is a poor one. There are lots of situations in the last 100 years when what was believed as a consensus by scientists was later disproved. For example ; when continental drift was first mooted, it was totally discarded by geologists since they all knew (had consensus) that the continents were stable.
    The technical word for a statement like this in the Earth sciences is crap.

    Arthur Holmes had postulated mantle convection currents as the mechanism for continental drift in 1929.
    Bull had echoed this as part of his theory of orogenesis in 1931.
    D.T. Griggs had demonstrated in 1939, with appropriately scaled lab experiments, how mantle convection currents might work. (Perkeris and Hales did earlier, less convincing work on the subject.)

    The opposition came, for the most part, from the geophysicists. to claim it was 'totally discarded by geologists' is wholly wrong.
    Consensus is a lousy argument for any theory.
    Was anyone here making a counter claim?
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ophiolite

    Most people tend to resent being told that their statements are crap.

    Re continental drift.
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

    I quote :
    "Some truly revolutionary scientific theories may take years or decades to win general acceptance among scientists. This is certainly true of plate tectonics, one of the most important and far-ranging geological theories of all time; when first proposed, it was ridiculed, but steadily accumulating evidence finally prompted its acceptance, with immense consequences for geology, geophysics, oceanography, and paleontology."

    So I repeat my statement.
    "when continental drift was first mooted, it was totally discarded by geologists since they all knew (had consensus) that the continents were stable."

    I do not talk crap!!!
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Of course it's a conspiracy and here's the email that proves it!

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...ghts-carbonic/
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Ophiolite
    Most people tend to resent being told that their statements are crap.
    If you feel that way you should avoid talking crap, that way you wont be resentful.

    You may also wish to distinguish between an attack on you and an attack on what you have said. I hold you in high regard, because most of the time you make excellent points in a well structured manner. All the more reason that when you talk crap it should be pointed out.
    "when continental drift was first mooted, it was totally discarded by geologists since they all knew (had consensus) that the continents were stable."
    I have provided the names of four researchers who most certainly did not dismiss it. There were others. Holmes was acknowledged at the time as one of the greats. Therefore your statement that it was totally discarded is demonstrably wrong. i.e. it is crap.

    I do not talk crap!!!
    The facts say otherwise. Perhaps if you can learn to avoid absolutes when absolutes are not applicable then you will not face such valid accusations in the future.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ophiolite

    We were talking about consensus. I probably should have added the word 'most' to my statement, as in 'most geologists totally ...'

    However, my point is still very valid. Initially, the argument was about consensus, and the example of the flat Earth belief was given. I gave two better examples to show that consensus is not a good basis for belief. And that point still stands. Science is not a democracy, and while consensus belief is sometimes a guide to what is likely to be correct, it is definitely not a perfect guide. It is often wrong.

    I think your statement that I was talking crap was extremely uncalled for. You might have suggested a modification of the statement instead, if you felt it was not quite accurate as it stands.
     

  31. #30  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    A nice article over at Scientific American:


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ter-2009-11-24
    There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action. And this release of emails right before the Copenhagen conference is just another salvo—and a highly effective one—in that public relations battle, redolent with the scent of the same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous."

    h/t Swansont
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    A nice article over at Scientific American:


    http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ter-2009-11-24
    There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action. And this release of emails right before the Copenhagen conference is just another salvo—and a highly effective one—in that public relations battle, redolent with the scent of the same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous."

    h/t Swansont
    Please notice the section it is in:



    Everyone has an opinion, and even the editors opinion can be wrong.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The use of the word 'conspiracy' is misplaced. There is no conspiracy. However, the various actions on climate change are political, and there are various political views and various political movements. Since these are all pretty much out in the open, 'conspiracy' is a misnomer.

    Scientists pushing for action on climate change have always been capable of distorting the truth. Dr. Stephen Schneider on a TV interview even admitted exaggerating matters to try to get the action he wanted. The so-called 'climategate' is no worse. It just reveals that scientists are also human, and capable of slightly unethical action when pushing a specific political agenda. Welcome to the human race!
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    That's right. Destroy any data that can be used against you:

    Climate change data dumped, part of text:

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
    I guess they didn't want any peer reviews showing them wrong...

    What scientists would ever destroy data, unless it could harm his credibility?
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    That's right. Destroy any data that can be used against you:

    What scientists would ever destroy data, unless it could harm his credibility?
    Well, perhaps one who in the 1980's did not imagine that 20 years later the subject of his research would be controversial, and had run out of storage space.

    Here's a little context that you seem to have forgotten to provide from the same article:

    the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
    Why do you automatically assume that twenty years ago Jones's predecessor who is no longer there had any motive other than the one stated in the article?

    If you care to listen to Michael Mann in this radio discussion - Copenhagen Preview - you will hear that the data was owned by several source countries and CRU did not have authority to release it. This was tested in the courts under the FOI request and the CRU's obligation not to release the raw data was upheld.

    http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/11/30.php#29153
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Well, perhaps one who in the 1980's did not imagine that 20 years later the subject of his research would be controversial, and had run out of storage space.
    It doesn't matter what the reason is. The data can no longer be factually used, and on a topic that has become political, how can any of those results now be trusted?

    I agree it probably wasn't to hide facts. NASA did the same thing, and much of history is missing from the 60's.

    Any time I cite a reference that has good solid science behind it that I see to be correct, someone cries "It' not peer reviewed." I'm tired of those weak answers. It only show me that these individuals are incapable of understanding what they advocate.
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    It doesn't matter what the reason is.
    Actually, the reason is precisely the relevant piece of information, especially since you are here claiming nefarious intent, purposeful deception, and various other scandal. You can't have it both ways. Either the reason they discarded the data was not to hide facts (there were other perfectly valid reasons for its disposal), or it was to hide facts. You can't make the argument you've been making if you simultaneously concede that "it probably wasn't to hide facts." It's as simple as that.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    It doesn't matter what the reason is.
    Actually, the reason is precisely the relevant piece of information, especially since you are here claiming nefarious intent, purposeful deception, and various other scandal. You can't have it both ways. Either the reason they discarded the data was not to hide facts (there were other perfectly valid reasons for its disposal), or it was to hide facts. You can't make the argument you've been making if you simultaneously concede that "it probably wasn't to hide facts." It's as simple as that.
    Then stop crying about peer review when we cannot review relevant information.
     

  39. #38  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Wow, that was irrelevant and non-sequitur.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Wow, that was irrelevant and non-sequitur.
    LOL...

    Don't you get anything?

    That's exactly why I said what I said. People like you cry about peer review when it suits your needs, but couldn't care less that such work cannot be peer reviewed after the data is destroyed.

    You can't have it both ways.

    Now can we get back to the topic? Have anything relevant to share, or are you going to remain a useless troll?
     

  41. #40  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    And... again... we're done here.

    I'll share this with the interested reader:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
     

  42. #41  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    on the subject of conspiracies : Climate change conspiracies: Stolen emails used to ridicule global warming

    so who's been paying the russian mafia to try and dig up incriminating evidence ? i wonder if it will be possible to follow the money trail, and who will turn out to be the next Richard Nixon ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  43. #42  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    And... again... we're done here.

    I'll share this with the interested reader:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
    Why have you suddenly gone quiet over these emails Wild Cobra? What do you think of the youtube video inow provided? Not big enough of a man to admit you have been caught out by the stupid hype created by overzealous idiots?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I don't know about WC but i have gone silent over the realization that there is little point attempting to discuss much of anything with inow. The video simply shows that like most issues, this one can be spun either way to suite either sides bias. No point in trying to discuss that with those like inow who have a prior commitment. The impartial reader has more than enough information on both sides to make up their own mind.

    I would normally suggest we discuss it further with you Kalster but inow will simply continue shouting never discussing. Really it seems quite pointless.
     

  45. #44  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Uh huh. Whatever, cypress.


    Here's another interesting video for the interested reader:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY



    And, this would be funnier if it weren't so true and telling:









    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The video simply shows that like most issues, this one can be spun either way to suite either sides bias.
    Spoken like someone who didn't even bother watching the video to the end... specifically, time point 8:15.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg


    Classic.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Here is one specifically for you, iNow.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/

    I quote :

    "YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C."

    This refers to the way climate scientists 'adjust' data to compensate for variables.

    I do not think climate scientists in general are dishonest, or bad scientists. However, there are always a few, in any field of study, who are prepared to manipulate and massage the data .....
     

  47. #46  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I do not think climate scientists in general are dishonest, or bad scientists. However, there are always a few, in any field of study, who are prepared to manipulate and massage the data .....
    Of course. They're humans, but really, there is not a lot of meat on this particular bone, and yet the global warming conspiracy theorists are foaming at the mouth. It's rather pathetic, really.

    I hope things are well in NZ, mate. :wink:
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    iNow

    NZ is fine, except that summer is still too damn cold.....
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Why have you suddenly gone quiet over these emails Wild Cobra? What do you think of the youtube video inow provided? Not big enough of a man to admit you have been caught out by the stupid hype created by overzealous idiots?
    Because they are hard to pinpoint anything with. There are points that can be argued, but I haven't read enough pf them myself. There are so many other besides the weak ones that have been disputed though.

    Besides, the emails between some people could never prove the general MO of the community. I like to deal with facts I can verify myself rather than who said what to whom. It's hard enough to get people to understand the science behind global warming. Mix that with who said what? Too ambiguous.

    As for Inow's video. So what. Just like I have only read a very small percentage, it is only dismissing a few. If I had the time, I would find a relevant couple I did hear of. More important things to do then that with my time. I don't have enough time to focus on factual issues as it is.
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    This refers to the way climate scientists 'adjust' data to compensate for variables.

    I do not think climate scientists in general are dishonest, or bad scientists. However, there are always a few, in any field of study, who are prepared to manipulate and massage the data .....
    I like that article. Love this:



    No wonder original data gets destroyed!
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Wild Cobra: Could you please provide the source of your graphs? Simply posting them without any kind of context is meaningless and I dare say, underhanded.

    Because they are hard to pinpoint anything with. There are points that can be argued, but I haven't read enough pf them myself. There are so many other besides the weak ones that have been disputed though.........
    Then why start this thread if you are not going to bother actually finding out what is going on? Why start a thread alleging conspiracy and/or fraud when you have no idea what you are alleging? Again, I dare say that is underhanded.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  52. #51  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    No wonder original data gets destroyed!
    i dare you to go to any company and ask for raw data of anything they were doing 20 or more years ago - i'd bet you that a majority of it will have been gone missing if in paper copies, or corrupt / unreadable / overwritten if in electronic copies
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Wild Cobra: Could you please provide the source of your graphs? Simply posting them without any kind of context is meaningless and I dare say, underhanded.
    It was in Skeptics supplied link, from the thread I quoted him from:
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Here is one specifically for you, iNow.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/
    <snip>
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Because they are hard to pinpoint anything with. There are points that can be argued, but I haven't read enough pf them myself. There are so many other besides the weak ones that have been disputed though.........
    Then why start this thread if you are not going to bother actually finding out what is going on? Why start a thread alleging conspiracy and/or fraud when you have no idea what you are alleging? Again, I dare say that is underhanded.
    Because I thought there would be more easily seen examples of fraud. Does it matter? Either debate or don't.
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    No wonder original data gets destroyed!
    i dare you to go to any company and ask for raw data of anything they were doing 20 or more years ago - i'd bet you that a majority of it will have been gone missing if in paper copies, or corrupt / unreadable / overwritten if in electronic copies
    Science is different. Always has been. I don't expect everything archived from maybe the 60's, but microfilm has been used for years. Science is suppose to be precise, and those entrusted with it have now lost trust.
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C."

    This refers to the way climate scientists 'adjust' data to compensate for variables.
    The only problem with the guy's argument there is that it is an argument based on uninformed incredulity.

    He thinks the "adjustments" must be invalid, because they look funny to him. He presents no actual argument against them, apparently because he doesn't know how they were made. He could be right, but how to assign plausibility? We can look at his other reasoning, maybe, get a feel for his judgment.

    For example: He goes on to ridicule the other center, for simply throwing out the preWar Darwin records as anomalous rather than making "adjustments"; but that seems to me a perfectly sensible approach given the fact that there is a large discontinuity right when the weather station at Darwin was bombed by the Japanese, and the various modern records are more consistent with each other.

    The famous "heat island" effect would be a very likely explanation for the pre-War warming trend recorded in the rapidly built-up and paved Darwin airport and region, yes? But our folks we count on to jump at that explanation seem to have overlooked it this time.

    So we may have a badly handled data set, or we may not. The last I heard, the region around Darwin was not talking as though they had experienced a large cooling since WWII, and were suffering the effects of cooler weather in general - as indicated by the "raw data" in that picture.
     

  56. #55  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    It was in Skeptics supplied link, from the thread I quoted him from:
    I missed it. Sorry for accusing you.

    Because I thought there would be more easily seen examples of fraud. Does it matter? Either debate or don't.
    Fine.

    Edit: I see iceaura already made the points I wanted to make about the guy skeptic quoted.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Guys,

    That particular graphic is also based on a lie.


    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ught_lying.php
    Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site? Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data. He claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling". Here's his graph:




    That blue line for raw temperature in his graph combines different records without any adjustment, even though Eschenbach could see that there was a step change between record 0 and record 1.

    The adjustment procedure used is described here, with the the authors noting:

    A great deal of effort went into the homogeneity adjustments. Yet the effects of the homogeneity adjustments on global average temperature trends are minor (Easterling and Peterson 1995b). However, on scales of half a continent or smaller, the homogeneity adjustments can have an impact. On an individual time series, the effects of the adjustments can be enormous. These adjustments are the best we could do given the paucity of historical station history metadata on a global scale. But using an approach based on a reference series created from surrounding stations means that the adjusted station's data is more indicative of regional climate change and less representative of local microclimatic change than an individual station not needing adjustments.
    Eschenbach, however, simply declares the NOAA's adjustments "blatantly bogus" that created a "false warming". This isn't a strong argument, but maybe there is a way to check the NOAA's work?

    Oh look, here's the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's high quality climate data for Darwin airport



    Their notes state:


    A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations.

    The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated. Procedures to identify and adjust for non-climatic changes in historical climate data generally involve a combination of:

    • investigating historical information (metadata) about the observation site,
    • using statistical tests to compare records from nearby locations, and
    • using comparison data recorded simultaneously at old and new locations, or with old and new instrument types.
    And full details of the procedure are described in this paper.

    I suppose the next argument is that the NOAA and the BOM are conspiring together to fasify the temperature record.

    Eschenbach, by the way, has cooked temperature records before.


    You've gotta love lairs, and the people who repeat and propagate their lies.
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Guys,

    That particular graphic is also based on a lie.
    Really?

    Then why does your sources article say there are adjustments to the actual temperature readings?
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    For example: He goes on to ridicule the other center, for simply throwing out the preWar Darwin records as anomalous rather than making "adjustments"; but that seems to me a perfectly sensible approach given the fact that there is a large discontinuity right when the weather station at Darwin was bombed by the Japanese, and the various modern records are more consistent with each other.
    Really? It's hard to say from the graph, but the correction seems to jump from 1940 to 1941. Darwin was bombed in 1942. Sure it's not a convenient excuse?

    I wonder if we can find the raw data online?

    4 pixils per year...
     

  60. #59  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    [Then why does your sources article say there are adjustments to the actual temperature readings?
    to balance known biases in the data?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  61. #60  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Yet more lies and intentional attempts to mislead readers coming from McIntyre have been exposed:

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mc...-for-skeptics/
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    [Then why does your sources article say there are adjustments to the actual temperature readings?
    to balance known biases in the data?
    How do they know that without making educated guesses?
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    [Then why does your sources article say there are adjustments to the actual temperature readings?
    to balance known biases in the data?
    How do they know that without making educated guesses?
    Here is a very clear explanation of how and why they made adjustments as well as the significance it has had on the Global Warming argument and now on the future of reputation of science in general.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...gates_hid.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...993737848.html
     

  64. #63  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    [Then why does your sources article say there are adjustments to the actual temperature readings?
    to balance known biases in the data?
    How do they know that without making educated guesses?
    Here is a very clear explanation of how and why they made adjustments as well as the significance it has had on the Global Warming argument and now on the future of reputation of science in general.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...gates_hid.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...993737848.html
    Cypress, that is not a "very clear explanation". It is the take of some guy, who was not involved with the original research and who is applying his personally rendered denialist filter to the superficial details. Don't quote a guy as fact simply because you might agree with what he has to say.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    [Then why does your sources article say there are adjustments to the actual temperature readings?
    to balance known biases in the data?
    How do they know that without making educated guesses?
    Here is a very clear explanation of how and why they made adjustments as well as the significance it has had on the Global Warming argument and now on the future of reputation of science in general.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...gates_hid.html

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...993737848.html
    Cypress, that is not a "very clear explanation". It is the take of some guy, who was not involved with the original research and who is applying his personally rendered denialist filter to the superficial details. Don't quote a guy as fact simply because you might agree with what he has to say.
    I would be happy to discuss the failings you see with these two articles.

    Specifically what part do you find unclear?

    Where do you see a denialist filter being applied when a more information would result in a more appropriate conclusion?

    The article provides many relevant facts and some opinion. Walk me through the facts and show us where the conclusions are in error. I don't see anything controversial or any significant opinion until after the hockey stick chart is displayed. Do you agree?

    The first sign of controversy appears with this senence, "The truth is that the proxy data was scrapped because unlike those measured, reconstructed temperatures showed a marked decline after 1980" but even this sentence is factually correct. Mann and Jones did scrap the proxies after 1980 because they did not convey what they believe is the correct impression or conclusion.
     

  66. #65  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Mann and Jones did scrap the proxies after 1980 because they did not convey what they believe is the correct impression or conclusion.
    Well... There's at least one flaw... Your assignment of their motivation is nothing but another lie. That is plainly untrue.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Mann and Jones did scrap the proxies after 1980 because they did not convey what they believe is the correct impression or conclusion.
    Well... There's at least one flaw... Your assignment of their motivation is nothing but another lie. That is plainly untrue.
    It appears to be very true looking at the discussions in the links.

    Can you indicate any facts to support your contention?

    I was noticing something odd in the Cryosphere site. If I compare an early September date of 1979 vs. 2009, there is a definite receding of the ice. However, the thickness of the 2009 ice is far thicker, supporting the theory of melting from Black Carbon:

     

  68. #67  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Can you indicate any facts to support your contention?
    Yes, of course I can, however, you'll just dismiss it anyway since it contradicts your preconceived and personally preferred narrative.



    Cypress said this: Mann and Jones did scrap the proxies after 1980 because they did not convey what they believe is the correct impression or conclusion.


    Now, here is what really happened:

    http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencei...l-mann-re.html
    Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that he was using the term "trick" in the sense often used by people, as in "bag of tricks", or "a trick to solving this problem ...", or “trick of the trade”. In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980 (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data were clearly labeled.

    The reference to "hide the decline" is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960. In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the "divergence problem" where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960. “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960 data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article. There is a summary of that article available on this NOAA site:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...ng/briffa.html

    There have been many articles since then trying to understand the reason for this problem, which applies largely to only one very specific type of proxy data (tree-ring wood density data from higher latitudes).

    As for my research in this area more generally, there was a study commissioned by the National Academies of Science back in 2006 to assess the validity of paleoclimate reconstructions in general, and my own work in specific. A summary of that report, and link to it, is available here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...thesis-report/


    So, in short, and yet again, cypress is shown to be a liar, just like the individuals whose lies he continues to propagate.

    And, if you want a more complete evisceration of such blatant lies, read here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...econstruction/


    Either way, I'm sure you idiots will just continue to ignore it and keep repeating blatant falsehoods and continue on with a bunch of handwaving.
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Can you indicate any facts to support your contention?
    Yes, of course I can, however, you'll just dismiss it anyway since it contradicts your preconceived and personally preferred narrative.



    Cypress said this: Mann and Jones did scrap the proxies after 1980 because they did not convey what they believe is the correct impression or conclusion.


    Now, here is what really happened:

    http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencei...l-mann-re.html
    Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that he was using the term "trick" in the sense often used by people, as in "bag of tricks", or "a trick to solving this problem ...", or “trick of the trade”. In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980 (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data were clearly labeled.

    The reference to "hide the decline" is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960. In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the "divergence problem" where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960. “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960 data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article. There is a summary of that article available on this NOAA site:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...ng/briffa.html

    There have been many articles since then trying to understand the reason for this problem, which applies largely to only one very specific type of proxy data (tree-ring wood density data from higher latitudes).

    As for my research in this area more generally, there was a study commissioned by the National Academies of Science back in 2006 to assess the validity of paleoclimate reconstructions in general, and my own work in specific. A summary of that report, and link to it, is available here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...thesis-report/


    So, in short, and yet again, cypress is shown to be a liar, just like the individuals whose lies he continues to propagate.
    Hmm.... I don't see any discernible difference between how I described it ans how they did. We seem to be in agreement. They eliminated the post 1961 and 1980 data from the proxy series because they did not believe it accurately represented the correct conclusion.

    They believe the correct conclusion is that temperatures continued to rise after these dates and therefore the proxy data should have reflected this rise but did not. So they removed the data that did not reflect this rise because if they did not the viewer would come to a false conclusion that temperatures are no longer rising when they were convinced that they were.

    inow is it impossible for you to do anything but throw out red herrings, non-sequiturs and ad-hominid attacks?
     

  70. #69  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Cypress,

    They chose to use the MORE accurate instrumental record... the one from thermometers... instead of the proxy data from tree rings. They openly stated they were doing this and why. The fact that you are using that to suggest nefarious intent is indicative of your agenda here and your lack of credibility on the topic.
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Cypress,

    They chose to use the MORE accurate instrumental record... the one from thermometers... instead of the proxy data from tree rings. They openly stated they were doing this and why. The fact that you are using that to suggest nefarious intent is indicative of your agenda here and your lack of credibility on the topic.
    I have not claimed nefarious intent. I simply state the obvious. These researchers have a bias and they manipulate the data within the bounds of their own conscious and their own sense of what qualifies as proper practice to obtain the results that they feel are most correct. They believe that they are better qualified than the casual reader to interpret patterns that deviate from what they expect so they pick and choose the data trends they feel best represents their version of reality and present that data rather than show all the data in its sometimes stark reality. They got caught in this practice. Do you actually expect them to admit what they are and what they have done?

    If they admit that the tree rings are not accurate for the current period, then they must throw them out for the entire period that they don't have direct observation of local temperature. How would they know when to accept tree ring derived temperature and when not to? On the other hand if they want to use it as a proxy for temperature trends recognizing that they are not always perfect, then they must use the entire series. To not do so would be cherry picking particularly when you don't clearly state in the graphic and text how the data was manipulated and why.

    inow you clearly know how to be critical even when unwarranted. Why can't you be critical of your sources too? Bias and prior commitment come to mind.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I have not claimed nefarious intent. I simply state the obvious. These researchers have a bias and they manipulate the data - - - - . Do you actually expect them to admit what they are and what they have done?
    Everything you know about their data manipulation is from their own descriptions of their methods and reasoning.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    How would they know when to accept tree ring derived temperature and when not to?
    When they have more direct measurements, that do not require so much assumption and inference, they should use that data by preference.

    Which they did.

    Can you find an instance in which they used lower quality, indirect, or otherwise flawed data, in preference to better stuff?

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Really? It's hard to say from the graph, but the correction seems to jump from 1940 to 1941. Darwin was bombed in 1942. Sure it's not a convenient excuse?
    It isn't their "excuse", it's my own observation - there was a large buildup at the airport with war approaching (the kind of thing the nutcases like to jump on, saying the magic words "heat island"), the measuring instruments were changed about that time, the airport and weather station was bombed, and so forth.

    The guy making all the conspiracy assertions there overlooked that significant circumstance, and several others, in order to make fairly serious and unlikely accusations. Why would you trust him?
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I have not claimed nefarious intent. I simply state the obvious. These researchers have a bias and they manipulate the data - - - - . Do you actually expect them to admit what they are and what they have done?
    Everything you know about their data manipulation is from their own descriptions of their methods and reasoning.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    How would they know when to accept tree ring derived temperature and when not to?
    When they have more direct measurements, that do not require so much assumption and inference, they should use that data by preference.

    Which they did.

    Can you find an instance in which they used lower quality, indirect, or otherwise flawed data, in preference to better stuff?
    Do you have any training or experience in statistical modeling for experimentation? If you do you would know that it is poor practice to substitute one data set for another. The proxy data is the only data available in 1000 AD. You must keep the data set intact and compare it to other data sets to reach valid conclusions. An apparent drop in temperature from the 1200's has no comparable "more accurate" data to substitute, how do we deal with that ? we can't and that is why you overlay the data. It is good practice to overlay one on another and discuss the variations. It is terrible practice to merge data sets. The correct term for that is "manipulation".

    It isn't their "excuse", it's my own observation - there was a large buildup at the airport with war approaching (the kind of thing the nutcases like to jump on, saying the magic words "heat island"), the measuring instruments were changed about that time, the airport and weather station was bombed, and so forth.

    The guy making all the conspiracy assertions there overlooked that significant circumstance, and several others, in order to make fairly serious and unlikely accusations. Why would you trust him?
    This is why it is critical to keep the raw data. The real problem is that since the raw data was destroyed there is no way to verify the adjusted temperature proxy. There is no nice way to say this... They messed up and they completely destroyed any credibility of the temperature proxy estimates. It will need to be redone. When they redo it they will need to be much more clear about how they adjust for situations like the Darwin airport and how they figure station changes into long term data sets.
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    So, in short, and yet again, cypress is shown to be a liar, just like the individuals whose lies he continues to propagate.

    And, if you want a more complete evisceration of such blatant lies, read here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...econstruction/


    Either way, I'm sure you idiots will just continue to ignore it and keep repeating blatant falsehoods and continue on with a bunch of handwaving.
    No, in short, you are the idiot for relying on anything that RealClimate propagates.

    I wouldn't be such an ass with you if you could explain things in your own words without linking propaganda.
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    This is why it is critical to keep the raw data. The real problem is that since the raw data was destroyed there is no way to verify the adjusted temperature proxy. There is no nice way to say this... They messed up and they completely destroyed any credibility of the temperature proxy estimates.
    Except by comparison to the the reams of other data out there, the various indirect measures and indications, and so forth.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    - - The proxy data is the only data available in 1000 AD. You must keep the data set intact and compare it to other data sets to reach valid conclusions. An apparent drop in temperature from the 1200's has no comparable "more accurate" data to substitute, how do we deal with that ?
    Compare it to the bushels of proxy data otherwise available from hundreds of other sources, might be one option. Compare their conclusions with the findings of the thousands of other researchers in the field? Worst comes to worst, re-do the investigations that yielded the proxy data in the first place,if it is unique and completely unverified otherwise?

    If you are actually interested in this proxy data, anyway - if you really think it shows something other than what their handling reveals.

    I'm not seeing much actual curiosity about climate and the like, from the agitproppers in the middle of this ginned up controversy. Nobody seems to have a raw data set whose best interpretation conflicts clearly and significantly with what these Hadley guys have been saying regularly for years now.

    And nobody seems to care that back in the 80s, before all this intense political stuff, these guys weren't being funded to store their research data. That was the obvious question and issue, as soon as this broke - how much other valuable data hae we lost, in other fields?
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Can you indicate any facts to support your contention?
    Yes, of course I can, however, you'll just dismiss it anyway since it contradicts your preconceived and personally preferred narrative.
    Then why don't you show all of us you can speak for yourself, instead of only quoting sites of propaganda.

    Explain to me in your words why my past statements are wrong. Until I see you have that capacity, I don't see you worthy of listening to.
     

  77. #76  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    ...without linking propaganda.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Can you indicate any facts to support your contention?
    Yes, of course I can, however, you'll just dismiss it anyway since it contradicts your preconceived and personally preferred narrative.
    Then why don't you show all of us you can speak for yourself, instead of only quoting sites of propaganda.
    Well, sir... I have, in fact, supported data and evidence from peer-reviewed journals in support of my rebuttals to your claims, repeatedly described it in my own words, and you dismissed them as propaganda, too. So, in sum, I'll simply pivot back to the only response you (someone who frequently cites proven liars and deception kings like McIntyre and Watssupwiththat) deserve on this topic...

    Uh huh.
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I have not claimed nefarious intent. I simply state the obvious. These researchers have a bias and they manipulate the data - - - - . Do you actually expect them to admit what they are and what they have done?
    Everything you know about their data manipulation is from their own descriptions of their methods and reasoning.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    How would they know when to accept tree ring derived temperature and when not to?
    When they have more direct measurements, that do not require so much assumption and inference, they should use that data by preference.

    Which they did.

    Can you find an instance in which they used lower quality, indirect, or otherwise flawed data, in preference to better stuff?
    Do you have any training or experience in statistical modeling for experimentation? If you do you would know that it is poor practice to substitute one data set for another. The proxy data is the only data available in 1000 AD. You must keep the data set intact and compare it to other data sets to reach valid conclusions. An apparent drop in temperature from the 1200's has no comparable "more accurate" data to substitute, how do we deal with that ? we can't and that is why you overlay the data. It is good practice to overlay one on another and discuss the variations. It is terrible practice to merge data sets. The correct term for that is "manipulation".

    It isn't their "excuse", it's my own observation - there was a large buildup at the airport with war approaching (the kind of thing the nutcases like to jump on, saying the magic words "heat island"), the measuring instruments were changed about that time, the airport and weather station was bombed, and so forth.

    The guy making all the conspiracy assertions there overlooked that significant circumstance, and several others, in order to make fairly serious and unlikely accusations. Why would you trust him?
    This is why it is critical to keep the raw data. The real problem is that since the raw data was destroyed there is no way to verify the adjusted temperature proxy. There is no nice way to say this... They messed up and they completely destroyed any credibility of the temperature proxy estimates. It will need to be redone. When they redo it they will need to be much more clear about how they adjust for situations like the Darwin airport and how they figure station changes into long term data sets.
     

  79. #78  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is good practice to overlay one on another and discuss the variations. It is terrible practice to merge data sets. The correct term for that is "manipulation".
    And yet that does nothing to negate the other mountains of evidence informing the conclusion that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are the current strongest driver in the climate change we are presently experiencing.

    In short, you continue to do little more than put forth red herrings and attempts at distraction from that simple fact.
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is good practice to overlay one on another and discuss the variations. It is terrible practice to merge data sets. The correct term for that is "manipulation".
    And yet that does nothing to negate the other mountains of evidence informing the conclusion that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are the current strongest driver in the climate change we are presently experiencing.

    In short, you continue to do little more than put forth red herrings and attempts at distraction from that simple fact.
    Iinow, the problem is that it is not a "simple fact", rather it is your prior commitment, your presumption of what you believe is true.

    You claim it is a fact that "human contribution of CO2 ... [is] the strongest driver [to] climate change" yet the peaks and troughs include temperature rates of change far greater (>10 times) than the theoretical direct effect of increases in CO2 even at its highest value near 0-25 ppm. Clearly there are other contributors to mean global temperature far stronger than CO2 radiant forcing.

    Now let's assume you just said this incorrectly. Let's say you were referring to an underlying longer term temperature trend. How though do we separate the effects? Your links don't provide a solution to this issue. The most common approach is to use climate models, but they only output the effects of the logic put into them. If they are programmed to generate an effect from CO2, then they will indeed demonstrate that effect. Models don't help.

    The best method of dealing with multiple cumulative drivers is to do empirical comparisons. When we do this the best correlation is sun activity. Now you can throw any amount of papers at me to dispel the notion that sun activity drives climate change but you can't change the fact that the sun is the greatest single source of energy into the earth's energy budget and sun output correlates with temperature change far better than any other variable hands down. Finally when you realize that the theoretical direct effect of sun irradiance variation is 2-4 times stronger than that of CO2 increases in the range we observe, it becomes silly to argue for CO2 forcing while at the same time claiming changes in sun output are not significant enough to contribute by that same factor of 2-4 times.
     

  81. #80  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Uh huh. Little more than additional lies, misinformation, and misrepresentations. Why am I not surprised?
     

  82. #81  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    cypress, rather than claiming vaguely that solar activity is a driver of climate (which NOBODY will disagree with), could you show that that is what is actually happening now? Have you not seen solar irradiance charts of late?



    Or one pertaining to the last few decades:




    A nice Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20


    You claim it is a fact that "human contribution of CO2 ... [is] the strongest driver [to] climate change" yet the peaks and troughs include temperature rates of change far greater (>10 times) than the theoretical direct effect of increases in CO2 even at its highest value near 0-25 ppm. Clearly there are other contributors to mean global temperature far stronger than CO2 radiant forcing.
    You mean like feedback mechanisms? Is this a serious question?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Wow. I counted two clear misdirections in the first minute and half.

    Large changes in solar activity take time as they primarily heat the oceans. With a 92% absorption, and 71% surface area, they absorb a great deal of heat. Consider what a 0.2% increase in heat is across the kelvin scale with the average earth temperature about 288K.

    The second has to do with stratospheric cooling. There is so little warming by the shortwave radiation of the sun to begin with. Greenhouse effect warming comes from long-wave after surface heating occurs. There are so many possibilities why the stratophere is cooling. It could be because the energy budget isn't in balance. It could be from when the measurements are made. I hear claims, but never seen the data by anyone. If there is a direct solar connection, there is no lag like the several decade lag the oceans have.

    Some of the other things claimed, I have never seen data for. Just words. As for the warming more at the north pole, loss of ice causes warmer water and black carbon on the ice absorbs more heat.

    As for the 120 years solar and temperature graph, the claims are still in question, and not debunked when it comes to sunspots and affect. It's not the sunspot numbers, but irradiance, and spectra of irradiance.

    Something else to point out. TSI is greater than those shown, and by your previous graph. They have 'trimmed out" some of the irradiance they didn't like. The maunder minima, by NASA data is in the 1363's. not 1364's.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You claim it is a fact that "human contribution of CO2 ... [is] the strongest driver [to] climate change" yet the peaks and troughs include temperature rates of change far greater (>10 times) than the theoretical direct effect of increases in CO2 even at its highest value near 0-25 ppm. Clearly there are other contributors to mean global temperature far stronger than CO2 radiant forcing.
    You mean like feedback mechanisms? Is this a serious question?
    Funny.

    CO2 is a feedback of the heat.

    What everyone forgets is the indirect changes from the sun. The greenhouse effect is estimated by some to be about 260 watts. The sun is already providing a change of about 0.12 watts from 1750 to 2005 levels. Thing is, the solar increase was about 0.18%. Since the 260 watts of the greenhouse effect are a feedback of the surface heat, as it increases by 0.18%, so does the greenhouse effect. That is an approximate 0.47 watt increase to add to the 0.12 for a total change in radiative forcing by the sun of 0.59 watts.

    Can you show me I'm wrong?

    Here is another lie by the alarmists:

    I found an interesting lie propagated by the Global Warming community, included the God-like IPCC. Let me explain, then could someone please tell me if I'm wrong.

    I found an interesting lie propagated by the Global Warming community, included the God-like IPCC. Let me explain, then could someone please tell me if I'm wrong.

    Simply put, the IPCC says that Methane (CH4)is a stronger Greenhouse Gas than Carbon Dioxide (CO2). They are wrong. CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas than
    (CH4) by approximately 5.4 times. N2O is also stronger by an approximate factor of 3.4. Let me explain.

    The IPCC claims from 1750 to 2005, that CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 379 ppm making a 1.66 ± 0.17 watt increase in radiative forcing for their graph. The numbers for (CH4) are from 730 ppb to 1774 ppb with a radiative forcing increase of 0.48 ± 0.05 watts. N2O values changed from about 260 ppb to 319 ppb with a radiative forcing of 0.16 ± 0.2 watts. Now when these are plotted properly with their logarithmic curve, the graphs for the three gasses are as follows:







    Now the three graphs have no relative scale by themselves. Please note that I changed ppb (parts per billion) to ppm (parts per million) by dividing 1000. Here is what they look like on the same scale:



    Source for IPCC numbers, 2007 AR4 WG1 Technical Summary

    Now I think I know the "trick" they are using. If I take the radiative change vs. the change in gas concentration, I get the following, when incorrectly implementing a linear relationship:

    CO2, a slope of 0.0168 watts per ppm

    CH4, a slope of 0.460 watts per ppm (27.4 times CO2)

    N2O, a slope of 2.71 watts per ppm (162 times CO2)

    That's the nature of non-linear graphs when you dupe the unwitting public with "tricks."

    Have I made any egregious mistakes? Anyone??? besides typing bpm instead of ppb?
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Its all been displayed in the current active threads, inow in particular, has seen it all before. Should we post it over each time it is mentioned?

    What part of the video do you find compelling. We can discuss it if you wish.

    This persons explanation like those in the paper are correct as far as it goes, and I suspect the person believes it too. But it does not go far enough. first off TSI is a measure of energy flux. It is an energy rate whereas temperature is a measure of total energy. Therefore increases in energy flux above steady state value will raise temperature until a new steady state is achieved. The temperature will continue upward even if energy flux decreases from a maximum until it drops below the value required for steady state. The yearly average crossed the previous 50 year average in about 2003 and has since crossed below the 200 year average in 2008 and the pre 1900's average this year. If global temperatures continue to decline as they have since 2003, this is consistent with the long term correlation between sun activity and global temperature.

    Other than to belittle some who have proposed accompanying factors to sun activity as feedback and forcing mechanisms to account for the impact which seems greater than the direct effects, he didn't mention that AGW requires forcing modes with much higher multipliers. It is strange that one would accept forcing in one case but not the other. All he said was that the direct effects were too small to account for warming in the past 30 years. Never mind that the alternative has that problem by a factor of 2-4.

    The primary issue this person did not address is the long term correlation between global mean temperature and sun activity. He did improperly compare energy flux from the sun in a very short period of time to global temperature and then accused someone else of cherry picking data, what a joke. Furthermore he claims that warming patterns are more consistent with AGW than other modes, but we have only been studying the sun's energy output, the accompanying changes and the effects it has for a short time so we do not know how it impacts upper atmosphere polar regions and seasons with any certainty. It is myopic to suspect the sun's changing output to have a uniform impact.

    Several times I have agreed that changes in solar output alone is insufficient to account for observed temperature changes, however compared to all other potential causal agents, it empirically correlates far far better with mean temperature.
     

  85. #84  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I hear claims, but never seen the data by anyone. If there is a direct solar connection, there is no lag like the several decade lag the oceans have.
    Is there any evidence for this suggestion of yours that there is a 30 year delay in the changes in solar output impacting oceanic temperature? It's ludicrous on it's face, and seems based more on a misinterpretation from you than on something which actually occurs in nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    It's not the sunspot numbers, but irradiance, and spectra of irradiance.
    And yet except for normal cycles the irradiance has remained relatively constant. The sun cannot explain the warming trend, regardless of which method you invoke, and even if you wave your hands about a delay in the warming of ocean waters.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448008a.html


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    CO2 is a feedback of the heat.
    <...>
    Can you show me I'm wrong?
    Yes, CO2 presents as a feedback in response to warming, but it's quite obvious that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere in huge amounts via a process separate from standard natural mechanisms. How you can continue to ignore or miss this point really boggles the mind.

    In the past, pre-human contributions, CO2 was a feedback. It still can be a feedback, but as is obvious to anyone who has ever stood behind the tailpipe of a car or beside the chimney at a factory can tell, CO2 is being added by humans beyond natural mechanisms.

    If you truly cannot see that, then you are not to be trusted on this topic. If you do see it, and continue to dismiss it, you are not to be trusted on this topic. In short, you cannot be trusted on this topic, regardless if your conclusions are based on flawed understandings or purposeful lies, and one of those describes what you are doing in these threads. You pick which, but neither helps your case.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Now I think I know the "trick" they are using.

    <...>

    That's the nature of non-linear graphs when you dupe the unwitting public with "tricks."

    Have I made any egregious mistakes?
    Yes, several. You've got such a hard-on about use of the word "trick" that you fail to see that what researchers did was to ensure their data was MORE accurate... they used thermometers instead of tree ring proxies since there is a known issue with the tree ring proxies after 1960... a problem they openly described in their work... and a problem which has been studied and discussed in publications several times. You're spinning use of the word "trick" instead of realizing that they were providing MORE accurate data.


    http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/11/...e_change_a.php
    Part of the fuss arises from a single line in one email which refers to using a "trick" to "hide the decline." Deniers try to claim that the "decline" in question is a decline in global average temperature since 1998, despite the fact that statisticians can find no such decline. In fact, the "decline" discussed in the email is an artifact of certain temperature proxies, which have shown a decline in their estimate of regional temperature compared to instrumental measurements (which is to say, thermometers). Since those data are known to be erroneous, the scientists have determined standard ways to represent the real data and to set aside the bogus data. This is what the scientist is referring to as his "trick.

    Below you see the different datasets used to construct the temperature record for the last thousand years, with the green line showing northern hemisphere treering data, the black line showing thermometer measurements, and the other lines representing various other proxy measures. As you can see, some treering data are just wrong in the time since 1960, so the scientists substitute the thermometer record for the bogus treering record in graphing the results. As CRU explains, "CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline." The goal is not to hide the data, but to accurately represent the real state of global temperatures.
    More here.


    In short, you're an idiot, and pretty much every single thread in which you participate suffers from PRATT.
     

  86. #85  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Several times I have agreed that changes in solar output alone is insufficient to account for observed temperature changes, however compared to all other potential causal agents, it empirically correlates far far better with mean temperature.
    Yet another hollow, baseless assertion not grounded in fact.
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I hear claims, but never seen the data by anyone. If there is a direct solar connection, there is no lag like the several decade lag the oceans have.
    Is there any evidence for this suggestion of yours that there is a 30 year delay in the changes in solar output impacting oceanic temperature? It's ludicrous on it's face, and seems based more on a misinterpretation from you than on something which actually occurs in nature.
    Yes there is.

    How about answering my questions with discussion rather than more questions. Please show me the data about stratospheric cooling vs. tropospheric warming. Not just someone's article claiming it, but actual data!

    Lag is normal weather in electrical, tidal, whatever force involved. Nothing is instantaneous. The smaller the system, the shorter the lag, to the point it appears instantaneous. The larger the system, like the earth, the longer lag times are. Take for example the norther ice cap The Summer Solstice is always in June, the 20th or the 21st. Since this is the peak solar activity for the northern hemisphere, you could expect maximum temperatures to peak in late June. That usually doesn't happen until August. The same with maximum cooling in the winter. The winter solstice is late December, but our coldest temperatures are usually January or February. We have a surface/atmospheric lag of about two months. The mass of the atmosphere is about 5 x 10E18, and the mass of the ocean is about 280 times greater. With a mass that much greater, yes, the lag is much greater too. Can I quantify it? No. However, the major lag effect is years rather than months. Probably decades, and some effects are still centuries away. There is no denying that the lag effect of the oceans are years, of some uncertain number. If it is a simple multiple of the 1 to 3 month lag of the atmosphere by the mass ratio, then we would be looking at 280 to 840 months, or 23 to 70 years. That easily explains why solar activity can continue to affect us 30 years later. To dismiss the idea is not scientific at all.

    Now can you respond to this in your own words like I have, or are you going to talk like Autobot Bumblebee?
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    It's not the sunspot numbers, but irradiance, and spectra of irradiance.
    And yet except for normal cycles the irradiance has remained relatively constant. The sun cannot explain the warming trend, regardless of which method you invoke, and even if you wave your hands about a delay in the warming of ocean waters.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448008a.html
    That's right, cite an article again Bumblebee. I am sick and tired of your lack of capacity to use your own words, especially when many of you links require a subscription to access. I can only read the first part, and I say they are wrong.
    No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

    Quirin Schiermeier
    Top of page
    Abstract

    Sun not to blame for global warming.

    A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M.

    To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    CO2 is a feedback of the heat.
    <...>
    Can you show me I'm wrong?
    Yes, CO2 presents as a feedback in response to warming, but it's quite obvious that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere in huge amounts via a process separate from standard natural mechanisms. How you can continue to ignore or miss this point really boggles the mind.
    Because the equilibrium for an ocean of a constant temperature has it absorbing more than 98% of the CO2 added to the carbon cycle. Equilibrium is about ratios, not values. When you understand that, you have a model that proves we can add 8 GtC of carbon annually for 100 years, and only add 8 ppm to our atmosphere. You see, most of the added CO2 is natural, due to temperature increases of the ocean. Funny how CO2 tracks real well with ocean temperature, almost a linear relationship. The tropospheric temperatures to CO2 have very little correlation. That is because temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    In the past, pre-human contributions, CO2 was a feedback. It still can be a feedback, but as is obvious to anyone who has ever stood behind the tailpipe of a car or beside the chimney at a factory can tell, CO2 is being added by humans beyond natural mechanisms.
    Nobody denies we are added CO2. We add I think about 7.5 GtC annually now. So what. That a drop in the bucket. Nature adds over 200 GtC annually.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    If you truly cannot see that, then you are not to be trusted on this topic. If you do see it, and continue to dismiss it, you are not to be trusted on this topic. In short, you cannot be trusted on this topic, regardless if your conclusions are based on flawed understandings or purposeful lies, and one of those describes what you are doing in these threads. You pick which, but neither helps your case.
    No, that is you being blind to the scientific facts of gas solubility in liquids, and Henry's Law, and how temperature affects it. Also how so much solar energy is staying in the oceans as heat. You see, most the solar radiation received by the oceans stay as latent heat rather than being reflected or emitted as long-wave radiation.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Now I think I know the "trick" they are using.

    <...>

    That's the nature of non-linear graphs when you dupe the unwitting public with "tricks."

    Have I made any egregious mistakes?
    Yes, several. You've got such a hard-on about use of the word "trick" that you fail to see that what researchers did was to ensure their data was MORE accurate... they used thermometers instead of tree ring proxies since there is a known issue with the tree ring proxies after 1960... a problem they openly described in their work... and a problem which has been studied and discussed in publications several times. You're spinning use of the word "trick" instead of realizing that they were providing MORE accurate data.
    Wait one damn minute and address what I said instead of going into proxy data. Now I disagree with them dispelling proxy data, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to show them wring. At the same time Bublebee, all you are doing is playing their song. Can you show me the data that proves your contention?

    Black to my three gas radiative chart. Can you show me wrong in any of that? I used the IPCC numbers. Please, prove them wrong for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    In short, you're an idiot, and pretty much every single thread in which you participate suffers from PRATT.
    Hey asshole, look at me when you talk, Stop looking in that mirror.

    Besides, I have solidly refuted points, and you pretend I haven't. The above example that your Gods tell you that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 for example.

    I guess if you tell a lie enough, it qualifies as your PRATT?

    My God, you are a total fool.
     

  88. #87  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    That is because temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.
    It's both, actually.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Can you show me the data that proves your contention?
    I have... repeatedly... countless times. You've just chosen to ignore it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Hey asshole, look at me when you talk, Stop looking in that mirror. <...> My God, you are a total fool.
    You take care, now.
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I have... repeatedly... countless times. You've just chosen to ignore it.
    If you have, I didn't see it.

    No links without data, please show me again.

    Data and explaination please.
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Nobody denies we are added CO2. We add I think about 7.5 GtC annually now. So what. That a drop in the bucket. Nature adds over 200 GtC annually.
    Calling bullshit on those numbers.
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Nobody denies we are added CO2. We add I think about 7.5 GtC annually now. So what. That a drop in the bucket. Nature adds over 200 GtC annually.
    Calling bullshit on those numbers.
    I showed how those numbers work. Please show me your math.
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Here, I took the time to present two Carbon Cycle models.

    This one, out of Wiki, shows 210 GtC of natural annual release and 7.1 GtC of anthropogenic:



    This one shows 200 GtC of natural annual release and 7.9 GtC of anthropogenic:



    Care to take the time to look something up, or are you going to just make unfounded statements?
     

  93. #92  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Since when is Photobucket a peer-reviewed source?

    Here... I have a graphic which carries equal weight as yours above:





    I source of the data is important, WC. You need to share where the numbers were drawn, in what context, and offer the ability to review their validity.

     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Since when is Photobucket a peer-reviewed source?
    Aren't you perceptive enough to see I saved the images for farther use?

    You think you're smart to attempt to make others think I made those images up? Trust me. Others see right through your adolescent BS.

    I grabbed the first out of Wkipedia, and said so. The wiki source is NASA. The second, I forget where, but both are highly used graphs of the Carbon Cycle.

    I understand perfectly well Bumblebee. You cannot find a link to dispute my claim, so you attack my usage of an online storage for me to pull links from, thinking you are attacking me. Grow up. At least I can intelligently debate the issues. All you do is post threads that you cannot explain in your own words.
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I source of the data is important, WC. You need to share where the numbers were drawn, in what context, and offer the ability to review their validity.

    Why should I bother looking up the actual source data when you cannot even explain things in your words? You wouldn't understand it since all you do is believe peer reviewed opinions.

    First can be found:

    NASA/Earth Observatory, The Carbon Cycle

    and is used by several places:

    Positive Feedback Loops

    Rainforest-Path/Carbon Cycle

    This graph is used by several places.

    Now the second us similar in numbers. Thing is, different studies come up with different numbers, but they are all around the same magnitude.

    Here are a few places the second can be found:

    TEACHING ISSUES AND EXPERIMENTS IN ECOLOGY (TIEE): Cultivation and Soil Carbon Losses

    Homework Help with Carbon Cycle

    Now since this one is in your Holy Book, maybe you won't dispute it. From IPCC AR4 WG1, Chapter 7:



    Using your Holy IPCC, we have nature sourcing 210.2 GtC and man-made sourcing 8 GtC annually.
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Here... I have a graphic which carries equal weight as yours above:

    That's obviously your level of understanding.
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    You must admit it was a humorous contribution, however.

    It matters not one whit whether man is responsible for the majority of atmospheric CO2, or less than 10%. A few percentage change in key variables can trigger large changes. Surely this is evident. I seem to recall the US vice president claiming a 1% doctrine at some point in the run up to the Iraq invasion - A 1% chance of catastrophe is enough to warrant a massive preemption. Either the one percent doctrine applies, or it doesn't.

    If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.~Dick Cheney

    (I admit to not reading the bulk of this thread and apologies if I am incorrectly assuming how the recent portion of the argument has progressed.)
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    It matters not one whit whether man is responsible for the majority of atmospheric CO2, or less than 10%. A few percentage change in key variables can trigger large changes. Surely this is evident. I seem to recall the US vice president claiming a 1% doctrine at some point in the run up to the Iraq invasion - A 1% chance of catastrophe is enough to warrant a massive preemption. Either the one percent doctrine applies, or it doesn't.
    Yes, a few percentages of an increase could be disaterous.

    Scientific temperatures are based on the Kevin scale. 0 Celsius is 273.15 Kelvin. Out global average is about 15 C or about 288 K. Let's call it an even 15 C. 3% more from the 288.15 K would be 296.79 C, or about 23.64 C. An 8.6 C rise in temperature.

    If we consider a 0.8 C increase since 1700, then we are seeing only a 0.28% increase. Funny, NASA/GISS study Lean 2004 has solar radiation increasing by 0.24% during this same time.
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    This one, out of Wiki, shows 210 GtC of natural annual release and 7.1 GtC of anthropogenic:
    The natural release other than volcanic is an exchange, balanced at its net equilibrium - the net is 0 over time, except in the very long run (geological burial of limestone, etc).

    The anthropogenic release is not balanced by anthropogenic uptake - there is a net increase over time, as the natural sinks fail to keep up.

    That is why the concentration increase has been almost all anthropogenic.
     

  99. #98  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    This one, out of Wiki, shows 210 GtC of natural annual release and 7.1 GtC of anthropogenic release
    My interpretation of the carbon cycle diagram is, that there is 3.3Gt of natural release, and 5.5Gt of anthropogenic release. How did you come up with the other figures?

    This is my first post on this thread, so excuse me if I've missed something.
     

  100. #99  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Scientific temperatures are based on the Kevin scale. 0 Celsius is 273.15 Kelvin. Out global average is about 15 C or about 288 K. Let's call it an even 15 C. 3% more from the 288.15 K would be 296.79 C, or about 23.64 C. An 8.6 C rise in temperature.
    Using the Kelvin scale is misrepresenting. Temperatures on Earth only vary by some 140 degrees celsius, and that's obviously at the extremes . You've used the Kelvin scale to double the effect.
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    This one, out of Wiki, shows 210 GtC of natural annual release and 7.1 GtC of anthropogenic:
    The natural release other than volcanic is an exchange, balanced at its net equilibrium - the net is 0 over time, except in the very long run (geological burial of limestone, etc).
    It's not always zero net. Ice core records clearly show a net sourcing of the ocean as the climate heats and a net sinking as it cools.

    You have to get past the idea of simply adding and subtracting. The proper way to see it is in ratios determined by Henry's Law, and how temperature changes the equilibrium.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The anthropogenic release is not balanced by anthropogenic uptake - there is a net increase over time, as the natural sinks fail to keep up.
    Why are you believes locked into that idea?

    First off, it doesn't matter how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic. If temperature didn't play a roll in CO2 levels, then the equilibrium would balance itself so that most of the 7.1 GtC man made CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean. Simply chemistry, Henry's Law.

    If we look at the relationship between the oceans and atmosphere in the IPCC model, the oceans contains 98.1% of the CO2 and the atmosphere contains 1.9%. Therefore, an annual 7.1GtC release would add 6.96 GtC to the oceans and 0.14 GtC to the atmosphere. That's about 0.065 ppm. At that rate, it takes 15 years to increase the atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm.

    Its a balance of ratios. Please study Henry's Law. The only reason why we are accumulating CO2 faster than what Henry's Law dictates is because as the oceans warm, the equilibrium changes. The oceans are like a soda going flat as it warms, losing their CO2.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    That is why the concentration increase has been almost all anthropogenic.
    BS.

    You can listen to all the propaganda you want. The carbon cycle doesn't really care if it's anthropogenic or not.

    From wiki, Henry's Law:

    When the temperature of a system changes, the Henry constant will also change. This is why some people prefer to name it Henry coefficient. There are multiple equations assessing the effect of temperature on the constant. This form of the van 't Hoff equation is one example:

     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •