Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

New Global Warming Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    don't say : whatever happened to global warming

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by David Bailey View Post
      Well, to take an extreme example, the head of the IPCC called those that pointed out the Himalayan Glacier goof "voodoo scientists" before having to back down and withdraw the claim completely for lack of evidence!

      Also remember the email discussions about preventing people with other views publishing papers!
      You defend your assertion that climate science has become "partisan" by bringing up
      A~ What the head of the IPCC said, even though he isn't a climate scientist.
      B~ The scientific fraud that CRU looked like it was committing.

      Only B~ adds to your argument but you still haven't shown how one group of scientists somehow negatively effects upon the work of the hundreds (thousands?) of other research groups around the world, mostly independent from the CRU.

      Originally posted by David Bailey
      As discussed above, a fluctuating climate makes it hard to argue that any temperature change is due to climate change.
      It makes it harder, but not necessarily hard. Neither you or I have read the decades worth of journal articles that climatologists purport forms the body of evidence for AGW. Thus, we cannot make the appraisal that it's "hard to argue".

      Originally posted by David Bailey
      The problem, of course, is that nobody was measuring temperature back then - still less the global average! Michael Mann (of Penn State University) had a collection of tree-ring data from some obscure location in Russia, and as far as I can make out, he ran a program to select a linear combination of the tree ring data that best correlated with the global average over the period for which an average was available (the rational for doing this is not obvious!). Quite why a (subset of a) group of trees at one location would be sensitive to GLOBAL temperature, as opposed to local temperature, was never made clear - though someone raised that question in the emails, but didn't get a reply. That person was a botanist, and also raised doubts as to weather tree rings would be a good measure of temperature - because other factors might be more important.

      The linear combination of tree ring data was then extrapolated backwards to obtain a statistically flat temperature record. Something else was done in the recent past because he claimed the tree ring data didn't match the temperatures over that period - I think he mixed the data with actual temperature data! Reading anything on AGW seems incredibly obscure - as I think you have discovered!

      Anyway, after much trying, an industrial statistician called Steve McIntyre, managed to get hold of the tree ring data and the program used to process it. He was able to show that this program would produce the same result if fed artificial tree ring data consisting of low pass filtered white noise.

      The responses I read to this, were pretty strange - along the lines that other results were producing a similar shaped graph - so the paper was OK! Sorry I don't have a link to that, but it just seemed so wrong to justify a flawed analysis in that way.

      I haven't read this book, but it has all the gory details:

      Amazon.com: The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) (9781906768355): A.W. Montford: Books

      David
      Since you keep citing this book, I'm going to buy it (hope they have an ebook). I'll post on this thread when I'm done reading it.
      Last edited by imiyakawa; December 13th, 2010, 06:07 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by imiyakawa View Post
        You defend your assertion that climate science has become "partisan" by bringing up
        A~ What the head of the IPCC said, even though he isn't a climate scientist.
        B~ The scientific fraud that CRU looked like it was committing.

        Only B~ adds to your argument but you still haven't shown how one group of scientists somehow negatively effects upon the work of the hundreds (thousands?) of other research groups around the world, mostly independent from the CRU.
        How would you expect an international body would treat a scientific challenge to one of its results? They would surely pass it to someone who knew before responding. Don't you find that dismissal extraordinary, when only weeks later (but after the Copenhagen conference) they had to withdraw it completely! I think my point (A) speaks volumes about how the IPCC is run.



        Since you keep citing this book, I'm going to buy it (hope they have an ebook). I'll post on this thread when I'm done reading it.
        I'll be very interested to hear what you feel after you read that. Remember, I didn't start out convinced there was something wrong here - I heard about the emails, and downloaded them for fun.

        Climatology seems to be a very tight knit group - probably fewer people than you think - remember how Sandy told us how people in her institution were signed up as a block!

        David

        Comment


        • #34
          YouTube - greenman3610's Channel

          There's some great stuff on this guys page, much of it specifically critiquing Watts Up, and Lord Monckton.

          David, this isn't meant as a slight, but I thought you would want to hear from all sides.
          Last edited by vikki; January 5th, 2011, 08:44 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by vikki View Post
            YouTube - greenman3610's Channel

            There's some great stuff on this guys page, much of it specifically critiquing Watts Up, and Lord Monckton.

            David, this isn't meant as a slight, but I thought you would want to hear from all sides.
            You should bookmark this site if you have not realclimate.com

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by really View Post
              You should bookmark this site if you have not realclimate.com
              RealClimate

              Thanks. I did know of it, but I put a link for anyone interested.

              Comment


              • #37
                Vikki,

                I was really hoping that imiyakawa would be back by now after reading the book about the hockey stick. In a way I'd rather wait till that happens.

                I'm sorry that I just can't watch a video about a very serious subject that uses a mocking tone and backing music!

                Here in Britain we were told to expect a mild winter, but have had some extremely cold weather, which has left some people without running water for 2 weeks! I understand there has been extremely cold weather in many parts of the world, including the US and China, and mainland Europe.

                David

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by David Bailey View Post
                  Vikki,

                  I was really hoping that imiyakawa would be back by now after reading the book about the hockey stick. In a way I'd rather wait till that happens.

                  I'm sorry that I just can't watch a video about a very serious subject that uses a mocking tone and backing music!

                  Here in Britain we were told to expect a mild winter, but have had some extremely cold weather, which has left some people without running water for 2 weeks! I understand there has been extremely cold weather in many parts of the world, including the US and China, and mainland Europe.

                  David
                  David, I am somewhat surprised that you are unwilling to watch this to its conclusion. If you did, you would have access to one explanation as why the UK and other areas are experiencing such recent weather conditions.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by vikki View Post
                    David, I am somewhat surprised that you are unwilling to watch this to its conclusion. If you did, you would have access to one explanation as why the UK and other areas are experiencing such recent weather conditions.
                    Remember the topic I started about fundamental motives. Perhaps David has some fundamental reasons for not watching it. It makes me wonder.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by vikki View Post
                      David, I am somewhat surprised that you are unwilling to watch this to its conclusion. If you did, you would have access to one explanation as why the UK and other areas are experiencing such recent weather conditions.
                      I know, but explanations that come after the fact, don't cut much ice (if you will pardon the pun). There were a series of forecasts for mild winters - saying that snow would be a rare treat in a few years, even last October, the Met Office (which receives a lot of money for AGW research) was forecasting a mild winter (now they say this was only a probabilistic forecast).

                      The Met Office has become a joke in Britain, because although it produces reasonable long term forecasts, its long term forecasts have been useless - always way too warm. Last spring, they forecast a "barbecue summer", but the reality was pretty wet, the previous winter was also predicted to be mild, and wasn't. It is believed that they have programs that contain big overestimates of the effect of CO2, and so get the answers wrong!

                      Read some of the details in articles here:

                      http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/2175-...er-advice.html

                      http://thegwpf.org/science-news/2073...sh-public.html

                      and more generally

                      Welcome to The Global Warming Policy Foundation

                      There is also a physicist who believes that it is phenomena on the sun that drive weather. He sells his own weather forecasts, that out-perform those of the Met Office.

                      WeatherAction (Piers Corbyn) - Welcome

                      David
                      Last edited by David Bailey; January 7th, 2011, 02:24 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Further food for thought. Hot it was damn hot.
                        Record Heat Hit Northeast U.S. in 2010
                        Five cities in the northeastern United States broke their own record of all-time hottest year in 2010, according to a report out Wednesday (Jan. 5). Record Heat Hit Northeast U.S. in 2010 | LiveScience
                        2010 to Win or Tie for Warmest Year Ever
                        With frigid temperatures and snow in large parts of the continental United States, it may feel unlikely, but 2010 brought the world possibly record-breaking heat. This January through November was the warmest recorded by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), whose analysis covers 131 years.

                        With only a month of data left to go, 2010 is a few hundredths of a degree warmer than 2005, the warmest year.

                        "Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year," GISS researchers wrote in a statement. 2010 to Win or Tie for Warmest Year Ever | Global Warming & Climate Change, Temperature Anomalies | LiveScience

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          As cities grow, they are bound to add greater heat to the atmosphere surrounding urban areas. In a concrete jungle, roads and buildings absorb sunlight and trap heat, which also flows as waste out of cars, air-conditioning units and even just the breathing of millions of people crammed into a busy grid of streets.

                          In addition, weather stations collecting data for cities were generally built in rural areas just outside their respective urban areas. However, urban sprawl has totally enveloped those weather stations, and the data has correspondingly increased.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Nightrain View Post
                            As cities grow, they are bound to add greater heat to the atmosphere surrounding urban areas. In a concrete jungle, roads and buildings absorb sunlight and trap heat, which also flows as waste out of cars, air-conditioning units and even just the breathing of millions of people crammed into a busy grid of streets.

                            In addition, weather stations collecting data for cities were generally built in rural areas just outside their respective urban areas. However, urban sprawl has totally enveloped those weather stations, and the data has correspondingly increased.
                            This is correct - it is one part of this peculiarly murky story - that the temperature data isn't collected honestly. They are supposed to be correcting for this effect, which is known as the "Urban Heat Island Effect" (UHI), but the corrections (which are kept as obscure as possible) seem to end up raising published temperatures, rather than correcting them downwards. Read about New Zealand:

                            TBR.cc: BREAKING: NZ?s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

                            I can't find the link right now, but in fact the NZ authorities backed down and admitted there had been no warming trend in NZ weather!

                            The whole global warming hysteria is gob smacking when you start to explore what has been going on.

                            The problem seems to be that a lot of organisations - including research establishments are making a lot of money out of this, and all that is needed is to turn a blind eye here and there!

                            As I have said before, my politics are left of center, so it is embarrassing, to say the least that only the political right seem willing to pursue the truth on this:

                            Re-Opening Climategate: New Science Panel Chairman To Probe 'Quality' of Climate Science

                            David

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by David Bailey View Post

                              As I have said before, my politics are left of center, so it is embarrassing, to say the least that only the political right seem willing to pursue the truth on this:

                              David
                              Doesn't this fact alone make you stop and give careful consideration to the other side i.e. the majority of climate scientists who claim, and also have evidence that indeed the general trend is increased global temperatures?

                              YouTube - greenman3610's Channel

                              YouTube - greenman3610's Channel


                              Yeah, this guy is sarcastic, but no more than right wing media machines. He also goes to the source of legitimate climate research. I don't really blame him for being peeved - I kind of feel the same way myself.


                              My main point here is that there are many angles on this. I think it is too important, and too complicated to stop looking at all the available information, ideologies and agendas.
                              Last edited by vikki; January 9th, 2011, 11:14 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by vikki View Post
                                Doesn't this fact alone make you stop and give careful consideration to the other side i.e. the majority of climate scientists who claim, and also have evidence that indeed the general trend is increased global temperatures?
                                I suppose nobody can claim to have researched this subject to the bottom - I certainly haven't, but what has struck me above all is the dodgy, shifty way in which some of the key scientists have operated. For example, after the climategate releases, in which a lot of seemingly very damaging material was released, the UEA set up multiple inquiries to investigate the soundness of the scientists and the science. After much probing, it turns out that they looked at none of the emails, and interviewed none of the critics of the field (which include Freeman Dyson, and, it would seem James Lovelock).

                                Those emails contained a statement about "hiding the decline", and it took the Daily Mail to track down the reference - to a paper in Nature, in which one curve was cut short in a multi-curve graph, artfully composed to hide this fact:

                                SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online

                                Then there is the pressure group in New Zealand, that forced an admission that the temperature record there was flat - the supposed warming trend in NZ, had been manufactured!

                                Then there is the statistical sleight of hand that produced the "Hockey Stick Graph" - I am hoping Imikawa will report back soon on the book he was buying.

                                The IPCC publicised a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would have melted by 2035. Now anyone can make a mistake (which is what they now claim that was), but how can they have rebuffed several warnings that this must be wrong, and then be forced to admit that there was no evidence for the claim in the first place.

                                Given that level of duplicity - and there is more - I really can't accept the climate research community as being fundamentally honest. Indeed, some are starting to speak out, such as Judith Curry, whose CV is here:

                                Judith Curry's Curriculum Vita

                                Someone would have to explain the fundamental dishonesty that seems to have gone on here, before I could take anything they say seriously.

                                David
                                Last edited by David Bailey; January 9th, 2011, 12:18 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X