Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 Next
Comments 103551 to 103600:
-
Ken Lambert at 01:01 AM on 24 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
skywatcher #143 Engage on some meat and potatoes - not broad non-specifics. -
Ken Lambert at 00:56 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
kdkd #56 "Even if we take the idea that the "Nature trick" was dodgy, you have to ask the question: what material difference to the scientific conclusions would be made by discarding this data analysis" A post of mine has already been deleted on this matter. Please re-instate it if your SS blog is to be taken seriously. Perhaps now is the time to note that kdkd is also a 'Moderator' on this blog and has the power to purge my and other posts without explanation. If the Moderators of this(to date)excellent blog start purging opposition views whilst being partisan AGW contributors themselves - then they will end up talking to themselves and therefore stifling proper debate.Moderator Response: Three of your posts have been deleted. One contained direct accusations of tax fraud, and two more contained graphic descriptions of the alleged sexual practices of those who disagree with you. None of those were appropriate for this site, and the decision to delete them was straightforward. (Also, to address your concern, please note that none of them were moderated by kdkd or any other individual involved in the debate with you).
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commenters repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion in comment threads. If you would like to compliment or complain about the site's moderation policies or how they are implemented, please do so via email to John Cook. -
HumanityRules at 00:55 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
77.Albatross There would be no logic problem in suggesting a data set is insufficient to prove A while at the same time being sufficient to disprove B. You'll have to be more specific to allow us to make a call on that. -
Albatross at 00:54 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
JMurphy @75, Thanks. For those wondering, more about the divergence problem can be found in a Nature paper here. -
CBDunkerson at 00:53 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Albatross wrote: "So CRU science/data is only crap when it is advancing your belief that climate scientists are "incompetent", but when you want to show allege that the warming is not that bad, then CRU data suddenly become a perfectly credible source again." I know! Isn't it wonderful!? With new improved 'Skeptic' Logic (tm, patent pending) it is now possible to firmly believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time. Just think of the possibilities! -
Daniel Bailey at 00:50 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate a year later
Re: Ken Lambert (62) I don't have time to play in Upside-down World today, sorry. The Yooper -
Albatross at 00:47 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
CB, Try and wrap your head around this logic: "...they both are consequences of the kind of bad science done at CRU." Hmm, yet skeptics (e.g., Lindzen and Michaels) frequently cite the CRU temperature data to advance their arguments that the planet is not warming much or to claim that the models are overestimating the amount of warming. So CRU science/data is only crap when it is advancing your belief that climate scientists are "incompetent", but when you want to show allege that the warming is not that bad, then CRU data suddenly become a perfectly credible source again. Also note, from post #70, "similar" does not mean "the same". Isn't it now almost 2011? Yet some people seem stuck somewhere between 1999 and 2001. -
HumanityRules at 00:44 AM on 24 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
22.CBDunkerson erm....that's cleared things up. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:42 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re: damorbel (70,71) (70) So, you're prepared to show, via evidenciary process, specifically how the WMO figure used led to the figure used in the TAR; and to specifically discuss those similarities in the figures themselves. After all, I'm sure you've done your homework to support your allegations of wrongdoing that would entail not only a 7th investigation into "climategate" but an additional investigation into the Muir Russell commission itself? Because that is what you're claiming, right? Or is it that all you have is a case for logic in absencia (and there's nothing saintly about that)? (71) This is what the Muir Russell report did not clear CRU of: 1. Sloppy record keeping 2. Having a kind of crappy attitude 3. Failing to properly annotate or explain via comment the specific nature of a graph used on the WMO 1999 Report cover (where admittedly, from a graphic arts perspective, proper annotation would have played havoc with the presentation...perhaps the WMO should have repeated the graph in the report with the proper explanatory text...so it's all the WMO's fault!!!). So, whatcha got? If something substantive, I expect you to write it up & submit it (Tip: E&E have a track record for publishing material like this, I'm sure they would make room for it) for publication. Fame and fortune await you. Or you've got nuttin'. Which is it? PS: I'm tired of the constant injection of unsupported innuendo and invective into this thread by those who see nothing but what they wish to see, instead of what verifiable sources actually say (this last bit not aimed specifically at you, damorbel, though portions of it certainly do apply). The Yooper -
CBDunkerson at 00:42 AM on 24 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
HR, I'm a sarcastic skeptic. Which, translates into 'skeptic' as 'dismissive alarmist'. -
JMurphy at 00:41 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Albatross wrote : "You have the patience of a saint." Well, it's not really that difficult when all you have to work against are comments like these from damorbel, which have no basis in reality but are the interpretations of someone who doesn't want to accept AGW : There is not the slightest doubt that Muir Russell identified the failure to draw attention to the source of the 20thC data used to substitute for the 'off message' tree rings as a serous deficiency. There is more than doubt because you have interpreted that in the way that you want to. If that is the case, why does paragraph 23 of the Muir Russell Report read as follows:- "in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure .... we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report)"? As Albatross wrote, that has no effect on anything in any IPCC Reports. Reading the whole paragraph that you have butchered, you can see what the reality is : On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a „trick‟ and to „hide the decline‟ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. Surely you can work out what could be classed as misleading (a picture on the cover of a WMO report) and what isn't, i.e. the data or the way it may have been used subsequently ? I am not providing new evidence of temperature trends, just drawing attention to the Muir Russell Review which says that substituting the instrumental (thermometer) record without identifying the substitution is unacceptable. Still not representative of anything in the Muir Russell Report, no matter how many times I look at your interpretation and the reality again. In fact, there are no references to "deficiencies" or anything "unacceptable", with regard to this matter. Perhaps there are two versions of the report - the real one and the one that so-called skeptics have interpreted for their own ends ? One isolated instance? So why did the IPCC when adopting this flawed data use just one isolated instance as a major argument in its Assessment Reports? Still no information forthcoming as to what this relates to, with regard to "flawed data" or the Assessment Reports. Still waiting for examples. I am also still waiting forlornly for answers to the questions I asked previously : Do you believe all "dendrochronological" data is fiction, or are you referring to a particular set of data ? Do you believe that "dendrochronological" data (i.e. temperature reconstruction) gives a more accurate reading for temperature in the 20th Century than thermometers ? Have you ever heard of the Divergence Problem ? What are you referring to when you write "the method and location of the measurements were different" ? -
CBDunkerson at 00:39 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate a year later
Ken, I think there is a fine nuance you may be missing here; Mann, Bradley, Jones, et cetera were accused of misconduct... by people extremely biased against them. When impartial experts reviewed the matters (repeatedly) they found that it was all a bunch of hooey. Nothing rising to the level of academic misconduct. In contrast, Wegman is now accused of misconduct... by independent experts with no axe to grind in this fight. The review on Wegman isn't over yet... but when it is, chances are he's going to be found to have committed serious breaches. See the difference? Accusation by partisans which later proves false vs accusation by independent experts which is still ongoing. -
HumanityRules at 00:39 AM on 24 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
18.CBDunkerson You'll have to remind me because I can't remember the flavour of your past comments, are you a sarcastic skeptic or a dismissive alarmist? -
Ken Lambert at 00:33 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate a year later
Marco, Albatros, kdkd, Yooper Claiming that someone else on the other side of the argument did the same crime is not a defence. I will condemn proven misconduct by any scientist who has a duty to act in good faith. I don't know whether the GRL editor and his peer reviewers was in 'error' or not regarding the content of the published paper. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Mann improperly interfered with the GRL process. I note that none of you are challenging the accuracy of NP's narrative - just trying a general smear of NP on other matters. 'Plugging a leak' implies that the 'fix' was put in on GRL and the new editor to prevent publication of what Mann et al disagreed with. My AGW position is simple. There is no doubt surface warming has occurred - there is great doubt about the relative contributions of the various forcings - their accuracy of measurement and particularly the future trajectory of the TOA imbalance and the OHC measurement. That means that there is false 'certainty' in the claims by AGW protagonists of overwhelming evidence for the role of CO2GHG as the main driver of global warming. -
HumanityRules at 00:32 AM on 24 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Ned say: "The point of this post is to address the claim that commonly cited temperature reconstructions are biased due to missing stations in Canada." Given the rebuttal here the skeptic claim would have to be that missing Canada stations over it's whole land mass was affecting the GISSTEMP "whole arctic" trend. It seems like a curious claim. Maybe it would be clearer if you could provide the skeptic analysis that was making this claim. -
Albatross at 00:31 AM on 24 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
For those interested I managed to track down Environment Canada's "Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin" here. They state that: "...the 2000s was the warmest decade out of the six that are available for this national study, 1.1°C above normal. The rankings of the remaining decades, in order from warmest to coolest are: 1990s (0.7°C above normal); 1980s (0.4°C above normal); 1950s (0.1°C above normal); 1960s (0.0°C of normal); and 1970s (0.2°C below normal)." One critique is the trend in annual temperatures that they provide for the 1948-2009 period-- they sate that is +1.4 C. OK, but convention is to say per year or per decade. -
CBDunkerson at 00:29 AM on 24 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel: "...they both are consequences of the kind of bad science done at CRU." Which produced temperature anomaly results nearly identical to those of AGW skeptics Spencer & Christy at UAH. Therefor AGW skepticism is clearly all a vast conspiracy of nonsense with no scientific basis! Thank you for introducing me to 'skeptic' logic. With this tool at the ready I can 'prove' ANYTHING! -
skywatcher at 00:29 AM on 24 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
Wow, this thread has turned into a textbook example of the gish gallop! It includes the full gamut of long-debunked skeptic arguments, including the 'it's not warming', 'it's not CO2', 'it's the Sun', quotes from non-experts pretending to be experts, nearly all the utterly debunked 'climategate' memes, and a collection of others. Each time one argument is patiently debunked (by Rob, Tom, Daniel, Philippe and the many other excellent contributers here), either by reference to material avaialble on this site, or at other reputable sources, then another allegation is thrown in and no acknowledgement is made to the failure of the previous skeptic argument. And of course each long-debunked argument, often relating to research/events/data >5 years old is presented as if it might be new or controversial, when the simplest research shows it not to be the case. So, skeptics... is that really all you have? Nothing new to add to the mix? No new research or data that changes the consensus on AGW? Just perpetual gish galloping? Looks to me awfully like the OP's point is demonstrated valid! -
CBDunkerson at 00:06 AM on 24 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
I think HR's point is that theoretically Canadian stations could have doubled in the CCC dataset, but there might only be only say one additional station in the Arctic region represented by the graph above... thus making the close correlation a result of almost no change in the data and the whole 'doubling' bit a red herring to mislead people. Remember... it's ALL a conspiracy. Is it sad that I'm starting to understand how they think? I'm vaguely worried. Any way to find out the extent of station increase for the region covered by the temp anomaly graph? -
Ned at 00:02 AM on 24 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Thanks, Riccardo. Robert, thanks for the link, though I'd point people towards the actual Clear Climate Code blog rather than ClearScience. I would just reiterate this comment. The point of this post is to address the claim that commonly cited temperature reconstructions are biased due to missing stations in Canada. Clear Climate Code replicates one of the most widely used of those reconstructions (GISSTEMP). As shown at CCC and as discussed in this post, doubling the number of Canadian stations has no effect on the GISSTEMP product (high latitude northern hemisphere land temperatures) that would be most strongly affected by changes in the number of Canadian stations. -
CBDunkerson at 00:00 AM on 24 November 2010The Fake Scandal of Climategate
Reporting of Wegman's plagiarism (and possible other issues) has finally made it into the 'mainstream media' with this piece from USA Today. Has been picked up by a few non-climate blogs and there are also pieces in Salon and UPI. Nothing compared to the 'Climategate' furor of course, but when all is said and done all those accused in that brouhaha have been cleared and Wegman... USA Today's independent experts say he's shockingly guilty. -
damorbel at 23:40 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #66 Albatross, you wrote:- "the splicing refers to the front cover schematic from a single obscure WMO report back in 1999. It has nothing to do with the IPCC assessment reports as you falsely claim". If that is the case, why does paragraph 23 of the Muir Russell Report read as follows:- "in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure .... we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report)"? Oh yes, I have the patience of a Saint too! -
robert way at 23:30 PM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Here is the relevant comment where Nick points this out... http://clearscience.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/just-a-small-note/#comment-36 -
robert way at 23:28 PM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Ned, I guess it should be pointed out that the warming shown is for the Arctic from 64 N to 90 N rather than for Arctic Canada. I saw on another blog that Nick Barnes posted a note about how it wasn't just Canada. -
damorbel at 23:24 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #65 JMurphy you wrote:- "All you have to do is look at the report," Since I have already cited paragraph 23 (p13) of the report (cited in the OP) as the main thrust of my contribution, I think you will agree that for me to do a search based on your recommendations would be wasting my time; but then I have no objection to reading the results of a search done by you using your own recommendations. You have of course read the relevant paragraph as cited in the OP? -
Ken Lambert at 23:22 PM on 23 November 2010The question that skeptics don't want to ask about 'Climategate'
The Skeptical Chymist #141 I find it is always useful to let the experts argue their own case and if it is consistent and plausible then I tend to believe it until better or stronger cases are presented, or it collapses from internal inconsistency. In the case of Dr Trenberth, his Aug09 paper was a comphehensive roundup of the state of the science and measurement of global warming. He accounted for only about 55% of the purported TOA imbalance (145E20 Joules/year) by sequestration in the oceans - with wide error bars. The residual unaccounted amount of heat was 30-100E20Joules/year. The TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m (145E20 Joules/year) was not directly measured - it was modelled. Fig 4 of his paper reconciles the individual forcings - IPCC AR4 Fig 2.4 with the climate responses. Some of those forcings (particularly cloud albedo) have wide error bars, and the solar forcing is wrong compared with other IPCC data. BP and I have argued that the OHC charts which have been used splicing XBT to Argo data are also wrong due to impossible jumps which are likely offsets - so the linearization of 1993 to 2010 OHC increase is bogus and in the last 6 years OHC has been flat. Better Argo measurement is showing less (or small) ocean heat takeup. Therefore the OHC bit of Dr Trenberth's story I find less plausible. There is a bit missing in his website statement. What he added to the original 'travesty' phrase was: "The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” Now, if the observing system is only inadequate to 'effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability' then why would it be adequate to monitor longer term climate change? Surely short term error would be compounded when extended over longer periods. And the other bit which is somewhat obscured in Dr Trenberth's paper is that the TOA imbalance is not 'Observed' or measured drirectly at all. Read the statement carefully: "The TOA energy imbalance can probably be most accurately determined from **climate models** and is estimated to be 0.85 ± 0.15 W m−2 by Hansen et al. (2005) and is supported by estimated **recent changes in ocean heat content** (Willis et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2005). A comprehensive error analysis of the CERES mean budget (Wielicki et al. 2006) is used in Fasullo and Trenberth (2008a) to **guide adjustments** of the CERES TOA fluxes so as to **match the estimated global imbalance**." (**Emphases mine**) This is 2004-2005 OHC change he is referring to, which is subject to the offset XBT-Argo errors. The latest Willis analysis finds the equivalant of only 0.1W/sq.m of OHC increase. So this TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m is found from Hansen's 2005 model, not really supported by Willis 2004-05 OHC analysis, then used to correct the massive 6.4W/sq.m CERES TOA flux measurement, to match the **estimated global imbalance** which was taken from Hansen's model in the first place. A circular science argument!! -
Albatross at 23:20 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
JMurphy, You have the patience of a saint. Thank you for your efforts! -
Albatross at 23:18 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Damorbel, My last post to you-- then as far as I'm concerned you can keep yelling about conspiracies into space. Please very carefully read the post by JMurphy here. The critique has been acknowledged. The splicing refers to the front cover schematic from a single obscure WMO report back in 1999. It has nothing to do with the IPCC assessment reports as you falsely claim. Why do 'skeptics' have such a horrid time applying the correct context and with fact checking? Please actually read some of the scientific literature published on the divergence issue with certain dendro chronologies in the last 20th Century (e.g.., Yamal). I provided a hyperlink for a Google scholar search here. Actually your attempts here to fabricate a 'debate' on a non-issue (the WMO cover schematic) and insistence on making multiple unsubstantiated accusations of wrong doing continues to undermine what little, if any, credibility most self-professed 'skeptics' have. So perhaps I should be encouraging you to continue....either way you are wasting both your time and that of others. Sorry for the terse comment, but I've simply run out of patience. -
Riccardo at 23:15 PM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
The decline of the number of station argument is wrong per se. If the remaining stations (although gridded) are not representative of the temperature of Canada, they could be wrong either side; no one could tell if the bias would be on the high or low side before actually check the numbers. I'm sure scientists are clever enough to know and check before publishing the data. Thank you Ned for sharing these results for future reference. -
Ned at 23:04 PM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
HumanityRules writes: If that's the case then your title is a little mis-leading. The doubling of Canadian sites and the result in Fig1 are two unrelated facts. I think you're missing the point. Nobody (outside Canada) is particularly interested in a new reconstruction of Canada-only temperatures. The implied claim that people make is that the decline in the number of Canadian weather stations in GHCN is distorting temperature reconstructions like GISSTEMP or HADCRU or what have you. The region where this effect would be expected to be most extreme would be in the high latitude northern hemisphere (i.e., the Arctic). If there were any region where doubling the number of Canadian weather stations would show any effect, it would be this region. The fact that there's essentially no detectable change in Arctic temperature trends tells us that the original claim (missing Canadian weather stations are biasing GISSTEMP) is clearly mistaken. -
JMurphy at 22:58 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel wrote : "Perhaps my copy and past isn't working! Do tell me what I should have seen." All you have to do is look at the report, do a search for the word 'unacceptable' (or any similar word) and see how the results relate to your claim that Muir Russell says that "substituting the instrumental (thermometer) record without identifying the substitution is unacceptable". What do you find ? -
Ned at 22:55 PM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Thank you, drj! Your blog and your work on Clear Climate Code have made an incredibly valuable contribution to people's confidence in the results of global surface temperature reconstructions. -
HumanityRules at 22:55 PM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
5.Ned HumanityRules writes: I see the whole Canada station number has doubled but there is no mention in the station number change for the Arctic. Ned writes: Yes, that's true. If that's the case then your title is a little mis-leading. The doubling of Canadian sites and the result in Fig1 are two unrelated facts. (Just to clarify drj over at the CCC website has pointed out that Fig1 isn't even arctic Canada but "the entire Arctic zone") -
kdkd at 22:39 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel #63 I believe that you are insinuating that the use of the 'Nature trick' has major consequences for the conclusions that we should draw from the larger body of scientific knowledge. Do you have evidence for this, or is this just more pointless bluster from a so-called sceptic? -
CBDunkerson at 22:37 PM on 23 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damorbel wrote: "Energy can only flow from a high temperature place to a lower temperature place." Interesting. How exactly do you explain sunlight traveling from space (very cold) to the Earth (much warmer) in your world? As explained before, the greenhouse effect acts like insulation. Think of a house in winter. If you've got a heating system (the Sun) but no insulation (greenhouse gases) then the heat escapes quickly and the house (planet Earth) stays cold. If you add insulation then the heat can't escape as fast and the maximum temperature which the heating system can maintain increases even though the amount of heat it puts out hasn't changed. No violations of the laws of thermodynamics... just an every day phenomenon that we have all experienced. -
damorbel at 22:35 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #62 JMurphy you wrote:- "Muir Russell,which says nothing like what you claim." Perhaps my copy and past isn't working! Do tell me what I should have seen. -
JMurphy at 21:59 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel wrote : "I am not providing new evidence of temperature trends, just drawing attention to the Muir Russell Review which says that substituting the instrumental (thermometer) record without identifying the substitution is unacceptable." You are certainly, though, providing new interpretations of Muir Russell, which says nothing like what you claim. -
Michele at 21:19 PM on 23 November 2010The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect
KR, “Multiple vector”. A fluid dynamics example. A gas at rest is only macroscopically at rest as the molecules keep on their fluctuations around the center of mass of the particle that includes them. Indeed, the vectorial sum of the all velocities relative to the center of mass of the particle, is statistically zero because the velocities, also if chaotic, are really isotropic. The agitation motion of molecules only causes the local equipartition of macroscopic characteristics as pressure, density, temperature (in practice of energy density) within the particle, and it don’t cause any transfer of energy or of mass. The macroscopic transfer of mass (mechanic energy) occurs only if the pressures between two different parcel of the gas are different. With different temperatures there’s always a transfer of thermal energy and at given conditions also of mass. This transfer is measurable (and indeed exists for real world that we feel) only at macroscopic scale. You cannot lump microscopic an macroscopic things together. -
JMurphy at 21:16 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel wrote : "One isolated instance? So why did the IPCC when adopting this flawed data use just one isolated instance as a major argument in its Assessment Reports?" Two assertions there (concerning the data and the IPCC), neither with any proof. Perhaps you don't need any ? Until you back up your 'arguments', you are just blindly repeating whatever you've read elsewhere. -
kdkd at 21:01 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel #58 I've seen much worse in the peer reviewed literature. This doesn't seem to be a damning inditement to me, more a side issue that the so-called-sceptics can (as usual) blow up out of all proportion to its importance. -
drj at 20:40 PM on 23 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Thanks for the post and the links Ned. Readers may be interested in the map I made of the Environment Canada stations (using ScraperWiki). It's a bit slow to load, and you need to scroll North to see all the stations. -
damorbel at 20:16 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #57 No, tobyjoyce, no need to for "the enquirers be themselves enquired into", just read what they write! -
damorbel at 20:13 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #56 kdkd You wrote:- "Even if we take the idea that the "Nature trick" was dodgy, you have to ask the question: what material difference to the scientific conclusions would be made by discarding this data analysis?" I take it you are referring to the CRU substituting thermometer measurements for tree ring measurements for the 20thC section of the 'hockey stick' temperature graph? This 'unidentified' substitution avoided disclosing the fact that the tree ring record does not show the temperature rising in the 20thC. I am not providing new evidence of temperature trends, just drawing attention to the Muir Russell Review which says that substituting the instrumental (thermometer) record without identifying the substitution is unacceptable. -
tobyjoyce at 20:04 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
After all the enquiries, it is astonishing to find deniers demanding that the enquirers be themselves enquired into. Or, "let's keep having enquiries until they reach the conclusions we want". -
kdkd at 19:48 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
damorbel #55 "this is nothing to do with conspiracy theories or dogged determination but everything to do with scientists employed at public expense trying, however sincerely, to make the evidence fit the hypothesis and an all too gullible international quango being lead by the nose. " Even if we take the idea that the "Nature trick" was dodgy, you have to ask the question: what material difference to the scientific conclusions would be made by discarding this data analysis? The answer to this question is none at all. Unless you have some evidence to present, rather than just opinionated assertion with no basis in evidence. -
Rob Painting at 17:57 PM on 23 November 2010Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
Wombie - In New Zealand the price of petrol has doubled in the past two years with no drop off in demand. I live in New Zealand, and assure readers no such thing has happened. Several years ago, prior to the full impact of the global financial crisis, petrol got up to $2.20 per litre. It plummeted, and has steadily risen up to $1.88 per litre (give or take a few cents for regional pricing variations). -
damorbel at 17:54 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
Re #44 JMurphy wrote "it was all a big conspiracy (along with all those other enquiries, which came to the same result), but you have exposed the hidden truth by your dogged determination." Oh dear! Oh dear! In the OP this thread cites the Muir Russell Review as saying:- "We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.” [1.3.2]" And then tries to defend this by saying :- "But this was one isolated instance that occurred more than a decade ago. The Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports." One isolated instance? So why did the IPCC when adopting this flawed data use just one isolated instance as a major argument in its Assessment Reports? No, JMurphy, this is nothing to do with conspiracy theories or dogged determination but everything to do with scientists employed at public expense trying, however sincerely, to make the evidence fit the hypothesis and an all too gullible international quango being lead by the nose.Moderator Response: The IPCC did not use the same graph that appeared on the cover of the 1999 WMO report. They used a similar graph which the Review apparently had no problem with. - James -
OPatrick at 17:02 PM on 23 November 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Here's somewhere it might be worth keeping an eye on (NCAR) Attribution of Climate Events It appears to involve Peter Stott, Myles Allen, Martin Hoerling and Kevin Trenberth, so I'm guessing they know what they are talking about. So far they largely seem to be highlighting the need for more cohesive research "A clear conclusion of the meeting was that there are important research needs in developing an attribution service sufficiently reliable and timely to be applied routinely." -
garythompson at 16:53 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
so when tree ring data diverges from the predicted theory or instrument data we throw out the tree ring data and overlay the instrument data. i've always had an issue with that. if the proxy data is not valid then don't use it for prior periods. that is the essence of cherry picking. there is no way to gloss over the 'hide the decline' statement in my humble opinion. if we throw out proxy data in the recent period because we think there was a drought condidtion then how do we know the prior proxy data were also not influenced by climate issues that we can't verify since they happened before instrument data? we still can't explain why the past decade has shown no increase in temperatures even though CO2 continues to increase at a linear rate. the following website shows that temperatures and OLR are not following the predicted models. something else besides CO2 is driving our climate.Moderator Response: It is not true that "the past decade has shown no increase in temperatures." See (and please comment on one of these threads, not this thread, for that topic): "It's Cooling," "It Hasn't Warmed Since 1998," "Global Temperatures Dropped Sharply in 2007," "Keep Those PJs On: La Nina Cannot Erase Decades of Warming," and "European Reanalysis of Temperature Confirms Record Warmth in 2010." Regarding temperature's correlation with CO2, see "There’s No Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature," and if you want to discuss that topic, do so on that thread. -
kdkd at 15:56 PM on 23 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
KL #51 "A spot of sloppy record keeping is only to be expected of those promoting 'the greatest moral challenge of our age'. " You know, this is really tiresome. I think I'll take what is and isn't acceptable record keeping for scientists from scientists, rather than from an ideologically fixated engineer with a terminal case of confirmation bias.
Prev 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 Next
