http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/08/satellite-data-appears-to-confirm-model-predictions-of-storm-track-behavior.ars

8/12/2011 8:54:34 PM

Quote :

"I think you misheard. I didn't say "give me a paper in X journal"."

I think you don't understand. The peer review process for almost every journal for climate science has been co-opted by Mann and his cronies.

^ from the article:

Quote :

"But the data also shows something that may be much more important, though there are some considerable uncertainties involved. The satellite observations also show a roughly two-to-three percent reduction in total cloud cover since 1983."

Moreover, that anything would "confirm predictions" is specious, as predictions of all kinds have been made. Hey, it's gonna be hotter. Hey, it's gonna be colder. Hey, it's gonna be wetter. Hey, it's gonna be drier. Hey, there's gonna be more storms. Hey, there's gonna be less storms.


Also, Shrike, I want you to explain with regard to Mann's study, why a fraudulent study whose results are "duplicated" by other studies still shouldn't be called out as a fraud. Is it your claim that it doesn't matter how you get the results, as long as they are "right" and everyone else agrees? Do you also not know that many of the "confirming studies" had researches in them who were in the original Mann study? Do you also not know that none of McIntyre and McKitrick's original work has been refuted, despite claims to the contrary? Do you also not know that you could use baseball scores as input data and you would get a hockey stick? Do you also not know that you could use white noise as input and get a hockey stick 98% of the time? What about ANY of that makes the study valid to you? Or does it only matter that he got "the right answer"? Again, it is telling that NO ONE in the AGW community will call Mann and his cronies out on this fraud. Also, how do you feel about the fact that known temperature changes are not reflected in his study, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age? How do you feel about the fact that we have archeological and historical evidence of these occurring, yet Mann's hockey stick has them nowhere to be seen? Is that still a "valid" study? How do you feel about the fact that Mann refused to release his original data sets? How do you feel about the fact that he refused to release his computer code? How do you feel about the fact that he is required by law to release those, yet he refused? Does that sound like the hallmark of a reputable scientist? How do you feel about the fact that he cut off the data from his model when it could finally be verified, in the 1960s? How do you feel about the fact that he then added the "observed temperature" on top of his model? Is that a reputable thing to do? How do you feel about the fact that Mann seemed to agree to the deletion of emails and data in order to avoid complying with a FOIA request? How do you feel about the fact that he instructed someone else to do the same? Is that a reputable scientist? How do you feel about the FACT that NO ONE in the AGW community has condemned such behaviour? How do you feel about the FACT that the National Academy of Sciences even admits that Mann's study is biased towards the creation of hockey sticks? Does that make it a valid study?

To show my point about the cut off model data, here you go. Look at this and tell me that behaviour such as this, which has NOT been criticized by the AGW camp or scientific community, is a good thing in science. Look at about 3:50.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=related

[Edited on August 12, 2011 at 10:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2011 10:00:40 PM

Quote :

"Also, Shrike, I want you to explain with regard to Mann's study, why a fraudulent study whose results are "duplicated" by other studies still shouldn't be called out as a fraud."

They weren't duplicated. Completely different research teams, using completely different methods (that are the results of advancements in technology since the late 90s), ran their own independent studies, and came to the exact same conclusions. That it is way hotter today and it's getting hotter faster than during any other period since at least the 15th century. Other studies have gone back even further than that, looking at things like rocks, sediments, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, shells and microfossils.

We can now say with confidence that the past few decades have shown a warming trend without precedent in the last 1300 years. Were their some variations between the studies? Sure. That's called science, it's constantly improved on and perfected, unlike your conspiracy theories which went stale a decade ago.









So again, your "explanation" about Mann's study is about as relevant as the Greek's explanation why the earth is the center of the universe. It's the babbling of a pure fucking madman.

8/15/2011 11:51:12 AM

Quote :

" I think you don't understand. The peer review process for almost every journal for climate science has been co-opted by Mann and his cronies. "

Almost every? Which journal hasn't been? Give us some details.

8/15/2011 12:43:08 PM

someone photoshop the little yodeling man from that "price is right" game onto the top of one of those graphs.

you know, the guessing game where he usually falls off the end?

yeahp.

8/15/2011 3:58:23 PM

Yeah, you're right, it's a guessing game. Just to show how far behind the climate change denyers are, here is a peer reviewed article published in a reputable science journal in January of this year.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.full

Here are their graphs, which look more or less the same as the ones that have been posted previously from earlier studies.



Here is how they got all their data. Note that usage of ice core obtained in 2007.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/01/26/331.6016.450.DC1/Spielhagen.SOM.pdf

And this is their conclusion.

Quote :

" Although we cannot quantify from our data the variability of previous AW inflow to the Arctic by volume, our temperature data series and the above observational link suggest that the modern warm AW inflow (averaged over two to three decades) is anomalous and unique in the past 2000 years and not just the latest in a series of natural multidecadal oscillations. Both effects—a temperature rise as well as a volume transport increase—introduce a larger heat input into the Arctic Ocean. Although there is no direct contact of the AAWL with the ocean surface in the Arctic, such an increased heat input has far-reaching consequences."

Which is the same basic conclusion as Mann in 1998.

8/15/2011 4:52:06 PM

Quote :

"Completely different research teams"

keep thinking that. Wegman begs to differ.

Quote :

"using completely different methods"

only, not really. They've all been pretty much using the Principal Components fraud that Mann used. DOH!

But, you still haven't answered the question. Why shouldn't a fraudulent study be called out as a fraud? Why shouldn't a study that produces the same output 98% of the time, whether you use real data or phone book information, be called a fraud? Because other people agree with it? whaaaaaaaaa?

Quote :

"So again, your "explanation" about Mann's study is about as relevant as the Greek's explanation why the earth is the center of the universe. It's the babbling of a pure fucking madman."

No, it's not. Because if they won't call it out as being an outright fraud, then it says a lot about their own integrity.

Quote :

"Which is the same basic conclusion as Mann in 1998."

So, as long as two people get the same answer, then neither of them can be frauds. got it

8/16/2011 4:10:54 PM

Dude, I've already told you I'm not discussing a study from 1998. I was still in middle school when the data that was used in that study was collected. 15 fucking years ago. That is basically a generation in terms of science and technology. I don't give a shit. I don't care if Mann's original hockey stick was the result of him personally ejaculating on a piece of graph paper. You can call it "Mann's Cum Stain" from now on, I won't stop you. Also, the allegations of fraud and misconduct by Mann have been outright rejected. Read:

http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

Quote :

"The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University. More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous. "

I'm sure that's all just part of the giant global warming conspiracy by the academic community so they can keep bringing in all that climate research money, right? Of course you have no evidence of this just like everything else you've posted.

Now, if you'd like to explain to me how the report I posted above is fraudulent and also connected to that same conspiracy, be my guest. It was conducted by a team of German scientists using brand new data and techniques that were simply not possible when Mann cummed on that piece of graph paper. Show me evidence that it's connected to his massive global conspiracy and why their conclusions are also bullshit. It should be easy, they included every single reference, every single collaborator, and all their methodology on how they reached their conclusions. All the evidence is there, unlike your conspiracy theories which have absolutely no substance whatsoever.

8/16/2011 4:34:56 PM

Quote :

"Dude, I've already told you I'm not discussing a study from 1998. "

Then you don't understand its importance. Fraud should be called fraud.

Quote :

"Also, the allegations of fraud and misconduct by Mann have been outright rejected."

By a university that wants to keep the millions of dollars of research grants coming in. By a university that doesn't seem to think there is a problem with someone directing someone else to delete data and emails in order to thwart a FOIA request. You'll forgive me if I give such an institution ZERO credibility at this point.

Quote :

"Now, if you'd like to explain to me how the report I posted above is fraudulent and also connected to that same conspiracy, be my guest. It was conducted by a team of German scientists using brand new data and techniques that were simply not possible when Mann cummed on that piece of graph paper. Show me evidence that it's connected to his massive global conspiracy and why their conclusions are also bullshit. It should be easy, they included every single reference, every single collaborator, and all their methodology on how they reached their conclusions. All the evidence is there, unlike your conspiracy theories which have absolutely no substance whatsoever."

As long as no one has the integrity to call out his cum on a sheet of graph paper for what it is, then we can know the kind of people they really are.

8/16/2011 4:41:35 PM

Aarronburro, still waiting for you to give us a little bit of detail as to which peer reviewed journals are in on the fraud and which ones aren't.

8/17/2011 12:24:37 PM

I think it's pretty clear at this point that he has nothing. His entire argument is based on claims of fraud relating to a single data set, on a single graph, from a single study, published over a decade ago. Claims that were originally made in 2000 by a Canadian miner and an economist, who struggled for nearly 4 years to get anyone to take their bullshit seriously before finally getting one single report published that was subsequently laughed out of the room by the entire scientific community. Claims that have since been proven false and the man supposedly responsible has been totally exonerated of all wrong doing. Oh yeah, and the Wegman report, literally the only thing supporting the original claims of fraud, has been retracted.

Never mind that the study in question was never all that important to begin with. It's only significance was that it visualized the climate change problem in a way that was easily marketable by the likes of Al Gore and others. It's conclusions were already old news to the scientific community, and subsequent studies have confirmed it's findings using a multitude of new data collection techniques that not even the aforementioned pair of Canadian AGW activists have been able to challenge. Instead, they continue harping on a decade old study and attacking Mann because again, it's quite literally the only thing they have.

I mean, I've never seen such a blatant example of willful ignorance. Here, on this very page, I posted a study that has absolutely no connection to the decade old Mann report. It was conducted by a team of German researchers, funded by a German institution, and based on brand new physical evidence collected in 2007. Yet he refuses to even acknowledge it because it doesn't mesh with his world view. Forget asking him to show us anything related to the actual subject at hand. He doesn't have anything.

8/17/2011 1:14:29 PM

But, but, the sun is really hot!!!!

8/17/2011 1:26:50 PM

Quote :

"I think it's pretty clear at this point that he has nothing. His entire argument is based on claims of fraud relating to a single data set, on a single graph, from a single study, published over a decade ago."

a single study which has spurred much of the debate to this day. A single study that NO ONE in the community will call out for the fraud it is. But yes, I should trust people who can't call a piece of shit a piece of shit.

Quote :

"Never mind that the study in question was never all that important to begin with."

hahahahaha. Yeah, it wasn't featured as the primary study in the 2001 IPCC report Nope, not at all. Do you really believe the shit you are spewing?

Quote :

"It's conclusions were already old news to the scientific community, and subsequent studies have confirmed it's findings using a multitude of new data collection techniques that not even the aforementioned pair of Canadian AGW activists have been able to challenge."

So, again, even if they faked it, it doesn't matter, because other people agree with it. You know SHIT about science, my friend.

Quote :

"Oh yeah, and the Wegman report, literally the only thing supporting the original claims of fraud, has been retracted. "

Not due to any of the information in it being wrong. What a shitty way to try and make an argument. There were concerns of citing of sources, not over the actual validity of what the report said. But hey, keep grasping at straws. Wegman showed the fraud, but let's worry about a non-scientific report not properly citing sources. ooooooooooooooooooh, that invalidates everything it has to say.

Quote :

"Instead, they continue harping on a decade old study and attacking Mann because again, it's quite literally the only thing they have."

No, we harp on the Mann study because it shows the dishonesty of the entire movement. It won't call a fraud a fucking fraud. Either the people who won't do it are scared to speak out or they lack any integrity. But yes, we should really trust people who won't call out a study as a fraud when it produces the exact same results, no matter if you use real data or a fucking phone book.

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 6:12 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2011 6:00:01 PM

Awesome, so we agree that all you have are the universally rejected accusations of a miner, an economist and a bunch of politicians with proven links to right wing think tanks. While I have quite literally all the physical evidence, all the observable facts, and every single scientific body in this country and in fact, across the entire globe, supporting my claims,

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

Quote :

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

since at least 1993. Yet I'm the one grasping at straws. I won't even begin to list all the logical fallacies inherent in your argument, but it's basically all of them. I'm finished with you. You're a fraud and a joke and a complete fucking waste of my time.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 11:52 AM. Reason : actually, start with this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy]

8/18/2011 11:47:59 AM

Here's the scam, fellas. We study climatology for years, get our phd's and all, spread all over the world. We nurture a whole field of science for decades, bringing more and more young students into the fold of our conspiracy. Once we have our operatives in every weather monitoring organization on Earth, including NASA and the NOAA, and occupying nearly every professorship in every climatology department in every country on Earth, we can start publishing papers on our fake data, which we'll submit to peer reviewed journals that we'll also control. The fraud will be on, and nobody will know the wiser because by then we'll have nearly all the scientists in on the scam, I think about 97% should be sufficient to convince everyone.

Why, you ask? The money, of course, what better way to get rich quick than through the lucrative research grant slush fund. We'll be raking in tens of thousands of dollars with every study, we'll be hundred-thousandaires in no times. I'm talkin six figures, gentlemen. It's the perfect crime, as long as right wing bloggers and ex-miners don't get wise, then it could all fall apart...

8/18/2011 3:19:23 PM

Quote :

"You're a fraud and a joke and a complete fucking waste of my time."

QFT. If you even engage burro about this topic, you have already lost.

8/18/2011 3:25:15 PM

Oh I know, I'm not posting for his benefit, or really anyone else on this forum but my own. I know that people like aaronburro exist in the real world, but I don't ever run into them because I try to avoid crazy people who value ideology more than science. He gives me a caricature to vent my frustrations towards a sect of society that is thankfully dwindling every single day. For that, I thank him, whether he his genuine in his beliefs or just playing a character.

8/18/2011 3:36:36 PM

^^^^see the thing is, organizations like the AMS don't send out a ballot to all their members. The top dogs over there more or less set the company line. It's disingenuous to say that most of the people that make up that organization actually feel that way. I wouldn't be surprised if it's that way for most organizations that claim such things.

If it's such a slam dunk scientific argument as you claim, why don't any governments (of major companies) make any significant action?

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : fearmongers r us]

8/18/2011 3:43:20 PM

Quote :

" If it's such a slam dunk scientific argument as you claim, why don't any governments (of major companies) make any significant action?"

Because neither companies nor governments are run by scientists.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2011 3:51:06 PM

Look man, I know you in real life, so I don't want offend you, but all I can say is that you're wrong. Almost every government in the world is taking significant action, except ours. Do you not consider the automobile industry as consisting of "major companies"? Why do you think hybrids and electric cars even exist? I've personally worked for 3 different companies in the past 4 years, and every one of them has had some sort of green initiative. Come on dude, you're smarter than this.

8/18/2011 3:53:02 PM

yep, there's nothing shady about this:

nothing shady about magically shifting recent temperatures up to help "prove" your point. nope.

then we have shit like this going on. dropping 2/3rds of the world's weather stations? and look what it does to the end results... convenient, don't you think? Where are the "scientists" calling out this fraud. that's right, nowhere to be found
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAMAY.pdf

Quote :

" NOAA PROVES AN OUTLIER AGAIN IN MAY By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM NOAA proclaimed May 2009 to be the 4th warmest for the globe in 130 years of record keeping. Meanwhile NASA UAH MSU satellite assessment showed it was the 15th coldest May in the 31 years of its record. This divergence is not new and has been growing. Just a year ago, NOAA proclaimed June 2008 to be the 8th warmest for the globe in 129 years of record keeping. Meanwhile NASA satellites showed it was the 9th coldest June in the 30 years of its record. We have noted in the last year that NOAA has often become the warmest of the 5 major data sets in their monthly global anomalies. They were second place until they introduced a new ocean data set to be discussed later. NOAA and the other ground based data centers would have more credibility if one of the changes resulting in a reduction of the warming trend and not an exaggeration which has been the case each time. THE MANY ISSUES WITH THE STATION BASED DATA CENTERS NOAA and the other station base data centers suffer from major station dropout (nearly 3/4ths of the stations) many of them rural, there has been a tenfold increase in missing months in remaining stations, no adjustment for urbanization even as the population grew from 1.5 billion to 6.7 billion since 1900 and documented bad station siting in the United States and almost certainly elsewhere. Also 70% of the earth is ocean and the methods for measurement there over the years have changed from ship buckets to ship intake to satellite surface sensing. Each measures a different level and produces different results. Transitioning was gradual making estimation more challenging. STATION DROPOUT NOAA's allowing over 2/3rds of the world's stations to dropout in 1990. You can see the coverage difference between the stations on this GISS analysis of the NOAA gathered stations from 1978 versus that in 2008. Notice the big gaps in Canada (where May was very cold), South America, Africa, western Asia, Greenland and Australia. Since many of these areas are more rural, this dropout led to more urban bias and thus warming. In the United States, NOAA has removed the US Urban Heat Island (UHI) adjustment and performs no UHI adjustment on global data. This is despite the facts that NCDC's own Director Tom Karl in Kark et al (1988 J Climate) in Urbanization: its detection and effect in the United States climate record, showed the importance of urban adjustment and the Hadley Centre's Phil Jones (2008) in Jones et al. in Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, showed UHI's contamination of data in China. There are many other peer review papers supporting the need for UHI adjustment even for smaller towns to determine climate trends. The removal of the UHO adjustment resulted in an increased warming trend as you would expect but an oddball cooling in the 1930s. Removal of the UHI for the US resulted in a warming relative to GISS (which still does a UHI adjustment that seems to work for the US) with UHI in the United States of an amazing 0.75F since 1940. ... SATELLITE A BETTER WAY Satellite[s] are widely believed to be the most reliable source of reliable trend information if you can calibrate the differences as one bird gets phased out and a new one goes online. UAH and RSS have gotten very good at this in a very cooperative way in recent years. When you compare the satellite trends of both UAH and RSS with NOAA, you see an increasing warm bias in the NOAA data which explains why months with major cold in the news get ranked so high by NOAA and not by the satellite sources. The difference is approaching 0.5C (almost 1F). The satellite data is regarded even by NOAA administration to be the most reliable but they don’t use it in releases as it is only available for 30 years. It has shown a cooling since 2002. ... "

but, hey, let's look at USHCN's "corrections" to the temperature record. notice anything odd? All of them, except for the now-removed UHI (purple) go UP. isn't that odd?


then we get top scientists in the field saying things like this:

Quote :

"Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

yep, that's sound science right there. yep! and who has decried that in the scientific community? no one. Phil Jones is still highly regarded. funny how that works.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

then we can look at "corrections" made fr New Zealand...

Quote :

"What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made. About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend. See below, enlarged here. "

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf
How do you go from this:

to this?:


The answer is simple: lying.

Wow, it gets even better. Check out some of these tidbits FROM THE COMPUTER CODE:

Quote :

"Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!” "

That all sounds very scientific... "Apply artificial correction for decline"? Really?



yep, all these scientists are on the up and up, that's for sure.



and look, Shrike points to more "consensus" arguments. I'll bet if you did a poll today you would find that a majority of people in the US think that Columbus had to fight against the notion that the earth was flat. That's a strong consensus. Too bad it's wrong. And that's why consensus means jack shit.

[Edited on August 18, 2011 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2011 8:39:10 PM

Quote :

"I'll bet if you did a poll today you would find that a majority of people in the US think that Columbus had to fight against the notion that the earth was flat. "

Well of course they are wrong because the Earth actually is flat. Who's to tell me I am wrong? The consensus of scientists?

8/18/2011 10:57:46 PM

Quote :

"Well of course they are wrong because the Earth actually is flat. Who's to tell me I am wrong? The consensus of scientists?"

Could this be the elusive strawman Aaronburro speaks of?

When did this discussion stray from the fact that the people who propose global climate change could be unintentionally falsely identifying the cause to a giant shouting match, with graphs?

The sat data mentioned in the article before said seemed to conclude that global climate change is still occurring as speculated, but the level of impact from greenhouse gas may be skewed by factors that are difficult to address with current modeling practices. I mean I wouldn't say it is a conspiracy to perpetrate global warming, but if the people who fund and review the research all endorse global warming based on carbon dioxide emissions, it would seem like researchers would be more apt to justify findings and claim greenhouse gas involvement instead of attribute something to error.

8/18/2011 11:19:59 PM

here's more "good science". check it out

Hey, here's a good one. Check out the massive difference between the raw station data and the adjusted data for one station in Northern Australia. I like those adjustments. You stay classy, GHCN... The best part is that there is a clear problem with the raw data in 1941. But, all of the temps past that in the raw data agree with four other nearby stations (nearby, as in within a couple of miles)



full article here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

hmmm, odd GHCN adjustments to alaska temperatures, too. how strange...
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alaska_Climate.pdf

Quote :

"Here is the GHCN annual temperatures for the same region. The GHCN data is dominated by an upward trend. My analysis gives an upward linear trend of 0.69 C/century (due to starting during a cold PDO and ending during a warm PDO), while the GHCN trend is 2.83 C/century - over 2 degrees larger!"

8/18/2011 11:34:44 PM

Quote :

"Because neither companies nor governments are run by scientists."

as an AGW fence-sitter (kinda like my agnostic religious views), this seems like kind of a cop-out, no offense

if the evidence of AGW is as prevalent as many claim, I don't know why various companies or governments wouldn't oblige to their findings...to me it seems like there are still too many people on the fence (more than the 3% that people claim)

when I was in NRC in the early 2000s, my professors basically said they weren't sure about AGW

imo, fuck "97%" supposedly of scientists believe in AGW, when my own professors were basically like "well, honestly, its uncertain"

granted, I graduated in 2002, 9 years ago, so there could obviously be great strides in research the last 9 years

but MY phd's basically said "eh, i dunno, inconclusive"

and honestly, thats shaped my views on the subject more than anything else...if people who have earned PhD's by studying all types of data (who taught classes that I took), are unsure about AGW, then I don't know why I'd be 100% behind the idea

I'm not an Exxon pawn, I'm not some kind of crazy right-wing point talker denying AGW

I just know my honest professors were agnostic about it, why the fuck shouldn't I be the same way?

I mean, my highest education is a bachelor's degree. How many of you masters/PhD cats have actually taken classes with professors who have studied this much more than you and I? Some of you laugh at people saying the earth is only 6,000 years old. I think its more like 4-5 billion years old. So I happen to laugh at people acting like they understand a 5,000,000,000 year old planet based off roughly 100 years of data

8/18/2011 11:58:05 PM

Quote :

"How many of you masters/PhD cats have actually taken classes with professors who have studied this much more than you and I?"

i have my phd in a (somewhat) related field and have worked closely with climate scientists -- my office was down the hall from dave keeling for several years before he died (this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_David_Keeling)

and everyone i know who studies this stuff thinks it's happening (and the conspiracy/$ thing is such a joke, i have several good friends in this field and they're not exactly making the big bucks and with their expertise they could be making so much more elsewhere)

the biggest problem i have with this thread is people trying to analyze and comment on the intricate details of this science (cherry-picking data set corrections, etc) -- i read scientific literature on a very regular basis in a field not too far from this one but i still don't consider myself enough of an expert to be able to fully understand and analyze these data

but i trust the peer review process and leave the analyzing up to the experts (who on the whole are absolutely not doing this for money/fame/fortune/to piss off republicans)

8/19/2011 4:57:08 AM

Quote :

"Look man, I know you in real life, so I don't want offend you, but all I can say is that you're wrong. Almost every government in the world is taking significant action, except ours. Do you not consider the automobile industry as consisting of "major companies"? Why do you think hybrids and electric cars even exist? I've personally worked for 3 different companies in the past 4 years, and every one of them has had some sort of green initiative. Come on dude, you're smarter than this."

Not many governments have been taking "major" steps and some that have are regretting them and are backtracking amidst failure of policy, results or general lack of popularity with the citizens of the country. The automobile industry (on the whole) has developed hybrid and EVs as a response to government regulations and some pressure from environmental groups, as well as higher fuel prices (which in a way goes back to government regulations and consequences of misguided policies). The backlash against a lot of these initiatives and policies has been building for years. Yes, there are plenty of companies taking advantage of the green wave. Some because they can majorly cash in on it (GE), others so they can look good to the public (b/c green is in [or was]) like Bank of America even though it hurts their bottom line, which makes them disingenuous to the stockholders. I was glad to see Caterpillar finally pull out of the US Climate Action Partnership. I found it extremely hilarious that Caterpillar, a company that makes almost half their money off coal mining equipment, was a member of an organization that was trying to do away with coal production. I will say that the company I work for is taking advantage of the whole green movement. In fact we have an entire division that is called Energy Solutions where we evaluate existing building infrastructures and determine how to best save the client energy. Naturally I have no problem with that, energy efficiency is good for everyone. But all the "going green" stuff my company tries to spread is a joke and I actually don't know anyone in my office, in management, that doesn't think global warming is a crock of shit.

And I don't take offense to your comments Shrike. Open discussion and debate is healthy, and while we feel strongly about it sometimes it can get a little heated.

8/19/2011 9:09:02 AM

(excuse the double post)

Quote :

"New paper from Lindzen and Choi implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity. Dr. Richard Lindzen writes to me with news of this significant new paper saying “It has taken almost 2 years to get this out. “. Part of that problem appears to be hostile reviewers in earlier submissions to JGR, something we’ve seen recently with other skeptical papers, such as O’Donnell’s rebuttal to Steig et al (Antarctica is warming) where Steig himself inappropriately served as a reviewer, and a hostile one at that. Hostile reviewers aside, the paper will now be published in an upcoming issue of the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and I am honored to be able to be able to present it here. The authors state that: “We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010).” … The present paper responds to the criticism, and corrects the earlier approach where appropriate. The earlier results are not significantly altered, and we show why these results differ from what others like Trenberth et al. (2010), and Dessler (2010) obtain. So, while that may satisfy some critics, given the hostility shown to the idea that there is a low sensitivity to forcings, I’m sure a whole new crop of critics will spring up for this paper. The response to this paper in AGW proponent circles, like the feedback posited for Earth’s climate system, will surely be negative. Let the games begin. Some highlights: However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). … This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2 … As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K – 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations."

Good stuff

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/#more-45262

8/19/2011 9:26:51 AM

Quote :

"Almost every government in the world is taking significant action, except ours. Do you not consider the automobile industry as consisting of "major companies"? Why do you think hybrids and electric cars even exist? I've personally worked for 3 different companies in the past 4 years, and every one of them has had some sort of green initiative. Come on dude, you're smarter than this."

Having a green initiative is not indicative of believing in global climate change either. The hybrid cars like the Ford Focus used to market on the idea that it was a eco-friendly car. Now the marketing has changed to "Hey look you don't have to pay 50 dollars to fill up a tank, and the mileage is good."

Just because a company panders to a perceived threat does not mean that the threat is a clear and present danger.

8/19/2011 4:53:36 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/20/weather.disasters/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

8/20/2011 7:57:13 PM

imagine that disasters cost more as the dollar goes down the toilet.

8/20/2011 10:53:49 PM

Living with the impacts of climate change. I mean the climate change hoax.
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/21/7429406-thinning-ice-has-big-impact-on-life-in-greenland

8/21/2011 11:23:05 AM

Won't you think of the poor seal and whale poachers!

8/21/2011 2:50:14 PM

Only poor nonwhite ppl are being effected! FUCK them.

8/21/2011 5:27:34 PM

But more whales and baby seals will be saved! Save the whales!

8/21/2011 7:54:12 PM

^^^^on the plus side all the receding ice there is uncovering a lot of ancient viking settlements that can more easily be studied. The real question there, of course, is how did they get under all the ice? Not like the ice has receded up there in the past....

Quote :

"Having a green initiative is not indicative of believing in global climate change either. The hybrid cars like the Ford Focus used to market on the idea that it was a eco-friendly car. Now the marketing has changed to "Hey look you don't have to pay 50 dollars to fill up a tank, and the mileage is good." Just because a company panders to a perceived threat does not mean that the threat is a clear and present danger."

Ah, love that movie! Just watched it again last night actually

BTW there's no hybrid Focus. There's a hybrid Fusion and there is about to be an electric Focus but there is no hybrid Focus. And any real environmentalist would realize that hybrids aren't very clean themselves, given the process involved in making them.


The E Man, those results don't mean much for 2 reasons. Inflation and increased population. If there are more people around then it is easier for extreme weather events to affect them. No real mystery there.

8/22/2011 11:54:48 AM

Quote :

"The real question there, of course, is how did they get under all the ice? Not like the ice has receded up there in the past...."

Seriously, do you really think that any AGW proponent believes the climate has never warmed or cooled in the past? I've never once talked to one who does, and yet every denialist I talk to opens up with "Herp derp did you know that the climate has changed in the past "

8/22/2011 12:49:17 PM

Exactly, every climate scientist on the planet acknowledges that the Earth goes through multi-decade periods of warming and cooling. Again, on this very page, from a study posted in 2011,

Quote :

"Although we cannot quantify from our data the variability of previous AW inflow to the Arctic by volume, our temperature data series and the above observational link suggest that the modern warm AW inflow (averaged over two to three decades) is anomalous and unique in the past 2000 years and not just the latest in a series of natural multidecadal oscillations. "

which again, is nothing new. Data and evidence from literally decades of studies show that what we've been experiencing the last few decades is inconsistent with at least the past couple millennia of warming and cooling. So they ask the question, what's causing this? Either the Earth all of a sudden decided to stop following it's own rules, space aliens from Mars are spraying us with a giant solar ray gun, or it's human emissions of greenhouse gasses. The funny thing is that the best case scenario of all the AGW skeptics who've conducted real studies (ie. not the crap that burro et al keep spewing about conspiracies) is that we're all going to be fucked in 2100 instead of 2050 if we don't start working to solve the problem today (actually today - 20 years, but whatever). Of course the recent uptick in extreme weather has shown that all the original predictions of climatageddon were right on.

8/22/2011 1:12:20 PM

Silly warmists, don't you know the Sun is hot?

8/22/2011 1:19:42 PM

Any data you present is invalid because weather stations in cities are hotter than the ones in the country

8/22/2011 1:20:26 PM

^^^^of course not, however Sock's statement certainly implies that even if he didn't intend for it to. Nothing going on is unprecedented and unfortunately you can't directly compare today's accurate satellite data with proxy data from thousands of years ago. It's hard enough relying on the surface station readings, given the continual development of land, changing in equipment, station shutdowns and of course "adjustments".

^^^Extreme weather increases? Not sure I follow you there. Granted more people live on the planet now than at any point in history. And we have more advanced weather detection instruments. Take that into account and naturally you will have more people being impacted by extreme weather and more extreme weather being noticed (that doesn't impact people). Of course, in spite of all that we're sitting in one of the least active cyclone (hurricans, typhoons, etc) periods in recorded history. The oceans have been very quiet and there hasn't been a hurricane landfall event in the US in several years. The tornado outbreaks earlier this year were notable, but not historically shocking. And even most serious proponents of AGW concede that extreme weather events prove nothing.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:26 PM. Reason : damn you Mike, screwing up my carets ]

8/22/2011 1:26:04 PM

NCSU's own Mike Roberts has article on Bloomberg today on how climate change may negatively impact crop yields. And how that is kind of a big deal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/hotter-planet-doesn-t-have-to-be-hungry-commentary-by-michael-j-roberts.html

Bottom line:

Crop Yield Declines Could Be Substantial:

Quote :

" If warming proceeds as the IPCC has projected, an extrapolation based on historical relationships between yield and weather indicates that, by 2035, U.S. yields will be 20 percent to 30 percent lower than they would have been without warming. By 2085, that shortfall will be as much as 80 percent."

The Biggest Impact Will Be On the Poor:

Quote :

"It’s not that we will all be forced to live in misery, or even that we won’t produce enough food to feed everyone. It’s that the rich won’t adapt by consuming less resource-rich food such as meat and dairy products (derived mainly from corn- and soybean-fed animals) because they can easily afford not to. And if the wealthy choose not to consume fewer resources, this will help push prices to levels that the urban and landless poor can’t afford. "

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ``]

8/22/2011 1:30:09 PM

^^Bro, hurricanes and cyclones? What the fuck are you talking about? There are fucking cattle dieing in Texas at historically high rates. In 2011, with all our advances in irrigation and water transportation, Texas is looking more and more like Somalia. While I would personally love to blame it on Rick Perry, I'm not an idiot. I mean, I know conservatives are trying to turn us into a third world country by eliminating all entitlements, but can we at least take steps to ensure we can eat? Fucking hell you people are unbelievable.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 1:38 PM. Reason : :]

8/22/2011 1:38:03 PM

Quote :

"Nothing going on is unprecedented "

What's going on today IS exactly unprecedented. Please point me to the last time in history that we have seen this rapid of an increase of CO2 content and in temperature with the Sun exerting the same amount of radiation. Bear in mind the Sun does not burn at the same average temperature today as it did X million years ago.

Quote :

"and unfortunately you can't directly compare today's accurate satellite data with proxy data from thousands of years ago. It's hard enough relying on the surface station readings, given the continual development of land, changing in equipment, station shutdowns and of course "adjustments"."

Ahaha okay. So you claim that what's going on today is entirely unprecedented. Then say that proxy data is essentially unreliable. Do you not see the problem with those two statements?

8/22/2011 1:44:01 PM

Big surprise, warming denialist will believe any graph drawn etched on a bathroom wall and instantly dismiss the evidence used by 97% of publishing climatologists if it doesn't jive with their preconceptions.

8/22/2011 1:45:51 PM

^^^The current Texas droughts are quite horrible. But they had worse droughts in the 30s so again I don't see what the fuss is about. It was nature then and it's nature now.

^^no what I was saying there is you can't take temperature data collected from different methods over several thousands of years and piece them together. You need to keep it uniform. And besides, historical record of past warming/cooling events is better evidence than ice core samples. Things like settlements on Greenland, the Roman Warm period where for centuries wine was produced in Great Britain, the Thames freezing over solid every year, etc etc.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 9:39 AM. Reason : k]

8/23/2011 9:34:37 AM

Quote :

"And besides, historical record of past warming/cooling events is better evidence than ice core samples."

This is incomprehensible. The only valid measure of temperature in recent times compared to long past time would be a consistent method of measurement recorded by nature. All human measurement of temperature has systematic bias, aside from things like satellite measurements that only go back a limited amount of time.

In absolutely no case do you have an airtight comparison of current temperatures versus "normal" temperature if those two are taken by different methods.

8/23/2011 12:40:05 PM

agreed. I'm merely talking about written historical accounts of things that occurred due to weather shiftss in the past that don't exist now. I apologize if I wasn't clear in conveying that.

8/23/2011 1:12:14 PM

What sort of natural events are non-subjective?

A drought that almost starved the nation 200 years ago might not have any effect on food production today. The frequency of hurricanes according to historical records is dubious, considering they didn't have any means of an exhaustive count. You might as well forget about wind speed measurements.

I'd agree with eclipses. Historical records of eclipses should expected to be accurate.

8/23/2011 1:38:43 PM

TODAYS EARTHQUAKE IS PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING

8/23/2011 2:41:35 PM