GW: Separating facts from fiction

Orwell said:
Many climatologists "try out" their models by simulating past climate change, and then comparing their "predictions" with what can be inferred from the geological record. I have been to a few conferences where this kind of work was presented, and I must tell you, it ain't perfect, but it works.
Click to expand...
I have seem that too. Einstein used that in his general relativity works to infer existence of "ether" and the cosmological particle. But what I see in Manns work is data selection to make the model match. That's different. BTW Mann's model is failing because this low temperature (2004-2005) was not predicted by his model.
 
Orwell said:
Uh, the link Warwoche provides pretty much debunks the paper... Or at least, a paper, written by the people you quote.
Click to expand...
Wich is far different! I'm used to the idea that a complete moron can write one and just one brilliant and flawless paper. Hoyle comes to mind
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Wich is far different! I'm used to the idea that a complete moron can write one and just one brilliant and flawless paper. Hoyle comes to mind
Click to expand...

Yes, but what if that complete moron looses credibility because he is, well, a complete moron?

Climate change modelling is a highly technical affair, were we layman have to rely on expert opinion...
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
I have seem that too. Einstein used that in his general relativity works to infer existence of "ether" and the cosmological particle.
Click to expand...

Einsten did no such thing. He was one of the first scientists to chuck out the whole "ether" idea, and he did it way before he started working on General Relativity. "Cosmological particle"? What's that? Do you mean cosmological constant?
 
Einstein correlated the cosmologican constant to a form of matter that he expect to find experimentally later. That was his escape wait to overcome quantum physics, an error he regretted latter
 
Orwell said:
Yes, but what if that complete moron looses credibility because he is, well, a complete moron?

Climate change modelling is a highly technical affair, were we layman have to rely on expert opinion...
Click to expand...
I coldn't agree more. Loses credibility but each paper has to sustain his own merits.
The problem with expert opinion in this topic is that is divided. Please see the Heildeberg Appeal
 
Orwell said:
Uh, the link Warwoche provides pretty much debunks the paper - or at least, a paper - written by the people you quote.
Click to expand...
The very same paper by the very same gibbering idiots -- discredited to the point of comedy. Yet still being clung to with fundamentalist fervor.
 
This really is like whack-a-mole. When one bit of bizzarely bad science is thwacked, another shows up in its place.

I wonder why we don't see any mention of the radiosonde paint issue, and how it confused data for years. Now that the data is sorted out, the missing "air temperature increase" appears not to be missing, too. Ooops, systematic error in favor of no Global Warming eliminated, but no publicity? Gosh. Why is that?
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Einstein correlated the cosmologican constant to a form of matter that he expect to find experimentally later. That was his escape wait to overcome quantum physics, an error he regretted latter
Click to expand...

I thought Einstein came up with the Cosmological Constant to keep the Universe static! His General Relativity equations indicated that the Universe would be unstable (it would either expand or contract) without some kind of Cosmological constant.

Anyway...
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
Uh, the link Warwoche provides pretty much debunks the paper - or at least, a paper - written by the people you quote.
Click to expand...
The link take us to:

Why global warming is not natural​

By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
Report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science​

The AAAS (I am an old member since 1984 -regrettably) is the editor of Science magazine, whose Editor in Chief Donald Kennedy has brought Science down to the lowest level of credibilty -regarding climate change, at least.

But Science's poor quality is one of long date; it dates back from the times of Mr. Abelson during the sad times of DDT hearings in the 1971s. I recall DeWitt's terrible unscientific work with quails, and how a judge had to order the study to be removed from Science pages, or repeated, and from DDT hearings.

I also remember the terrible study by Susan Solomon et al's October, 1987 study regarding the ozone levels above Thule, where they never could make any connection with freons, nor any reduction on ozone levels outside Antarctica, bur nevertheless they recommended a CFC ban! Scientist out of their field of expertise... And the list grew longer and longer as time went by.

So any link to Science and/or Nature will always be received with utter skepticism by me or other much more capable scientists.

But worse than Science and Nature's flawed articles on the environment is the sad "Science by Press Release" being presently practiced by scientists eager to get more funding for their research (and bank accounts, of course -they always manage to skim something.)

So no debunking of McIntyre and McKitrick by any of these magazines. Now try again.
 
Last edited:
Edufer said:
So any link to Science and/or Nature will always be received with utter skepticism by me or other much more capable scientists.
Click to expand...

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but see, very few (if any) scientists share your particular opinion about Science and Nature. Whom should I listen to? The majority of scientists, or... You?

Rhetorical question... ;)
 
Last edited:
Edufer said:
So no debunking of McIntyre and McKitrick by any of these magazines. Now try again.
Click to expand...

Maybe Science and Nature don't bother debunking these guys because they represent a fringe scientific opinion. Because, you know, they do, at present, represent a fringe scientific opinion! I mean, why would Science and Nature bother debunking, say, ID supporters?
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
Well, that's all fine and dandy, but see, very few (if any) scientists share your particular opinion about Science and Nature. Whom should I listen to? The majority of scientists, or... You?

Rhetorical question... ;)
Click to expand...
Are you an alien just arrived at Earth? Welcome!

If you had ever read the thousands of scientific studies by thousands of scientists that share my view (perhaps not so outspoken as I am) you'd be more prudent in your opinions and remarks.

Please, don't ask me to post here links to those thousands of studies because Randi will cancell my account in this forum --it would take hundreds of forum pages.

Of course, there is a similar number of scientists that oppose their views, and that makes two climate science libraries of equal weight.

The big difference is that Science and Nature are constantly refusing to publish any "sceptic" scientists studies, and their peer review system has become a shame to the scientific comunity -or at least, to half of it. So "sceptic" scientist must publish their work in less "respectable" journals as Geoph. Research Letters, GEO, Oceanography, etc, etc.

And that throws out the window the "consensus claim" on global warming.
 
Hey, it would be nice if the link in the OP worked.

Or if the graphs had adequate legends.

Or if you told us which feature of them you think is of interest.

Or if the graphs were labelled in English.

Too much to ask?
 
Edufer said:
Are you an alien just arrived at Earth? Welcome!

If you had ever read the thousands of scientific studies by thousands of scientists that share my view (perhaps not so outspoken as I am) you'd be more prudent in your opinions and remarks.

Please, don't ask me to post here links to those thousands of studies because Randi will cancell my account in this forum --it would take hundreds of forum pages.

Of course, there is a similar number of scientists that oppose their views, and that makes two climate science libraries of equal weight.

The big difference is that Science and Nature are constantly refusing to publish any "sceptic" scientists studies, and their peer review system has become a shame to the scientific comunity -or at least, to half of it. So "sceptic" scientist must publish their work in less "respectable" journals as Geoph. Research Letters, GEO, Oceanography, etc, etc.

And that throws out the window the "consensus claim" on global warming.
Click to expand...

Mmm, let put it simply, so that everything is clear: this "alien" doesn't believe you. You make claims, but offer very little proof.
 
Last edited:
Supporters of the global warming theory
Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that have issued supportive declarations) include:
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India [4].
The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on climate change.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Click to expand...
(Note, when they say global warming, they mean anthropogenic global warming; saying that they support "global warming" in the strictest sense would be trivial since everybody knows that life on Earth would be impossible without a certain amount of "global warming")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
 
Underlines added...

EPA
What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
...
In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming
Click to expand...
NOAA
Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade ... the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years
Click to expand...
Scripps/DOE
Enhanced aerosol concentrations increase the amount of thermal energy emitted by many Arctic clouds, according to scientists supported by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program ... Dan Lubin of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and Brookhaven National Laboratory scientist Andrew Vogelmann conclude that the increase significantly affects the Arctic energy balance. The Arctic is showing the first unmistakable signs of climate warming caused by human activities. ... It is also another example of human industrial activity's surprising impact on remote polar regions
Click to expand...
Scripps / Livermore Labs
results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically, or by human activities.
...
"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist " The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."
Click to expand...
IPCC (via Woods Hole)
concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities
Click to expand...
Woods Hole
Q. Is the planet warming? A. Yes
Q Have humans contributed to the warming? A. Yes
Click to expand...
More NOAA
with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate of the Earth to change
Click to expand...
University of Washington
Amounts of almost all greenhouse gases are increasing as a result of human activities
Click to expand...
Columbia University
Highly Certain Facts.
* Humans are increasing greenhouse gases
* Greenhouse gases heat the planet
* Changed amounts of greenhouse gases have long lasting effects on climate
Click to expand...
Union of Concerned Scientists (MIT)
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
Hey, it would be nice if the link in the OP worked.
Or if the graphs had adequate legends.
Or if you told us which feature of them you think is of interest.
Or if the graphs were labelled in English.
Too much to ask?
Click to expand...
The link won't work because you must pay for the paper. But here is the Abstract:

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications​

Authors: McIntyre Stephen; Mckitrick Ross​

Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1,
January 2005, pp. 69-100(32)
Publisher:Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd

Abstract:

The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring network. We show that in each case MBH98 methodology differed from what was stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century index values. In the case of the North American PC1, MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was "conventional".

The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series. The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al. denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have any effect, a claim we show is false.

We also refute the various arguments by Mann et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of robustness and statistical skill. Finally, we comment on several policy issues arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific studies are used for public policy.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The graph legends say: On top: Newer corrected version - 20th Century is no longer the warmest.

Lower legend: Mann et al 98, contains errors

Left side: Temperature Index (º C)

It wasn't rocket science...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom