Global warming

Pipirr said:
I suspect that most people around these forums would agree with you; I can't think of any occasion when Greenpeace has been cited as a reputable source....
Click to expand...

There are disreputable types who use Greenpeace to characterise the environmentally-concerned position.

As for UCS "bending pretty far left", that is to a degree subjective. But does it matter, if they are factually correct in this report?
Click to expand...

WTF is the left of science? Rhetorical :) .
 
Errors found in NASA temperature records.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
(We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)
Click to expand...

Who was it again that said Steve McIntyre was not a "scientist"? Ha! Once again a statistician finds the errors. The question is, how many more "errors" are there?

These errors affect several details, including 1998 not being the warmest year in U.S. recorded history as well as decadal rankings.

New rankings here:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NEW_RANKINGS.pdf

More discussion here:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/08/giss-has-reranked-us-temperature-anomalies/
Quote from Steve McIntyre:
#

I have made my 3rd request for access to GISS source code to try to decode what they do. They have refused prior requests. Lack of access to source code makes this sort of exercise far more time consuming than it ought to be.

Yesterday they completely overwrote their US data set, changing virtually every number prior to 2000, explaining this only with a cursory comment on their webpage. In addition, they have changed their UHI adjustments so that in many cases the changed UHI adjustments offset the error in their “raw” data.

Even before these change, I was unable to track their pre-2000 data to any archive. It was sort of like USHCN adjusted data in the 1990s but diverged in earlier periods. I’ve requested a copy of the original data set or information on its provenance.

I would welcome letters to GISS urging them to fully disclose their source code.

BTW the CRU situation is much worse as they have refused to even identify the stations that they use. In fairness to GISS, they provided enough information that you could leverage on it, but CRU has resolutely refused such information.

Comment by Steve McIntyre — August 8, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Click to expand...

Steve's website is down for obvious reasons.
http://www.climateaudit.org

What does this mean? Not a lot since we're talking about tenths of a degree, but the public (including forums such as this) has been inundated with "the hottest _______ since ________" mantra. Can we be spared that at least? Yes it's been warm, but nothing beyond natural variation. Higher temperatures wouldn't be either. What is especially interesting is NASA is scrambling right now and the finger pointing has likely already begun.

And just as a small jab, who is in charge of all this? That's right, Dr. James Hansen.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
And what's worse, free market bags of hot air such as Heartland -- DCI Group / Tech Central, George C. Marshall Institute, Malloy@junkscience, CO2 Science [guffaw], Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition come to mind -- are constantly cited here on a skeptical forum as if their blather should be taken seriously in science debates. This is patently absurd even if they weren't Exxon shills, but that doesn't stop true believers.
Click to expand...

It's manna to don't-want-to-believers as well, and that's most people. AGW is not easy to sell, it's not at all the sort of thing that people want to hear. And they only have to turn to FoxNews to hear it ain't so. Yet, increasingly, people are being persuaded. I think it's because they increasingly find themselves looking out of the window and thinking "this ain't frickin' normal". It can't all be down to Al Gore, surely.

(Damn. I've just Gored my own post :mad: .)

Executive politicians really don't want to hear it, they have enough anthropogenic problems to deal with day-to-day without the frickin' climate getting thrown into the mix. And yet they have been persuaded that AGW is real and that it will have an impact during their political (and/or dynastic) careers. Despite the best efforts of CO2Science et al.
 
David Rodale said:
Errors found in NASA temperature records.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/


Who was it again that said Steve McIntyre was not a "scientist"? Ha! Once again a statistician finds the errors. The question is, how many more "errors" are there?
Click to expand...

A statistician should be able to predict a 95% probability range in answer to that. Is McIntyre on that yet? The world needs to know. It can't just be left hanging as an alarming mystery.

These errors affect several details, including 1998 not being the warmest year in U.S. recorded history as well as decadal rankings.
Click to expand...

Does 1998's demotion include its role in the "cooling phase" argument, aka the "nine bad years for AGW"?
 
mhaze said:
Looks like some stuff worth digging into. Quite interesting to see opposition to the GW/AGW arise in Russia; the country is on the verge of a literal goldmine in carbon credits capable of being traded.
Click to expand...

They're sticking flags in the Arctic oceanbed two miles down to lay claim to the oil and gas reserves that will shortly become available. Russia is already atop a massive fossil-fuel reserve which they are exploiting and getting rich off and using to bully other people ...

They don't give a fig for carbon credits. They do regard global warming from a "can I help it if I love it?" perspective. It's hardly their fault; what about the Chinese, eh? The guys that can still afford to buy Arctic oil off the Russians and fuel a mass car-culture on it.
 
CapelDodger said:
A statistician should be able to predict a 95% probability range in answer to that. Is McIntyre on that yet? The world needs to know. It can't just be left hanging as an alarming mystery.



Does 1998's demotion include its role in the "cooling phase" argument, aka the "nine bad years for AGW"?
Click to expand...

2007-9=1998, which includes 1998. Taking away the El Nino effect (not related to GW), and there was no warming. The temperatures have actually been trending downward.

Get over it. The data was false, we aren't seeing "unprecedented" warming and your CO2 warming hypothesis has more holes than a Windows security patch.
 
CapelDodger said:
A statistician should be able to predict a 95% probability range in answer to that. Is McIntyre on that yet? The world needs to know. It can't just be left hanging as an alarming mystery.

Does 1998's demotion include its role in the "cooling phase" argument, aka the "nine bad years for AGW"?
Click to expand...

No question bout one thing.

Reality is a lot stranger than fiction.
 
That's what happens when you are showing facts to AGW religious fanatics:
They use to say that "there are not peer reviewed articles who contradicts us". When you show one, they claim "But the consensus view is my view". When you show them a lot they say "They are paid by Exxon" or "Ahhh, the Russians (or Chinese) benefit with GW and that's why their Peer Reviewed scientific papers are BS".
Also, when you point at error discovered by McIntyre, he is "just and statician" wich is an "Oil Industry businessmen" and who "confuses degrees with radians", so nothing he writes is worth of attention and that way the AGW's nuts never examinate the claims made by them (or Richard Lindzen). They just use the "paid by Exxon" argument.
That's the double standard used here and everywere. And this sucks because you can't argue against the ad-homs ("Oil businessmen"), the character assasination ("paid by Exxon"), the name calling ("Deniers"), and the rejection to analyse ("Russia is already atop a massive fossil-fuel reserve which they are exploiting and getting rich off and using to bully other people ...").

Creating that level of noise the AGW fanatics are managing to drive this and others threads here. So I stand by the papers, so if you AGW's have a problem with the content of the papers put ut or shut up. If you don't have a comment about the papers other than "what about the Chinese, eh? The guys that can still afford to buy Arctic oil off the Russians and fuel a mass car-culture on it." then GFYS.



CapelDodger said:
They're sticking flags in the Arctic oceanbed two miles down to lay claim to the oil and gas reserves that will shortly become available. Russia is already atop a massive fossil-fuel reserve which they are exploiting and getting rich off and using to bully other people ...

They don't give a fig for carbon credits. They do regard global warming from a "can I help it if I love it?" perspective. It's hardly their fault; what about the Chinese, eh? The guys that can still afford to buy Arctic oil off the Russians and fuel a mass car-culture on it.
Click to expand...
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Also, when you point at error discovered by McIntyre, he is "just and statician" wich is an "Oil Industry businessmen" and who "confuses degrees with radians", so nothing he writes is worth of attention and that way the AGW's nuts never examinate the claims made by them (or Richard Lindzen). They just use the "paid by Exxon" argument.
Click to expand...

Just a point of note here, because there is often a confusion about it.

McIntyre never confused degrees with radians. The research with that confusion was done by McKitrick and Michaels. (Also an "M&M")

You will often see forum and blog posters making this error but something even more disgusting is that supposed "media" articles try to link McIntyre in with the mistake through insinuation, if not being outright inaccurate. They begin by mentioning McIntyre and McKitrick's paper and then roll right into the error with McKitrick and Michaels paper.

Even on this forum one heavy-handed AGW proponent fell for this confusion when he tried to cast this aspersion at McIntyre and his blog. Instead of admitting to his mistake when it was pointed out, he cast even more aspersions to the character of McIntyre and at me as well.
 
rockoon said:
Just a point of note here, because there is often a confusion about it.

McIntyre never confused degrees with radians. The research with that confusion was done by McKitrick and Michaels. (Also an "M&M")

You will often see forum and blog posters making this error but something even more disgusting is that supposed "media" articles try to link McIntyre in with the mistake through insinuation, if not being outright inaccurate. They begin by mentioning McIntyre and McKitrick's paper and then roll right into the error with McKitrick and Michaels paper.

Even on this forum one heavy-handed AGW proponent fell for this confusion when he tried to cast this aspersion at McIntyre and his blog. Instead of admitting to his mistake when it was pointed out, he cast even more aspersions to the character of McIntyre and at me as well.
Click to expand...

So what does this say about the 'peer review' process?
 
rockoon said:
It says that some people will ignore problems with the peer review process, and even specific problems with peer reviewed papers, if their personal agenda is served by doing so.

You might find this interresting:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.ph...grees+radians&word2=McKitrick+degrees+radians
Click to expand...

That is indeed interesting, using googlefight to quantify disinformation or misinformation.

I never paid any attention to the argument itself because I was aware that McIntyre was a math whiz. IFFC he was the Canadian high school math champ. Which in turn means that whether he was a "certified climatologist" would not be relevant, one must just look at his work. And there, we are talking formulas.

His use of statistics is a bit difficult for me, without first some 10-20 hours of some background reading. However, he's got it all there for anyone to dig into...

As a general comment, there are probably several more "corrections" to the temperature series that will come from McIntyre's work.
 
mhaze said:
As a general comment, there are probably several more "corrections" to the temperature series that will come from McIntyre's work.
Click to expand...

Yes, he doesnt seem to be even close to done with his audit of climate science.

Regardless of what unfolds over the next several decades specifically with the climate of this planet, McIntyres story will be very interresting.

A man who saw marketing behavior in a global warming research paper that would be illegal in many business sectors and who is now spending a good portion of his life methodically sifting through whatever climate data he can get his hands on (sometimes going to great lengths to get it, infact.)

He has done climate science a great service on more than one occasion, and inspite of not being a climate scientist, is now well respected by most of
the field. An official reviewer of the IPCC's fourth assessment report, and is now responsible for finding a major problem with NASA's publicly accessable climate data from the year 2000 to the present (a Y2K bug.)

I have no doubt that he will prove to be a notable figure in history. There are several climate scientists who wish he would just go away but its really their fault that their work is so shoddy.
 
CapelDodger said:
There are disreputable types who use Greenpeace to characterise the environmentally-concerned position.

WTF is the left of science? Rhetorical :) .
Click to expand...

Actually that's a pretty good point. What is left of science? Arguably that might be interpreting science in terms of public policy that was statist in method, while right of science might be the opposite. But then I was really commenting on this "Exxon conspiracy" document's orientation, and that it was promulgated by UCS. So I did not review their website with the perspective of counting issues on which their take on public policy was more say, statist vs. individualist, or left vs. right (note that those are not very similar, too)

So I am not sure my comment had any merit. Because the one document was on the website, can we make a statement about UCS as a whole? No.

Plus UCS is on my bandwagon being pro-nuclear power so they are "the good guys".

Just to kick the IPCC dead horse one final time -

The one version of the IPCC Summary with sea level rise in "meters per century", millenia etc. is here -


[SIZE=-1]www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/media/4th_spm2feb07.pdf

The version that can be currently downloaded from the website with sea level rise in "mm per year" is here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

One last google search this curiosity came up.

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/200731222360.39IPCCErrorsMonckton.pdf

"Errors Covertly Corrected by the IPCC After Publication and Uncorrected Errors by Al Gore" by Mockton.

Mockton says that he brought these errors to the IPCC attention and that resulted in the correction.

Sheessh.... We have no version control here? No problem with versions but it's pretty basic to enumerate them and state the differences between them.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]I am moving on from the 20 foot sea level thingy. Doesn't mean I've conclusively demonstrated who said/when they said etc., just that I got tired of it.....:D[/SIZE]
 
lomiller said:
It's impossible not to generalize when dealing with a complex topic in limited space. I think it's fitting that there is a lot of debate over the details of forumlating the IPCC report and the predictions it makes. I don't see much disagreement in the IPCC on the big picture item, that CO2 and other human activity are warming the planet.

Its true there is no real agreement and many unknowns on Greenland melt rates. What is agreed on is that much of the Greenland ice cap has melted with temperatures about 3 deg warmer then today and that would raise sea levels by about 6 meters (20 feet). 3 deg is also within the range of predictions due to CO2 warming. There is little agreement on how fast this melting could occur and the 3 deg of warming starts to get far enough into the future that there is a lot of uncertainty in the models.

Will it happen? It seems a likely possibility, but there is no agreement on when or how quickly so it doesn’t make the final reports predictions for sea level rise (and rightly so). Given the potential damage it’s still a risk that needs to be taken into account when deciding public policy.


You are also correct in pointing out that there is a lot of uncertainty about aerosols, but there is also a lot of agreement that they have a much shorter term effect then CO2. This means that CO2 warming, on which there is a lot of agreement, will continue to rise, while aerosol induced cooling of which there is a lot of uncertainty will be fairly stable. (This was part of the global cooling vs global warming debate in the 70's, both effects were known at the time but there was a lot if uncertianty over which was stronger. Today most people agree CO2 has a greater long term effect due to it's longer lifespan in the atmosphere.)
Click to expand...

Let me use an air conditioned/central heated home as an analogy to the planet.

We've got some thermometers scattered around the house and they read differently within a range. We know if we add some insulation the house will retain more heat in the winter or keep it out in the summer. The exact change in a thermometer on going from 3" to 6" insulation isn't known, but everyone would agree there would be a change. We can calculate what the result should be but we also know from practical experience that the actual results will differ.

co2 == insulation.

Our central AC/heating unit has output measured in BTUs or watts. The thermometers only give us an indirect measure of the effectiveness of the "Insulation" on the BTUs.

Now consider the usefulness or lack of in proxies - tree rings, ice cores, etc. Scientists do their best to derive "temperature" from these proxies. So we have an estimate of past temperature (an indirect measure of heat capacity of the system) being compared with current thermometer readings (plus adjustments but let's not go down that road for now).

I'm thinking temperature is the wrong metric for global climate. Actual heat capacity in the system is the metric, right?

So why are scientists trying to get temperature proxies?:confused:
 
I was among the firsts to tell Varwoche about that error in his claims, but apparently he was unable to read that because he used the "moron who confuses degrees with radians" argument for months after that.

rockoon said:
Just a point of note here, because there is often a confusion about it.

McIntyre never confused degrees with radians. The research with that confusion was done by McKitrick and Michaels. (Also an "M&M")

You will often see forum and blog posters making this error but something even more disgusting is that supposed "media" articles try to link McIntyre in with the mistake through insinuation, if not being outright inaccurate. They begin by mentioning McIntyre and McKitrick's paper and then roll right into the error with McKitrick and Michaels paper.

Even on this forum one heavy-handed AGW proponent fell for this confusion when he tried to cast this aspersion at McIntyre and his blog. Instead of admitting to his mistake when it was pointed out, he cast even more aspersions to the character of McIntyre and at me as well.
Click to expand...
 
RECALL :I recall this claim. Reviewing the threads made apparent my mistake, it was not Varwoche and not in this forum. Apologies to him (but just for this one)


Lucifuge Rofocale said:
I was among the firsts to tell Varwoche about that error in his claims, but apparently he was unable to read that because he used the "moron who confuses degrees with radians" argument for months after that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom