Global warming

[BobK]

climateaudit? I would not agree that it is unbiased, especially if one includes the comments. If you take McIntyre only, this is his description of the website: "Through the use of proxy data, statistics, as well as commentary and discussion, Steve McIntyre tries to show how human induced global warming does not add up."

So yes, he has taken a side and uses the website to demonstrate his point.

It's a blog, it's not peer reviewed, and the commenters tend to be of a like mind.

So, unbiased? Hell no.

You really shouldn't be attributing to McIntyre that supposed quote by him, unless you can provide a link to him saying it. Which you can't. Do you really think he talks about himself in the third person? His primary concern is checking the validity of the data. He makes no assumption as to the main cause of recent warming.

He has already shown some of the assumptions being touted as proof of man being the main cause of GW as being of dubious quality. e.g. lack of error bars, cherry-picked data, not reviewed by skilled statisticians etc. Why would anyone want to rush a multi-trillion dollar program into effect without first ascertaining to best ability the validity of the data causing the necessity for action?

 

[a_unique_person]

His chief concern to me appears to be his obsession with Hansen and posting "where's waldo" every so often.

Why would anyone rush into a multi trillion dollar program? It's an interesting question, the Iraq invasion was happening in a few months, with conservatives accepting everything they were told, AGW research has been going on for decades now, and we are still told there hasn't been enough of it.

The expenditure on reducing CO2 emmissions will actually mostly be beneficial, as it will bring about cheaper and better ways of using energy, a massive cost saving.

 

[mhaze]

You really shouldn't be attributing to McIntyre that supposed quote by him, unless you can provide a link to him saying it. Which you can't. Do you really think he talks about himself in the third person? His primary concern is checking the validity of the data. He makes no assumption as to the main cause of recent warming.

He has already shown some of the assumptions being touted as proof of man being the main cause of GW as being of dubious quality. e.g. lack of error bars, cherry-picked data, not reviewed by skilled statisticians etc. Why would anyone want to rush a multi-trillion dollar program into effect without first ascertaining to best ability the validity of the data causing the necessity for action?

From the www.climateaudit.org faq

Does your work disprove global warming?

We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.
​

 

[a_unique_person]

So, the sun does not cause the globe to warm.

That's a knee slapper.

Maybe if they gave the information a less silly title one would not know that it was propaganda.

The earth is warming. The sun is not increasing it's output. Why the change in one and not the other?

 

[David Rodale]

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12234



One is bound to wonder how your "strong correlation" is arrived at. I get the picture, but where did you get it from ?



It exists in the observable world. Just as predicted by the underlying science. Where the heck else is the extra energy coming from if not from retention? Not from extra income.



That's your perception.

My perception is that the anti-AGW camp spends a lot of time in the past (some of it very distant, even before my time), casts aspersions on honest scientists, quotes dishonest scientists, brings up Al Gore a lot, personalises the argument generally, and doesn't get out much.

In the end it's all just shadows cast into a cave, isn't it?

Reply to Lockwood and Frohlich:
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
So it's really not settled is it? There are other papers in direct conflict with L&F as well which can be easily accessed.

Now, we've all been inundated with news flashes and scientist's opinions about the Arctic. Much has been made about the recent melting, but nothing as to what caused it. AGW folks automatically assume (and really good at that) it must be a result of global warming caused by increased CO2 levels, however the latest data shows in fact that is not the case. From another thread, nobody replied. Any comments?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071001.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031138.shtml
I have the full article and can post excerpts, but not in it's entirety. No reference is made to "global warming", "anthropogenic", CO2 levels etc. or anything else relating to AGW.

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

The new study differs significantly from other recent studies that only looked at the Arctic's total sea ice extent.

 

[David Rodale]

The earth is warming. The sun is not increasing it's output. Why the change in one and not the other?

The earth is not warming as I have already provided evidence for. If you're going to propagate a statement over and over, include the evidence. Otherwise it is nothing but conjecture.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The earth is warming. The sun is not increasing it's output. Why the change in one and not the other?

Because planetary climate is very complex and does not change immediately upon new inputs.

Why are other planets in our solar system currently warming?

 

[mhaze]

Come to think of it ... isn't this the most unbiased site to come to? Talk about the whole rich tapestry of life ...

It's a blog that has not banned you, so it is certainly unbiased toward you.

First of all, if one was to consider unbiased sites, it would be necessary to exclude those which ban comments opposite from the point of view that the site espouses.

Realclimate has always banned such comments, therefore it does not qualify as the "Unbiased site" that our new guest asks for. Climateaudit does not ban comments, excepting for improper language and the like. Therefore, Climateaudit is unbiased.

A further illustration that climateaudit is unbiased is the simple reality that actual work is performed there, as opposed to discussion. The intent of a project is fully explained, then the work is done, and the full results are posted publicly for anyone to view. No results are hidden away if they do not confirm the hypothesis.

Gristmill comes to mind as another possible, the home of the famous "how to sound dumb reading our stupid script when you argue with a climate skeptic". Here the comments often overwhelm the script, which is pretty stupid of course. But people waltz into JREF trying to read it into their responses. They do the same with Realclimate, by the way. Such people usually give up after a few exchanges or, when their script runs out, revert to smearing, baiting and personal attacks.

Climateaudit often has working climate scientists contributing to the blog, where Gristmill is more the average crowd.

 

[CapelDodger]

Aye, but that's where it gets tricky. Hard though it may be to believe, seeing as I have occasionally posted in this thread, I'm not actually a climate scientist. I appreciate the exposition of the literature that realclimate provides...

As another informed amateur, so do I. (I missed you out, didn't I ? Occasional, but always cogent.)

When things wash up from the blogosphere that aren't egregious nonsense but still smell, RealClimate is my first go-to. It's the people there - not least the commentators - who do the reference-searching for me. They also do some exemplary demolitions. Respect, big-time.

The esteemed tamino at Open Mind http://tamino.wordpress.com/ is another must-read, just for the sake of it. Front-line stuff, while RealClimate is more like staff-officer territory.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because planetary climate is very complex and does not change immediately upon new inputs.

Why are other planets in our solar system currently warming?

You mean, why are some warming and others aren't?

 

[mhaze]

Sun's activity rules out link to global warming
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12234

Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?

 

[a_unique_person]

The earth is not warming as I have already provided evidence for. If you're going to propagate a statement over and over, include the evidence. Otherwise it is nothing but conjecture.

So you disagree with TGGWS and other Cosmic Rays theories?

 

[a_unique_person]

Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?

Yeah, right. In some people's minds.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You mean, why are some warming and others aren't?

You have evidence that others aren't?

 

[a_unique_person]

You have evidence that others aren't?

You made the claim. You didn't say all planets, did you? Do you have evidence that they all are?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You made the claim. You didn't say all planets, did you? Do you have evidence that they all are?

I made the claim that others are. Sorry, you found the wrong patsy for your game.

You implied a claim that some planets are not warming. Are you now backing from that implied claim?

 

[CapelDodger]

It's a blog that has not banned you, so it is certainly unbiased toward you.

First of all, if one was to consider unbiased sites, it would be necessary to exclude those which ban comments opposite from the point of view that the site espouses.

Realclimate has always banned such comments, therefore it does not qualify as the "Unbiased site" that our new guest asks for.

Untrue. You should check your sources. Somebody's been telling you porkies.

Climateaudit does not ban comments, excepting for improper language and the like.

The like?

Therefore, Climateaudit is unbiased.

Therefore?

A further illustration that climateaudit is unbiased is the simple reality that actual work is performed there, as opposed to discussion. The intent of a project is fully explained, then the work is done, and the full results are posted publicly for anyone to view. No results are hidden away if they do not confirm the hypothesis.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide an example of that narrative. A project being posited, the work (research? statistical analysis? modelling?) being done, and results not confirming the hypothesis being published and discussed. It would be informative.

As I recall, Lucifage Roficale mentioned a while back that McIntyre, fresh from cooling the lower-48 back in the 90's, was about to do the same for Africa. And yet so far nothing. Is that one of the projects you refer to?

Gristmill comes to mind as another possible, the home of the famous "how to sound dumb reading our stupid script when you argue with a climate skeptic".

It's rather more about the stupid script that contrarians follow. The same old same old, for decades now, as the real world - the big bad analogue model - moves on.

 

[David Rodale]

So you disagree with TGGWS and other Cosmic Rays theories?

I said it's not settled.

You said it's warming, it is not.

I'm also interested in comments concerning the latest Arctic ice melt study in my previous post, but it must be invisible.

 

[CapelDodger]

Lockwood? You are taking refuge in the past there. That was debunked shortly after it came out. Surely you can do better than that? Surely?

It was no doubt debunked in the ClimateAudit environment, but not in the real world. Perhaps more to the point, not in the out-of-the-world where the satellites sit and watch the sun. Day and night. Observing and reporting, free from bias (which requires oxygen).

Go on, give us a laugh, how was it debunked? (Beware : some of us have read this particular script beforehand.)

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

1. Based on what you all have seen here at JREF, what's the ballpark estimate of the percentage of how many here at JREF support the theory that human activities are causing global warming?

80% agree with MMGW from my limited time here

2. Has anyone figured out why there is such a discrepancy in source data in the global warming debate? For example, I read an article that said that in the year 2000 they recorded the highest solar output seen in the past 1000 years but then I've also read that there's been no increase in solar output since 1978. This is just one of many many examples of source data discrepancy. Anyone else seeing this?

The source data is not the problem. It is the interpretation that is the problem.

The global warming debate is turning out to be very weird. It almost smells like a woo debate. It seems, however, that the science and logic aren't as much of a problem as the source data discrepancies. I've heard that it's global socialism trying to control and bring down industrialized nations to force equality and I've also heard that it's just earth-friendly folks just trying to keep others from wrecking the planet.

A well done propaganda campaign always throws everything at the wall to find what sticks. What sticks becomes talking points and sound bites.

What's the deal? Shouldn't this be at least somewhat straightforward? How can I read two completely different sets of source data about temperatures, CO2 levels, solar output levels, etc. and only the people on each side of the debate are quoting the data that support their own side of the debate. I see little objectivity and rarely see people dealing with the "other side's" data. It's like the two sides are dealing with data from two different planets.

It is generally correct data. It is the presentation of said data that presents different conclusions.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Twain

I smell strong bias on both sides of this human-caused global warming debate. Any ideas on why this is? Has anyone found anyone who actually deals with both sides of the data and logic objectively?

The central focus of your inquiry should be what is each side asking for. Many times this will allow for the discernment of the truth.