Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Megalodon]

PS. Evolution != Climatology. No biologist is making serious predictions on what the next step in evolution is for particular organisms.

Antibiotic resistance FTW

Not only that, the fact that we can breed organisms shows we can make predictions on evolution.

 

[mythstifieD]

They were stolen, yes. But all the accusations made early on ended up being false. And all the innuendos bared no fruit...

Ummmmmmmmmmmm... the official investigation is ongoing and is very serious... a true skeptic will hold their judgement until proper analysis is done by impartial parties. I hear the UK Gov has got some pretty serious questions for them.

As you can see in the respective thread, I think that was a major cock-up. But guess what, it was discovered by scientists, not journalists or "sceptics".

Excuse me? Other scientists have identified the absurdity of this error long ago. It seems that only until an IPCC scientist (ie: real scientist) background checked the source was it revealed to be a hoax. The Indian Gov commissioned a serious research paper to verify the claim and the IPCC called it "Voodoo science".

 

[Megalodon]

Nice try, I'm not buying it.

Don't really care... I'm not selling anything.

You were laying on the insults, relentlessly.

You noticed that, did you?

You think he's stupid, and thus think his opinion is stupid. Evidence? "No, just calling attention to the stupid arguments they're using. You want me to be polite, don't insist that an hypothesis can be proven but not disproven, after I point that you're wrong."

Actually, in CoolSceptic's case I think he's deluded, not stupid. But he does hold stupid opinions.

I'm getting the impression, though, that because he has an allegedly weaker understanding of the word, he's a fool not worthy of your time, and thus worthy of your insults.

No, Alfie is not worthy of my time, so he's on ignore.

I typically hang out in the CT and 911 rooms

I'm familiar with that bastion of politeness and civil debate

But that's pretty childish reasoning, "He's a big jerk, so I can be too!"

No, more like "he's the poster that tried to impugn my professional honesty without ever being in contact with my work, so he's below a nematode in my scale of relative values".

I LOVE THE TRUTH, good news or bad news. But I hate people who think 'insults' are a debating technique. Grow up.

How do you survive in the CT forum?

Maybe I have a hard time reading your points in between all the insults your throwing.

Well, maybe that's your problem...

 

[mythstifieD]

Antibiotic resistance FTW

Not only that, the fact that we can breed organisms shows we can make predictions on evolution.

Haha, ok faaaair enough After 150 years of scientific inquiry we're able to predict the evolution of...microscopic organisms...eeeeeeeerr... wait a sec, we're TRYING to, we still have this darn super-bug problem that we both didn't see coming and are having a hard time getting rid of. We're thinking of good ideas tho, it's still a work in progress... much debate remains!

Science is slow and patient!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Wow. You haven't understood a thing I said. Which doesn't surprise me.

Since the Hurst phenomenon drives global temperatures through (amongst other things) a GHG far more powerful than CO2 is, if I falsified the concept of GHGs, then I would be falsifying one of the most important mechanisms through which LTP gets into the global temperature measurement.

If you understood Koutsoyiannis' maximum entropy work, you would understand that global temperature does not meet the constraints he uses to analytically derive LTP behaviour from first principles. I would have expected a scientist to raise this quite early on when understanding Koutsoyiannis' work (it was one of my first questions when I read his analysis). From your answers, it is pretty much self-evident that you are making no effort whatsoever to understand the reasoning. You can call that what you want, but it isn't science.

However, many aspects of the hydrological cycle do meet these constraints, and these in turn affect global temperature through indirect mechanisms such as the greenhouse effect.

The problem is, the magnitude of the effect on temperature from the Hurst phenomenon via these mechanisms is greater than the direct effect of CO2 forcing, especially on longer scales - in fact, as scale increases (decadal, centennial etc.) the Hurst phenomenon increasingly dominates temperature changes. The effect of CO2 is, quite simply, lost in the noise of the 20th century natural variability.

The work also creates huge problems for the idea of feedbacks, although the reasons for these are more subtle.

Oh, and seriously. You should try to learn from Randi's work. He's pretty good at what he does.

Statistical models don't change temperatures. Only increasing the energy in a system (or decreasing the mass, which clearly hasn't happened in the Earth-atmosphere system) can cause temperatures to increase.

 

[Megalodon]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm... the official investigation is ongoing and is very serious... a true skeptic will hold their judgement until proper analysis is done by impartial parties. I hear the UK Gov has got some pretty serious questions for them.

The official investigation is not responsible for the initial accusations, or the lack of substance in them. I'll address it when the results come out.

Excuse me? Other scientists have identified the absurdity of this error long ago. It seems that only until an IPCC scientist (ie: real scientist) background checked the source was it revealed to be a hoax. The Indian Gov commissioned a serious research paper to verify the claim and the IPCC called it "Voodoo science".

As I said, it was a cock-up, and it was discovered by scientists, not journalists or sceptics.

 

[mythstifieD]

Well, maybe that's your problem...

Whooosh! There goes my entire point, right over your head.

It's not JUST my problem. It's everyone who reads this thread's problem. Heck, I notice you just got slapped on the wrist for not being civil on page 7.

If this type of rhetoric is used by politicians then it's no wonder that we'll never rid ourselves of war.

Take my advice, or leave it. But you will be far more effective if you cool your jets a little and stick to the points, and avoid the insults. A little mockery here and there, especially on the really goofy points, is fine and sometimes even funny. But a CONSTANT parade of insults? If you ask me, it just makes you look bad.

 

[Megalodon]

Haha, ok faaaair enough After 150 years of scientific inquiry we're able to predict the evolution of...microscopic organisms...eeeeeeeerr... wait a sec, we're TRYING to, we still have this darn super-bug problem that we both didn't see coming and are having a hard time getting rid of.

Actually, my point is that we saw it coming... we don't know how to deal with it, but we sure knew that sooner or later all sort of medicine-resistant bugs would be creeping around.

See also insecticide resistance or herbicide resistance.

 

[Megalodon]

A little mockery here and there, especially on the really goofy points, is fine and sometimes even funny. But a CONSTANT parade of insults? If you ask me, it just makes you look bad.

Well... haven't insulted you yet

 

[mythstifieD]

The official investigation is not responsible for the initial accusations, or the lack of substance in them. I'll address it when the results come out.

Despite my facetious remark above about UEA (to Ben), I am undecided on what the emails are really implying. I'm a bit doubtful that the "nature trick" is as simple as a nifty way to shoot a basketball type of trick. The skeptics go at length about tree-ring records and how anomalous data was merely disregarded and made up with interpolated values. Blah blah blah. That's interesting, no? The pro-AGW camp rarely discusses this directly and strawmans the skeptics position.

You may have addressed this already, and forgive me if you have. I zoomed ahead to page 7 and found nothing but insults so I had to step in. Feel free to refer me to a post you made about this, as I find the issue very curious and I am currently at the fact-finding mode of my personal investigation.

 

[mythstifieD]

Actually, my point is that we saw it coming... we don't know how to deal with it, but we sure knew that sooner or later all sort of medicine-resistant bugs would be creeping around.

See also insecticide resistance or herbicide resistance.

I have no problem with this.

But I think it would be more proper to compare this to a 2 week weather forecast. We have yet to predict much about evolution where larger animals are concerned. As the super-bug problem shows, even the super-tiny animals are a big mystery, even after 150 years.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

LOL! First off, you sourced a BLOG. Secondly, you sourced a blog. Thirdly, you sourced a blog. How bout I find you some random blog that states that Big Oil is behind the Climate Change industry from the very beginning and any opposition to it was merely drama for the cameras?

We can have a good ole Blog-off!

They love popping in warmer porn too. IPCC, realscience etc

The whole of this thread has now turned into the usual insultfest (I dare not say ad homfest) from the warmmongers, they justify it, avoid responding sensibly and play the usual schoolyard antics.

Look up groupthink.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Statistical models don't change temperatures. Only increasing the energy in a system (or decreasing the mass, which clearly hasn't happened in the Earth-atmosphere system) can cause temperatures to increase.

TellyKNeasuss, you sometimes provide some interesting references and insight, but sometimes your posts are really quite disappointing.

Who has said statistical models change temperatures? Nobody as far as I am aware.

Turn the problem around. Can we at least agree on the fact that there is natural variability in the climate system? And that natural variability is clearly influenced by factors such as cloud cover? Since we cannot deterministically predict these variations at present, we need a model to represent them. Since they cannot be deterministically described, they must be described by a stochastic model.

Do you really believe the spectral power drops to zero at the centennial scale? It seems unlikely, don't you agree? The main difference between a Markovian model (used extensively in climate science, e.g. the Nychka degrees of freedom calculation) and a Hurst model is at the centennial scale and upwards. Neither of these have zero spectral power at large scales, but they are different. Are you really confident you know the right one to choose? What are you going to use to justify that choice?

And yes, you *do* have to choose one (although the choice is wider than these two; you could choose a third option not yet on the table. It must be credible, though). You cannot meaningfully analyse data without a statistical model, no matter what people on here claim. Why do you think Markovian dependency is more credible in this case than Hurst? Please bear in mind that all of the analyses that you have read; even the realclimate and tamino links in this thread do not dispute the presence of Hurst-like behaviour.

 

[Megalodon]

I'm a bit doubtful that the "nature trick" is as simple as a nifty way to shoot a basketball type of trick.

Well, just search the literature for papers with "trick" on the title. Then you can re-think your position.

The skeptics go at length about tree-ring records and how anomalous data was merely disregarded and made up with interpolated values. Blah blah blah. That's interesting, no? The pro-AGW camp rarely discusses this directly and strawmans the skeptics position.

Yes, that was very interesting to debunk in 2007 or 08 (I forget exactly when). But like thermate, it rises from the darkness from again and again, no matter how many time it's shot down.

You may have addressed this already, and forgive me if you have. I zoomed ahead to page 7 and found nothing but insults so I had to step in. Feel free to refer me to a post you made about this, as I find the issue very curious and I am currently at the fact-finding mode of my personal investigation.

Tree-rings are used as a proxy for temperature reconstructions. They can be used by themselves, to estimate the regional temperature changes, or in conjunction with other proxies to estimate global temperature changes. In this case, the more recent part of the tree-rings reconstruction starts diverging from the instrumental records. This has been discussed extensively in the literature, and IIRC is thought to be caused by the increasing CO2 affecting the trees growth.

Everybody was aware of that discrepancy, and there was a published method that advised to not use the later portion of the reconstruction. That is the "trick" that was mentioned in the email. Also the "hide the decline" referred to the part of the reconstruction that stopped matching the instrumental record. Not a decline in temperatures, but an explained decline in the proxy signal.

 

[mhaze]

Where the Heck is that AGW HYPOTHESIS MEGALODON?

There was a question and several comments in the post you quoted. Where are the answers?

Hmmm....there was some content there other than what I gleaned?

....You are -of course- wrong...You are wrong... lack of comprehension is your problem alone.....Why do you have to shout? ....you are a troll

As for your trial hypothesis:

The accumulation of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere will change the planet's energy balance and increase the global temperatures.

1. I would think that instead of "will change" you'd want to put "has changed and will continue to change", since we are barraged with all this stuff about climate change in-the-present. This implies that for the 280-->380 ppm CO2, there was an effect of some magnitude.
2. The bolded "and" creating a compound sentence is problematic. Does this mean there are two hypotheses? It so appears. Or are you saying that for A causing B and C, that either B or C being falsified causes your (multi) hypothesis to fail?
3. "Energy balance" is vague. Does this refer to radiative balance at the lower troposphere, or some measure of planetary or oceanic heat content?
4. The phrase "global temperature" is as we all know, completely meaningless phrase due to variations in altitude and phase of matter at the point of measurement.
5. As you construe it the "AGW hypothesis" cannot include and must exclude effects from pollution, land use changes, soot, aerosols of every kind.

That we are even having this conversation, and that it appears problematic to clearly and simply produce the "AGW hypothesis" is itself a glaringly obvious statement that the "science isn't settled".

 

[mhaze]

....Mhaze now keeps parroting "hide the decline", while knowing full well that the context is in no way damning to the scientists. ....

Actually, yes the Climategate disclosures are quite damning.

It shows those esteemed scientists, in private, as they reveal their actual personalities, to be no better than JREF Warmers - to be just as vindictive, small minded, irrational, prejudiced, and unscientific as those here.

 

[BenBurch]

Still nothing of substance at all from the Anti-AGW crew.

Show me that any one of these things is true;

1. Earth is not warming.

2. CO2 is not a GHG.

3. CO2 is not increasing.

4. CO2 increase is not human-caused.

5. CO2 is a much weaker GHG than we believe.

6. The Sun is getting the appropriate amount hotter.

7. The Earth is getting the appropriate amount closer to the Sun.

If you can prove ANY one of the above, not only do you win the argument, but I certify to you that you will have an inside-track for a Nobel Prize. Hell, I will write the letter of nomination myself.

 

[mhaze]

REALLY??!?! Hmm, ok, I'm bored at work why not...

#243: .....

it makes you look like a fool.

Hehehehe...Yes, I presented Megalodon with a list of his own insults when, two years ago? As I recall, it hurt his feelings....Now let's all sit in a circle and hold hands around the basket of feelings, then we can proceed with the AGW Anonymous meeting.

Who would like to tell their story first?

 

[mythstifieD]

Umm you do realize none of those people have any background in climate since right?

Harry Lins has a PhD in climatology. So you're wrong straight out of the box. And since hydrology is a critically important component of climate (unless you want to bin the water vapour feedback?), hydrology is rather important to AGW.

Dude, you realize that climatology is a science, right? Lomiller clearly accused you of citing people who haven't any background in "since".

 

[Megalodon]

[*]I would think that instead of "will change" you'd want to put "has changed and will continue to change", since we are barraged with all this stuff about climate change in-the-present.

I know you want people to ignore that this hypothesis was put up first more than a century ago, revisited in the 50's when GHGs emissions were intensifying, and very well established during the 70's even while atmospheric sulfates masking the warming effect. But reality won't go away.

This implies that for the 280-->380 ppm CO2, there was an effect of some magnitude.

You think so?

The bolded "and" creating a compound sentence is problematic. Does this mean there are two hypotheses? It so appears.

If you don't know how to read, I guess it's possible.

"Energy balance" is vague. Does this refer to radiative balance at the lower troposphere, or some measure of planetary or oceanic heat content?

Both. Infrared is absorbed and re-emitted by GHGs, which as a direct consequence warm the troposphere and the surface, increasing both the land and ocean heat content.

The phrase "global temperature" is as we all know, completely meaningless phrase due to variations in altitude and phase of matter at the point of measurement.

You would like to believe that, but you know you're just shoveling BS.

As you construe it the "AGW hypothesis" cannot include and must exclude effects from pollution, land use changes, soot, aerosols of every kind.

As I construe it, the AGW hypothesis focuses on the main present climate forcing. It can be influenced and refined, and in fact it was. That's why it's now called AGW Theory.

But I simplified it as a simple hypothesis, so that it's easy for you to falsify.

Go for it.

That we are even having this conversation, and that it appears problematic to clearly and simply produce the "AGW hypothesis" is itself a glaringly obvious statement that the "science isn't settled".

No, just a glaringly obvious statement of your inability to read.