Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

And yet you fail to answer my question.



I did not read the entire email, in much the same way I don't buy stolen property. Those emails are private and were stolen, and the fact that the thief posted them online doesn't make them less private. I'm strange this way.

Also, I don't care about what they were concerned in a private conversation. I care about what was published in peer-reviewed literature.


<snip>


Don't be ridiculous, no records were changed. You can still access the original data, and while you can your objections are just delusions.



If only they had refined their discussions, written them up and submitted them to some sort of easily accessible medium, where it got... I don't know... reviewed by their peers, and trounced if scientifically unsound

Glad I switched to PB and crackers!
My keyboard vac makes them much easier to clean up.

 

[Belz...]

This is really quite funny.

Oh, it's been funny for quite a while.

I know right! I mean at first dinosaurs were big slow reptiles now people are trying to change the past and say they are more closely related to birds!!!

 

[a_unique_person]

There's a good example of how being focused on only one thing, in this case "prove everything wrong before understanding what is even on the table", can mess you up.

The issue of "blips" isn't limited to them "correcting" the SSTs down, which is clear if you read the entire email. That they were concerned with having to explain the land temperatures being high, when the SSTs were "corrected" to make it seem cooler, that is only part of what is being discussed.

In any case, what I stated is obviously true, based on the evidence on just one email. In this case, in 2009 climate experts are discussing how and how much to change the records from the 1940s.
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

The concern is that the land record will still show this warming, which it is noted, is always the case in the temperature records. So how much they "adjust" the data has to be considered (it certainly isn't discussing the issue of measurement changes on ships). That the land shows the expected increase following the SSTs makes that excuse a sham of course.

No, what is actually going on there is quite the interesting science.

Given that he was going to write it all up anyway for something else, you could just read it all there.

 

[r-j]

When will the scientists realize that once the truth is discovered it's fixed in stone!!! they need to stop changing the past and just accept the facts as they have always been!!!

That is both funny as well as a very good point. It's why I laugh when I hear "the science is settled", or "the debate is over".

There are scientific debates that have been going on for almost forever. Yet somehow "global warming" isn't up for debate, and anyone who questions or laughs at the people running around in a panic over it, they get called stupid names and compared to flat earth people, or holocaust deniers.

Using a very short and questionable period of time to become 95% sure of something isn't scientific at all. Yet people want others to change the entire economy and politics of the entire world based on scant data, and data that we aren't even sure of. (as we see, data gets "adjusted", even when it's 65 years old)

I find the urgent goal of trying to "blame" the extreme cooling that ended (for the most part) in the early eighties, on human pollution very interesting. Not really a discussion of global warming at all, but here is the interesting part. (to myself only of course)

Why, in 2009, were these scientists secretly discussing changes to the historic records? Where was there work published? What was the purpose?

And why does it seem that none of the oh so angry blogs (denier blogs I am talking about) seem to know anything about what the 2009 email was about?

It's also very interesting what else is in the emails, concerning the past. Yet some, as we see above, actually refuse to even read them, much less consider what they mean.

It's like refusing to even think about the Pentagon papers, because they were stolen. I guess young people just don't learn about history no more.

 

[macdoc]

moving right along

NASA's OCO-2 brings sharp focus on global carbon
43 minutes ago
NASA's OCO-2 brings sharp focus on global carbon

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/2014/2-nasasoco2bri.gif

_{This animation shows the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, the first NASA spacecraft dedicated to studying carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech}

Simply by breathing, humans have played a small part in the planet-wide balancing act called the carbon cycle throughout our existence. However, in the last few hundred years, we have taken a larger role. Our activities, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation, are pushing the cycle out of its natural balance, adding more and more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Natural processes are working hard to keep the carbon cycle in balance by absorbing about half of our carbon emissions, limiting the extent of climate change. There's a lot we don't know about these processes, including where they are occurring and how they might change as the climate warms. To understand and prepare for the carbon cycle of the future, we have an urgent need to find out.

more

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-nasa-oco-sharp-focus-global.html

Nice animation.

 

[Megalodon]

That is both funny as well as a very good point. It's why I laugh when I hear "the science is settled", or "the debate is over".

So you laugh because you don't understand what you're hearing?

There are scientific debates that have been going on for almost forever. Yet somehow "global warming" isn't up for debate, and anyone who questions or laughs at the people running around in a panic over it, they get called stupid names and compared to flat earth people, or holocaust deniers.

Let me try to break this down for you in a way that you can get it. The length and intensity of a debate is inversely proportional to the amount of physical evidence you have for it. You have overwhelming evidence for global warming, and overwhelming evidence for the GHG explanation of GW, and overwhelming evidence for the anthropogenic origin of the GHG causing GW.

And most important of all, you don't have any evidence to sustain an alternate hypothesis. Until you have, any debate is not scientific.

Using a very short and questionable period of time to become 95% sure of something isn't scientific at all.

Citation needed

Yet people want others to change the entire economy and politics of the entire world based on scant data, and data that we aren't even sure of. (as we see, data gets "adjusted", even when it's 65 years old)

Please stop projecting your ignorance on other people.

I find the urgent goal of trying to "blame" the extreme cooling that ended (for the most part) in the early eighties, on human pollution very interesting.

Why do you find "urgent" an hypothesis that is more than two decades old, and explains the data available perfectly?

Why, in 2009, were these scientists secretly discussing changes to the historic records? Where was there work published? What was the purpose?

They weren't. They were having private discussions with colleagues about work that they then published. That sleezeballs decided to peer on private conversations does not attribute motive to the victims.

And why does it seem that none of the oh so angry blogs (denier blogs I am talking about) seem to know anything about what the 2009 email was about?

Well, apparently you don't know what you are about, much less them.

It's also very interesting what else is in the emails, concerning the past. Yet some, as we see above, actually refuse to even read them, much less consider what they mean.

Yes, it's horrible when people have standards and refuse to go through stolen private conversations. I also refuse to feed paparazzis, and don't look at revenge porn. Makes me a horrible person in your book, no?

It's like refusing to even think about the Pentagon papers, because they were stolen. I guess young people just don't learn about history no more.

The Pentagon papers were not stolen, they were released by someone who had legitimate access to them, as well as the background to know what they meant. ClimateGate was the undiscriminated theft and public release of the email communications, in the hope that something compromising would be found. <SNIP>

Edited for civility. Please, remember to address the argument and not attack the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Belz...]

That is both funny as well as a very good point. It's why I laugh when I hear "the science is settled", or "the debate is over".

Is it fun to have your cake and eat it, too ?

 

[r-j]

They were having private discussions with colleagues about work that they then published.

You don't what the publication being discussed actually is called.

Neither does anyone else here. Now that is actually surprising.

 

[lomiller]

That is both funny as well as a very good point. It's why I laugh when I hear "the science is settled", or "the debate is over".

What seems to escape you is that science changes based on evidence. The evidence shows the earth is warming VERY rapidly and that human emission of greenhouse gasses are the primary cause. If the evidence changes than so will the scientific consensus, until then the evidence we currently have is more than sufficient to consider AGW provisionally true.

“But the evidence may change” holds NO weight in scientific discussion because they evidence could always change causing a change in the scientific viewpoint on that issue. This argument is almost always used by people who want to ignore science in favor of some other world view or belief. There is no scientific debate on the question you want to ask because the evidence is clear and there is no immediate prospect of that evidence changing.

This is classic “sell the controversy” tactics developed by proponents of intelligent design and tobacco companies trying to obfuscate the carcinogenic nature of their product. In many if not most cases the public advocates of the positions you are taking have direct links to or are in fact the very same people trying to redefine science in order to fit their woo.

 

[Trakar]

You don't what the publication being discussed actually is called.

Neither does anyone else here. Now that is actually surprising.

If you are wanting to lay out a conspiracy theory and discuss it in detail, there is a more appropriate forum for that type of discussion.

 

[OCaptain]

Exactly. I used an example from the climategate emails to show how the past is modified, and it's obvious that the defenders of the faith, don't even realize what they are trying to defend.

r-j,

You do realize that emails aren't science, right?

 

[Reality Check]

Why, in 2009, were these scientists secretly discussing changes to the historic records? Where was there work published? What was the purpose?

The better question is why in 2014 can you not understand that there was no proposal to change the historic records stated in that email, r-j?
Or why can you not understand the contents of this private email where a scientist speculates about adding an adjustment to existing temperature data but then points out the problems with it?
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

(my emphasis added)

Did you read the email, r-j - the "work" was "published":

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

So you have a private email about what looks like a private report to this EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute?).

What do you think the purpose of private emails are, r-j?

 

[Reality Check]

You don't what the publication being discussed actually is called.

r-j,anyone who read and understood the email knows that the name of the "publication" is never mentioned !

It is a "a report I (Tom Wigley) am writing for EPRI" which you strangely truncate from your original quote . We have no idea whether Tom Wigley finished the report, what the contents of this report were, whether he gave it to EPRI or what happened to that report at EPRI.

What you truncated was:

So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

The first paragraph confirms a suspicion I have about the email - he may have had the idea that the SST temperatures had an instrumental problem thus the need to adjust them.

 

[r-j]

The first paragraph confirms a suspicion I have about the email - he may have had the idea that the SST temperatures had an instrumental problem thus the need to adjust them.

You couldn't be more wrong. Like I said, nobody here actually has any idea what is being discussed, much less where it was published.

So you have a private email about what looks like a private report to this EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute?).

You can just make things up, but it won't change reality. This started when I pointed out that the past is "adjusted", changed, that data is fluid, flexible, and it can be adjusted to be more in line with what people want it to show.

 

[Reality Check]

You couldn't be more wrong. ...usual insults snipped...

I couldn't be more right: http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

...
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

I know what I think . I had a suspicion from the rest of the email that Tom Wigley may have been thinking about an instrumental error for the sea surface temperature (SST) data (which by the way looks a very bad idea to me!). The first paragraph confirms my suspicion. I may be right. I may be wrong. I am not stupid enough to come to a conclusion from a single private, stolen email with no context !

The inanity of thinking that scientists go back in time and change data should be obvious to you r-j !

You seem ignorant that scientists often apply adjustments to original data as facts about the way the data was collected are discovered. The only thing dubious about the email is that Tom Wigley is speculating that part of the reason that the SST data was cooler than expected was instrumental errors before knowing that there was instrumental errors. That may explain why this speculation does not appear in any publications (otherwise you would cite them , r-j).

 

[Reality Check]

Where was the subject matter of the Wigley email published

Like I said, nobody here actually has any idea what is being discussed, much less where it was published.

Everyone here can read so everyone here knows what is being discussed, r-j!
I know where the email states that the subject matter of the email ("it") would be published. So you are just wrong, r-j - at least one person here knows "where it was published".

Maybe we can make that 2 people, r-j: Where was the subject matter of the Wigley email ("it") published?

 

[Trakar]

Nature 453, 646-649 (29 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06982; Received 28 January 2008; Accepted 4 April 2008


A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature

David W. J. Thompson1, John J. Kennedy2, John M. Wallace3 & Phil D. Jones4

1. Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA
2. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
3. Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
4. Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Correspondence to: David W. J. Thompson1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.W.J.T. (Email: [email protected]).


Topof page
Data sets used to monitor the Earth's climate indicate that the surface of the Earth warmed from approx1910 to 1940, cooled slightly from approx1940 to 1970, and then warmed markedly from approx1970 onward1. The weak cooling apparent in the middle part of the century has been interpreted in the context of a variety of physical factors, such as atmosphere–ocean interactions and anthropogenic emissions of sulphate aerosols2. Here we call attention to a previously overlooked discontinuity in the record at 1945, which is a prominent feature of the cooling trend in the mid-twentieth century. The discontinuity is evident in published versions of the global-mean temperature time series1, but stands out more clearly after the data are filtered for the effects of internal climate variability. We argue that the abrupt temperature drop of approx0.3 °C in 1945 is the apparent result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record. Corrections for the discontinuity are expected to alter the character of mid-twentieth century temperature variability but not estimates of the century-long trend in global-mean temperatures.

 

[Trakar]

Kent, Elizabeth C., Alexey Kaplan, 2006:
Toward Estimating Climatic Trends in SST. Part III: Systematic Biases.
J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 23, 487–500.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH1845.1



Toward Estimating Climatic Trends in SST. Part III: Systematic Biases

Elizabeth C. Kent
National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom
Alexey Kaplan
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York








Abstract


A method is developed to quantify systematic errors in two types of sea surface temperature (SST) observations: bucket and engine-intake measurements. A simple linear model is proposed where the SST measured using a bucket is cooled or warmed by a fraction of the air–sea temperature difference and the SST measured using an engine intake has a constant bias. The model is applied to collocated nighttime observations made at moderate wind speeds, allowing the effects of solar radiation and strong vertical gradients in the upper ocean to be neglected. The analysis is complicated by large random errors in all of the variables used. To estimate coefficients in this model, a novel type of linear regression, where errors in two variables are correlated with each other, is introduced. Because of the uncertainty in a priori estimates of the error covariance matrix, a Bayesian analysis of the regression problem is developed, and maximum likelihood approximations to the posterior distributions of the model parameters are obtained.

Results show that the temperature change in bucket SST resulting from the air–sea temperature difference can be detected. The analysis suggests that bucket SST may be in error by a fraction from 0.12° ± 0.02° to 0.16° ± 0.02°C of the air–sea temperature difference. When this temperature change of the bucket SST is accounted for, a warm bias in engine-intake SST in the mid- to late 1970s and the 1980s was found to be smaller than that suggested by previous studies, ranging between 0.09° ± 0.06° and 0.18° ± 0.05°C. For the early 1990s the model suggests that the engine-intake SSTs may have a cold bias of −0.13° ± 0.07°C.


Received: February 24, 2004; Final Form: July 24, 2005

might also have a look at

http://icoads.noaa.gov/marcdat2/John_Kennedy.ppt

 

[a_unique_person]

You couldn't be more wrong. Like I said, nobody here actually has any idea what is being discussed, much less where it was published.

You can just make things up, but it won't change reality. This started when I pointed out that the past is "adjusted", changed, that data is fluid, flexible, and it can be adjusted to be more in line with what people want it to show.

From the moment scientists decided to create a definitive surface temperature record for the recorded history adjustments were being made. Not to the source data, but to the result. For example, UHI, time of day the observations are made, obvious errors such as missing data. Nothing to see here folks, move along. If you want the raw data, it's all there, that's what the BEST project used.

 

[Belz...]

Like I said, nobody here actually has any idea what is being discussed, much less where it was published.

In other words, you cannot claim that it means anything at all.