Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[W.D.Clinger]

So, the fact that Steven McIntyre has demonstrated repeatedly that the math the climatologists are using is wrong

I must have missed that. Can you provide citations?

Even though he has been shown to be absolutely correct?

I must have missed that also. Can you provide citations?

McIntyre has been shown to be wrong repeatedly. Hardly surprising when he's not a mathematician

That's unfair. McIntyre says he earned a BSc from the University of Toronto, and states that his "focus was on pure mathematics---courses like algebraic topology, group theory and differentiable manifolds. I stood 2nd in my class in 3 of 4 years."

Also he does have a Bachelors in mathematics so he's not a complete philistine.

Agreed.

You should realize, however, that some participants in this thread have earned higher degrees in mathematics, and many participants have earned higher degrees in subjects that are more relevant than pure mathematics. It would be hypocritical for you to argue for McIntyre's authority on the basis of credentials that are rather less impressive than the credentials of those whose authority you deny.

It seems to me that McIntyre's self-taught expertise in statistics is more relevant to climate science than his academic background. On the other hand, McIntyre does not appear to have published any real research papers in statistical journals, so you shouldn't try to make too much of that either.

And the NAS found significant problems with Manns methodology according to Wegman, so the Hockey Stick (and all of those that support it....which used the same methods and data, so it figures they would get the same result, no?) is really not that robust after all.

You appear to be confused.

In response to a request from Congress, the National Research Council released a 160-page report. Two members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Barton and Whitfield) wanted a report that would be more critical of Mann's research, so they also asked Edward Wegman and a couple of his friends to produce an ad hoc report. These are two separate reports. Apart from one irrelevant footnote, the main body of the Wegman report does not mention NAS or NRC.

The NRC report did find some problems with Mann's methodology, but it would be quite misleading to suggest that NRC judged those problems to be as significant as you believe them to be. In particular, the NRC report did not disagree with "the basic conclusion" of Mann's research:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence....

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium....

The Wegman report also agreed that "global warming is a fact." Wegman et al. went on to state their personal opinion that "there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99." Wegman et al. also stated their personal opinion that Mann et al. had misused principal components analysis, but hastened "to repeat that the Earth is getting warmer." They acknowledged that others "have reproduced the MBH98 results."

It therefore appears that both the NRC report and the Wegman report are incompatible with your allegations.

 

[lomiller]

Found this interesting.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/366

Essentially is argues greenhouse warming at the end of the Permian left tropical regions uninhabitable to most life leaving them as a dead zone for millions of years.

Global warming is widely regarded to have played a contributing role in numerous past biotic crises. Here, we show that the end-Permian mass extinction coincided with a rapid temperature rise to exceptionally high values in the Early Triassic that were inimical to life in equatorial latitudes and suppressed ecosystem recovery. This was manifested in the loss of calcareous algae, the near-absence of fish in equatorial Tethys, and the dominance of small taxa of invertebrates during the thermal maxima. High temperatures drove most Early Triassic plants and animals out of equatorial terrestrial ecosystems and probably were a major cause of the end-Smithian crisis.

 

[BenBurch]

I would not need either Hansen not Mann to tell you the current degree of warming within broad limits. I would look at movement of the tree line and the loss of arctic ice and I'd know that there was warming.

And there are about 1000 other guys doing similar sorts of work and coming up with compatible answers.

You can no more impeach AGW with Hansen and Mann than you can impeach gravitation by pointing out that Newton was an Alchemist.

 

[lomiller]

Found this interesting.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/366

Essentially is argues greenhouse warming at the end of the Permian left tropical regions uninhabitable to most life leaving them as a dead zone for millions of years.

Global warming is widely regarded to have played a contributing role in numerous past biotic crises. Here, we show that the end-Permian mass extinction coincided with a rapid temperature rise to exceptionally high values in the Early Triassic that were inimical to life in equatorial latitudes and suppressed ecosystem recovery. This was manifested in the loss of calcareous algae, the near-absence of fish in equatorial Tethys, and the dominance of small taxa of invertebrates during the thermal maxima. High temperatures drove most Early Triassic plants and animals out of equatorial terrestrial ecosystems and probably were a major cause of the end-Smithian crisis.

 

[CapelDodger]

There are at least 4 surface station records and 2 satellite records for this and they all get the same results. Are you suggesting he snuck in at night and altered their data?

Oh yes. He can do that. Just like the CRU can conceal data held and owned in other countries. Just like Mann et al froze the data available for climate reconstructions - because he can.

Steve McIntyre said so.

Again, all the adjustments made are documented in the peer review literature and all of them are perfectly justified. You not liking the outcome doesn’t alter the accuracy of these data sets one bit.

Ah, but he has a reference to a single obscure paper which throws everything into contention again. Boo-yah, Arctic sea-ice is recovering and it was all a terrible dream. Because, of course, everything is driven by surface temperatures and, since they've been adjusted, sea-ice must have been adjusted too. It's all connected.

It’s going up 10X faster than the average warming during the last de-glaciation. Is that not enough of a “sky rocket” for you?

I once saw mention of a 1stBCE Chinese paper which cast doubt on whether rockets work at all unless they're shaped like bumblebees. So who can say that anything can skyrocket?

Not that it matters. Temperatures are going up as quickly as predicted, so if this doesn’t qualify as “sky rocketing” neither do the predictions.

And, more to the point, the consequences are upon us. Of course it's really not about average ground-temperatures over the year, it's about rainbelts shifting and there being more water up there to suddenly come down on you. With rapid change in the Arctic, a geopolitical shift unlike anything since the 18thCE is taking place (and the tortuous path to the First Russo-Canadian War will be traced by future historians back to about now. Hopefully one of them will find this post in an archive and give me some credit ).

 

[aleCcowaN]

So, the fact that Steven McIntyre has demonstrated repeatedly that the math the climatologists are using is wrong ...

What meaning of "demonstrate" are you using here? Remember you're saying "(he) demonstrated repeatedly".

 

[bobwtfomg]

What AGW? So far all i see are computer models. The empirical data shows that the last 1000 years has been remarkably stable. Even the UK's MET Office has released a report that shows the last 16 years have been steady. Phil Jones has attempted to refute that but even if you agree with his assertions the rise is within the error bars of the study. The MET Office themselves predicted in 2009 thet 3 of the next 5 years would set temp records. That appears unlikely now.

Seems to me that AGW has taken a vacation. Which, if the theory was correct, shouldn't be possible. The claims that you all have made for the last 15 years was that tipping point after tipping point was being passed and we were going to enter into a period of runaway warming.

The world temps ahve levelled off and the CO2 levels have continued to rise.

Please explain how that is possible given the tenets of the AGW hypothesis.

Yes regular readers of this thread are aware of the Daily Mail article about the MET office "report" as it was disscussed in depth about 4 or 5 pages back.

here is the MET office's response
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

and a more in depth article rebutting the article's claims
http://skepticalscience.net/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

 

[CapelDodger]

Found this interesting.

Interesting indeed, but now you're likely to be accused of predicting it.

I think it's best to stick to what's going on, in science and in reality, and is likely to go on in the medium term. Deniers look mostly to history, the further back the better but at least to the day they made their names. For McIntyre, the day he and McKitrick thought they'd broken the hockey-stick. For Watts, the day he said it was the urban heat island. For Lindzen and Christie the day they said sensitivity was low. For Curry nobody can pin it down with any degree of accuracy, but sometime in the last few years. A bit of a late entrant there. Went into the market at its peak and, having staked all, might as well hang in there. Where some see error-bars others see hope.

 

[lenny]

lenny you may find this site useful

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

thx bobwtfomg,

indeed very useful to me.

some of their short answers are at best misleading - but the detailed ones seem pretty good so far.

 

[RandFan]

[delurk] Just want to say thanks to everyone for contributing. Good stuff. [/delurk]

 

[lenny]

For Curry nobody can pin it down with any degree of accuracy, but sometime in the last few years. A bit of a late entrant there. Went into the market at its peak and, having staked all, might as well hang in there. Where some see error-bars others see hope.

so do you view judy curry as in the antiscience lobby? i have not read much of her writing, but she spoke at a royal soc meeting a few weeks ago, and did not say anything that struck me as silly.

seemed to me she was arguing that those who suppress error bars see very little. the fact the uncertainties are large (and will be shown to be "larger" in the next IPCC report than in the last one) is no reason for inaction. suppressing the fact we known that they are large risks losing the public argument through needless/reckless oversell.

 

[CapelDodger]

All this says is that the adjustments actually have an impact on the final result. Which is really a "well duh" conclusions because if they didn't the adjustments would not be required in the first place.

In the paper published in an obscure Greek journal which Westwall happened upon in his untiring quest for scientific truth, the availability of the raw data and the methodology is rather central to its point. Data untainted by the hand of Mann, or even Hansen.

The biggest single adjustment by far is for time of day.

We all know who got terribly excited before he heard about that, don't we?

Older practices for when in the day you collected readings yielded artificially warm temperatures. If you fail to adjust for this it leaves an artificial cooling trend in the final result.

It was mostly about rather belated standardisation driven by automation. Watts hilariously declared that he didn't believe that the change was really made by observers who'd prefer to sleep in - until he heard about the automation. Which was a cost-cutting exercise, and what's not to like about that? Gumment getting smaller.

 

[a_unique_person]

so do you view judy curry as in the antiscience lobby? i have not read much of her writing, but she spoke at a royal soc meeting a few weeks ago, and did not say anything that struck me as silly.

seemed to me she was arguing that those who suppress error bars see very little. the fact the uncertainties are large (and will be shown to be "larger" in the next IPCC report than in the last one) is no reason for inaction. suppressing the fact we known that they are large risks losing the public argument through needless/reckless oversell.

Curry presents numerous anti-science topics on her blog. She publishes very little that makes any sense about her claims. When pressed for details she always shies away.

 

[SezMe]

That's unfair. McIntyre says he earned a BSc from the University of Toronto, and states that his "focus was on pure mathematics---courses like algebraic topology, group theory and differentiable manifolds. I stood 2nd in my class in 3 of 4 years."

Actually, the criticism is mostly fair. There is scant overlap between his focus and the field of applied mathematical modeling of complex environmental systems. Grid size, the appropriate mathematical representation of physical and chemical systems, boundary conditions, translation of real data into model inputs, and on and on, are all important issues that a pure mathematician would have no more expertise on than a 7-11 clerk. "Mathematics" is much too broad a field to claim expertise in - or even working knowledge of.

 

[macdoc]

WW

The claims that you all have made for the last 15 years was that tipping point after tipping point was being passed and we were going to enter into a period of runaway warming.

Would you like to point out anyone here or in any science journal stating that we were entering into a period of runaway warming???

The world temps ahve levelled off and the CO2 levels have continued to rise.

Amongst a number of other reasons covered off earlier

C02 continues to rise and physics remain the same even if a lot of volcanoes go off at once releasing SO2 ....Pinatubo put AGW on hold for two years all by itself.

Instead of multiple volcanoes we have increasing industrialization in the far east producing both S02 and particulates to the point where solar radiation at ground level is reduced 25% in some areas of China.
This occurred before during the period of global dimming before S02 was curbed in the western industrial nations.

Introduction of S02 is being mentioned a method of geo-engineering the climate. Funny that.

In addition the atmosphere is very transient compared to the cryosphere and hydrosphere.

You be sure to let us know the minute this changes eh

Ice and water have tremendous hysteresis compared to atmosphere.....doesn't need any model to see where it's heading...

http://www.skepticalscience.net/graphics.php?g=65

The fish populations don't need a model either.....

North Atlantic Fish Populations Shifting As Ocean Temperatures Warm
ScienceDaily (Nov. 4, 2009) — About half of 36 fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, many of them commercially valuable species, have been shifting northward over the last four decades, with some stocks nearly disappearing from U.S. waters as they move farther offshore, according to a new study by NOAA researchers.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102172247.htm

They appear to have a far better grasp of what going on with their planet than you do.

 

[This is The End]

I don't usually post in this thread, but I saw this weird article, so here it is:

‘Rogue climate hacker’ dumps tons of iron into the Pacific Ocean

Russ George, an American businessman, ordered 100 tons of iron sulphate to be dumped into the Pacific Ocean from west Canada in July. The dump<snip> has gained international attention from environmentalists and civil society groups saying it was a violation of laws. <snip>

George released the iron into the ocean to achieve a geoengineering technique called ocean fertilization. The theory said the iron will increase the number of plankton, which would mean more carbon dioxide absorption, allowing the tiny sea creatures to sink to the ocean bed with their carbon. Satellite images have recently provided evidence that George’s experiment is working as there is an obvious boom in plankton in the area.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Actually, the criticism is mostly fair.

I'm sorry, but CapelDodger said McIntyre isn't a mathematician. That criticism was both inaccurate and unfair.

McIntyre does appear to have a BSc in mathematics. Although he says his undergraduate focus was on pure mathematics, he appears to have earned his living as an applied mathematician working in the mineral industry.

There is scant overlap between his focus and the field of applied mathematical modeling of complex environmental systems.

Agreed.

Grid size, the appropriate mathematical representation of physical and chemical systems, boundary conditions, translation of real data into model inputs, and on and on, are all important issues that a pure mathematician would have no more expertise on than a 7-11 clerk.

You must be acquainted with an unusually impressive set of 7-Eleven clerks. The 7-Eleven clerks I know would bring considerably less expertise to bear on those issues than would the pure mathematicians I know.

"Mathematics" is much too broad a field to claim expertise in - or even working knowledge of.

I disagree.

I agree that it's impossible to be a true expert in all areas of mathematics.

When someone claims general expertise in mathematics, however, they are claiming a basic level of expertise in the major areas of mathematics (primarily algebra, analysis, and geometry/topology, which are the areas emphasized by the GRE Subject Test in mathematics).

That level of expertise is neither impossible nor meaningless. Indeed, that level of expertise is equivalent to basic working knowledge of what mathematicians judge to be the most important areas of mathematics.

Some mathematicians are qualified to teach any math course in the standard undergraduate math curriculum. For you to deny their claim to expertise in "mathematics" (your quotes) is silly.

Stephen McIntyre does not possess that level of mathematical expertise, but it is inaccurate and unfair to say he's not a mathematician.

 

[Westwall]

Found this interesting.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/366

Essentially is argues greenhouse warming at the end of the Permian left tropical regions uninhabitable to most life leaving them as a dead zone for millions of years.

Yes, I wonder how they arrived at that conclusion with no empirical evidence to support it.

 

[Westwall]

I would not need either Hansen not Mann to tell you the current degree of warming within broad limits. I would look at movement of the tree line and the loss of arctic ice and I'd know that there was warming.

And there are about 1000 other guys doing similar sorts of work and coming up with compatible answers.

You can no more impeach AGW with Hansen and Mann than you can impeach gravitation by pointing out that Newton was an Alchemist.

And I would agree with you about the warming.. It's the cause of that warming where we differ. There is now ample evidence (over 100 peer reviewed papers) that the MWP and the RWP were global in extent and warmer than the current warming.

The warming of the present time (begun over 150 years ago) is nothing more than the regular cycles of warming and cooling that have been experienced since the end of the last ice age.

 

[bit_pattern]

. Where some see error-bars others see hope.

Great line! :thumbup: