Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Robert Prey]

Finally, this only proves that your morality shares the same levels of your intellect. If you were the person you are not, you'd apologize publicly and deeply for promoting falsehood and manipulation. We know you won't so we'll remind everybody what you did here -what is a sample of what you are- on a TIMEly basis.

Never judge a book (or a magazine) by its cover (Dec. 3, 1973)

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19731203,00.html

 

[BenBurch]

Common sense tells me ...

Since when did reality and "common sense" have anything to do with each other?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

 

[Halsu]

Sea Levels Remain Level​

- Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless.
- We are facing a very grave, unethical “sea-level-gate”.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html

Mmm... from wikipedia, about the author:

"Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. [2] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...".[3] In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[17] Mörner declined the offer.[18]"​

Also, this is not as scientific paper but rather an opinion pamphlet published by SPPI, a well known denialist think tank. Oh well...

 

[Megalodon]

Never judge a book (or a magazine) by its cover (Dec. 3, 1973)

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19731203,00.html

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7182[/qimg]

From the "Read the cover story" link in the page you posted:

"SHORTAGES: A Time of Learning to Live with Less
Monday, Dec. 03, 1973

Heavy with cargo, low-riding oil tankers bucked through the windblown South Atlantic last week on their way from the Persian Gulf to Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, New York and other U.S. ports. In a week or so, they will tie up at their destinations—and the U.S. will enter a sterner, more painful new era of energy shortages. These huge ships were the last to be loaded before the Arab states blocked all petroleum shipments to the U.S. in retaliation for American support of Israel. The Arab move is expected to diminish by a..."

So, you once again are caught in a lie.

Pathetic.

 

[bit_pattern]

It's a combination of distortion methods.

1. The graphs are drawn wrong. The measured temperatures and scenario A are more or less correct, but scenarios B and C are simply faulty, drawn to show about 0.2 degrees more warming than in the real Hansen paper (probably they have a wrong offset).

2. Using the Hansen 1988 study is in itself sleight of hand. It's 25 years old, and while it was a good effort at a the time, the predictions were soon found to be a bit too high. For example, the IPCC 1990 report already had lower estimates, pretty much spot on correct compared to the measurements.

3. Ending the graph to 2008, which was a strong La Nina year and as such about the coolest of the 2000's. Also, starting it from around 1980. Both are probably done to give an appearance of no warming.

4. Using the UAH and RSS was probably also deliberate attempt to downplay measured warming. They have a slightly lower trend than the ground station measurements, as well as bigger variation, which also obscures the trend somewhat.

As for evidence of the above, i photoshopped that faulty graph, Hansen's 1988 original and UAH / RSS temperatures from woodfortrees plot together (the X / Y scales should be roughly correct, i eyeballed the reference offset (all three have a different reference zero point):

Brilliant, just brilliant! I got the using UAH/RSS data bit myself, should have picked up on the time series cherry-pick and the changed temperature values, but the rest of it is just great - especially the photoshop overlay - a real education. Putting the E back in JREF

 

[Megalodon]

It's a combination of distortion methods.

1. The graphs are drawn wrong. The measured temperatures and scenario A are more or less correct, but scenarios B and C are simply faulty, drawn to show about 0.2 degrees more warming than in the real Hansen paper (probably they have a wrong offset).

2. Using the Hansen 1988 study is in itself sleight of hand. It's 25 years old, and while it was a good effort at a the time, the predictions were soon found to be a bit too high. For example, the IPCC 1990 report already had lower estimates, pretty much spot on correct compared to the measurements.

3. Ending the graph to 2008, which was a strong La Nina year and as such about the coolest of the 2000's. Also, starting it from around 1980. Both are probably done to give an appearance of no warming.

4. Using the UAH and RSS was probably also deliberate attempt to downplay measured warming. They have a slightly lower trend than the ground station measurements, as well as bigger variation, which also obscures the trend somewhat.

As for evidence of the above, i photoshopped that faulty graph, Hansen's 1988 original and UAH / RSS temperatures from woodfortrees plot together (the X / Y scales should be roughly correct, i eyeballed the reference offset (all three have a different reference zero point):

[qimg]http://eki.pp.fi/temp/Ilmasto/History1988.jpg[/qimg]

Good analysis. The fake projections have been around for some time, IIRC. They are just another blatant lie from the denier camp. The real projections were more realistic, and the surface temperatures follow them quite well.



Can't be bothered to add the last couple of years, but it should be right around the mid-point between the scenario B, which was presented as the most likely, and scenario C, the one with the emission cuts. Hansen et al. didn't predict the increased sulfate emissions from the emerging economies. Other than that they did remarkably well.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Anyone feel like taking a stab at what statistical sleight of hand has been used in constructing this graph?

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/christy-observations-vs-hansen-1988-models.bmp

Why not a more modern version of the graphic by Christy? (now without Roy Spencer)

We have two years more to enjoy.

Just for starters, those graphics are just what you get when you compare pears and peaches to measure the state of the dynamical fruitness.

Christy uses his own controversial UAH "observational" dataset, the lower troposphere (LT) temperatures that, as everybody knows, are exactly the same as surface temperatures , the same way thermometers placed on your forehead, in your ear canal, your armpit or Uranus give exactly the same value, the same temperature you have in your Broca's area, your rightmost toe (the leftmost is a rebel) or around the healthy linseeds your guts are trying to digest to no avail.

Of course, those UAH-LT annual means are validated with the dataset RSS-LT which is basically the same manure but with a different scent and not surprisingly it gives similar results.

Then, you have to compare the prophecies by that devil Hansen -who is sleeping now in his coffin because there's daylight out there- in his Senate testimony during 1988:

When you compare both sets of values the first question that emerges is what is the zero value in both sets. The Hansen's zero is 1950-1980 normals (surface temperature). What values did Christy have previous to 1978? His values suspiciously match the GISS surface modelled temperature dataset at the beginning of his series. Maybe, there's nothing to suspect about because that old model was validated against existing datasets so the model can't differ much from reality around 1980.

The deceiving part of the graphic is the use of "observational" against model: the model never intended to measure the same temperatures that Christy "observes".

About the model, consistent with a time where publications looked like the image containing Hansen's, the Internet was just a nerdy thing with four-eyes using gopher and Mosaic, and a 286 with 2 Mbyte of RAM and 35MHz of clock, and a cache of 128 KByte were the space rockets of the time, not only we can look at it with a forgiving smile, like we'd looked Gutenberg when compared with a laser printer, but we can also see that Hansen may have committed the little sin of choosing individual runs of the model just to avoid showing the lack of intellectual abilities of the senators by using bands and error margins. You can see the saw-like aspect shared by recorded series and individual model runs -likeness that Christy exploits in his favour-. One or two series may contain a volcanic event by 2014, so one may think that Hansen didn't choose runs that matched the average in the end.

There's more to say, but this is a futile exercise that combines old deprecated modelling with controversial datasets in an anecdotal context, all with a few graphical and data-selection tweaks to show what they want to show: damn lies and statistics (besides, the troll has returned)

 

[bit_pattern]

Alaska's Impending Ice Age

Alaska Freezes, headed for ice age

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/forget-global-warming-alaska-headed-ice-age

**Note to mods: All images on Skeptical Science are held under a Creative Commons licence and SkS allows hotlinking**

 

[pakeha]

You should keep track of the fora where you use your deceitful propaganda. You've already used that counterfeit cover here once and you've got busted for doing so. To repeat what is known even by you, this is the original cover:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=976&pictureid=7167[/qimg]

And this is how a Time magazine cover of that date looked like:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=976&pictureid=7168[/qimg] ...

Well, RP, don't you think an apology is in order?

 

[bit_pattern]

Can't be bothered to add the last couple of years, but it should be right around the mid-point between the scenario B, which was presented as the most likely, and scenario C, the one with the emission cuts. Hansen et al. didn't predict the increased sulfate emissions from the emerging economies. Other than that they did remarkably well.

Also, I believe that Hansen used sensitivity estimates from the time that were marginally higher, so when corrected for currently accepted values the fit is a lot better (read that on SkS somewhere)

ETA: oh, Halsu already pointed that out in his reply to my question

 

[bit_pattern]

Why not a more modern version of the graphic by Christy? (now without Roy Spencer)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=907&pictureid=7179[/qimg]

We have two years more to enjoy.

Just for starters, those graphics are just what you get when you compare pears and peaches to measure the state of the dynamical fruitness.

<snipped for brevity>

LOL, as entertaining as always, Alec

 

[aleCcowaN]

Never judge a book (or a magazine) by its cover (Dec. 3, 1973)

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19731203,00.html

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7182

I knew you'd never apologize for your lies, because they were conscious and intentional. I also knew that you'd try to make a mockery of the whole situation: trying to play with a cover about the oil embargo and the November-27-enacted Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act signed by Nixon as if it was about an ice ace or something.

The question is, can you go even lower? I'm sure you won't disappoint us.

 

[Megalodon]

Well, RP, don't you think an apology is in order?

Caught in a lie, he doubled down, trying to pass a story about raising costs of oil during Winter as if about "global cooling".

How much of an apology do you think we'll get from him?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Alaska's Impending Ice Age

Alaska Freezes, headed for ice age

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/forget-global-warming-alaska-headed-ice-age

Sea Levels Remain Level​

- Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless.
- We are facing a very grave, unethical “sea-level-gate”.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html

Why only two, Robert? You know there are a few hundred new blog posts and "press" articles each day that you could quote to overflow the thread. They are crappy, anecdotal, written by Joe Sixpack, and mainly recycling or refurbishing the same old crap.

What does prevent you from trying to overflow this thread with that crap? If you had a tiny drop of courage you'll discuss a single notion or idea. You might show you have it by choosing one argument of each one of your crappy links and explain the notion following the later debate.

We know you won't.

 

[BenBurch]

Caught in a lie, he doubled down, trying to pass a story about raising costs of oil during Winter as if about "global cooling".

How much of an apology do you think we'll get from him?

I expect he will slink off in the next few months and we will never see him again. But never will you see an apology.

 

[aleCcowaN]

From Robert's linkomania:

What's next? Inviting climate scientist to a debate and smashing each one in the head with a candelabra as they're coming in?

 

[pakeha]

^
That reminded me of:

"... fine weather for the concert here this afternoon. I'm standing here in front
of the stage," the reporter lied, \in the middle of the Rudlit Desert, and with
113
the aid of hyperbinoptic glasses I can just about make out the huge audience
cowering there on the horizon all around me. Behind me the speaker stacks rise
like a sheer cliff face, and high above me the sun is shining away and doesn't
know what's going to hit it. The environmentalist lobby do know what's going
to hit it, and they claim that the concert will cause earthquakes, tidal waves,
hurricanes, irreparable damage to the atmosphere, and all the usual things
that environmentalists usually go on about.
\But I've just had a report that a representative of Disaster Area met with
the environmentalists at lunchtime, and had them all shot, so nothing now lies
in the way of ..."

Douglas Adams, TRATEOTU

 

[aleCcowaN]

Meanwhile more and more people are selling shoes, and shoes are becoming worse and worse every day .

 

[lomiller]

Anyone feel like taking a stab at what statistical sleight of hand has been used in constructing this graph?

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/christy-observations-vs-hansen-1988-models.bmp

What they have done is cherry pick a warm year as starting point and then use that as the starting point for all the plots.

This effectively adds about 0.2 – 0.3 degrees to all of the model runs which is enough to make them look warmer than the actual temperatures. Meanwhile because the starting point is warmer than average it hides the warming trend in the actual temperatures.

If you put another 50 years data onto the end what you would see is the trends are parallel with the models being 0.2 – 0.3 degrees warmer (because that’s how much was added to them when the graphic was created)

This dishonest technique actually gets used A LOT. Tamino has a write up that includes the same thing being done elsewhere.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/

 

[macdoc]

Gys like Robert remind me of blind men and the elephant - they take little segments of the entire thing and can't quite put the picture together so choose the bit that suits their particular agenda.

( creative commons image )

Ironic that it's their party icon....not surprising tho.