Global warming

[Schneibster]

I'd like some help in understanding this.

No you wouldn't; you haven't wanted any help in understanding anything since you first appeared on this forum.

You've repeatedly mentioned that the appearance of things here to the lurkers was very important.

You seem to think it is; otherwise, why would you bother with this? It's a complete waste of time. You don't have any evidence that supports your view; that's clear from the fact that you ignore any challenge to that evidence, and engage in rhetoric. People who have strong evidence post it and move on. People who don't have strong evidence play the kind of games you do. It's visible in other threads running on this very forum at this very time, beginning with the "Annoying Creationists" thread and kleinman. It seems to be a universal law that the shakier the evidence a crank has, the more vociferously he presents it, and the more cute rhetoric he engages in. Yours is the cutest of all, presented the most vociferously of all. It's to the point where no one even bothers to refute your evidence, because you have so many times ignored the refutation, or waited until later to bring it up again like it was all new and nobody had ever challenged it.

Apparently there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings and the lack of actual arguments to certain scientific issues.

This is axiomatic; it's an open forum. Not everyone is bold or interested enough to bother to post. You seem to think it's worth your time, or I guess you wouldn't be here. I certainly can't account for it any other way.

Based on that, these lurkers will vote.

So you appear to believe. You also appear to believe that it is still possible for you to influence what they believe, for whatever reason.

That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place here.

It's your actions that tell me you believe so.

These lurkers are diligently searching and poring over the veracity of JREF posts on global warming to assist in their important decision on this vote.

What vote would that be?

Haven't got a clue. Why are you here? Who are you? That would let me conjecture further. I've rarely seen the kind of dedication you've brought to the game; most cranks give up after a little while.

 

[mhaze]

DR:
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.
​

Schneib:
Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.
​

MHAZE:
Who will vote? What vote would that be?
​

Schneib:
I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.

​

Mhaze:

I'd like some help in understanding this. There are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings...Based on that, these lurkers will vote.....That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place....What vote would that be?
​

Scheib:
Haven't got a clue. Why are you here? Who are you? That would let me conjecture further.

Haven't got a clue? But you said they were going to vote, that this discussion was important for them in their vote, and now you don't know for what or for whom? Further conjectures? They might indeed help resolve these apparently glaring inconsistencies in your statements....

 

[Schneibster]

Hey, you're the one who thinks the matter is important enough to play rhetorical games and lie about; I can only speculate as to your motives, and I make no claim that my speculations will be consistent.

 

[varwoche]

Climate models consistent with ocean warming observations

This according to Livermore Labs and Scripps, 2007:

Climate models are reliable tools that help researchers better understand the observed record of ocean warming and variability.

That’s the finding of a group of Livermore scientists, who in collaboration with colleagues at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, had earlier established that climate models can replicate the ocean warming observed during the latter half of the 20th century, and that most of this recent warming is caused by human activities.

The observational record also shows substantial variability in ocean heat content on interannual-to-decadal time scales. The new research by Livermore scientists demonstrates that climate models represent this variability much more realistically than previously believed.

Using 13 numerical climate models, the researchers found that the apparent discrepancies between modeled and observed variability can be explained by accounting for changes in observational coverage and instrumentation and by including the effects of volcanic eruptions.

... casts doubt on recent findings that the top 700-meters of the global ocean cooled markedly from 2003-2005.

 

[fsol]

Christi's opinions on the report you mention are a matter of record. They are highly dissenting.

(A) we can go look at what Christi has to say about the report
(B) we can read the report and note that Christi's name is on it and claim that he agrees with it

Isn't (B) a bit ridiculous?

As far as I can see from DRs link Christy would rather that a statement was phrased slightly differently to how it turned out. Now my limited comprehension of the change in phrasing is not that it would alter the meaning of that phrase in anyway.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.”

vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists..."

Both formulations state that the discrepancies are not significant. There seems to be no disagreement on the conclusion, just on the way to describe it.

If you have more? A journal paper perhaps? Where he details his objections and the reasoning behind them?

 

[David Rodale]

This according to Livermore Labs and Scripps, 2007:

You're a bit behind the times. The Lyman update October 26 has confirmed no cooling or warming from 2003-2006, however no new data since then. Based on the latest ENSO/SST data and cyclone energy, would you conclude ocean heat content has risen or dropped?

Let's look at NOAA's predictions for ENSO and SST. SCRIPPS (from your link) predicts no drop but in fact a gain in ENSO. It looks like no matter what happens, it can be claimed "the models were spot on".
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf



Based on the above information, what do you think is going on?

 

[David Rodale]

As far as I can see from DRs link Christy would rather that a statement was phrased slightly differently to how it turned out. Now my limited comprehension of the change in phrasing is not that it would alter the meaning of that phrase in anyway.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.”

vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists..."

Both formulations state that the discrepancies are not significant. There seems to be no disagreement on the conclusion, just on the way to describe it.

If you have more? A journal paper perhaps? Where he details his objections and the reasoning behind them?

Read the rest of his summary. You didn't answer my question. Is it appropriate for authors to evaluate their own work?
The CCSP is not a journal paper.

 

[mhaze]

DR:
Never, whatever you do, try to refute the findings. That would imply you actually have an argument.
​

Schneib:
Whether you recognize refutation is immaterial. On the other hand, I'm sure there are lurkers who are capable of evaluating it, and who do so, and who will vote.
​

MHAZE:
Who will vote? What vote would that be?
​

Schneib:
I'm trying to decide if you're disingenuous, that is, lying, or actually this stupid.
​

Mhaze:

I'd like some help in understanding this. There are lurkers who are capable of evaluating the immateriality of refutations of scientific findings...Based on that, these lurkers will vote.....That must be some pretty important vote and this must be some really important place....What vote would that be?
​

Scheib:
Haven't got a clue. Why are you here? Who are you? That would let me conjecture further.
​

Mhaze:

Haven't got a clue? But you said they were going to vote, that this discussion was important for them in their vote, and now you don't know for what or for whom? Further conjectures? They might indeed help resolve these apparently glaring inconsistencies in your statements....
​

Schneib:
...I make no claim that my speculations will be consistent.

Well, that's interesting.

 

[mhaze]

As far as I can see from DRs link Christy would rather that a statement was phrased slightly differently to how it turned out. Now my limited comprehension of the change in phrasing is not that it would alter the meaning of that phrase in anyway.

“The magnitude of these global discrepancies is not significant.”

vs.

"This significant discrepancy no longer exists..."

Both formulations state that the discrepancies are not significant. There seems to be no disagreement on the conclusion, just on the way to describe it.

If you have more? A journal paper perhaps? Where he details his objections and the reasoning behind them?

I thought these had been recently posted; if not here they are. Essentially Christy had a dissenting opinion. Make your own conclusions, but always read the source documents.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf

 

[Schneibster]

I thought these had been recently posted; if not here they are. Essentially Christy had a dissenting opinion. Make your own conclusions, but always read the source documents.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf

The string "Christy" does not appear in any of the first three links. I can't read the PDF, so I can't see whether it's in there, but considering that it's by Roger Pielke, it's unlikely to contain any comments by Christy.

Basically, you've got no answer, so you post links to make it look like the answer is there, and then try to make a big enough smokescreen no one notices. Just another lie in the long litany.

 

[mhaze]

I thought these had been recently posted; if not here they are. Essentially Christy had a dissenting opinion. Make your own conclusions, but always read the source documents.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...ort-published/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...g-differences/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/...eport-appears/
Public comment by Dr. Roger Pielke: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...pdf/NR-143.pdf

Sorry, those are Pielke's issues when resigning from that circus (CCSP) of which we speak. Here is Christy, discussing this issue and related blunders of "consensus science"-

http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_EC_v2Written.pdf

 

[fsol]

Read the rest of his summary...
The CCSP is not a journal paper.

I have read the rest of his Testimony.

I'll see if I can access those papers he mentions when I am at work tomorrow.

He takes a leap and goes off about policy and biofuels for some reason.

I find at the beginning this particuarly bizarre...

I then include comments on my view of the unfortunate and incorrect attempt to demonize energy and its by-products. Without energy, life is brutal and short.

Not withstanding that without energy there wouldn't be life at all, never mind it being "brutal and short." Just who are these demonizers of energy anyway? There seems to be plenty of people pushing for more renewable energy useage. Somehow that is turned into people demonizing energy. At best it is a straw man that he repeats another couple of times and at worst, well it is bizarre.

In any case he clearly says that yes the planet is warming and at least some of that warming is due to AGW. He disputes the accuracy of models because he thinks his data shows something different.

Actually from google this is one of those papers

http://www.redorbit.com/news/busine...iagnosis_of_nonclimatic_influences/index.html

and here is the abstract to the other,

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml

I don't realy follow the first one. Superficially skimming over it, I think it is to do with figuring out reasons why the data sets are a bit jumpy. Changes in software method, measurement devices perhaps, that sort of thing.

The second one, from the abstract only, seems to say that concerning the tropics only, then the troposphere is not warming as fast as the surface. And that would be why, in his testimony he makes a big deal about how interesting the tropics data is. Which, you know it might be however, as far as I can tell he still doesn't disagree with the statement "This significant discrepancy no longer exists..." for the global data sets except for the way it is phrased.

You didn't answer my question. Is it appropriate for authors to evaluate their own work?

I don't understand the point of your question.

 

[fsol]

Sorry, those are Pielke's issues when resigning from that circus (CCSP) of which we speak. Here is Christy, discussing this issue and related blunders of "consensus science"-

http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy/ChristyJR_EC_v2Written.pdf

He doesn't say anything much different there than he does in the link DR provided. He is concerned with the phrasing of the statement but doesn't say that the statement is incorrect.

 

[mhaze]

I have read the rest of his Testimony.

I'll see if I can access those papers he mentions when I am at work tomorrow.

He takes a leap and goes off about policy and biofuels for some reason.

I find at the beginning this particuarly bizarre...

Not withstanding that without energy there wouldn't be life at all, never mind it being "brutal and short." Just who are these demonizers of energy anyway? There seems to be plenty of people pushing for more renewable energy useage. Somehow that is turned into people demonizing energy. At best it is a straw man that he repeats another couple of times and at worst, well it is bizarre.

In any case he clearly says that yes the planet is warming and at least some of that warming is due to AGW. He disputes the accuracy of models because he thinks his data shows something different.

Christy has worked down in Africa. I'd say he speaks from experience about life without energy being "brutal and short". Recently he spoke on TV and made a point of mentioning that he was "in favor of coal power plants for Africa". That's a roundabout way of saying industrialization is good, "sustainable energy" for Africa is very, very bad. (another whole argument therein, having to do with Kyoto promoting a sort of eco-colonialism of the third world).

He's published work that as far as the geographical areas that it covers, shows a clear indication that land utilization changes dwarf CO2 issue as a local or regional AGW issue.

It'd be a mistake to simply put slap a contrarian label on the man....

 

[fsol]

Christy has worked down in Africa. I'd say he speaks from experience about life without energy being "brutal and short". Recently he spoke on TV and made a point of mentioning that he was "in favor of coal power plants for Africa". That's a roundabout way of saying industrialization is good, "sustainable energy" for Africa is very, very bad.
(another whole argument therein, having to do with Kyoto promoting a sort of eco-colonialism of the third world).

Non-Annex 1 countries were exempt from curbing emissions under Kyoto.

He's published work that as far as the geographical areas that it covers, shows a clear indication that land utilization changes dwarf CO2 issue as a local or regional AGW issue.

Is there such thing as a local or regional global issue? It doesn't really scan very well.

It'd be a mistake to simply put slap a contrarian label on the man....

It'd be a mistake to hold him up as a saint and stick a vast global conspiracy label on all the other people researching climate change who happen to agree that AGW is real and we should really try and do something about it.

 

[lenny]

Climate models are heavily parameterized and tuned (forced) to match observations. They also use many assumptions and in a word are numerical expressions of the views of the programmer. One assumption is climate sensitivity, which the Roe/Baker paper is addressing.

i thought climate sensitivity was an "output" of the experiment, not an assumption one coded into the model? does one specify the climate sensitivity of a given model a priori, or compute it by running the model?

 

[lenny]

Armstrong et al. We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Does anyone care to discuss the theory and practice of his approach to the IPCC Chapter 8 findings?

No takers.

i'd be happy to discuss Armstrong et al and its relevance to forecasting physical systems if you'd like. are you happy to defend the claims it makes?

 

[lenny]

It's not going up. Find one scientist who thinks it is. Met O doesn't, why do you?

can you specify your claim for me: What exactly does the met office say is not "going up"? (or fails to claim...). i'd like to know specifically what the factiod being argued here is. just a selfstanding statement in a sentence of two. thanks.

 

[Pipirr]

Incidentally...

Tamino has a rather excellent post up, showing various methods for obtaining trends from temperature datasets. Its a great primer on the subject, graphs in abundance.

I really do recommend it to anyone as a beginner's guide to analysing temperature data.

And, as he says at the end,

I hope it gives some insight into the many complications that can arise when trying to answer as simple a question as whether or not a single temperature time series shows warming or cooling, or not. Certainly the most naive analyses can go astray in a number of ways.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/analyze-this/#more-465

 

[mhaze]

i'd be happy to discuss Armstrong et al and its relevance to forecasting physical systems if you'd like. are you happy to defend the claims it makes?

For the most part, yes. In this case, it's Chapter 8 of the IPCC stuff that's at question. There's certainly a lot to be found at fault there, but here we address the question of how Armstrong's method helps or does not help in analyzing problems with Chapter 8.

Chapter 8 is the section on Climate Models. Take a look at section 8 and I'll re read it, it's been a while.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch08.pdf

Take a look at Armstrong's paper and see what you think - it's not so much about forecasting physical systems as a critique of the use of computer models and a critique of the people using them.

Armstrong's Congressional Briefing video and power point here.
Paper "Global Warming: Scientific Forecasts or Forecasts by Scientists?".

Please note the exact wording I used -

Does anyone care to discuss the theory and practice of his approach to the IPCC Chapter 8 findings?

I find Armstrong's approach and economics in general interesting, but a lot of folks do not - to each their own, right?