This thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change (use the IPCC The IPCC Assessment Reports as a baseline).
Please be advised:
Your comment will be ignored without mercy &/or have one of the following texts appended, or even substituted for it IF:
- It does not fully reference and link science based sources; not necessarily peer reviewed literature, but sources which are ultimately based on peer reviewed science in a manner that can be verified.
- The argument is based on a logical fallacy such as cherry picking or an ad hominem Check First!
- It merely repeats one of the Denier memes well known to be idiotic nonsense Check First!
- It merely propagates some Denier spam post that has already been debunked as nonsense Check First!
It is simple courtesy and your responsibility to do your home work. If your comment does not meet ALL of the above criteria then it does not belong here (or anywhere else for that matter).
Comments will be deleted without mercy &/or have one of the following texts appended, or substituted for it IF:
- It attacks individuals;
- It replicates at length arguments that could simply have been linked;
- It duplicates other comments you have made in this thread or elsewhere on this site;
- It is a copy of a comment that you spam climate sites with.
ALL posters, please do not engage or reply to policy violators. I will be dealing with their comments as soon as possible which will leave your comment contextless.
That being said
If you are contributing something truly new and science based, wonderful! … that is most welcome. Please, post away … but one small question first.
If you truly do have something science based and rational which undermines the core scence of anthropogenic climate change, why are you posting it here and not publishing in Nature or Science?
Greenfyre's 
In the interest of fairness and cool-headedness:
I went to your search box and typed “mars polar ice caps” and the search came up EMPTY.
So, now if someone else wants to search here for that phrase, here it is (an article by National Geographic):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
“Mars Melt HINTS at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming”.
Notice the word **HINTS** in the title.
I have no comment, I’m just pointing to an article your readers may or may not have seen (because your search box came up empty when queried).
I hope this helps. My intention is to help, not flame or cause trouble.
—–
CoSyBob (Bob Armstrong) appears to have moved to :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/02/senate-climate-bill-delayed-copenhagen?commentpage=2&commentposted=1
where he wrote:
“A ubiquitous starting point for warming theories is in fact an incorrect version of the equation which has the earth absorbing energy as a gray body but emitting as if black” .
and I replied:
Although it is not true in Denialophysics, one symbol in Physics in a particular analysis is used to denote a single quantity with a single value. Thus if the term e for emissivity appears, it will not have one value for emission and another for absorption. On the other hand because the Earth is “coloured” it is nothing like a gray body which means that you need at the very least one value of e for short waves (visible) and another for long ones (infra-red).
In the simplest accounts you often see the assumption that the incoming short waves are reduced by the factor (1-A) where A is the albedo. This reduction factor does not apply to the outgoing infra-red energy. Most substances are almost black for infra-red but not for visible light.
—-
Why would I be embarrassed for pointing to a news article?
Aristotle said the mark of an educated mind is that it can entertain an idea without accepting it.
Entertainment of different ideas is a good thing. I’m not the least bit embarrassed.
If you read my planetary temperature pages on my CoSy.com and my array language implementation of the gray body case , you will see my next step is to implement the SB/K equation for full spectra at which time it will provide quantitative , testable values for any spectra including changes from any change in the already quite saturated CO2 lines . Please go to Wikipedia’s Stefan-Boltzmann and Black Body pages and have them correct their total lack of mention that only with differences in correlation between the “colors” of an object and its sources and sinks of heat can you get a and e to be different . Also , you might contact some of the textbook writers those pages reference to have them correct their opening pages .
From your comments , then , you must realize that any change in solar temperature will change all planets’ temperatures by calculable amounts . And that the common assertion that Venus’s extreme temperature is due to some “runaway” effect is physical nonsense .
I also see a lot of confusion between mean and rate , which amounts to variance over a cycle . While changes in CO2 around the current concentrations have a minuscule effect on mean temperature , it does have a substantial role in transferring heat back and forth to the “transparent” components of the atmosphere and thereby has a significant effect on diurnal variance . Yes CO2 helps keep us warm at night , but it also slows the warming in the morning .
—-
Some refocussing is necessary. First settle your original point which referred to the calculation of the Earth’s temperature in the absence of an atmosphere (and hence of CO2). Do you still seriously disagree with the rough estimates in the vicinity of (-25 degs. C ) given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Temperature_of_Earth ?
At this level of accuracy, there is no need to resort to computer code.
Bob Armstrong
Some refocussing is necessary. First settle your original point which referred to the calculation of the Earth’s temperature in the absence of an atmosphere (and hence of CO2). Do you still seriously disagree with the rough estimates in the vicinity of (-25 degs. C ) given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Temperature_of_Earth ?
At this level of accuracy, there is no need to resort to computer code.
Atmosphere is nowhere in the equations . It only concerns spectra . You have to get that right first .
Yes , the Wikipedia page edited from a correct to wrong equation about a year ago when absorptivity was inappropriately added to the left side of the equation with the corresponding emissivity added to the right side . This it has earth absorbing as a gray body but emitting as a black body . See its discussion . It’s an embarrassment to Wikipedia .
My computer code is as succinct as the equations in traditional notation . But allows immediate calculation of some fundamental cases . For instance , confirming that uniform albedo per se has no effect , or that Venus is twice as hot as even an object black facing the sun and totally reflective on the night side could be heated by the sun in its orbit .
You may be content to continue to speak in generalities , which leaves you open to believe fantasies , but actual science requires calculation . It’s ironic you make that comment when the entire AGW idiocy is based on complex navier-stokes simulations which somehow have become detached from the basic equations which relate our temperature to the sun’s .
Bob,
Feel free to post your source code here (or just a link to it).
Opps , that should be “without the corresponding emissivity added to the right…”
It’s all at http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm and a bunch of other pages on my site .
Hello, Bob,
Is that you on the Manhattan Declaration? at the top of the list of signatories with Tim Ball and assorted marketing and free enterprise ‘realists’ ? 😉
But seriously, all joking aside, you believe that classical physics shows that AGW is all wrong.
You believe that you are scientifically more mature in your understanding of SB equations than the physics experts in climatology.
And you believe that the correct physics is implemented at your site and it shows AGW is a fraud.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. Your degree in mathematical psychology from 30 years ago might suggest to some that you are not current in climate physics, but you may very well be and I’m certainly not rejecting that possibility.
However, I am curious how the experts in climate physics have come to have the fundamental physics all wrong.
Other than a totalitarian-style silencing of dissent, or fraud and fabrication on the part of the majority of the world’s climate scientists (perhaps to get lucrative AGW-biased government grants?), what possible explanation can there be, Bob?
I haven’t seen the list but it must be me on the Manhattan Declaration ; I got to the 1st Heartland meeting in NYC .
Follow the money . The “experts” who have come to conclusions so unconstrained by this textbook physics have in common rice bowls filled by the billions of dollars the US and other governments , and rich “green” NGOs have dispensed to provide an excuse for centralized control of essentially all commerce . What surprises and saddens me is that no matter what outrageous physical improbabilities and impossibilities the alarmists spout , such as a 20ft sea level rise this century , or the Venus temperature idiocy , it never raises doubt among those who believe somehow that the State is infallible and benevolent despite all history to the contrary .
In grad school and thru out my life , I’ve seen how people may be quite able to parrot equations , and even get good grades in classes , but not really “grok” , to use Heinlein’s term , the all pervasive reality of what those equations imply . Note , I see the same failing on both sides of the debate . You have enormously complex data collection and analysis and simulations of climate , but somehow they are left disconnected from the constraints of the most basic relationship with the sun . As a consequence , you never see actual quantitative statements from the alarmists , or experimental proof of their purported effect . Even the crudest correct gray body calculation of the century old Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff relationship shows we must be about 1/21 the temperature of the sun . And we are . The sun’s about 5800 kelvin and we’re about 280 . The total change in our temperature over the last century amounts to less than a third of a percent or so .
By the end of my decade in grad school , I was hanging out almost completely in the math department and the computer center ( computers had their own building back then . ) I’ve lived my adult life since then in the most powerful computing notations , often described as “tools of thought” .
I’ve taught myself the basics of radiant heat transfer over the last decade or so because the notion that small changes in the spectrum due to a little additional saturation of CO2’s lines made no sense to me , partly because I had internalized as a little boy reading science books instead of being out play ball , what I’ve since learned was Kirchhoff’s brilliant observation 150 years ago this year , that whether an object was light or dark it must come to the same temperature when subject to the same radiant surroundings . And , if you look at my website you will see I did a “Mr Wizard” experiment with black and white ping-pong balls in the Colorado sun to see how much difference in temperature that extreme difference in spectrum would make . Crude as hell , but it confirms Kirchhoff .
It was really only last year that I realized how to compute the effect of non gray spectra . It’s substantially more complicated than the simple gray case , and will require a lot more computation , maybe a couple of lines of array code and a few seconds on my PC . But I’ll get it implemented when I have time over the next couple of months and the be able to produce quantitative , experimentally testable values for any changes in spectrum , including changes in CO2 .
There’s a lot more to be said about the psychology \/ sociology of the “alarmists” versus the “naturalists” , and as you’ve apparently seen , there’s a lot more detail and history on my http://CoSy.com . But I’ve got other things I need to be doing . I got no grants from nobody for this ; it’s self-defense against irrationality .
Exactly. People can’t just jump on a bandwagon and follow leads without using your intuition with facts. Who stands to gain from an outcome? Is someone/organization getting rich or gaining power/control from an outcome in their favor?
We have always had a cyclic flucuation in temperatures and life giving gases on this planet. Yes the planet cools and warms. Yes pollution is bad(smog, chemicals, waste). Yes there is ways to be green,( one way is to live in the country like me and live with the land).
I’m not against the temperature flucuations but I am against the theory that we are the major contributor and that we must be enslaved by a “carbon tax”! Your breathing out poison? come one!
http://www.infowars.com/alex-runs-down-man-made-climate
http://www.progressiveu.org/113938-nasa-scientists-predict-period-global-cooling-change-hoax-exposed-in-cru-emails/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/hadley-climate-center-hadat2-data-shows-global-cooling-in-the-last-year/
I don’t have time to link all the “false data”. CO2 increases after solar warming! This website needs to start reading stuff….maybe they will loose their funding when they are found to be fools!
Bob Armstrong
This thread is about the core science so please complete your answer to my last question about your estimate of the temperature of an Earth without an atmosphere. If you wish to further criticise Wikipedia , that is best done on their discussion group. But it might help if we use the discussion in Wikipedia as a source of numbered equations. I suggest you could use the same link as the one I gave in my last comment and refer to the section entitled:”Temperature relation between a planet and its star”.
1. That section has already set out equations numbered (1),(2) ,(3)
2. After that there is an unumbered short one which I shall call (4)
3. and then another unumbered one which I shall call (5)
4. and then a formula in a box called “The Result” which I shall call (6).
I think that you don’t accept equation (5). If so please write down your own version in clearly defined symbols and then substitute specified numbers for the symbols and carry it through to an estimated temperature. This should be a short discussion and can be carried out here.
Bob,
Your social and political beliefs (above) explain why you mistakenly think you have ideas that belong on the science thread.
I’m sure you recognize that your beliefs about the state and infiltration of science by greedy socialists is not an argument against the existing science; or an argument for your knowledge of climate models (both their contribution and current limitations) as a tool for understanding the climate system.
It is simply not the case that anyone can teach themselves climate physics, and be competent.
But it is certainly true that you are free to believe that you have.
And you are free to combine this self-perception with your political beliefs and come up with the personal opinion that the facts of AGW are a fraud perpetrated on the public by the corruption of science.
On the other hand, I see that physicists on other sites have taken considerable time to explain to you, in detail, and at an advanced level, that you are wrong.
You are told that your knowledge of basic physics, never mind climate physics, is very weak.
Take care
I had to deal with people in California that no matter what documents or facts you showed them, they were right and that was that! I’m sorry for you that this is your only religion. You will always find the “truth” in something when you have a set parameter of what to look for to agree with.
You look at my CoSy.com ; you look at my logo , a 6 dimensional cube drawn with a single line ; you may note my 800 on my physics college board all those years ago . And then you say my physics is distorted by my politics ?
You have it backwards . It’s because sycophants like you somehow are incapable of independent thought and want to subject the world to your delusions that I am so fiercely libertarian .
Damn , I shouldn’t have wasted my time responding to anything here . My first impression of your determinged mediocrity was correct .
I’ll agree with the first sentence. 🙂
I can’t find “determinged” in my dictionary, though.
You want everyone to go to your web page. OK I have just had a brief look. The problem starts with your section called “gray bodies”.
How to determine the absorption of a solid in a given irradiance? You don’t need Kirchoff’s law. What you need is solid state physics; you use quantum mechanics to work out the absorbance of the solid as a function of wavelength multiply the irradiance (or whatever) and integrate.
How to determine the emission spectrum of a solid? Now you appeal to Kirchoff, one wavelength at a time. Multiply the absorbance by the Planck distribution for the temperature concerned. You may want to integrate this result over wavelength to get the total power lost.
Looks slightly complicated. Suppose we want a simpler model .. not too simplified or the results will be unphysical. An extreme gray-body model , like your Eq.e5 would take a constant for the emissivity (or absorbance) with the same value for the visible and the infra-red. That will make errors of at least 10%. We have two quite different integrals to perform. The one for the outgoing energy is over a black body spectrum at about 370K i.e one which has very low values for visible wavelengths. So it does not matter if we make a drastic error for the emissivity in the visible of the range; hence:
Set the absorbance = 1 for this integral.
As for the other integral we start with the same absorbance but this time the integrand is negligible over the infra-red wavelengths but appreciable over the visible ones. We need to consider the absorbance of the Earth in the visible; the Earth has a bluish colour but that varies with position. Here is where we make an approximation ; just assume that the absorbance is about 0.7 for all visible wavelengths. This may make a small error but it won’t be too bad and can be checked by measurements. The error is not caused by making any assumptions about the absorbance in the infra-red. We are assuming it to be 0.7 instead of 1 but that has a negligible effect because sunshine contains so little infra-red.
Summary. Your gray-body approximation for both infra-red and visible is a poor one; your treatment of Kirchoff needs to be refined. I wrote all this more briefly the first time around.
——————————-
[Re: Politics. The BBC’s Radio 4 are carrying a debate on the motion that all immigration and emigration controls should be removed. As a libertarian do you support that motion? It may be necessary if we emit too much CO2. (Just yes or no will do)]
OK , so you know the physics . The equation in Wikipedia just uses scalar absorptivity and does not balance it with the necessary emissivity term . That’s what produces the “cold earth” starting point they then with nothing but hand waving say “greenhouse” effects explain .
The gray body calculation is essentially just a 0th , mean , term to which the difference in correlation between the heated body and its sources and sinks must be added .
As you point out the balance is more complex to calculate because you have to generate the planck distribution for test planet temperatures so that the “filtered” energy matches that from outside . That’s what I’m doing next and when done , the effect of , eg , changes atmospheric spectrum will be calculable .
Given your understanding , and how basic these numbers are , why can’t I find them already tabulated ?
Also , given your understanding , you must realize that the CO2 spectrum is quite saturated at levels at which plants would start dying . Any further saturation is quite minor . Something I don’t understand is why the obvious effects of “greenhouse” gas concentrations on the rate , ie , variance of our temperature , is never discussed . It’s as if the notion that something can affect variance without affecting the mean is not recognized .
So , will you agree that the grossly illogical horror story about Venus’s temperature being due to some “runaway” should be immediately disclaimed by the alarmists ? That would be a first step towards a more rational public dialog .
[ Immigration restrictions only apply to poor people . And if it were not for the State distorting the market in charity with various redistributions of money taken from current citizens , there would be no issue about influxes of indigents . Our family is actively looking for a freer country to move to , so it would be hypocritical of me not to be for open migration . ]
Scotland is pretty free – we generally love immigrants.
I would welcome you as a neighbour. 🙂
Our family roots are around Liddesdale , but any country where the owner of a pub cannot decide whether his patrons may smoke is not free .
The second sentence of your recent comment illustrates the need for more absorptivity on your part. If you want to emit more Physics you will need to absorb more from other people too. Kirchoff’s law for physicists.
A practical physics test :
Will you agree that the grossly illogical horror story about Venus’s temperature being due to some “runaway” should be immediately disclaimed by the alarmists ?
(Just yes or no will do)
“No”.
Point me to any peer reviewed paper that says otherwise, and I’ll point to many more that explain why Venus is warmer than Mercury.
Shows what back scratching BS peer review is .
Today’s peer review is happening right now , right here on the web .
It requires nothing more than the 100 year old SB and K relationships to show Venus is emitting 16 times as much energy as any object in its orbit can possibly obtain from the sun .
You illustrate the point of my third paragraph in my reply to Martha yesterday . When it gets down to it , you either don’t understand , or don’t believe the equations . One way or another , you consider them optional .
Good bye .
Oh, I believe in equations. 🙂
Please show me your equations, and I’ll do my best to comment on them.
This is totally silly. 🙂
“Shows what back scratching BS peer review is .
Today’s peer review is happening right now , right here on the web .”
Come and join us at Denial Depot, Bob. You could contribute a lot! Blog science rules!
Bob,
Let’s get this show off the road, shall we?
All over the Internet, for anyone to see, you can be found repetitively posting lies and stupidities such as the following:
“The increase in CO2 is provably by experiment and practice greening, increasing agricultural yields in every corner of the planet.”
Really. No such thing as a problem with too much C02, it just makes all the more plants grow big and strong. Where are you getting this ‘science’ ?
You make the majority of your ‘scientific’ claims alongside obsessive and repetitively expressed beliefs about the dangers of Marxism:
“Any person who is truly “green” and concerned for both the welfare of the current generation of humanity and the abundance of the planet should [read classical physics] and reject the alarmists anti-life anti-green global neo-marxism” (At other times you say Marxist, socialist, or Soviet. These do not all mean the same thing. You seem to prefer the term ‘neo-Marxist’. This generally refers to critical theories of the capitalist state and the capacity of the current economic system to be revisionist, thus indefinitely delaying any changes in the economic structure of capitalism. As such, I can’t see that it is the term you want.)
Bob, why do you spam so many sites with your claims that C02 is good for food crops — that plants just can’t get enough C02? Do you read anything other than your own website? Can you not crack open a book, for God’s sake? Read other threads on this site?
The delta regions of Africa and Asia, island nations, and Arctic regions, are vulnerable to displacement from high sea levels and flooding, and they do not have the infrastructure to deal with these crises. People can’t grow much in a flood plain. Crop germination and yields are already being disrupted. This threatens food supplies. Dry-ups cause water shortages and plants need water.
Arctic countries (for example) are going to have to find ways to benefit economically e.g. new possibilities for farming parts of the tundra. I encourage you to read something other than yourself, regarding these issues – perhaps something from the people living in Arctic countries.
There are these ‘benefits’. However, the overwhelming evidence suggests this is small peanuts compared to the projected negative impacts. See the information posted and linked on this or any other credible science site.
For me, your spam border on racism, given the potential issues of adequate access to food and water in regions other than your own backyard.
Another of your favourite claims about the status of the science:
“Tens of thousands of ‘independent’ scientists with high credential reject AGW”
Really? Who?
(N.B. A point of reasoning: it seems inconsistent to claim, with any consistency, that there is such a massive neo-Marxist [sic] money-grabbing takeover of scientific objectivity and decency, AND tens of thousands of scientists who agree with you.)
Nonetheless, you could be irrational about one thing and have a point about something else that is science.
Let’s see. From your website, I understand that the correction of the physics is that Venus is much hotter than it could possibly be from the sun’s input. You conclude it has an internal source of heat and there is no ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ that explains the situation for Venus, so AGW is a fraud.
Wow.
Apparently Venus has no atmosphere.
I acknowledge that you are extremely creative, but false premises lead to false conclusions.
Regarding the money, surely you realize that the energy sector can and does pay its shills quite well? So let’s DO follow the money.
After that, we can examine why the social and political beliefs you express are so regularly a part of the denier ‘science’ show. It’s relevant and has great explanatory power.
😦
martha you keep insiting this thread is for science yet you have none to offer.Stop posting on this thread!
—-
Yes Bob Armstrong’s argument is totally silly. It is based on Monckton’s fallacy which leads to an extremely poor model.
Kirchoff’s law is OK but not the Stefan Boltzmann equation. You can’t show that the Venusian atmosphere is irrelevant by using an argument that ignores that atmosphere.
If you were to situate yourself outside Venus and look at the IR you would see a Planck distribution with bites removed, corresponding to the CO2 absorption lines. This is nineteenth century physics. It was used in the visible spectrum century to discover helium in the Sun. The helium lines appeared dark because they were radiated from a colder layer than the rest of the spectrum. So you now have two complications, first that the emissivity of the CO2 is highly non-uniform and secondly it comes from a series of layers at widely differing temperatures.
I wasn’t aware that Monckton had dabbled in planetary science as well. 🙂
Second thoughts about my last comment. Venus is not quite analagous to the Earth without the water vapour. So its outgoing spectrum might be closer to that of a Planck distribution but I have not followed this up. Bob Armstrong’s factor of 16 is probably based on inserting the wrong temperature , twice too high. I notice that he has not performed the same trick with the Sun. He assumes its temperature to be 5778 K . But why not go deeper into the Sun and ignore the insulating effect of the outer layers? He could have got an ‘Armstrong factor’ of millions that way.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/excerpts-from-a-scientific-paper-by-dr-martin-hertzberg/
I thought you were going to post (or link to) some equations?
Or a link to a peer-reviewed article on why Venus is hotter than Mercury, but has no greenhouse effect?
Instead we get a link to a blog containing extracts from a “paper” (published in E&E) that appears to parrot Gerlich & Tscheuschner and Kramm.
Well, we now know how intellectually bankrupt Armstrong is when he has to resort to quoting a piece of junk science published in the junk journal Energy and Environment.
Don’t you realize how scientifically illiterate you are when you have to stoop to those low levels?
(Sorry, Ian – I hadn’t read your comment when I posted mine)
http://cosy.com/Science/TemperatureOfGrayBalls.htm . algorithms available in 3 array programming languages so you can implement them and play with them yourselves .
I’ve never seen such a bunch of self-assured arrogant insulting ostriches .
How come the Navy employed Dr Hertzberg all those years ? They must not be as knowledgeable as youall .
http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/democrat-meteorologist-rejects-fear-mongering-clap-trap-about-human-caused-global-warming/ :
As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming […] to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the Gore-IPCC theory that human activity is causing global warming is false.
— Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D., retired Navy meteorologist.
Thank you for the first link, Bob. It is what I asked for (sort of).
I will get back to you shortly.
S2
“How come the Navy employed Dr Hertzberg all those years ?”
Did they? From what I have seen, he notes (himsefl!) to have been trained as a meteorologist, but makes no mentioning of any prolonged stint as a meteorologist.
Of course, there’s plenty of evidence he needs to go back to school to learn the basics:
http://650list.blogspot.com/2009/02/dr-martin-hertzberg.html
(check his claims, one was even debunked over 100 years ago…).
“The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the Gore-IPCC theory that human activity is causing global warming is false.” Martin Hertzberg
“How come the Navy employed Dr Hertzberg all those years ? They must not be as knowledgeable as youall.” Bob Armstrong
Bob,
I expect it is possible to have been employed by the Navy and also to be able to open one’s mouth and form words into sentences that are demonstrably stupid and false and amount to propaganda — rather than minimal scientific research literacy.
The overwhelming scientific evidence is that the main driver of the current warming is C02 and that the climate situation is critical. If you and Martin Herzberg have other information, please link to the science sources.
Natural cycles accounted for warming in the past, but that does not mean that human activity can be discounted now.
“I’ve never seen such a bunch of … arrogant … ostriches.”
Perhaps I understand the point you were hoping to make.
Yes, this world we are a part of is very big.
That is why the opposite of what you say is true: it is arrogant, in the extreme, to assume that this vast world is supposed to accommodate us.
This is not a stage upon which humans can just do whatever we want. Nature is not below us.
It is you who are arrogant.
And it is precisely this conceit that has caused the predicament. 😦
Useful link Bob Armstrong. It provides a damning indictment of the editorial policy of Energy and the Environment. It is well known that this magazine does not use peer review but the decision to publish Martin Hertzberg’s ‘paper’ illustrates that the editor appears to lack scientifically literate friends who could have given it a brief check.
This thread is in danger of being taken over by the denialist tactic of flooding i.e of protecting one flawed argument by throwing in a hundred others. There are lots of errors in Hertzberg but the the two relevant ones are the same as those made by Bob Armstrong which have not been answered either by B.A. or by M.H.
Yea , right Martha . Hertzberg is a PhD government employed climatologist and you are … ?
I pointed you to an implementation of the essential classical physics implemented in 3 modern array notations , but youall are clearly incapable of evaluating such things . And it was nice to see Hertzberg pointing out the same inescapable physics .
Skeptics ? Ha . You denialists are getting rapidly slaughtered in the current discourse . Garden of Eden time is over . Better get out and buy some warm clothes .
Armstrong, you don’t even know what a climatologist is. You are as ignorant about people as you are about science.
When Hertzberg worked for the Navy he was employed as an explosives expert not a climatologist. His background is in physical chemistry.
Keep it up, you show your ignorance with every post. The deniers must just love it when you show how stupid and ignorant of science the typical denier is.
Bob Arnstrong
In one brief comment you have managed to exemplify:
(a) the inverse ad hominem fallacy (a blunder remains wrong whoever wrote it)
(b) false promotion of credentials (Hertzberg is not a climatologist)
(c) the ad hominem fallacy (irrelevant attack on Martha)
(d). deviation (a faulty code cannot compensate for faulty physics).
These are all well known rhetorical techniques of global warming deniers.
Where is the error in my code ? Were you able to understand the results ?
It matches the 1/21 ratio with the sun temperature that the earth is .
Even a more technically competent than I’ve seen here guy who has been on your side , agrees to the result of about 280k for a sun temperature of about 5800 .
It essentially models a point surrounded by the celestial sphere , ie , the whole sky of which the sun subtends about a millionth . The Stefan-Boltzmann+Kirchhoff equation explains the relationship between a point and its surrounding sphere .
SB+K’s 4th power relationship between power and temperature is as inescapable as Newton’s inverse square with distance relationship between objects .
There , did I write it simply enough for you to recognize that each of us must do our own peer review ?
So , where is the error in the code ? It’s only a few lines .
You claimed it , deconvolvuter . Back it up .
Bob Armstrong.
I have little doubt that you could use your computer code to get the correct estimates of the temperatures of coloured balls including that of the Earth (with no atmosphere), if you corrected your equations as indicated at the top of this thread (or in Wikipedia). You would then bring your results into line with everybody else. For somebody with your computer skills it would take about 1 minute. There was a “faulty” too many in my last comment (part(d)).
Of course that would only be a starting point. The two next stages would involve a steeper learning curve , ie. to consider the effect of the atmosphere and to consider the effect of the feedbacks.
But if you persist in equating two quite different averages of the emissivity function , one over the solar spectrum and the other over the terrestrial spectrum you will continue to output unphysical answers and you won’t be able to start the journey. If you don’t take the journey then you have no right to condemn those who do.
@ deconvoluter
Wikipedia incorrectly has earth absorbing as a gray body and emitting as if black . That’s why its “null” estimate is off to the low side by so much .
Please show me your quantitative theory of earth’s temperature . No hand waving ; equations and values .
The noose is tightening on this non-science .
“Yea , right Martha . Hertzberg is a PhD government employed climatologist and you are … ?”
Obviously, I’m not a climatologist. Neither is Hertzberg.
And neither are you, or most other people on the Internet.
I guess we can dispense with any confusion about that.
You urge respect for well-known crackpots and shills and frauds e.g. the Oregon petition, Inhofe’s list, to support your argument that the worlds’ climate scientists are wrong. These same individuals (and you) also argue, almost without exception, for the rejection of the science and the facts of AGW on the basis of the belief that it is a socialist plot.
Almost none of them publish in the peer-reviewed science. Of course, formal peer review has its problems and radicality is always exciting in knowledge fields: but that does not mean that anything and everything should instead count as peer review. There must be a high standard.
(By the way, Bob, does Khilyuk know how much of his bad physics denying climate change, created for the petroleum industry, you have plagiarized?)
Bob trolls the Internet for lower standards of peer review, where he can feel he is being taken seriously.
I’m not surprised he is unhappy here.
Scientists are not going to bother to debate him: his ideas are not on a par with issues discussed by working scientists.
The rest of us are likely neither climatologists nor physicists, but we do have adequate evaluation skills to decide how much we wish to rely on someone like Bob, for real information.
I’ve just spent a happy morning reading Bob’s link, those provided by deconvoluter, and a few more turned up by Google. It’s been quite entertaining (and instructive).
I can’t really add to what deconvoluter has already said about Bob’s grasp of science.
But I did find someone who agrees with Bob that Venus is much hotter “than any simply radiantly heated object in its orbit could be” – Immanuel Velikovsky.
The best you can do rather than reply with any equations , is further ad hominems like linking me to Velikovsky whom you almost certainly know more about than I do .
And you apparently immediately peer reviewed and deleted a post from Lars Karlsson Comment:
“Shows what back scratching BS peer review is .
Today’s peer review is happening right now , right here on the web .”
Come and join us at http://denialdepot.blogspot.com Bob. You could contribute a lot! Blog science rules!
The only compensation for wasting time with this bunch of true believers , as certain of their beliefs in spite of obvious reality as any jew , christian or muslim is seeing that absolute ability to disregard any rational argument .
deconvoluter has already said all that needs to be said about your equations/program. I’ve studied it, and I can’t find anything new (as I’ve already said).
I do happen to believe that denialdepot is hilarious – it is well worth a visit.
If Mike deleted it then (in my opinion) he shouldn’t have – but ultimately, it is his blog. 🙂
I don’t believe that my comment was an hominem – it certainly wasn’t meant to be – I simply pointed out that Velikovsky is (as far as I can tell) the only person other than you who has claimed that Venus is far hotter than it ought to be.
I’m not surprised these alarmists would censor a link that damns their AGW flibble flabble all to hell. Lucky I caught your reposting before the warmist-fascist could again delete it, and I hope to see your contribution to the discussion over there!
While I can’t take credit for that brave site, I applaud their effort to shine the light of truth on the envirofraudster’s hoax, and I’m confident that they, and Mister Armstrong will continue scattering the roaches of unreason before their beam of rectitude, despite your sneering, elitist “laughter”. Laughter that is more likely the nervous titters of a charlatan caught with cards up his sleeve at the poker table.
The above comment was in response to the anonymous warmohysteric “S2”.
—-
lenny, please tell us that you’re from denialdepot. 🙂
Bob,
My comment wasn’t deleted. It is up here.
Long live blog science!
From my readings I have to confess being a denier, in that I don’t believe elevated CO2 is the cause of our climatic problems. As well, I must admit to not being a scientist and therefore ineligible to submit the following to Nature or Science for publication. Despite those reservations, hopefully you will favourably consider accepting what follows in order to further the debate on climate change.
There is no doubt the age-old human practice of burning fossil fuel is playing a significant role in the global climate problem. Becoming more so with population growth and industrialization.
It logically follows the burning of fossil fuel would be greatest where large concentrations of people are located. However, this obvious conclusion has been missed by the world in the search for a cause and solution of our climatic ills.
Too regularly we hear of the suffocating pollution being experienced by developing countries; the largest being India and China. By some twist of logic both these heavily self-polluting countries have declared it is up to the developed world to reduce the harmful emissions they suffer. To make matters worse the developed have bought it.
All this despite the huge population of India burning fossil fuel for cooking/heating over hundreds of years and China burning coal for thousands. To be further compounded by a rapid rise of coal dependant industry. As if this isn’t bad enough, forest fires used for deforestation is rife in some South East Asian countries and other parts of the world.
What has caused the developed world to be blind-sided is their preoccupation with chasing the CO2 phantom and ignoring or worse not realising the immense damage the fossil burning activities of developing countries are having on the climate.
Even Al Gore acknowledged the harmful effect soot/black carbon from fossil burnings is having on the accelerated melting of snow/ice. He recently commented on the pollution of the Himalayas as being worse than California.
The unrelenting burning of fossil fuel in Southern Asia has created a monster in both size and effect. It is known as the Asian Brown Haze and was discovered by INDOEX in 1999 over the North Indian Ocean. This group of scientists was shocked by the size and density of the haze, concluding it was cooling the ocean water enough to prevent evaporation essential for rain cloud formation, with severe ramifications for global hydrology. This finding offers an explanation for the extensive, sustained global droughts and floods.
Droughts have become common occurrences throughout the world with wide spread consequences, not least being tinder dry forests ripe for fire – which, when lit, add more pollutants to an already overloaded atmosphere. Understand that pollutants don’t just hang around where the fire happens but travel vast distances. Particles from the Australian fires in Victoria this year have been found in Antarctica and pollutants originating in China have been found in California.
A coherent forest management regime is essential in reducing the risk of forest fires. Undoubtedly the best protection is to have regular rain with a damp under storey. To achieve a wetter environment, elimination of the Asian Brown Haze has to be realised.
The foregoing identifies a source of unbridled fossil fuel burning and the severe adverse effects the resulting haze is having on global weather. However, it should be noted the Asian Brown Haze is one of many around the world; it is distinguished by being the largest and located over equatorial waters.
A natural consequence of a haze’s structure is elevated CO2 readings, but more importantly, the soot/black carbon contained within a haze would be absorbing solar rays and acting like an atmospheric heat bank. It is estimated the world’s collective hazes have the capacity to absorb enough heat to contribute to atmospheric heating by at least 2 degrees. This is a far more plausible explanation for rising temperatures than any CO2 claim.
On a positive note if coordinated corrective action is taken the haze would be expected to dissipate rapidly.
You are blending two things together: particulate pollution is not the same as CO2 emission. The former is better know as aerosols. Aerosols have dual effects on the climate: they reduce UV radiation reaching the earth (and thus warming of the earth!), but can also trap heat. We know from volcano eruptions that aerosols generally have a cooling effect. In fact, the reports on the Asian Brown Cloud note that it most likely has a COOLING effect. Funnily enough, you mention this cooling yourself!
(I quote: “This group of scientists was shocked by the size and density of the haze, CONCLUDING IT WAS COOLING the ocean water enough to prevent evaporation essential for rain cloud formation, with severe ramifications for global hydrology. This finding offers an explanation for the extensive, sustained global droughts and floods.”, emphasis mine).
Regarding rainfall you also seem to miss that the ABC has a dual effect: in several places it actually increases rainfall. In fact, there is a peer-reviewed paper that explicitely links excess rainfall in Northwest Australia to the ABC.
Marco,
Mentioning CO2 and particulate matter together was to acknowledge they have the same origin.
I chose to distinguish aerosols as being fine airborne particulate matter creating a different form of mayhem to that of soot/black carbon.
Some choose to see a beneficial effect from the cooling of a haze over land; this is despite the health and environmental damage occurring under the area influenced, which is abhorrently passed off as an acceptable Faustian Bargain. These same people failed to realise the cooling consequences of a haze over equatorial water as determined by INDOEX.
In my posting I drew attention to the INDOEX forecast of the haze upsetting global hydrology; this covers the gambit of drought/ floods and in between. The forecast increased rainfall due to the Asian Haze you refer to in Northwest Australia undoubtedly comes from a 2006 report by CSIRO and falls within the INDOEX projection. Of interest, the haze since 1999, probably due to an intensification of Asian industry using fossil fuels, most likely grew in size and intensity and moved the projected heavier rains forecast for Northwest Australia east and created the floods of North Central Queensland.
Alan
>>By some twist of logic both these heavily self-polluting countries have declared it is up to the developed world to reduce the harmful emissions they suffer. To make matters worse the developed have bought it.
This is from your ‘readings’?
It is unlikely that there will be a deal in Copenhagen re. targets for China (or India) until developed countries get more serious and use their considerable resources to change course.
China and India will be required to change, too. They are, of course, moving forward with plans outside of the UN framework.
At Copenhagen, the economies that have (to date) caused the bulk of the historical situation and been provided with the benefits need to demonstrate leadership and a clear commitment to reductions. That has to happen first, because of the relative insecurity and poverty of developing countries.
The delta regions of Africa, Asia, and island nations, and regions in the North, are especially vulnerable to massive displacement from high sea levels and flooding. These regions really do not have the infrastructure to deal with these crises.
Subsistence farmers around the world are already being displaced and crop germination and yields are being disrupted. This is threatening to the food supply.
A number of developed countries with water wish to trade in water rather than sign the UN convention making water a universal right. As such, people in drought-affected areas will likely die.
People already die in massive numbers from water-borne illnesses in developing countries and this has worsened in recent years due to floods that mix contaminated floodwater with the supply of drinking water.
Alan, did you know that there are over two billion people around the world living in abject poverty? Two thirds of these people are women.
Your racism and sexism are showing, in addition to your weak knowledge of climate science.
Martha,
I can’t recall making either a racist or sexist remark in my posting. If identifying the region in which the haze is located is racist, then I apologize. But you must agree INDOEX found it there and made the assessment on its origins.
I couldn’t agree more that there are many unfortunate people suffering in this region and beyond who are victims of droughts and conversely floods created by this haze.
Your assessment of my lack of climate science knowledge appears to be simply borne on my rejection of CO2 being responsible for the world’s weather woes, not in disputing the alternative reasoning I have submitted.
Hello again, Alan,
>>This is a far more plausible explanation for rising temperatures than any CO2 claim.
There is no question that ABC is on the radar screen, but you are making a remarkable claim about impacts.
It is important to understand how you have drawn your conclusion.
I find it interesting that you seem to feel it is best to ignore virtually all the current research and studies by climate scientists, since you argue (without sources) that there has to be an explanation other than increasing CO2 despite the overwhelming evidence; and that you are aware of something that climate scientists (who by the way are the ones studying ABC) that they are not.
You have also ignored Marco’s efforts to assist you to base your conclusions on the science, if your response is any indication.
This is the science thread, so you need to give at least some sort of science-based sources to support what you’re saying.
…AND you claimed the ABC was causing warming, despite the fact that the research shows exactly the opposite.
Marco and Martha,
This reply is addressed to you both as the same drum is being pounded.
It is not reasonable to expect contributors to adhere rigidly to the scientific method, though a basic knowledge of physics would be appropriate. [1] Scientists openly discuss many issues without giving or expecting evidence. That’s how new ideas and new understandings develop. The evidence is sought after the idea has evolved, not the other way around [2]. Proposition, theory and law are the scientific hierarchy requiring little or no evidence through to incontroversial evidence.
As you correctly state a haze causes local cooling due to a blocking of the transmission of solar radiation (heat). Whereas, the darker particulate matter of the haze would absorb solar radiation heat and disperse it into the atmosphere – global warming.
We appear to have a misunderstanding due to the mistaken belief that fine particulate matter and aerosol are interchangeable terms. Of course, an aerosol is fine particulate matter whereas fine particulate matter may not be an aerosol.
The purpose of my original communication was to draw attention to known but largely undiscussed phenomena, and their contradictory effects.
Put bluntly, particulate matter from fossil fuel burning is the elephant in the room. It is devastating health and the environment in so many ways, yet the world plays cute with trying to control polyatomic gases, particularly carbon dioxide. What makes all this so frustrating is that at least 1/3 of a haze’s composition is comprised of harmful emissions originating from the burning of raw coal. Apart from global hydrology being severely compromised, most of Asia is suffering from devastating coal induced smog matching that suffered by the UK back in the 1950s. There it was ultimately defeated by the mandatory use of smokeless fuel derived from coal; burning raw coal was banned.
—-
Eh? Me thinks you turn things around. An aerosol is defined as either solid or liquid particles dispersed in a gas. The ABC thus consists of aerosols, period.
Second, the development of science may indeed sometimes include speculation, but certainly does not include speculation when the issue has already been investigated, and the evidence is already known. In that case any speculation will have to explain that already presented evidence.
Third, of course the ABC is a health problem, but the solution is not solely preventing the release of particulate matter into the air. In fact, the evidence so far suggests that solely removing the particulate matter will INCREASE global warming.
>>I can’t recall making either a racist or sexist remark in my posting. If identifying the region in which the haze is located is racist, then I apologize.
No, that would not be the reason for my comment about the attitudes underlying your comments.
>>Your assessment of my lack of climate science knowledge appears to be simply borne on my rejection of CO2 being responsible for the world’s weather woes, not in disputing the alternative reasoning I have submitted.
Your opinion is not supported by the facts of the current science. This makes your reasoning problematic, since if your premises are false your conclusions are false.
You want to say that brown cloud air pollution is the main driver of the current warming trend, not C02 (see your statements and claims, above). This has circulated on all the pseudo-science denier sites such as wattsupmybutt and it is making the rounds again as we approach Copenhagen.
For those familiar with the science, INDOEX, IPCC and UNEP research say no such thing.
The regional impacts experienced in Asia in relation to atmospheric brown cloud (ABC) pollution are serious. On this site many are familiar with these and other climate and development-related health, food and water security issues.
Many are also up-to-date with current climate science, and for those who aren’t, there are links to the science and to other competent science sites.
We know researchers are identifying the regional atmospheric warming effects of black carbon/soot (Ramanathan) and also that brown cloud pollution is likely masking the extent of the current C02-caused global (not regional) warming since other aerosols have a cooling effect. I think Marco explained this.
Ramanathan and UNEP seek intervention strategies for ABC’s. However, contrary to your comments, the mitigation strategies are not the same: climate change requires global emissions constraints. I wonder if this has anything to do with why the market shills share your ‘alternative reasoning’ and similarly misrepresent the science to the public.
Alan, bottom line, why do you think you cannot provide science sources to support your rejection of the C02 science? or link to any ABC or other climate science research showing that brown cloud pollution, not C02 emissions, are the main driver of the current warming trend?
—-
(Once again I’ve found one on your comments stuck in the system, Martha. Apologies once again.
I still don’t know why for sure – but you did start two paragraphs with >> in at least two of your comments. In the interests of science, as an experiment – could you try using <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags in some of your future comments? It might help us pin down why you keep getting flagged. 🙂 )
S2
S2,
My posts also sometimes include typically filtered words; and I have a very cheap dial-up.
When I can get someone to explain your instructions to me, I’ll do what you ask. [1]
in solidarity
(just seeing if you have a filter for socialist phrases, too)
🙂
—-
Omnologos
Hello. 🙂
Thanks for joining me.
You write denier drivel and pretend it has something to do with science.
You wrote and spammed the following re-interpretation of data in a chapter in the AR4. It is fraudulent. You have also ‘borrowed’ the data from a research report that is protected by copyright.
“The IPCC AR4-WG2 Chapter 1, dedicated to report ALL changes in a warming planet, lists:
(a) 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming
(b) 3,174 significant changes not compatible with warming (around 11% of the total of 29,459 significant changes)
Plenty to pick-and-choose from, I am sure. But then there are also other quite important numbers from the same report:
(c) 28,234 significant changes are from Europe alone
(d) 1,225 significant changes are from the rest of the world (4.15% of the total)
(e) 25,135 significant changes compatible with warming are from Europe alone
(f) Only 1,150 significant changes compatible with warming are from the rest of the world (4.4% of the total of 26,285 significant changes compatible with warming)
Note that (b) is almost two times bigger than (f). And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that the vast majority of non-European significant changes, come just from North America.”
Etc. omnologos
Corrections:
a) The chapter is not ‘dedicated to report ALL changes in a warming planet’. Not only would that be utterly impossible, but it is not the stated goal of the chapter – which is reassuringly much more realistic, and says it is looking at available data and studies since the TAR to analyze impacts related to climate change.
b) This utterly irrelevant, nonsensical ‘computation’ of the ‘numbers’ is not ‘listed’ in the report.
c) The implied geographical imbalance is not a secret or a surprise, and it raises interesting questions about the gathering of additional information – not the established evidence of climate change – also acknowledged in the report.
d) (b) and (f) cannot be ‘compared’, for very, very obvious logical reasons.
😦
Martha –
Let’s give it a try. You know the rule…as soon as there is any remark about the person, the exchange closes. No exception.
(1) What do you mean when you write that I “spammed” my Apr 9, 2008 blog entry?
(2) I have not “‘borrowed’ copyrighted research”. I have “quoted accurately, provided proper credit to the source of the copied work, and added value to the quoted material by comparing, criticizing or commenting upon such material”. That is within the rules of “fair use”.
http://www.publaw.com/fairuse.html
(3) The IPCC states (p82): “The aim of this chapter is to assess studies of observed changes in natural and managed systems related to recent regional climate change […]”. This means that AR4-WG2-Chapter-1 should contain a reference to (i.e. report) ALL observed changes. Otherwise, the IPCC work would not be “comprehensive”, thereby violating its principles.
Obviously then, some changes will be discussed at length, others will be summarized, others still will only appear as numbers. Otherwise no report would ever get published.
(4) All the numbers I have used come from p116, fig. 1.9. Please let me know if I made a mistake in my computations.
(5) The point of the blog, as stated in its title and first two paragraphs, is to show that the most “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” scientific report (I am quoting from the IPCC Principles again) available in 2008 is too biased towards European (and North American) samples to be used to demonstrate GLOBAL warming.
There is a statement about that in the same chapter: “There is a notable lack of geographical balance in the data and literature on observed changes in natural and managed systems, with a marked scarcity from developing countries”.
What I disagree with, is the consequence of that “notable lack of geographical balance”. For me, the “lack” is simply too big (that’s why I compare (b) and (f)). And that is my opinion. Is it possible to have an opinion?
I am not sure what is wrong in asking to get “accumulation of evidence” from all regions of the world before stating that all regions of the world are warming.
“What do you mean when you write that I “spammed” my Apr 9, 2008 blog entry?”
I mean you posted a deliberately fraudulent interpretation of research conclusions repeatedly on various sites on the Internet. Unless you wish to say that someone only claiming to be you is posting and signing these comments using ‘omnologos’, and linking to your site.
“I have “quoted accurately… and added value to the quoted material by comparing, criticizing or commenting upon such material”.”
You have done no such thing, but it doesn’t matter: that is a completely irrelevant quote from a completely irrelevant link.
Your problem is this: IPCC publications and data are protected by IPCC copyright policy. The data may not be reproduced in any other format than presented and you may not compile or create derivative works, from the data. The relevant link is this one: http://www.ipcc.ch/home_copyright.htm
In addition, omnologos, I should take the opportunity to explain to you that, generally speaking, when it comes to any research on the Internet, some research might be released to the public domain but other data remains the sole property of the project institutes or researchers and may not be reproduced. It seems you don’t have enough research literacy to be familiar with any of this. 😦
It is the case that you have misused and fraudulently reinterpreted data, and violated copyright protection. Period.
Regarding your other responses, I really can’t add to the comments I already made, above. Except one.
“(that’s why I compare (b) and (f)). And that is my opinion. Is it possible to have an opinion?)”
I assume you wish to make sense. Do you understand that there is nothing to compare, between (b) and (f), even from your own perspective? It’s similar to saying 1 plus four equals a frog. It’s logically wrong, and wildly so. There could also be a problem with math, for you.
So, we have taken some baby steps.
But what I really want to know is the science-based sources of your claims on the other thread, where you make your familiar denier assertions and reject AGW.
What are your science sources? You know the rules: claims that challenge the core science require science-based references on this thread.
Also, omonologos, on the Internet you have said you are the author of a “climatological” article that has “stood the test of verification by other independent scientists”.
Where is that article? I’d like to read it.
Thx.
You’d like to read that article? Well, you can’t. You see, the Editor of a well-known publication has rejected it DESPITE both reviewers recommending its publication. I am afraid you’ll have to wait until we find another journal….after all it’s PUBLISHED peer-reviewed research you’re after (i.e. peer-review on its own is not enough)
Anyway…this is a science thread, but you have failed to discuss the implications of the data provided. Comparing European Negatives to Rest-of-the-World Positives makes perfect sense when one wants to show how European data of any sort (positives, or even negatives) form the overwhelming majority of observations.
The “copyright” point is specious, as it would make it impossible to say a thing about what actually appears on the IPCC reports without submitting oneself to a lengthy authorization request, thereby making them irrelevant. Obviously, “fair use” is “faiir use” is “fair use”, and I have already pointed you to a site where that concept is well explained. And by the way, the IPCC figures can be reproduced freely and without permission (subject to a few requirements): are you saying that all I have to do is put a copy of figure 1.9 in my original blog, rather than the individual numbers as they appear in the figure? This is ridiculous.
The references I use in my own personal AGW quest are always spelled out very clearly in all of my blogs and comments.
As for your definition of “spamming”, it appears that it applies to any material that is not of your liking, and not just to unwanted, unsolicited and non-relevant stuff, like for the rest of us. When you’ll become Internet Dictator I will comply to your request 😎
“You’d like to read that article? Well, you can’t. You see, the Editor of a well-known publication has rejected it DESPITE both reviewers recommending its publication. I am afraid you’ll have to wait until we find another journal….after all it’s PUBLISHED peer-reviewed research you’re after (i.e. peer-review on its own is not enough)”
Really? What journal? What reviewers? If it’s your article and there are no publishing constraints, surely you are fully aware that you can release the information wherever you wish. Why can’t we see the paper and its review, from you?
And no, this thread does not require that your comments directly reference peer-reviewed literature. My goodness, do you bother to read anything at all? Or is the problem one of comprehension? Your sources must be science-based, which means, sources must ultimately be based on peer reviewed science in a manner that can be verified – as per the site policy that you have no doubt read at the top of this page. Otherwise, you may as well argue about the existence of unicorns, on another thread.
What journal? Is the rejection related to the socialist conspiracy theory you argue ad nauseum on your website. 😉
“The “copyright” point is specious, as it would make it impossible to say a thing about what actually appears on the IPCC reports without submitting oneself to a lengthy authorization request, thereby making them irrelevant. Obviously, “fair use” is “faiir use” is “fair use”, and I have already pointed you to a site where that concept is well explained.”
No, and you know why it’s ‘no’. You ‘pointed’ to a site that essentially discusses general legal issues regarding literature, and it specifically notes that factual material is subject to stricter rules. Do you even bother to read what you link? If you do, then apparently the problem is that you struggle to accurately understand what you read. I assure you, I understand what is or is not ‘specious’.
“And by the way, the IPCC figures can be reproduced freely and without permission (subject to a few requirements): are you saying that all I have to do is put a copy of figure 1.9 in my original blog, rather than the individual numbers as they appear in the figure? This is ridiculous.”
I agree, what you say is ridiculous. The issue is the integrity of the data and interpretation of this date. You did not reproduce the figures or ‘original’ numbers. Is it really necessary to point out something so obvious to everyone? In this example, you make up a nonsensical computation of the figures, for the purpose of denying the research conclusions. This is unintelligent, unethical, and illegal. You are clearly demonstrating why you were told you are an idiot, a liar and a fraud, on another thread.
“The references I use in my own personal AGW quest are always spelled out very clearly in all of my blogs and comments.”
The issue is accuracy. Anyone can slap on the source of their distortions and babbling and call it a reference.
“As for your definition of “spamming”, it appears that it applies to any material that is not of your liking, and not just to unwanted, unsolicited and non-relevant stuff, like for the rest of us.”
It’s not my definition. It’s common usage. It means that you are opportunistic about the open nature of comments on blogs and you place the same word for word comments on different climate forums and link to your blog.
“When you’ll become Internet Dictator I will comply to your request .”
That is an interesting projection, since you routinely appoint yourself the person who defines reality on your site. I am not asking you to comply with any kind of pesonal request, I am simply contrasting your behaviour wtih general decency and competence. If you want to be a liar and an idiot, that’s your choice.
With respect to any further discussion of your ‘ideas’ on this thread, you know the rules: claims that challenge the core science require science-based references. Not necessarily peer-reviewed, and we would love to see that mystical paper. It is an opportunity to show that you do know something about science, and specifically climate science, despite all the evidence to the contrary so far.
“You’d like to read that article? Well, you can’t. You see, the Editor of a well-known publication has rejected it DESPITE both reviewers recommending its publication. I am afraid you’ll have to wait until we find another journal….after all it’s PUBLISHED peer-reviewed research you’re after (i.e. peer-review on its own is not enough)”
Really? What journal? What reviewers? If it’s your article and there are no publishing constraints, surely you are fully aware that you can release the information wherever you wish. Why can’t we see the paper and its review, from you?
And no, this thread does not require that your comments directly reference peer-reviewed literature. My goodness, do you bother to read anything at all? Or is the problem one of comprehension? Your sources must be science-based, which means, sources must ultimately be based on peer reviewed science in a manner that can be verified – as per the site policy that you have no doubt read at the top of this page. Otherwise, you may as well argue about the existence of unicorns, on another thread.
What journal? Is the rejection related to the socialist conspiracy theory you argue ad nauseum on your website. 😉
“The “copyright” point is specious, as it would make it impossible to say a thing about what actually appears on the IPCC reports without submitting oneself to a lengthy authorization request, thereby making them irrelevant. Obviously, “fair use” is “faiir use” is “fair use”, and I have already pointed you to a site where that concept is well explained.”
No, and you know why it’s ‘no’. You ‘pointed’ to a site that essentially discusses general legal issues regarding literature, and it specifically notes that factual material is subject to stricter rules. Do you even bother to read what you link? If you do, then apparently the problem is that you struggle to accurately understand what you read. I assure you, I understand what is or is not ‘specious’.
“And by the way, the IPCC figures can be reproduced freely and without permission (subject to a few requirements): are you saying that all I have to do is put a copy of figure 1.9 in my original blog, rather than the individual numbers as they appear in the figure? This is ridiculous.”
I agree, what you say is ridiculous. The issue is the integrity of the data and interpretation of this date. You did not reproduce the figures or ‘original’ numbers. Is it really necessary to point out something so obvious to everyone? In this example, you make up a nonsensical computation of the figures, for the purpose of denying the research conclusions. This is unintelligent, unethical, and illegal. You are clearly demonstrating why you were told you are an idiot, a liar and a fraud, on another thread.
“The references I use in my own personal AGW quest are always spelled out very clearly in all of my blogs and comments.”
The issue is accuracy. Anyone can slap on the source of their distortions and babbling and call it a reference.
“As for your definition of “spamming”, it appears that it applies to any material that is not of your liking, and not just to unwanted, unsolicited and non-relevant stuff, like for the rest of us.”
It’s not my definition. It’s common usage. It means that you are opportunistic about the open nature of comments on blogs and you place the same word for word comments on different climate forums and link to your blog.
“When you’ll become Internet Dictator I will comply to your request .”
That is an interesting projection, since you routinely appoint yourself the person who defines reality on your site. I am not asking you to comply with any kind of pesonal request, I am simply contrasting your behaviour wtih general decency and competence. If you want to be a liar and an idiot, that’s your choice.
With respect to any further discussion of your ‘ideas’ on this thread, you know the rules: claims that challenge the core science require science-based references, not necessarily peer-reviewed, and we would love to see that mystical paper. It is an opportunity to show that you do know something about science, and specifically climate science, despite all the evidence to the contrary so far.
I have tried to post a comment four times, to no avail. I’ll try again tomorrow.
Third attempt…
“Why can’t we see the paper and its review, from you? ”
That’s easy: because the article is being submitted elsewhere, and if it were to be published in other ways it would be disqualified by most journals. Next!
“Is the rejection related to the socialist conspiracy theory you argue ad nauseum on your website”
I do not know what you are talking about. I have repeatedly spoken against the existence of any conspiracy. Here’s some text from July 22: “the fact that scientists fall repeatedly and across the centuries in the trap of “consensus” needs no conspiracy. It cannot be interpreted in any other way than as demonstration that scientists are human beings and that like all other human beings they introduce their subjective feelings, emotions, tribal drive, and who knows what else in the purportedly objective scientific process”
Or are you referring to my March 4 blog? Well, if that’s the case, I am sorry to hear about how challenging you find humor.
(I won’t put a link to my blog, otherwise you’ll accuse me of trying to increase traffic to it…oh dear…)
“No, and you know why it’s ‘no”
This is no answer. Legally, I have shown I have all rights to use minute chunks of content with an explicit statement of where it comes from, in order to express my opinions on the topic.
And in the IPCC own words, “Reproduction of figures or short excerpts of IPCC material is authorized free of charge and without formal written permission provided that the original source is properly acknowledged […]”.
At most, you can accuse me of having forgotten to put “the complete name of the report, the publisher and the numbering of the page(s) or the figure(s)”. Oops. Oh, and according to your logic, I should have copied the original numbers even if anybody could see them in their full glory in the PDF file I had explicited linked to…. Oops again.
This is a far cry from the original baseless statement about me “borrowing” the data, or having done a “deliberately fraudulent reinterpretation of the data”.
For truth’s sake! I have ADDED UP THE ORIGINAL NUMBERS. And transformed then into PERCENTAGES. “Fraudulent reinterpretation”? “Nonsensical computation”? All I have done is additions and divisions…this is primary school stuff!!
Please try to bring your reasoning to a better level. For now, all I have understood is that I have done my additions and divisions right, otherwise you’d have found a flaw already in my “calculations” (if anybody could seriously call them that)
Another meaningless remark: “you are opportunistic about the open nature of comments on blogs”…could you please and clearly detail in which blogs exactly I have mentioned my “calculations” in threads where they would have been irrelevant?
And how often did I do it to qualify as having distributed them “indiscriminately”, as per the dictionary definition of “spam” at Answers.com?
“claims that challenge the core science require science-based references”
I have referenced the IPCC, and look what sorts of rhetorical somersaults you have tried to do in order to find any fault in my remarks…I am not sure there would be any point in arguing with you any science point from any other reference. What a tragedy, isn’t it 😎
—-
thank you S2. I guess my wordpress account was playing up last night (I am also not always receiving the subscription-related updates, for some reason).
[edit]
—-
Omnologos, you are making yourself very clear: you can’t understand anything that is said to you; you don’t want to use data competently, meaningfully, or ethically; and you will ‘argue’ everything, endlessly.
Carry on. It changes nothing about the facts.
Can anyone help me on the apparent anomaly over tidal gauges and evidence of ice melt?
From my own prior reading I see that here in the UK we have Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, who in 2007 produced a history of global sea levels rise from 1904 to 2003 based upon a set of reliable, long-term observations from 9 tide gauge stations scattered around the world. He finds that rises are of the order of 1.74 ± 0.16mm/yr (about 0.07 in/yr, or 7 inches per century).
From a link from this site to the Univ. of Colorado I found another interesting set of data not at variance with Holgate. Strangely, both sets of data actually accords with the ice melt we’d expect to see naturally as averaged over the past 11, 000 years since the last ice age. So where is melt water from all that ‘cataclysmic’ glacial loss actually going and why are the IPCC estimates so way off?
Just a small point concerning a sweeping statement at the head of this thread that amounts to a logical fallacy:
“If the cause was solar, then all of the planets would be warming. Some are warming, some are cooling”
This is false logic because not all the planets would have to be warming for a warming effect to be at work in the solar system. For example, an extrinsic force may be creating a heating effect but if, at the same time and intrinsic force was causing cooling then there would be a perceived inconsistency.
To simply illustrate my point, in a house fire the heat from the fire would be expected to warm the whole house. However, the heat from the fire may not impact at all on the contents of the kitchen freezer which may continue to cool. [1]
Our knowledge of the solar bodies is at best sketchy [2]. We have no absolute knowledge of what variabilities in planetary orbit, cosmic particle impacts, unobserved terrestrial imponderables including intrinsic insulation properties (cooling gases like in the freezer) etc. are actually at work.
Thus this issue clearly warrants further investigation before drawing such a glib and unscientific conclusion as shown above.
I would argue this issue warrants the application of the precautionary principle. We must remember that just because not ALL planetary bodies are warming does not, in itself, prove that the sun has not increased its heating effect elsewhere.
—-
Apologies for not inserting a link to Professor Holgate’s findings on global sea level rises.
Click to access sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf
Holgate explains from the set of 9 reliable global tidal gauges the data sets show that;
“The mean rate for the twentieth century calculated in this way is 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”
Thus, if anything, the real world data proves a slow down in sea levels rises, a fact that apparently conflicts with reports of increasing glacial ice melt.
In newly released research it appears that ice melt during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history. How can this be if man made global warming is moving apace – -anyone want to comment on the paper?
See: Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.
Perhaps you could actually read the paper? Even the abstract already provides a few clues as to “how can this be if man made global warming is moving apace”.
“In newly released research it appears that ice melt during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history. How can this be if man made global warming is moving apace – -anyone want to comment on the paper? See: Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.”
Alternatively, John can at least read the abstract and try to know what he is talking about: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039186.shtml
There is no denial of the facts of climate change in the research. The research increases Antarctica expertise and considers linkages between factors specific to the region, and recent and future climate change impacts in Antarctica and elsewhere.
If all that someone is interested in is the melt record in Antarctica for a single year, no one except John should be suprised by the research: it was a very cold year due to La Nina and other factors.
Tedesco’s other research confirms increased snowmelt on the ice shelf surface in Antarctica: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031199.shtml
Tedesco is perhaps best-known for confirming a melting trend in Greenland. Tedesco, M. (2007), A new record in 2007 for melting in Greenland, Eos Trans. AGU, 88(39), 383. And Tedesco, M., X. Fettweis, M. van den Broeke, R. van de Wal, and P. Smeets (2008), Extreme snowmelt in northern Greenland during summer 2008, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(41), 391
John can consider educating himself by reading any of this site’s related posts and links to the science:
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/twits-and-ass-at-the-daily-dreckdaily-dreck/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08471.html
“Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss” Study Busts Antarctica’s Chill On Global Warming
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99681830
Antarctica hit by climate change
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/38541
Final Wilkins Ice-Sheet Breakup Looms
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/11/28/further-wilkins-ice-sheet-breakup-looms/
Wilkins Ice Shelf in Danger
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/11/28/wilkins-ice-shelf-in-danger/
Antarctic Warming Shows “Human Fingerprints” http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2008/11/14/antarctic-warming-shows-human-fingerprints/
Antarctica hit by climate change http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081030/full/news.2008.1195.html
Marco, you seem to me to be obtusely ( and deliberately?)off the point; show me any AGW models that predicted the lowest ever ice melt in recorded satellite history? Something must be seriously awry here.
This is another cruel blow to the AGW myth of cataclysmic ice melt- possibly time to get out Occam’s Razor? Along with the latest data collated from tidal gauges by the University of Colorada and the UK’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, there is growing evidence that the planet is unlikely to face rapid and devastating natural disasters due to industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.
Would anyone also like to comment on my point above regarding the logical fallacy of the opening statement to this thread- well and truly debunked (i.e. “If the cause was solar, then all of the planets would be warming. Some are warming, some are cooling” ).
—-
Regarding the models and ice growth:
Click to access Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
Let’s see if you are capable of understanding anything beyond high school physics.
Oh, and do you, with your frequent reference to Proudman’s work, not acknowledge that there is significant ice melt + increasing temperatures, which makes the oceans rise? Why, yes, you do! Now, try to extrapolate the data with an increase in temperature of about 2 degrees (I’ll be kind and take the lowest estimate) by 2100. Then calculate how many people would be affected by the calculated increase in ocean levels, assuming there is no increase in world population.
The latest real world data sets showing increased ice , rather than melt [1], ought to show the IPCC’s leading climate modellers that perhaps they need to re-calibrate their computer codes accordingly. It seems hardly credible that the 20 models the IPPC relies upon should all, without exception, be kept set at showing clear positive feedback.
—-
BTW credit appears to be due to Greenfyre for promptly removing the logical fallacy [1] at the head of this thread, as I commented on above ( I no longer see it!) [2].
If so then I must concede that this proves rational analysis does still exist on both sides of the AGW debate – whatever some of the critics may say ; ) [3]
—-
Marco, thanks for the link in answer to my comment- most interesting reading!
I note from the link that the author concedes, “ they cannot explain the recent increase of sea ice in the Antarctic as a whole “(Liu et al. 2004). But it is suggested that, “an increase in precipitation may cause an increase in snow–ice formation because of an increase in snow depth, which may cause an increase in ice volume” (Powell et al. 2005).
In a reference to Parkinson’s paper (2002) it is again conceded that “the model simulates decreasing sea ice in disagreement with the observations, which is certainly due to the uncertainties in the model and the forcing.” [Edit]
Later the paper appears to attribute at least part of the increase in ice to the increase in precipitation ( which in itself, is counter-intuitive to a common AGW axiom, namely, rising temps = decreased precipitation) [1]. There is some algebraic gymnastics [2 – Edit]
With an overall increase in net sea ice there is cooling taking place, not warming, whichever way you wish to spin it. Zhang implicitly gives up the ghost on this by concluding that, “There are many uncertainties with both the model and the reanalysis data, and the results must be viewed with caution.”
It’s hardly the kind of science you want to hang your hat on, is it? [3] I’ll ignore your condescending tone and your obtuse response evading a rational explanation. Occam’s Razor is still to hand if you wish to grasp it. I am sure the vast majority of voters comprehend little more than high school physics but I’m sure any one with a smidgen of intelligence can smell BS when it’s put under their nose.
—-
Marco: “do you, with your frequent reference to Proudman’s work, not acknowledge that there is significant ice melt + increasing temperatures, which makes the oceans rise?”
No, I don’t. All I see is a climate with low sensitivity which Zhang (hoisted by your own petard) conceded had outwitted the model simulations. Zhang admitted he is confounded and with so many imponderables in play I would suggest we rely more on the real world data sets i.e. no discernible sea level rises = no positive feedback.
Do I take it that you do not contravert Professor Holgate’s and the Univ. of Colorado’ findings that reliable tidal gauges show a slow down in sea level rises in the second half of the 20th Century?
Based on Zhang’s uncertainty with the modelling, I would suggest we stay strictly within the basics of the Second Law [Edit]
—-
Martha: “If all that someone is interested in is the melt record in Antarctica for a single year, no one except John should be suprised by the research: it was a very cold year due to La Nina and other factors. ”
No, I was also interested in your views on 100 years of tidal gauge data but you conspicuously ignore it.
So Martha, did you anticipate that record cooling? If you did that puts you one up on IPCC’s cited modellers who seemingly overlooked La Nina and ‘other factors’ (lets just forget its all part of the grand climate scheme shall we?). Your talents are clearly going unrecognised!
But I’d be even more impressed with your insight if you could offer up a plausible explanation as to why all reliable tidal gauges for the past hundred years are showing a slow down in sea level rises in the second half of the 20th century.
So unless you’re throwing the Second Law of Thermodynamics [Edit]
—-
S2: ““From what I’ve read it seems” are not the way to go about discussing science.”
I was referring to citations I stated in my prior comments e.g Liu et al. 2004; Powell et al. 2005; Parkinson 2002; Proudman as well as my reference to Greenfyre’s very own link to the Univ. of Colorado ( re: sea levels).
My apologies for not adding them again [Edit] as I foolishly assumed that within this thread two postings earlier, it was obvious who I was referring to.
—-
S2: ” [1] – Only if the kitchen is in a different building.”
I take it you’ve never actually physically inspected a burnt out building or had to make a fire claim.
—-
That’s tide gauges. 😉
Monitoring of sea level rise/rate and magnitude of sea level change in relation to the climate crisis is perhaps one of the fastest-developing fields in climate science. The related research that informed the last IPCC report is considered dated now.
Try newer Holgate. See Woodworth, P. L., White, N. J., Jevrejeva, S., Holgate, S. J., Church, J. A. and Gehrels, W. R. (2008). “Evidence for the accelerations of sea level on multi-decade and century timescales”, International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1771.
See Jevrejeva, S., J.C. Moore, A. Grinsted,, and P.L. Woodworth, 2008, “Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?”, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611, 2008.
Commenting on the above research by his colleague, Jevrejeva, Holgate says “There is a strong sense in the community that the IPCC numbers are underestimates. The models don’t take ice sheet melting into account.”
More:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html?page=1
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp
Sea level rise flies high
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/37260
Sea level could rise faster than we think
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/34638
Here a journalistic review of the science as of March 2009, from solidly-warmist German daily SDZ (Google Translate should be a good starting point for those not speaking German). My brief commentary is Edit: [1]
—-
S2 – when I posted a comment some time ago without a link, you intervened and posted the link. Now that I posted a comment and a link, you intervened to remove the link. Could you please clarify with yourself what is the most appropriate way to mention in here any content from the internet.
S2 – change of plan…I have just seen you invitation in the Censorship thread not to link to my site unless “really relevant”…
For some reason I do not get e-mail updates when you comment one of my comments. I wonder if that’s expected?
You link to a news article that reviews a range of possible sea-level scenarios discussed at the International Scientific Conference held in March 2009 in Copenhagen. The article acknowledges the science that says the IPCC estimates are dated and too low.
It also reports that even the most cautious scientists are worried. It does not suggest which scenario is most likely, but rather, reports on the range of scenarios suggested by the fast-evolving science of sea-level rise i.e., from troubling to catastrophic.
You then link to an opinion piece by Mike Hulme (posted to that particular link by climate denier darling, Roger Pielke Jr.). Hulme’s comments are critical of the March 2—9 Copenhagen conference, which you use in the same blog post to try to support your opinion.
Hulme does applied climatology. That means he studies the relationship between climate and human activity eg. health. His is also an opinion piece, and he chooses to be critical of the explicitly political aspect of the conference, which sought to open dialogue leading up to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP-15) this December. Most of his work seeks to separate the science from questions about responding to it. He was a contributor to the TAR. He does policy work, too.
“This was not a process initiated and conducted by the world’s governments, there was no systematic synthesis, assessment and review of research findings as in the IPCC.”
“IARU is not accountable to anyone and has no professional membership. It is not accountable to governments, to professional scientific associations, nor to international scientific bodies operating under the umbrella of the UN.”
It’s not exactly a damning criticism of the science or the upcoming COP-15.
Anyone familiar with Hulme will quickly recognize that you deliberately distort the meaning of his work. He argues that since some people (you, for example) may not understand the meaning of ‘catastrophe’ in the context of climate, it may be best not to use it.
Both the journalist and the professor present the most conservative science as plenty scary.
Try reading your own links. Then try working on comprehension of what you’re reading.
Also your severe and persistent problem with circular arguments is really obvious and requires remediaton via an introductory course in logic.
I am sorry Martha…I haven’t done here any of the things you discuss. All I have done is put a link to a newspaper article, from which anybody can extract various bits of information and study the work of the mentioned scientists to his or her satisfaction. And I have added my 2-sentence commentary about that article.
Everything else you mention, has happened in my original blog. I do not think the Science thread in Greenfyre’s blog (=home) is the place where to ruminate about the contents of any of my blogs unless I add a comment here according to the blog’s stated policy.
It says, at the beginning: This thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change. If and when I will post here any comment that purports to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change, we will talk about them.
Otherwise, it will all end up in a lengthy and wholly inappropriate exegesis of “Omniclimate”, fully deserving Greenfyre’s or S2’s immediate deletion.
As a person so concerned about my “inflated ego”, you will surely be happy to drop any further conversation about my blog.
Omno-ignorance lies are lies whether you are first to tell them or merely support them.
Everything you have said anywhere I have come across your ignorance supports that.
Learn some science before you support the lying denying idiots.
S2 – In case you haven’t noticed, Ian Forrester’s comment above (October 10, 2009 at 8:54 am) violates points 1 and 3 of the stated Comments policy.
“I haven’t done here any of the things you discuss.”
I provided an accurate explanation of the linked information, and observed your misrepresention of information for the purpose of misrepresentation.
“I do not think the Science thread in Greenfyre’s blog is the place to [post my denier spam] from my blogs”.
I’m so glad you’re finally onto the purpose of this thread.
Bravo! 🙂
DELETED
I am struggling with working out how to handle comments in Mike’s absence. I think I am managing those that spout scientific nonsense, other (more insidious) comments are a lot harder to deal with.
I do appreciate suggestions, but I will not tolerate anyone telling me what to do.
Omno******
I call a spade a spade, continue with your lies and dishonesty if you wish but every thinking person knows the actual facts as opposed to the rubbish you have been spouting here and on your blog.
Which part of “It attacks individuals” and “It duplicates other comments you have made in this thread or elsewhere on this site” do you need to see explained?
Enough of talking about me at every step – let’s get back to climate science!
You haven’t even discussed one sentence on real science. You just use this blog to send people to your junk science political site.
You are not welcome here if you can’t discuss real science in a rational way (hint, linking to junk science and denier sites is not real science).
Ian – Not sure what you are talking about. You must be confusing me with somebody else. I have been invited twice in this thread by Martha. I have not linked to anything apart from a blog of mine and I was quoting straight from it, and a strictly non-denialist newspaper article in German.
This is the third time you’ve been shown incorrect about myself. Do yourself a favor and change topic if you just cannot say “sorry” and/or correct yourself.
I repeat: this is not the “Maurizio is a nasty agent of evil” thread.
Listen, you have not shown that I am wrong about your deceitful and anti-science nonsense (otherwisw why are numerous other posters saying the same things about you?).
You are a typical denier and ASS afflicted pseudo-intellectual.
S2 – Greenfyre has written a Comment policy that is very clear. That policy is being violated by people like Ian Forrester and Martha. And yet…the end of it all I can see is you doing nothing to clean this thread from personal attacks.
Anyway…feel free to act any way you please, nobody is telling you what to do. [1] I am just pointing out at the obvious. [2]
If this thread need be renamed “Maurizio is a nasty agent of evil”, so be it. [3]
—-
Martha – The Sueedeutsche Zeitung will be mightily impressed when they’ll hear that anything they publish could remotely support a “denial of the climate crisis”. Perhaps you should worry less about me and my “spamming” and more about learning how to use Google Translate (or better yet, learning how to read German).
S2 – after asking over and over again to Ian Forrester and Martha to stop talking about me, I can only be very surprised to hear that the problem is me “getting personal”.
And by the way…the point about me being an agent of evil was not provocative. I have stopped saying “poor me” around four decades ago. [1]
It’s just what this thread has degenerated into, with the continuous personal attacks by Ian Forrester and Martha.
Anyway…if you think it worthwhile to keep their personal comments about me in this thread, well, what else can I say? Let’s just hope there will not be further comments, in this thread or anywhere else, about me as a person .[2]
—-
MM the truth hurts. But it is nice to see you tell the truth for once:
“I have not linked to anything apart from a blog of mine”
There’s your trouble. 😉
You have deposited on our site what you feel is ‘evidence’ (mostly from international newspapers) that supports your denial of the climate crisis, as you see it, but you cannot discuss the SCIENCE. When you refer to the science, you imply that it supports your views. It doesn’t, and you have been patiently shown this both by examinations of the science and examinations of your distortions and misrepresentations, on this and many other science sites. Do you expect others to have endless patience with you? That’s not realistic.
Please stop using this site as an extension of your denier blog.
Learn to use critical evaluation and analytic skills.
Increase your knowledge of science.
Increase your capacity to self-assess.
Stop being so obviously personally stimulated by your own spammed-all-over-the-internet-for-anyone-to-see distortions and exceptionally poor understanding of the science.
You feel you have been unfairly treated? That’s one perspective. Another is that the site administrator has been more than fair, even generous, to you.
This particular thread has a specific purpose. I addressed a couple of recent instances of your deliberate misrepresentations of science, deposited on the site.
I found you were unable to discuss science without resorting to more lies or distortions or personal grandstanding.
But feel free to post real questions about the science, if you have any. And make it honest, including your use of citations. 😉
It is unbelievable that most here are of the opinion that Co2 is causing global temperatures to rise without the slightest knowledge of how actual temperature and Co2 levels have been tracking for over a decade now! Most of what I see is psychoanalytical opinion and political agenda. This kind of talk does not make one side right or wrong. Only the facts do. Can’t you people realize that you have been brainwashed to the point that facts don’t mater anymore? Isn’t there anyone here which is the slightest bit interested in what is actually happening or are you all going to blindly swallow what the so called scientists and politicians spoon feed you. Don’t you realize that when Gore said “the debate is over” he’s trying to fool you? NONE of the “Gloom and Doom” predictions of the 1980’s have come true. NONE of the “Gloom and Doom” predictions of the 1990’s have come true. This is why the Global Warming Co2 theory is falling apart. If you are not sure, look at the facts! Wake up people! Don’t be a drone left behind!
—-
From the Physorg link above: “[…] for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows”
From the NOAA October preliminary round-up: “[…] The October 2009 average temperature for the contiguous United States was the third coolest on record for that month […] Temperatures were below normal in all regions with the exception of the Southeast […] ”
A month means nothing, of course, but the juxtaposition is just too funny not to notice. A strong sense of humor in the Divinity, perhaps?
ps bye bye John Beckwith but…when will the “delete rude comments” policy start to apply regardless of the opinion on AGW of the comment writer?
Omnologos
It’s a puzzle why you feel the need to write 9 lines of a nonsense comment on the science rather than choosing to make a meaningful and accurate point.
The same NOAA data source shows that September 2009 was the second warmest on record and close to the 2005 record, with a pattern of being the 33rd consecutive September with a global temp above the last century’s average. It has been more than 20 years since we had a below-average September. We’ve had the second warmest August on record, with warmest June-July-August ocean temps. All in the context of the warmest decade on record.
You continue to waste everyone’s time with what can only be described as smart-assed, vague statements that try to dismiss the data, despite patient efforts to present the facts to you.
Martha – which bit of “A month means nothing, of course” didn’t you understand?
The real puzzle is why you, like Ian Forrester, keep getting back at fantasizing about me as a person, despite a clear blog policy and repeated invitations to do otherwise.
Omno-troll said:
Except to you and your denier followers, of course. You will grasp at any flimsy straw to try and convince the ignorati that you are right and all of climate science is wrong.
And, by the way, I don’t “fantasize” about you, I only show people how dishonest you have been here and on your various blogs. Note that “dishonest” covers a lot more than just telling outright lies when you are pretending to be a scientist.
“Martha – which bit of “A month means nothing, of course” didn’t you understand?”
Tell me, omnologos, what part of ‘It’s a puzzle why you feel the need to write 9 lines of a nonsense comment on the science rather than choosing to make a meaningful and accurate point’ with the data, are you pretending you don’t understand?
And the important point that you just had to post to this thread, is what, again?
Both are rhetorical questions. 😉
Martha – You posted an entire reply to a comment of mine without an insult! Are you mellowing up or just tired.
If there were a thread for self analysis I’d ask you to explain what is the important point for you in transforming always and incessantly any topic of any sort here in a discussion about me.
But alas! there isn’t!! 🙂
o
You are posting on the science thread but for the life of you, you can’t discuss why.
You can’t address any questions about any aspect of any of your comments in relation to any of the science.
I am satisfied to end any further discussion with you.
I think we can all agree that there were no polar ice caps in the triassic period or for any of the dinosaur’s existence. The reason is that ice caps are not natural to this planet. They only came into existence because of the meteor impact which killed the dinosaurs by throwing millions of tons of debris into the atmosphere blocking out the sun. This caused a massive ice age which brought the ice cpas into existence. So what you call global warming is simply the earth returning to its natural jungle like state after the unnatural meteor impact.
—–
As I said in the next post what is happening “now” does not concern the earth which deals on a time scale beyond human comprehension.
—–
Okay thank you for being polite please tell me what in my post is not true.
—-
All I am trying to say is that maybe the earth getting warmer is not completely bad because it has been noticably warmer in past ages.
—-
Okay I read the hell and high water link and it makes things look pretty dark for the future. Life will continue on earth regardless although maybe in a different form. This could be the earths way of killing of the human population which it feels has overpopulated itself.
—-
Mass extinctions are not unheard of in earths history.
—–
Anyway though I got to go but I respect what your doing here with the site.
—-
Well I am only in middleschool [1] maybe once I study some more I will see the issue the way you do. Humanity’s extinction would not be the first mass extinction though due to the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous and Precambrian eras. [2]
—-
I agree with that. In response to your firewall. I dont know how you would fix it but your firewall is based [thanks for this but edited to limit spammers] it sees me as a new person which is why I think the little icons in the corner keeps changing. [1] Cool site you got here otherwise. I probably know more about computers than climate change.
—-
No problem
Out of curiosity are reports of glaciers growing over greenland true or just wishful thinking
Because I haven’t been able to find any conclusive proof either way.
—-
Not to contradict your views but what is your take on the arguement that the sun will be operating at peak efficiency in 2012. The theory is that global warming is the lead up to this event. Has there been any study to see if Mercury or Venus are heating up as well.
—-
What can we do to halt global warming?
I watched the sun video on Youtube and while most of it makes since Sinclair claims that the increase of warming in the winter as opposed to the summer proves that the sun is not the factor responsible for global warming, but in actuality this would be expected because the Earth is actually closer to the Sun during the winter than in the summer. The reason it is hotter in the summer is the way the earth tilts on its axis.
—-
Its true the earth’s orbit around the sun brings it closer to the sun during the winter months but due to the tilt of the earths axis less sunlight reaches it.
Winter is October to December.
—-
I can’t see Winter being OND anywhere. If we divide the year into 4 seasons of 3 whole months each, that would give us (N hemisphere)
OND Winter
JFM Spring
AMJ Summer
JAS Autumn/Fall
Again using 3 whole months per season, I’d say
DJF Winter
MAM Spring
JJA Summer
SON Autumn/Fall
BTW perihelion is around 3 Jan, a little after the N Winter Solstice, and the tilt of the axis makes no difference to the total solar radiation hitting the Earth, only to its distribution.
Here in Scotland spring is March – May, Summer is June – August, Autumn is September – November, and winter is December to February. In England its sort of similar except winter is usually shorter and nicer and spring gets going in February.
But the warming means that spring for the last 3 years has begun in February in Scotland, albeit interrupted with some late frosts. A mere 12 years ago you could tell it was spring in late March as the air changed due to the plants becoming more active, now that starts in February.
While the earth is closer to the sun from October to December.
—-
Ha, I’m challenging the core science of the ‘skeptics’:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
(and yes, I’m plugging this one. It can’t be promoted enough. Let the deniolati come with an explanation of climate change that explains so many observations as CO2 does).
I love his enthusiasm. He reminds me of the late Richard Feynman.
We need more people like this.
Thanks. 🙂
Poptech,
So here we are on the science thread where you have to source your statements about the science.
Pay attention: ‘sourcing’ does not mean that you make a completely bogus or irrelevant claim or misrepresent research conclusions or the data of working scientists, then ‘source’ it to a peer-reviewed paper and post it repetitively to dozens of forums (hint: lies, frauds, spam).
After accuracy, your next obligation on this thread is to know whether or not the cited paper is poor science by someone with unusual interests (hint: your habitual quoting of Bob Carter of Fred Singer is problematic).
Here are your claims:
”It is a lie that CO2 drives Temperature.”
C02 is not the main driver of the current warming trend? Your source for this claim? Obviously, no one is saying there are no other factors; but what is your source for claiming that C02 from human activity is not the main driver of the current warming trend?
“The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is inconsequential”
Source?
“It has not been proven that increased CO2 is causing warming.”
The language of proof has not been used since Popper. Otherwise… source?
“ALL the evidence for man being the cause is based on worthless computer models.”
See all the posts, links and related discussion on this site. No one here has time to be your tutor.
“It is a lie that polar bears are dying.”
Source? Some populatios are currently affected e.g. western Hudson Bay, while others are not, depending on what is happening with the sea ice in their vast terrain. The overall habitat is however at risk. What is your source for stating that it is a lie that the western Hudson Bay population is not in decline? (Hint: Don’t cite the 2007 L. Peacock paper. Try newer Peacock, since Peacock now says the 2007 study was methodologically flawed and did not capture the decline; or Canadian researchers Andrew Derocher or Seth Cherry, for population-specific studies.)
“I state the truth”.
You state no such thing and you are scientifically illiterate.
“Man-Made” Global Warming is an invented hysteria and Al Gore is largely responsible”.
Your lies about the science are motivated by your belief in a conspiracy to mislead the public, led by Al Gore?
From Crude Hack, Everybody Loves a Charade
‘Humanitarian’
You might want to pay attention to Ian to increase your understanding.
You are attempting to comment on a complex topic and it is not for the weak of intellect or the smart of ass.
That study (and another one from different researchers, on the same topic, which came out of the same university around the same time) is not news.
The press release for Knorr was in November:
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
And consider the other press release.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6676.html
“The strongest evidence yet that the rise in atmospheric CO2 emissions continues to outstrip the ability of the world’s natural ‘sinks’ to absorb carbon is published this week in Nature Geoscience.”
The question raised by the Knorr study is the ability of sinks to sequester carbon and at what rate, as per Ian’s explanation. This impacts the anticipated speed of warming.
Knorr explicitly states his study does NOT support climate change denial. On the contrary, his research is an attempt to address the above important questions in the science, and he is a well-known proponent of emissions caps who is involved in both policy recommendations to mitigate climate change and research to help monitor interventions.
One implication, if he is right, may be that we might have more time to address some aspects of climate change. On the other hand, it raises questions about the current negative impacts on oceans.
p.s. Next time you wish to ‘source’ something make sure your discussion does not completely misrepresent the science research conclusions, as you have done with Knorr’s study. It is fraudulent.
Vangel, what you convey in all your comments, including your latest denier nonsense on the thread ‘Climate Change, Lies Lies and More Lies’, is your exceptional motivation and interest in ignoring what is right in front of you and completely misrepresenting the purpose and conclusions of research via your cutting and pasting of select ‘quotes’.
This unusual ‘sourcing’ activity may be creative but it is blatantly fraudulent.
It would be more worthwhile to examine the distortion of your reasoning by your political beliefs than to give any consideration whatsoever to your denier spam.
Listen to Ian. The C02 Science is 150 plus years old.
No links to the C02 science on this site? There are links and posts and discussion all over this site regarding the development of C02 knowledge.
For example:
https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-scie …
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/11/ho …
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 …
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 …
Too lazy to read?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&fea …
Уроженец Таллина Дмитрий Савин, обвиняющийся в захвате сухогруза “Арктик Си”, заявил, что заказчик преступления эстонский бизнесмен Эрик Кросс десять лет возглавлял эстонскую разведку и до сих пор поддерживает активные контакты со спецслужбами. Савин, выступая с последним словом в Мосгорсуде при вынесении ему приговора, упрекнул российскую прокуратуру в том, что она раскрыла его показания о заказчике, сообщает РАПСИ.
По словам обвиняемого, он получил от Кросса сообщение, что своими признательными показаниями “он закрыл себе путь на родину”. Савин рассказал, что его семье поступают угрозы, а его дома “дежурят какие-то машины”. Он также утверждает, что Кросс является “очень влиятельным человеком в Евросоюзе”.
Савин является вторым из восьми задержанных за захват сухогруза “Арктик Си”, который пошел на сделку со следствием. Осужденный ранее Андрей Лунев получил пять лет колонии.
I’m sorry but this is an English language blog. If you can write English, would you like to try again?
What does the seizing of a cargo ship have to do with climate science?
Мне жаль, но это английский язык блог. Если вы можете писать по-английски, вы бы хотели, чтобы попытаться еще раз?
Что захвата грузового судна, имеют отношение к климатической науки?
Я надеюсь, что перевод не так уж плохо. 😉
I’m hugely impressed by your language skills, TrueSceptic. 🙂
I normally treat stuff like this as spam, simply because I can’t understand it.
I take it that your 🙂 was ironic 😉
It doesn’t seem to be random spam, although it’s not obviously related to this blog. If we don’t get a follow-up, then it probably was spam.
Конечно, я надеюсь, русского языка, чтобы посмеяться над неуклюжими попытками Google по адресу перевода.
(Whoops!)
No, actually – I am genuinely impressed, no irony intended.
It’s rare (I think) that people have both linguistic and scientific skills.
Kudos.
S2,
I thought my last comment gave it away. I used Google translate.
Software language translators rarely get it exactly right, and idioms usually fool them completely, but you can usually get the key points and the meaning.
I need to compare the Google translator with Babel Fish some time.
I just love the look of the Cyrillic alphabet, though. 🙂
Oh, and I’m not a scientist. 🙂
Hello everybody. Perhaps you might help in finding an update on some information I have found on another blog.
(this is not exactly “challenging the core science”…it’s more about finding out a detail of the “core science” at the moment)
In the post “Forest canopy height: why do we care?” (Jul 28), Hannah Waters writes: “20-50% of carbon in the atmosphere is currently not accounted for in climate models“.
I have asked about her source for that statement and the reply has been: “The source was Cohen et al. 1996, full citation in my post. It’s a number often used in papers on this topic, though, to be honest, I’m not positive where it originates. It’s usually written as though it’s common knowledge”
Since I do hope there’s been some progress on the topic during the last 14 years, I wonder if anybody here knows about what the situation is today, about this “unaccounted carbon”.
thanks in anticipation
Hi, omnologos.
I think Hannah may have been a little careless with her words (it happens, I know I am guilty of the same thing as well from time to time). As you point out, she wrote
In fact the problem is not that we don’t know where the atmospheric carbon is coming from, it is that we don’t understand where it is going to.
Back in 1996 we knew pretty much how much extra carbon we were pumping into the atmosphere, we knew how much atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were increasing, and we thought we knew how much CO2 was being taken up by the biosphere, the oceans, etc.
But when people tried to balance the equations it didn’t work. Approximately 2 GtC (it varies a bit from paper to paper) of our emissions could not be accounted for.
Hannah’s link makes this clear (although it only gives the first page of the paper).
As far as I know this is still a problem – I have seen papers claiming to have found the missing sink in both tropical and arboreal forests, but I don’t think there is a consensus view as yet.
Search for “missing carbon sink” and you’ll find lots to read – if you can find a consistent viewpoint then you are better than I am.
NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory would have helped, but it’s launch was a failure.
I don’t think it makes much difference to the “core science”, though. CO2 is increasing, as is temperature.
Hope this helps.
thank you S2. I’ll look for “missing carbon sink”.
S2
You know, I learned over at Eli’s awhile back that it is now being called ‘residual land sink’.
The newer term suggests both what we know and the leftover or ‘residual’ mechanisms still not accounted for in the global carbon cycle.
As you suggest, it is more ‘residual’ than missing from the calculations that form the core science.
Thanks, and I do agree that ‘residual land sink’ is a better term for it, for the reasons that you point out.
But ‘missing carbon sink’ gets many more hits on search engines. 🙂
Buried in one of Bob’s comments is something about not liking being told where to smoke. I would like to see a check on correlation between cigarette smoking and the various forms of denial. I think there is one. (Boehner, Lindzen, who else?)
sorry so out of date, but this thought keeps cropping up … and I think there may actually be a correspondence between smoking and not liking mainstream science and particularly regulation.
—-
Obama .
But I’m a cigar ( & marijuana ) smoker anyway . I do find the extension of the war on ( some ) drugs to the herb which made America one of the dead canaries in the current ascendant statism , of which this eco-leninist fraud against the anabolic ( building ) half of the respiratory cycle of life has been a most aggressive part .
What’s really depressing is to see what the broad gullibility for this idiotic anti-life hysteria over a change of perhaps one part in 600 in our temperature says about the pathetic state of teaching of basic physics and math .
There are approximately 6000 weather stations (Google).
If each of the these stations is representative of an area of (say) 100Km^2 then this would be a 99.88% is unrepresented.
Is it good science to extrapolate 99.88% in order to arrive at a meaningful average.
There are approximately 6000 weather stations (Google).
If each of the these stations is representative of an area of (say) 100Km^2 then this would be a 0.12% sample of available area. Put another way, 99.88% is unrepresented.
Is it good science to extrapolate 99.88% in order to arrive at a meaningful average.
—-
From the horse’s mouth
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
I am not aware of any method for determining that a sample is representative, other than that is was taken randomly from the population to begin with, which these stations obviously are not. What might such a method look like?
This is what is called a convenience sample. It is very much like many samples in psychological research, which consist of the researcher’s students. Extrapolating the results of a convenience sample to the global population is dubious at best, and dangerous at worst.
Even worse, the so-called global average temperature is not a statistical average, in the usual sense of averaging the values in the representative sample. It is based on an area averaging methodology which is so far removed from statistical averaging that there is no way to estimate the confidence intervals. It is an average (global) of averages (grid cell) of averages (station), many of which are based on interpolation and few of which are representative. It is a mathematical mess.
I do not think we know that the earth has warmed in the last 100 years, or what form (when and where) that warming may have taken if it has occurred. There is nothing solid for science to explain. But this makes fearful speculation all that much easier,
—-
//// “As anyone with even minimal science background is well aware there are various methods for determining whether your sampling is representative. These have been done.
…You believed millions of scientists were not aware of the problem of sample size being representative (rudimentary high school level statistics) and had not accounted for it … why exactly?” greenfyre ////
I have never seen any reference to a study that proves that the weather stations sampling is representative. Zero.
I expressed my doubts on a German forum and you know what? Both proponents and “moderate” opponents of AGW are conspicuously silent about the issue.
The weather stations network was essentially build up 100 years ago. It is understandable, that they were located where people could check the data 1-3 times a day. They had to live in the neighbourhood, because they didn’t have computers to save the data automatically. That’s why the weather stations were (and are) so unevenly dispersed. (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF)
This is a very serious issue. You can not just assume that the current network is representative without seeing any evidence or reference.
I think you are interested in finding the truth, let’s take the issue about sampling seriously and not just believe, that the scientist must have done everything properly.
If the reality disproves our beliefs, we’d better abandon them.
Greg, be prepared for the same simple minded “go away” response that I got. Representativeness is a deep problem. The polling people have done the most work on it, but so far as I know there are no mathematical tests for it. For example, if you do a phone poll you are omitting those who are unlisted. This too is a convenience sample. In order to even begin to estimate representativeness you would have to sample both those who have listed and unlisted numbers, do a separate poll with both, and see what the variation is.
But we can’t do that with places we do not have data for, plus we know that temperature anomalies varies greatly in relatively short distances. It is like the psychology experiments that use US college students and try to draw conclusions about all humans. The error is unknowable and probably very large. When you throw in area-averaging of temperature anomalies it gets much worse, because then you are not even doing statistical sampling.
Note that contrary to Greenfyre’s spurious claims, I am offering serious factual arguments. This issue is closely related to my Ph.D. field, the logic of science.
//// “David Wojick
Greg, be prepared for the same simple minded “go away” response that I got.” ////
Well, I’m a little bit more optimistic. It looks like Greenfyre honestly believes that it has already been proved, that the sample of weather stations is representative for the whole world. Now if he tries to find that proof and finds out there is none, or even that it can not be proved at all, maybe he will start thinking in a different direction.
Deniers like Wojick and House, what would make you understand that the surface temperatures are, in fact, a good representation of the real world?
Why do you keep on denying science?
For a simple answer to your question, why don’t you compare the surface temperatures as shown by GISS and HadCrut with the temperatures shown by satellite measurement? Is there any difference? One of the satellite data sets is provided by a couple of well known deniers.
Do you agree with the Spencer and Christy findings? Will you admit that even deniers have got it right for once?
You lot are pathetic.
Here is the comparison you ask for: The UAH satellite analysis shows no warming from the beginning in 1978 until the big ENSO begins in 1998. This contridicts all three surface statistical models, which show steady warming. (The questionable statistical models are the basis for the beginning of the warming scare.) Prior to 1998 the lack of UAH warming was a well known problem with AGW.
Then, UAH again shows no warming after the big ENSO, from 2001 until today. However this later flat line is higher than the 1978-1997 flat line. So the only warming (in the sense of a change in average temperature) occurs during the ENSO. This is called a step function in math. Flat-step-flat.
There is no evidence in this step function of GHG warming, which must be a relatively steady long term upward trend, like that that shown in the surface statistical models. Yet this is the period where warming is claimed to show the effect of GHGs, because prior to the satellites the surface models show no warming for the previous 40 years. The step function warming does not support a GHG interpretation.
In my view the step function UAH data is sufficient to falsify AGW, there being no evidence of GHG warming.
Do you have a reasoned response? Name calling and slurs do not count.
What a bombshell! Obviously no one has spotted this before or the whole AGW idea would’ve been abandoned years ago.
In fact, of course, the differences between the different temperature records have been looked at many times. Here’s a recent comparison. Once you correct for different baselines they are very similar. UAH used to differ from the others by more than this but has been in better agreement since errors in UAH’s data processing were corrected.
It’s not true that UAH shows no warming before 1998. The rate is small but it’s there. However, you have to ask why it is less than that shown by RSS, also based on satellite data.
It is also not true that all surface “statistical models” show steady warming. Like UAH and RSS, they show ups and downs that in the short term easily swamp any long term trend. You have to look at trends over 30 years for the signal to overcome the noise.
As far as I know I am the first to point this pattern out, as I have not seen it mentioned elsewhere or heard of it. Data analysis is my specialty. However, it could not have been made long ago as it depends on recent data. As I am using recent UAH data I assume the errors you refer to have been collected.
The slight warming before 97 is not statistically significant. In fact to do this correctly one must not include partial oscillations, so you start and end the trend line as close to the local line value as possible. UAH happens to start at a low point in an oscillation, so that should be factored out to be precise.
Of course I do not mean by steady trend that there are no short term oscillations. But in the surface statistical models the upward trend is clearly visible underlying the oscillations. It had better be if it is to support AGW at all, because GHG buildup is slow and steady.
This magic “30 year rule” is concocted by AGW proponents because it happens to coincide with the warming trend period in the surface models. It has no mathematical or physical basis. The UAH data clearly breaks into the three periods I describe. Flat-step-flat. There is no evidence of GHG warming in this pattern. Not unless there is a mysterious energy capacitor is the system somewhere that was triggered by the big ENSO.
WOW, what a load of rubbish from some one who supposedly has a Ph D. Not in science, I bet.
You haven’t a clue about statistics, why not actually read some instead of parroting the rubbish you find at climatefraudit and other denier sites? There has been statistically significant increase in temperatures since at least 1995, get over it.
I always get a laugh when someone so obviously lacking in science skills pretends to be a scientist, (is that why you tag “Ph D after your name?). You do not have a Ph D in science, it is in history or some-other non-science area. Stop pretending that you are a scientist and have scientific knowledge, it only makes you look stupid. That is not an ad hominem remark but is merely a statement of fact based on the drivel and nonsense you post pretending that it is based on science.
Get over it, AGW is real and is happening at a rate which will lead to numerous problems in the near future.
.
Ian, my point is one of data analysis and logic, not physics. My Ph.D. is in mathematical logic and philosophy of science. My present work is in scientometrics, or the statistical analysis of science. More generally I have done research on the logic of complex issues for 40 years, with the climate change issue being my major case study since 1992. I am a cognitive scientist. While climate scientists study climate I study them, specifically their reasoning, on which I am an expert.
It is quite true that there has been a statistically significant warming since 1995 in the UAH record. Your assertion shows that you misunderstand me, as I do not deny this. My point is that this warming has occurred via a step function, coincident with the big ENSO. Step function warming (a single jump in averages) is inconsistent with GHG warming.
Since this step function is the only warming in the entire recoed there is simply no evidence of GHG warming. This lack of evidence is probably sufficient to falsify AGW.
Wrong again. Step function has not been shown except by people like you. It assumes that you think that only CO2 concentrations affect global temperatures, a common denial point.
Please be more informed about the science and the honesty of the various groups. If you study scientists, as you claim, it should be obvious to anyone of even average intelligence that all the deniers have are lies, dishonesty, cherry picking, misinterpretation, misinformation etc. Please check the various reports coming out on how your favorite denier, Wegman, has shown most of these character defects.
David ,
I’ve been watching this conversation go by and wondered how long it would take to make it become crushingly obvious that there is no interest in real science here , only blindered defense of the religious left’s certainty that the molecule which is the basis of life will kill us all .
Only the continued failure of the planet to heed their hypothesis , combined with it’s noticeable greening , will eventually bring this ant-life , anti-freedom – and as you have just seen – anti-science cult’s extinction .
‘I am a cognitive scientist’.
David, you are not a cognitive scientist. You are an engineer who has mostly worked as a consultant in the regulatory industry and developed some management tools for strategic analysis and issue planning.
While I think anyone can appreciate that you may be interested in how people think and reason, you are not studying the representational and computational structures of the mind or concerning yourself with empirical work that constitutes cognitive science.
Seriously. But feel free to add it to your resume. I think you’ll find that neither your engineering career nor your scientifically illiterate opinionating on climate change constitutes being a ‘cognitive scientist’ to anyone but you, my friend.
Somehow, however, it does helps explain alot about why you think you are an expert in climate science. 😉
@ all guys here,
can we please just focus on one simple question for a little while? I mean the sample issue.
The weather station network exists since more than 100 years ago, although there are more weather stations now, than then. There had been no satellites until recent times.
The simple question is, if the network is representative and who and when proved it. I guess, such a proof does not exist.
If there is no such a proof, then the claimed “warming” is not a scientific fact.
Guys, let’s move step by step. Can we at least agree, that if there were no such a proof, then the claimed “warming” were not a scientifically proven fact? Let’s say, theoretically.
Greg House said:
All data sets show very good correlation. Many people have done it including some published in the scientific literature and some amateurs posting on blogs.
The fact that you would make such an incorrect statement shows that you are a AGW denier and lack scientific skills and knowledge. There are many places where you can go and find actual facts about climate science and global warming. The many denier sites are not the places to go for truth and honesty.
The simple question is, if the network is representative and who and when proved it. I guess, such a proof does not exist.
If there is no such a proof, then the claimed “warming” is not a scientific fact.
It’s statements like this that make me realise that some people have no idea how scientists do their job.
Yet everybody wants to be a back seat driver.
There’s a host of good resources out there that clearly explain the how and why of climate change and the multiple, independent lines of evidence that it’s based on.
You could burn every weather station to the ground and we would still know that climate change is happening.
NASA is a good place to start.
//// “Ian Forrester said:
All data sets show very good correlation. ” ////
Please, do not avoid the question about the sample. There are thermometers scattered around the world. Who and when has proven, that this network is representative for the whole world?
Such a proof should have been already available 100 years ago, right?
Just imagine: 100 years ago people decided to study climate changes, so they needed a network of thermometers. A scientific approach suggests, that they first find out, where the thermometers should be placed to get a representative data, and then they put the thermometers there.
Now think over that: they should have already understood the climate very well to decide, if the sample was representative or not. But how could they possibly have understood the climate without having the data first? You can see, we have a vicious circle here.
So another possibility seems realistic. 100 years ago the thermometers were just intended to deliver some data about local weather, that’s all. They were not intended to be a “representative sample”. And we do not believe in coincidence there, do we?
Greg House, have you ever heard about satellites? Seems that some body got the idea that if they sent them up they might get a representative sampling of global temperature.
Guess what was found. The satellite data were almost identical to the ground based measurements. Seems like you are just another denier clutching at straws to support your dishonest friends.
Greg, you can remove most of the sites, and still get essentially the same answer. This indicates the network has a large overredundance:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/03/area-weighting-and-60-stations-global.html
//// “Marco said:
Greg, you can remove most of the sites, and still get essentially the same answer. This indicates the network has a large overredundance:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/03/area-weighting-and-60-stations-global.html” ////
Marco, sometimes it is possible to find within a large sample a “subsample”, that behaved more or less like the large sample.
But we are talking about a different question: whether the large sample of all the weather stations available is representative for the whole world.
//// “Ian Forrester said:
Greg House, have you ever heard about satellites? Seems that some body got the idea that if they sent them up they might get a representative sampling of global temperature.
Guess what was found. The satellite data were almost identical to the ground based measurements.” ////
Ian, can we agree on that:
1. if a network of more than 1000 thermometers was created 100 years ago without any proof of it being representative for the whole world, and
2. if later, 30 years ago the satellite data allegedly showed that sample being representative,
then either you have an extremely unlikely coincident, or something must be wrong with the that thing about the satellite data (wrong measurements or wrong interpretation etc.)?
Greg House asked:
No, we cannot agree on that. It is just more of your non-science drivel.
Do you understand the difference between “temperature” and “”temperature anomaly”?
Here are a few links to what knowledgeable people have to say on the subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1B.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1A.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_2A.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_2B.html
If you read these and are capable of understanding the rather simple concept then you will see that your comments are just plain wrong. If you don’t have the science background to understand these articles then I might suggest that you have no business making any attempt to try and prove climate scientists wrong.
Accept what I have shown and you will be removed from the list of Dunning Kruger afflicted deniers.
Greg House, you are essentially claiming that a random sample just happens to behave like the larger sample. And Nick did the analysis twice. There are also others who have done it, used different criteria, and got the same result (see e.g. the BEST study, 2% random stations, and essentially the same result as other products).
Jim Hansen authored a paper showing anomaly correlations over huge distances (Hansen & Lebedeff, 1987), far far more than the 100 km2 Izod mentioned earlier (up to 1200 km, especially at high latitudes).
Combined with the satellite record, the conclusion would have to be that the surface temperature record is actually representative, despite the fact that it originally was not set up to create a global temperature anomaly. Why do you not even mention that, most logical, possibility?
//// “Ian Forrester said:
Here are a few links to what knowledgeable people have to say on the subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1B.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1A.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_2A.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_2B.html
If you read these and are capable of understanding the rather simple concept then you will see that your comments are just plain wrong.” ////
Ian, the problem of non-representative samples, is, to put it in a simple way, that they can not produce representative results, regardless of which calculation methods being used. Some methods may be better, than others, but the results will still be non-representative.
Of course, every non-representative sample may show something. But the smaller the calculated non-representative trend is, the more likely it is, that it has nothing to do with the real (unknown) trend.
I am afraid, the guys you are referring to failed to calculate the probability of their results to actually match the (unknown) reality.
So, their calculations look like essentially the same speculation, just put in a complicated way.
Greg, you may want to open a statistics book and look up “representative sample”, and then come back to tell us why the surface stations are, in your opinion clearly by definition, a non-representative sample. All your objections come back to “the sample is non-representative”, without explaining why it would be “non-representative”. Stating that it was not selected with the explicit goal of being representative does not mean it is not. As shown by several people, it is very easy to find an actual representative sample (see Nick Stokes’ example, as well as the BEST analysis) that happens to give the same results as the supposedly non-representative sample.
//// “Marco said:
Greg, you may want to open a statistics book and look up “representative sample”, and then come back to tell us why the surface stations are, in your opinion clearly by definition, a non-representative sample.” ////
No, I did not say that.
I was repeatedly asking for a proof, that a 100 years old weather station network was representative. Then I stated, that if such a proof does not exist, than it is extremely unlikely, that that network is coincidentally representative. Hence it would be extremely unlikely, that the “warming” produced through calculations based on that network is a scientific fact.
But you are right, even if we do not know, whether something possible is actually there or not, it still can be there. However, it goes also for “cooling” and “unchanged”.
Greg, I already explained at length that the surface stations are likely a representative sample. The fact that several subsets yield the same results strongly suggests that the total sample is already significantly oversampled. Combined with the satellite record yielding the same results the most likely conclusion is that the surface station record is a good representative sample, that is even oversampled for the purpose of creating a global temperature anomaly over time.
The proof is there, you just keep on ignoring it.
To me , the overwhelming observation is how totally insignificant , barely discernible from noise level , as Lindzen is wont to point out , the warming over the age of thermometers has been . What matters to people is what the change is where people live . http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jp shows how insignificant any change in the thermometer records has been since around 1820 in 7 widely scattered cities .
The most trivial extrapolation of about one part in 300 in temperature with a change of perhaps 40% in CO2 shows that even a doubling will cause maybe 1c increase in temperature .
Combine that with the fact that we , like all life , only exist because the earth started off with a 0% O2 , 10% CO2 atmosphere . and a rational person can see what determined stupidity this whole anti- human freedom and welfare religion is .
Funnily enough, ALL those records show an increase in temperature. ALL of them!
And it is great (ahem) to see someone argue that because life evolved in an oxygen-free atmosphere, that large amounts of CO2 are not a problem. Somebody clearly does not understand the fact that humans evolved in a low CO2 atmosphere with temperatures for the most part LOWER than in the last few decades. Combine that with an evergrowing population, and Bob Armstrong believes that racing like crazy on a highway is just fine, even though he is warned there are queues evolving ahead. Why brake? We’ve been racing ahead for so long already?
Bob, you and Greg are posterboys for denialism.
Would you like to live in a 0% O2, 10% CO2 atmosphere? Obviously not, so why even mention it?
Just out of interest, what would be your optimum CO2 level, assuming current levels of O2?
Marco ,
There has never been a question that there has been a rebound from the hardships of “Little Ice Age” ( except by Mann et al who deny all past variations ) . But , you see no effect of increased CO2 in those records . Certainly nothing frightening .
CO2 has been bouncing along the minimum to keep plants alive . Do you deny that the bit of additional CO2 we are restoring from previous lush epochs is provably greening the planet ?
And what portion of fossil fuel usage goes for personal automobile use as opposed to stationary power and commercial transportation anyway ? You are just pushing puritanical guilt rather than anything approximating objective science .
BTW , are you anti-nuke , too ?
Just what is it you claim Greg and I are denying ? It seems to me you are denying an overwhelming and increasing mass of evidence that nothing exceptional is going on .
For the most basic computation of planetary temperature , see my http://cosy.com/views/warm.htm .
Let’s see, Bob Armstrong starts with a lie: that Mann et all deny past variations.
The hardships of the “Little Ice Age” were such that humankind started to increase enormously.
Greening the planet thanks to additional CO2? It isn’t observed. There is no greening of the planet. In fact, those studying the carbon cycle are noting that the biosphere currently is a SOURCE of additional CO2.
I also see you don’t understand the analogy I used. The car racing towards the queue is us humans pushing the speeder down on CO2 emissions, despite warnings of the warming ahead with all of its associated problems.
And yes, I am anti-nuke. Don’t like them bombs. Oh wait, you mean nuclear energy. No,.
What you and Greg are denying is the science, and you do so based on willful ignorance. The best thing is that you even state “do no harm” on your webpage, without even considering that the extra CO2 is doing harm. Oh, not to our planet as such, it will survive. But it will be life not as we know it, Jim…
CO2 has been bouncing along the minimum to keep plants alive . Do you deny that the bit of additional CO2 we are restoring from previous lush epochs is provably greening the planet ?
This is a PRATT
.
“Carbon dioxide. Some call it pollution. We call it life.”
Life?
Life perhaps but not as we know it. Going back to the Jurrasic is a very bad idea for our planetary eco-system.
😦
It seems to me you are denying an overwhelming and increasing mass of evidence that nothing exceptional is going on .
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet disagrees with you.
They do the work. They publish. Therefore smart people pay attention to them.
There’s no need to bother with the wannabees when you have the best and the brightest.
“Going back to the Jurrasic is a very bad idea for our planetary eco-system”
What was wrong with the Jurrasic ?
Pretty lush wasn’t it ?
Denying that CO2 is to plants what O2 is to animals is as profound a denial as creationism .
Pure determined adamantine stupidity .
You are an idiot and spout senseless nonsense. When was the last time you ate ferns and giant trees? Because that is the sort of plants which grew in the Jurassic. Wheat and corn etc, things that we humans eat, didn’t evolve until much later and under much lower temperatures and lower CO2 concentrations. You have no idea what you are talking about. You only spout nonsense you hear on denier sites. You are a clueless person who has no idea of how science works.
You are the denier.
Here’s a rational recent summary :
BTW , back in 1980 I had a Porsche 924 turbo which I loved because I could fit 4 + my computer terminal in it and got 20 mpg at 100 mph . Then I moved to Manhattan , which you may know is about as energy efficient life style as there is . Now I have a small 4wd SUV which can hold about 4 bales of hay and get up the driveway if less than about 30cm of snow .
What you just posted has got absolutely nothing to do with what will happen if we continue to increase CO2 concentrations.
Plants that grow now are adapted to the present day level (approx 300 ppm) and to the temperature that was present before the industrial revolution.
Monkeying about with either or both of these parameters will have very negative effects on humans and other species. Species can adapt but over very long periods of time, tens of thousands of years for higher species. As an example, there are many bacteria which live quite happily at 95 to 100 degrees C. What do you think will happen to you if you were suddenly exposed to those temperatures? Think about it because that is what you are hoping for with continued increase in CO2.
That you cannot understand this shows either a lacking in your education or a character defect which shows that you are arrogant, selfish and don’t give a thought to what happens down the road. That is a despicable attitude to have. I hope you get well paid for supporting the CO2 polluters.
//// “Marco
Greg, I already explained at length that the surface stations are likely a representative sample. The fact that several subsets yield the same results strongly suggests that the total sample is already significantly oversampled. Combined with the satellite record yielding the same results the most likely conclusion is that the surface station record is a good representative sample, that is even oversampled for the purpose of creating a global temperature anomaly over time.” ////
Marco, within the sample of all the weather stations, scattered throughout the world, it is possible to find some internal correlations or subsets with certain properties or whatever.
But all that has absolutely nothing to do with the question, whether that sample of all the weather stations is representative for the whole world or not. That’s why those findings are no proof of the weather stations network being representative for the whole world.
This is an obstacle, that the AGW-proponents can not overcome statistically.
Which, of course, does not exclude the possibility, that the network is representative by a lucky chance, which is extremely unlikely. However, that makes the AGW concept being based on something extremely unlikely too.
It would make little difference just to state there is warming, with no reference to any data at all. Or cooling, why not, or neither warming nor cooling.
Is it just me or are the deniers getting more and more irrational with every passing paper that confirms that AGW is real and is happening at a faster pace than originally stated?
it is just you
Wrong again omnipogolopus, deniers are getting more and more irrational, just check a few of the denier blogs and denier comments on science based blogs.
Of course, non-scientists like you and knowing of your severe affliction with Dunning Kruger syndrome I wouldn’t expect any rational discussion at all.
What a pathetic lot you deniers are, how do you manage to cope in such a scientifically and technological sophisticated society when you are so science challenged?
I already know that this claim is false. Can’t you do any better, really?
🙂
Greg, you are not paying attention. You can find, by selecting on criteria NOT related to finding a subset that matches the result of the larger set, SEVERAL subsets that give the same result. For ANY statistician this would indicate oversampling. For you…just another reason to start handwaving, as it does not fit your desired outcome.
And once again you decide to ignore the FACT that the satellite record gives essentially the same answer, despite being based on completely different type of measurements.
The evidence that the surface record is representative is screaming in your face, and all you do is put fingers in your ear and repeat “I can’t heeeaaar you !”
Talk about deNile ; you guys are over your heads and drowning . Visiting youall is amusing for a while like visiting the Flat Earth Society which used to be in Zion IL , But “arguing with idiots” gets old pretty quick .
I’ll bet not a single one of you knows how to calculate the temperature of a gray ball in our orbit , much less understands enough math to figure out what my logo ( which I solved in 1979 ) is .
The inability to reason logically is very apparent among some of you . I guess that’s why your faith in State authority is so absolute .
With respect to what optimal CO2 would be ? I know greenhouses and grow ops use over 1000 ppm ; the herbs love it , and the gardeners don’t seem to be bothered by it . We exhale about 4% ( 40,000 ppm ) and the regs in submarines and space craft are perhaps a tenth that . So certainly several times the current level would be highly unlikely to bother many animals , but would make the world greenhouse productive .
In greenhouses, they add massive amounts of water and fertilizer, or that 1000 ppm of CO2 does nothing at all. For several types of plants they don’t even go close to 1000 ppm, but 450 max. More than that, and you get too much toxins to get edible material, or more simply doesn’t do anything.
Bob clearly never met someone who works in the greenhouse industry (I have, plenty even).
Oh, and it appears your gray sphere calculations ignores albedo…
That statement PROVES your ignorance of the physics .
Chris Colose made a valiant effort to explain all your nonsense, but I guess physics isn’t your field of expertise.
Bob Armstrong said:
Wrong, it is you who continues to show your huge ignorance of basic physics. You are a prime example of someone suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome.
You are clearly showing your complete disrespect for science and scientists and, what is worse, your complete disregard for how our present pathway will have very serious effects on future generations.
Stop pretending to know anything about science, your drivel is an embarrassment to other more thoughtful deniers.
I’ll bet not a single one of you knows how to calculate the temperature of a gray ball in our orbit , much less understands enough math to figure out what my logo ( which I solved in 1979 ) is .
Not that it kinda wierd for you to suddenly say something like that for no apparent reason.
I know greenhouses and grow ops use over 1000 ppm ; the herbs love it , and the gardeners don’t seem to be bothered by it .
Behold the big bag of stupid.
Think about what you are claiming.
Co2 is good, therefore more Co2 is better.
Would you use the same demented thinking for H20?
Let’s try it…
H20 is good, therefore more H20 is better.
A homespun wisdom anecdote about a greenhouse with herbs is worthless.
That’s not how you should get your science.
Scientists have done research on extra Co2 in the atmosphere and it’s effects on crops and trees etc.
The results are not good.
//// “Marco said:
You can find, by selecting on criteria NOT related to finding a subset that matches the result of the larger set, SEVERAL subsets that give the same result. For ANY statistician this would indicate oversampling. …
And once again you decide to ignore the FACT that the satellite record gives essentially the same answer, despite being based on completely different type of measurements.
The evidence that the surface record is representative is screaming in your face, and all you do is put fingers in your ear and repeat “I can’t heeeaaar you !” ” ////
Marco, what I am actually repeating is, that those 2 points of yours about subsets and satellites are not proofs of weather station network being representative for the whole world.
1. No properties of subsets can be such a proof.
2. Given the extremely low probability, that a random sample of weather stations, which the present network is, is representative, we can not take the alleged “the same” results of satellite measurements for granted. Besides, I heard about satellite measurements given quite different results, that do not coincide with the surface record. The latter sounds very plausible to me, given the extremely low probability of a coincidence.
So, it does not look like more points coming. Maybe we can conditionally agree on this: it looks like a miracle, that the random, more than 100 years old weather station network was recently found to be representative for the whole world?
1. The properties of a subset, selected based on independent parameters, can show oversampling. The evidence of oversampling is very clear
2. Ah, now there is the claim that the satellites are very different. “I heard” is not a scientific argument, it is not even a legally acceptable argument. It’s hearsay. And bogus hearsay.
And no, I completely disagree with your claim. It is NOT a miracle.
It is quite true that many of the regions that are sampled at all are heavily over sampled. This is irrelevant to the issue of representation, which is about the fact that most regions do not have reliable 100 year records, such as the oceans, polar and sub-polar regions, and the continental interiors. But it shows that the large number of thermometers is misleading because of extensive redundancy. This is especially true in Europe and Eastern North America, where most of the 100 year records come from and which are also both dominated by the Atlantic currents, especially the Gulf Stream.
If you ask how many 10,000 sq mile areas (100 miles by 100 miles) on the globe have 100 year temperature records the answer is almost none. Thousands of thermometers crammed into less than one percent of the surface area is not a representative sample of the earth.
The proper term by the way is random sample. Statistical sampling theory is based on probability theory, so it requires a random sample of the population, in this case the surface temperatures of the globe. The convenience sample that is plugged into the Jones-type surface statistical models is nothing like a random sample of the surface of the globe.
Nor do the satellites confirm the surface models, far from it, as I have already explained, but that is a separate issue.
In fact you have explained nothing. You seem to think that if you repeat your statements often enough, they will be accurate.
Not so.
For example, your comments do not show me or anyone else that you understand how limited spatial coverage of land and ocean surface data is an important source of error and the comprehensive way(s) this is accounted for in the current science; and how this relates to analysis of temperature anomalies for short and longer periods.
In other words, to anyone other than you, your demonstrated knowledge of the relevant science is low and it is pointless to discuss it further unless you can increase your knowledge through self-education or open yourself to learning science from scientists.
While I have previously thought this might be the case, you have really confirmed it for me here. What a waste of potential.
This is the thread for you, then (and Greg). 😦
Besides, I heard about satellite measurements given quite different results, that do not coincide with the surface record. The latter sounds very plausible to me, given the extremely low probability of a coincidence.
Oh so you “heard about it” and it sounds “plausible” to you?
That’s nice.
Looks like its back to the drawing board for poor old NASA.
(puke)
//// [i]”Cedric Katesby said:
Oh so you “heard about it” and it sounds “plausible” to you?”[/i] ////
Yes, it does. Otherwise I need to believe in miracles.
Look, if you build a random network of over 1000 weather stations not intending to calculate a “global temperature” and somehow 100 years later that random network is found to be exactly representative for the whole Earth surface of 510,072,000 km2 – well, you need to believe in miracles.
Ah, Greg is now playing with words: “exactly representative”. Nothing is “exactly representative” other than the whole.
Sad.
Ian said :
Actually , the evidence is I am exceptionally good at it . http://www.cosy.com/BobA/vita.htm . That’s why I was so scared by this Global Statist Stupidity that I have felt compelled to join the battle against this neo-Lysenkoism – as have so many thousands of fellow quantitatively educated peers .
Seeing youall grasping at outliers and down right falsehoods to maintain your demonization of the molecule which is the foundation of life is simply pathetic .
Youall remind me of the ST: NextGen episode where the universe keeps closing in on Beverly Crusher . Same is happening to your sphere of influence . May take a few more years of the planet failing to warm at a rate any greater than the at most 0.25% increase in our temperature per 40.00% increase in CO2 we have seen , but the tipping point of your lack of power to do much more harm to human and planetary welfare appears to be past .
Bob Armstrong should apply for a job at the Comedy Channel. Everything he says is a joke.
Real scientists publish their results in the scientific literature. Jokesters like Armstrong self publish in drivel filled personal web sites.
I’ve wasted enough of my time on showing the drivel expressed by deniers on this thread. It is obvious to anyone with any scientific background that they are just peddling junk.
Some of us have other paths than academia . If you are really good at crunching numbers , the numbers which are most valuable to crunch are ones with currency symbols attached . So I consider it inevitable that I spent most of my adult life within walking distance of Wall Street .
Your response amounts to an ad hominem .
It remains the case that apparently none of you know how to calculate the temperature of radiantly heated a gray ( by which I mean flat spectrum ) ball , much less a colored one like the earth .
Thus you are subject to being duped by the most outlandish absurdities .
//// “Marco
Ah, Greg is now playing with words: “exactly representative”. Nothing is “exactly representative” other than the whole.” ////
Right, let me correct my statement and remove the word “exactly”. But you didn’t miss the point because of the word “exactly”, didn’t you? If yes, you did, then let me put it in a right way.
Look, if you build a random network of over 1000 weather stations not intending to calculate a “global temperature” and somehow 100 years later that random network is found to be representative for the whole Earth surface of 510,072,000 km2 – well, you need to believe in miracles.
No you don’t. The network is spread all over the world, and there is a strong interconnectivity. To expect the network NOT to be representative is the ‘miracle’.
Your response amounts to an ad hominem .
No it doesn’t.
Look up what an ad hominem is.
So I consider it inevitable that I spent most of my adult life within walking distance of Wall Street
Okaaaaay. Thanks for sharing.
It remains the case that apparently none of you know how to calculate…
Yep. NASA just can’t compete.
Some of us have other paths than academia .
The excuse of every crackpot. If you have something important then don’t waste your valuable time on the internet.
Publish.
Publish where working scientists are going to read it and critically examine it.
Either you are prepared to enter the scientific arena and publish in the peer-reviewed literature or you are not. Everything else is just hot air.
Your Nobel Prize awaits.
I would expect anybody competent at NASA to be able to answer the question . It’s youall that I see no evidence of knowing even such basic essential physics – or being bothered that you don’t .
It’s interesting that Monckton has the same attitude about publishing as you . I spent enough time in “academia” and had enough meaningless papers published by mutually back-patting peers that I consider the system archaic in this Twitter age .
It remains the case that apparently none of you know how to calculate the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated gray ball and thus are incapable of judging any physical arguments for yourselves .
Monckton? You are seriously referring to Monckton? The guy who FALSELY claimed an article he wrote was peer reviewed?
If Bob Armstrong seriously wants us to believe he has insight, he’d never ever cite Monckton, who’s been shown wrong time after time after time after time after time. And when shown wrong, Monckton just goes to the next place and repeats his false claims.
Quite different from academia indeed. We tend to abandon the stuff that’s been shown wrong…
I would expect anybody competent at NASA to be able to answer the question .
So would I. I have complete confidence that NASA does a very good job.
That’s why I go to them for my information on climatology.
Not some random crackpot with a blog.
It’s youall that I see no evidence of knowing…
I?
I??
Oh no. It’s not me you have to convince one way or the other.
It’s NASA. They are the ones that do the work. That’s what they get paid for.
Get thee hence and publish.
Glory and a Nobel Prize await you.
All else is hot air.
I spent enough time in “academia” and had enough meaningless papers published by mutually back-patting peers that I consider the system archaic in this Twitter age .
Yep. Every crackpot says the same. They always get a sudden attack of nerves or have to rearrange their socks drawer. Somehow they never get around to publishing in the peer-reviewed literature.
Dumbski did the same.
I’ve just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more. [Chronicle of Higher Education, December 21, 2001]
It’s funny how “Intelligent Design” has so much in common with climate denialism.
It’s interesting that Monckton has the same attitude about publishing as you .
Oh we all know about Monckton around here. We’ve looked at what he’s had to say and had a good, long collective giggle about it. Anybody that takes anything said by him seriously deserves nothing but pity.
Monckton is the perfect representative for the climate denier community.
Absolutely perfect.
//// “Marco said:
The network is spread all over the world, and there is a strong interconnectivity. To expect the network NOT to be representative is the ‘miracle’.” ////
Look, you can equally have a network consisting of 2 (two) thermometers “spread all over the world” and showing “strong interconnectivity” and claim it is representative for the whole world.
Unfortunately, neither “spread all over the world” nor alleged “strong interconnectivity” can be a proof of being representative.
Greg, I have only now realised that you are one of those people who have no understanding of the concept of temperature anomalies as used in climate science. Please read my comment further down.
Yes, we know.
You “heard about it” (from Monckton perhaps?) and it sounds “plausible” to you…therefore miracle.
(yawn)
Dunning-Kruger Effect.
It takes a special frame of mind.
You can burn every single weather station to the ground. It won’t change a blessed thing.
The science behind climatology and NASA and every other single scientific community on the planet knows the Earth is warming up is not based upon weather stations.
You are ignoring the big picture of how scientists do their work.
They don’t just sit around in weather stations.
The distribution of weather stations is neither here nor there.
//// “Cedric Katesby said:
You can burn every single weather station to the ground. It won’t change a blessed thing.
The science behind climatology and NASA and every other single scientific community on the planet knows the Earth is warming up is not based upon weather stations.” ////
Yes, it is. Please, look up the definition of the “global warming”. It is about rise in average temperature.
Yes, it is. Please, look up the definition of the “global warming”. It is about rise in average temperature.
This is what I meant about people not know how scientists go about their job.
Even if all the weather stations and their records magically vanished, we would still know that the Earth is warming.
Climatology relies on multiple, independent lines of evidence covering all of the Earth Sciences.
It’s not just about looking at thermometers.
Your wierd fixation with the global distribution of weather station betrays a lack of understanding the foundations of modern climatology.
Look at the NASA website. See the evidence they use to understand the Earth’s climate.
//// “Cedric Katesby said:
Even if all the weather stations and their records magically vanished, we would still know that the Earth is warming.
Climatology relies on multiple, independent lines of evidence covering all of the Earth Sciences.” ////
Cedric, I am not talking about climatology as a whole, I am talking about the so called “global warming”, that is per definition a rise in average temperature.
To calculate an average temperature you need, well, temperatures, per definition, right?
Let’s focus on that “average temperature” for a while, not on all of the Earth Sciences.
The calculated “average temperature” can only be representative for the whole world, if the thermometers network is representative for the whole world, right?
And exactly that, the thermometers network being representative for the whole world is something, what we have no proof of.
That’s why we have no proof of “global warming” per definition.
Maybe there is “global warming” or “global cooling” or whatever, we simply have no proof of it.
Greg, here’s where you go all wrong: you fail to understand the difference between a general trend, and knowing the exact global value for the earth’s temperature (at 1 m above ground).
In reality we do not need to know whether averaging of the average temperature of the temperature stations is sufficiently representative of the average temperature of the earth to know that it is warming.
All we need to know is the trend in the average temperature of those stations. that’s why climate scientists look at anomalies.
Knowing the actual average global temperature is only nice to precisely calculate the magnitude of the greenhouse effect at several decimals behind the comma. Whether it is 14 or 15 degrees Celsius does not matter that much in that respect.
//// “Marco said:
Greg, here’s where you go all wrong: you fail to understand the difference between a general trend, and knowing the exact global value for the earth’s temperature (at 1 m above ground).
In reality we do not need to know whether averaging of the average temperature of the temperature stations is sufficiently representative of the average temperature of the earth to know that it is warming.
All we need to know is the trend in the average temperature of those stations. that’s why climate scientists look at anomalies.” ////
Marco, you can have any number of thermometers placed anywhere, collect the data and then calculate average temperatures and anomalies. All such results are results referring to your network, no problem with that.
But at the moment, when you claim the results of your calculations are representative for the whole world, you need to prove, that your network is representative for the whole world.
This is a central point.
Which means: if you have no proof of your network being representative for the whole world, then you have no proof of your results, anomalies, whatever being representative for the whole world.
We’re going around in circles. I already explained the evidence that the network IS representative.
But maybe I should already be happy that you implicitely admit that your complaint about (in essence) absolute temperature is nonsense.
Cedric, I am not talking about climatology as a whole
Indeed you are not.
You fail to understand how scientists know that global warming is happening.
It’s not just about looking at thermometers at weather stations.
Let’s focus on that “average temperature” for a while, not on all of the Earth Sciences.
That’s why you sound wierd.
Our understanding that the Earth is warming is based on multiple, independent lines of physical evidence.
You could burn every single weather station to the ground and scientists could still figure out that the Earth is warming.
Weather stations are nice but they are not vital.
Dicking around with the how the weather stations are placed is not important.
However, that makes the AGW concept being based on something extremely unlikely too.
Hellooooo? Anybody home?
AGW is not based on the results of weather stations.
It would make little difference just to state there is warming, with no reference to any data at all. Or cooling, why not, or neither warming nor cooling.
We have lots of data. Only a small amount of data comes from the weather stations.
It’s nice to have but it’s not the be all and end all.
The rest comes from all of the branches of the Earth Sciences.
Climatology is not the preserve of climatologists.
It’s a collective effort from different fields and specialities.
Find out how NASA does their job.
Look at their website and see their section on “Evidence”. Only a modest amount is based on temperature readings from weather stations.
//// “Cedric Katesby said:
Find out how NASA does their job.
Look at their website and see their section on “Evidence”.” ////
Cedric, it would be nice, if you could post a direct link to what you are refereeing to. Thanks.
//// “Marco said:
We’re going around in circles. I already explained the evidence that the network IS representative.” ////
Yes, you did. But your evidence is not a valid one. Internal properties of subsets is not an evidence.
I pointed to two lines of evidence. One of which you tried to handwave away without providing any counter evidence.
Which is typical denialism.
Marco said:
But maybe I should already be happy that you implicitely admit that your complaint about (in essence) absolute temperature is nonsense.
Marco, I am already working on making you happy as a result of finding the truth, but not through admitting something I did not mean.
If you mean the so called “global temperature”, then what the AGW proponents claim to be a “global temperature” is in fact only an average of the data of their thermometers network.
To call it rightfully a “global temperature”, they have to prove first, that their network is representative for the globe.
Otherwise it is only an average-certain network-temperature. Which might show an average-certain network-warming, but not a global one.
Do I really need to mention the satellites again?
Round and round and round we go…sigh.
Why do you mention the satellites Marco, since they do not help your cause? The three major Jones type surface statistical models (HadCru, NOAA and GISS) all show significant warming between 1978 and 1997. This is what the IPCC (misleadingly) refers to as the warming of the last 50 years, which is supposed to be the compelling evidence for AGW. But the UAH satellite analysis shows no significant warming during this entire period, none. Thus the satellites, which actually measure atmospheric heat content, contradict the thermometer based surface models, and provide no evidence of AGW.
Even worse, both the UAH satellites and HadCru show no warming since 2001, while GISS shows a significant amount. There is simply no GHG warming in the UAH satellite record, and the surface models contradict one another.
Why do you mention the satellites Marco, since they do not help your cause? The three major Jones type surface statistical models (HadCru, NOAA and GISS) all show significant warming between 1978 and 1997. This is what the IPCC (misleadingly) refers to as the warming of the last 50 years, which is supposed to be the compelling evidence for AGW.
God, you’re stupid.
This is the age of the internet.
Why do you bother to peddle lies about satellite data when the latest satellite information is available with a quick google search?
When I want to find out about satellites, I go to the people that build and launch them.
It’s a very old PRATT.
Stop getting your information from Monckton.
The man is an idiot. He knows nothing about satellites.
Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1
Sorry, but I am looking at the data right now, not Moncton. Have you looked at the actual data?
What you have is a talking point from Monckton and little else.
(Hence the video)
You are not saying anything new or clever.
It’s a PRATT.
Information about what the satellites do or do not show is a quick google search away.
There’s no need to take your word for anything.
I also looked at the data, and the trend for GISTEMP, HADCRUT, RSS, and UAH are statistically the same, both in the period 1978 and 1997 and the period from 2001 onwards.
Cedric, it would be nice, if you could post a direct link to what you are refereeing to. Thanks.
What are you? An infant?
NASA has a website. It’s written in plain English.
You go to google and you type in “NASA” and then you type in “climate change”.
Click the very first link you see.
It pops right up.
Front and centre.
It tells you how NASA knows that there really and for truly this thing called AGW.
(Hint: They don’t just call the weather stations and grab a calculator.)
All of the Earth Sciences are involved in figuring out that the Earth is warming up.
All of them.
This data from multiple, different lines of evidence has been painstakingly gathered over many decades.
Nor is it just NASA.
All scientific communities are on board with this.
All of them.
Go ahead and look at the NOAA website or the AGU or the AAAS or the NAS or USGS or the CSIRO or the American Physical Society or the American Chemical Society or the RMET or the Royal Society or the British Antarctic Surveyn etc, etc, etc.
Pick your favourite one. They are all good.
There is a host of mainstream scientific resources available that clearly shows the work that has been done on this.
When you fixate on the location of weather stations as if it’s some silver bullet…it just comes across as being either gullible or deliberately cherry picking.
Find out about the history of it all. Move beyond talking points on blogs. Listen to the people that actually do the work.
The American Denial of Global Warming
//// Cedric Katesby said:
“You go to google and you type in “NASA” and then you type in “climate change”.
Click the very first link you see.” ////
Thank you, I found it: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
That site does not support your claim, however, that there are evidences of “global warming” other, than the weather stations data. I am afraid, you misunderstood the content.
They are talking about “the evidence for rapid climate change” and one of them they claim to be “global temperature rise… since 1880”. That is a quite different thing.
We all know, what they mean by “global temperature”: average temperature, which is a calculated statistical value, produced from a number of single local temperatures.
Please, note, that since 1980 till 1979 there were no satellite measurements, there were only weather stations. Now think again, please, about your “You could burn every single weather station to the ground…”.
So, here we are again. To prove the alleged “global temperature rise… since 1880” you have to prove first, that the thermometer network is representative for the globe since 1880.
Until now we have not seen any proof. Some scientists simply handle that network as representative for the whole world without any evidence for that network being representative for the whole world. Hence their claim about global temperature rise is not proven.
All what they really have is a “certain network warming” at most.
/// Marco said:
“Do I really need to mention the satellites again?” ////
Why not? Please, do it. (Kidding)
I do not see, how the satellite measurements can prove rise in “global” average temperatures since 1880, if there were no satellite measurements before 1979. The time machine has not been invented yet, as far as I know.
There were no satellites at all before 1957: “History’s first artificial satellite, the Sputnik 1, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellites
To use your own words:
It would be a miracle if the satellite record overlaps with the surface temperature record from 1979 onward, but that prior to that period there suddenly is a large deviation. A large range of proxies also indicate warming that fits with the temperature record.
It’s clear you don’t even want to think about this, because it rattles your ideology.
That site does not support your claim, however, that there are evidences of “global warming” other, than the weather stations data. I am afraid, you misunderstood the content.
Don’t be so bloody stupid.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
(…)
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
(…)
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale.
(…)
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling
(…)
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.
(…)
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
Seriously, you have issues. Read the website. Grow up.
@ Cedric Katesby
From your list of 6 quotations 5 have nothing to do with the evidences of global warming.
The 6th one may look like an evidence to you, but it is not, because no local event can be an evidence for a global average change. It is the nature of “average”.
That’s why ice melting somewhere can not be an evidence of “global warming”, for example etc.. Unfortunately, a lot of people misunderstand that.
Generally, if your claim, that one thing is another thing, and that second thing has a definition, you need to prove, that the first thing matches the definition of the second thing. It is a purely logical issue.
“Global warming” is defined as a rise in average temperatures, hence without measuring temperatures you can not talk about “global warming” at all. That is not enough (the problem of the network being representative), though, but it is necessary. Because of definition.
From your list of 6 quotations 5 have nothing to do with the evidences of global warming.
What? Is English your second language or something?
Those quotes make it very clear what NASA’s findings are.
If you don’t want to listen then go ahead and tell them how they can do their job better.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Hello?
NASA seems to think that it’s a done deal.
If you disagree, then you need to get out there and write up a paper on how NASA and the rest of the scientific community has it wrong.
The 6th one may look like an evidence to you, but it is not, because no local event can be an evidence for a global average change.
It’s one local example, you idiot. One from many. It’s one area that will probably most resonate with American taxpayers.
That’s why ice melting somewhere can not be an evidence of “global warming”, for example etc..
Ice melts because it gets hot.
Ice is melting all over the planet.
Massive chunks of ice that have stayed frozen for countless thousands of years are melting with extreme rapidity.
It’s what you would expect if the Earth was warming.
Ice does not melt by magic.
“Global warming” is defined as a rise in average temperatures, hence without measuring temperatures you can not talk about “global warming” at all.
Again you want to go around the merry-go-round.
You don’t need to worry about the location of weather stations to figure out if the planet is warming.
You don’t even need to have a thermometer handy.
There are multiple, independent lines of evidence covering all the Earth Sciences that tell us the planet is warming in no uncertain terms. All you have is denialist talking points fed to you by Monckton.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LALALALALALALALA” is all you are doing.
NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about AGW.
Konspiracy theories are for suckers.
@ Cedric Katesby
Cedric, what you quote from the NASA web site is not, what you previously claimed I would find there, namely evidences of “global warming” other, than temperature measurements.
Your example “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal” is a claim, not an evidence.
Your another argument “It’s one local example, you idiot. One from many. It’s one area that will probably most resonate with American taxpayers” can not be an evidence either, because no local warming is an evidence of an average global warming. To put it in a simple way, there are local “warmings”, local “coolings” and local “unchangeds”, then you calculate the average and get either average global “warming” or average global “cooling” or average global “unchanged”.
It is like a rise in your personal income is not an evidence of a rise in a global average income.
To ice melting. Even if, as you said, ice were melting everywhere, you still could have an average “global cooling”. And the other way round: even if ice were melting nowhere, you still could have an average “global warming”. It is the nature of “average”, you need to understand that.
Cedric, what you quote from the NASA web site is not, what you previously claimed I would find there, namely evidences of “global warming” other, than temperature measurements.
NASA has devoted an entire website in plain English to the issue of climate change.
They’ve even devoted specific chapters labeled..”Key Indicators” and “Evidence”.
None of this should be hard to grasp.
“Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal” is a claim, not an evidence.
It’s a claim that is supported by all the Earth Sciences and every single scientific community on the planet after decades of reseach following multiple, independent lines of evidence.
All you have is Monckton.
…because no local warming is an evidence of an average global warming.
Ah, what we have here is a will failure on your part in basic reading comprehension.
That’s why I called you an idiot.
It’s one local example. One from many. It’s one area that will probably most resonate with American taxpayers.
To put it in a simple way, there are local “warmings”, local “coolings” and local “unchangeds”, then you calculate the average and get either average global “warming” or average global “cooling” or average global “unchanged”.
Which is why I said that “it’s one example from many”.
Read.
Stop being an idiot.
To ice melting. Even if, as you said, ice were melting everywhere…
It’s nothing to do with me.
It’s what every single scientific community on the planet is saying.
I personally have never been to Greenland or the Antarctic or the Arctic or any glaciers at all for that matter.
I look to the scientists. The British Antarctic Survey and all the rest.
I don’t get my science from some crackpot on the web with a bee in his bonnet about weather stations.
(shrug)
For those who don’t like the surface temperature record, they can also look at the increase of 1-700 meter Ocean heat content at:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
//// “Marco said:
To use your own words:
It would be a miracle if the satellite record overlaps with the surface temperature record from 1979 onward, but that prior to that period there suddenly is a large deviation. A large range of proxies also indicate warming that fits with the temperature record.” ////
It is not better with so called “proxies”, than with thermometers. Is there a representative network of proxies? You can not bring down a few trees at some location and then claim, you can derive from that a rise in average global temperature.
To the satellite record, it is claimed, that the satellite record overlaps with the surface temperature record from 1979 onward. Given the lack of proof, that the thermometer network since 1880 till 1979 was representative for the whole world, it should be considered highly unlikely, that this overlap is not a product of certain adjustments.
I do not believe in miracles automatically, I need evidences.
Proxies like ice cores (collected in various different places), boreholes (in many different places), tree rings (in many different places, sediments (in many different places).
And then you make an ignorant claim about “certain adjustments” being the cause of the correlation between the satellites and the surface record.
I think you wouldn’t recognise evidence even if it hits you in the face.
//// “Cedric Katesby said:
It’s one local example. One from many.” ////
Cedric, you can not prove a general statement with examples, you really need to understand that.
I can say, “every even number contains 0” and give you many examples, like 20, 30, 40, 50,etc., but my statement is obviously wrong. That is the problem with examples.
////Marco said:
“Proxies like ice cores (collected in various different places), boreholes (in many different places), tree rings (in many different places, sediments (in many different places).” ////
Marco, you do understand the difference between “local” and “global average”.
So, to determine “global average” through proxies, you need a representative network of proxies, this requirement is not different from the one about a thermometer network.
If you do not have that, than you can not claim anything about global average. Unfortunately, the AGW proponents do it. It is not scientific.
Greg, tell us when you consider something “representative”.
I have this gut feeling you will be impossible to satisfy.
Moreover, suppose I select, say, 100 places distributed over the whole world, analyse proxies from those places, and find that essentially all show warming. What miracle do you believe in when you still maintain it may well be cooling? What are the chances of randomly selecting 100 sites that all fall in the non-representative category?
//// “Marco
“Greg, tell us when you consider something “representative”.” ////
It is simple and even obvious.
I would consider the thermometer network representative for the whole world, if I saw a scientific evidence, that the thermometer network is representative for the whole world.
Until now all the references I got does not contain such an evidence, so it is unproven to me.
It looks like that network has simply been handled as representative without any scientific proof.
The same goes for proxies.
Marco, it is a very simple issue. No evidence.
Greg, what would that scientific evidence be?
So far all you have done is say “not representative, no evidence for that”, without stating what the evidence would be.
And you apparently believe in the miracle that we by chance happened to have chosen almost solely those sites that show warming…
Cedric, you can not prove a general statement with examples, you really need to understand that.
You need to understand that getting your science from the likes of Monckton is silly.
When I want to understand climatology, I go to the people that do the work.
I go to NASA.
Unfortunately, the AGW proponents do it. It is not scientific.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is unscientific?
Wow. Who knew?
Until now all the references I got does not contain such an evidence, so it is unproven to me.
It’s unproven…to you?
That’s so sad.
It looks like that network has simply been handled as representative without any scientific proof.
No scientific proof? Science does not deal in “proof”.
It deals in evidence.
If you think that you understand science better than NASA then…wow…maybe you are right!
Don’t waste your time on the internet.
Write up that paper and show those smarty-pants scientists where they have got it all wrong.
Your Nobel Prize awaits.
Everything else is just hot air and you are full of it.
//// Cedric Katesby said:
“It’s unproven…to you?
That’s so sad.” ////
Actually, it is unproven to you, too, and to anyone, who has not seen the scientific proof.
If you choose to believe in some claims of scientific facts without a scientific proof, well, it is your personal choice.
Actually, it is unproven to you, too, and to anyone, who has not seen the scientific proof.
Science does not deal in “proof”. It deals in evidence.
Learn.
If you choose to believe in some claims of scientific facts without a scientific proof, well, it is your personal choice.
I don’t subscribe to konspiracies.
NASA doesn’t have a reputation for making things up. They are considered to be excellent at pretty much everything they do. They have some of the best scientists in the world. They deal in evidence. It’s just how they work.
If they did something sneaky and devious, then I would be confident that some other scientific community would call them out on it.
All scientific communities are on board with AGW. They have been for a long time now.
I listen to NASA for the same reasons I listen to the AMA or the NIH for medical information. I don’t get my climatology information or my medical infromation from some crackpot on the internet.
//// Marco said:
“And you apparently believe in the miracle that we by chance happened to have chosen almost solely those sites that show warming…” ////
I guess it was not you who chose those sites in 1880.
I have never read a statement, that those sites show warming. The AGW concept revolves around “average”. Which means: some sites show “warming”, some sites show “cooling” and some sites show “unchanged”. It is also possible, than less sites show “warming”, than “cooling”. And also, that merely a small percentage of those sites show “warming”. Remember: average.
So, the average depends on the distribution of the thermometers. That’s why we need a scientific evidence of the network being representative.
Greg, find me a few places on earth where it has cooled since 1880. Go ahead, try to find something.
Chirp, chirp.
@ Cedric
You need to understand that getting your science from the likes of NASA is mis-placed trust. James Hansen of NASA, [GISS], known as the father of GW had predicted back in the 80’s that Manhattan would be under water as early as 2010. He was wrong, very wrong. But who cares that reality has PROVEN him wrong. No one has held him accountable. His projections for future global warming back then when compared to empirical observations are laughable. Even his scenario C, which assumed a freeze on Co2 levels, tracks more warming than even his own temperature data-set. Obviously you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and go “LALALALALALALALA”
We were told that when the temperatures reached a tipping point the warming would rapidly accelerate. Well, that “tipping point” happened during the El Nino in 1998, but where is the runaway global warming? Global temperatures have averaged flat over the past 13 years despite a continuing rise in Co2. All the while critically thinking people are told to believe that ANY extreme weather event is likely the cause of Global warming. If you repeat the lie often enough, people start to believe it. How convenient.
In an unbiased a-political scientific world, this GW BS would have been realized to be false years ago. Instead, we have thrown billions/trillions of taxpayers dollars down the toilet in an attempt to brainwash the populous and mitigate an imaginary Co2 boogie man.
In science, even if millions of experiments prove the theory to be true, it only takes one experiment to falsify the theory. Only an un-scientific scientist who has lost objectivity would think otherwise. My guess is that you fall into this category.
Too many careers are on the line for the GW crowd to go down without kicking and screaming, but when the funding dries up to promote this garbage, I’m sure we’ll see these leaches jumping to other “hosts”. The increased volume of screams, claiming this [non-existent] doom is already upon us, signifies that the end to the non-sense is nearing. Their only ammo left is to resort to a barrage of insults and name calling which, in your case, is your strongest trait.
Prove me right.. Insult away!
Doug, you have fallen for the misinformation of others.
Here’s what Hansen has to say about two of your claims:
Click to access 20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
So, what will you do about that misinformation (interestingly, Pat Michaels shows up twice as the originator of your false memes).
@ Marco
Nice try but I do my own research with real data. I wouldn’t trust anything that Hansen says, let alone any of his research. He has tainted the good reputaion of NASA as well as science in the name of his agenda which you have obviously fallen for.
You should do your own research too and drop the blind trust, even if 99999999.99 percent are all saying the same thing as you claim. Sorry, my friend, but majority rule does not prove a theory in the scientific community.
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=10622&sid=61fd10a0c0ec6869d17a0083df6fe85c
Doug, I see you don’t even want to acknowledge your false claim about Hansen’s supposed prediction about Manhattan. That means your claim is no longer based on ignorance, but an outright lie if you ever repeat it again.
Others have also done some work:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
I do not blindly trust people, but I do distrust people who make false claims about what Hansen said, and don’t have the guts to admit they were wrong. Jim Hansen had the guts to admit his 1988 projection used a higher climate sensitivity value than we now think it is.
In other words, you’re asking me to listen to some anonymous poster (you), who does not acknowledge his error, while I have to consider a scientist who DOES acknowledge his errors as somehow indicative of an untrustworthy organisation.
That’s outright conspiracy theory thinking.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, find me a few places on earth where it has cooled since 1880. Go ahead, try to find something.
Chirp, chirp.” ////
Marco, do I understand you correctly: you are claiming, without any reference, that every single thermometer in the network shows warming and asking me to prove the opposite?
Shock, shock.
No, Greg, you do not understand me correctly. I did not claim every single thermometer shows warming. I challenged you to find a few places that showed cooling.
Marco
Here are a few of the many places that show cooling for a statistically meaningful period
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
@ Marco
Ok, I can admit I was wrong on Hansen being a 40 year claim as opposed to a 20 year claim. Are you satisfied now? So can you tell me that you truly believe that Manhattan will be under water in 19 years?
Of course Hansen had to recant his 88 models at some point. Not doing so would be a denial of reality. Even his most ardent supporters would not swallow this.
Has Hansen recanted on his Manhattan prediction like his model predictions, or is he still sticking by his guns? Lets see, he’ll be in his 90’s when we find out the truth. Hmmm? Convenient.
End of world predictions are quick to grab headlines, scaring lawmakers into false actions, but when these erroneous predictions can be explained away when empirical evidence proves them wrong, then why should we believe them in the first place? If you are told a falshood over and over enough times, it begins to be perceived as reality.
Imagine if the the REAL data as we know it today had been presented in 1988. I suspect the lawmakers would not have given Hansen the time of day, let alone the multi-million dollar grants to investigate and promote a non-existent problem. As well, this blog would probably not exist.
Can you hear me now?
The claim was not that Manhattan would be under water, either…(and he added another factor that most people nicely ignore: if CO2 has doubled by then).
And if you really think from 4.2 to 3 degrees climate sensitivity is nothing to worry about, you’re the same optimist who finds out the building isn’t 10 stories, but only 7, and he can thus jump off it without much problems.
You need to understand that getting your science from the likes of NASA is mis-placed trust. James Hansen…
Ah, reading comprehension fail.
I get my science from NASA , not any one individual.
NASA is not the personal feifdom of any one person or some secret cabal.
There is no conspiracy.
Global temperatures have averaged flat over the past 13 years despite a continuing rise in Co2.
Why lie? This is the age of the internet.
A quick google search proves you wrong. Save your talking points for your mirror.
In an unbiased a-political scientific world, this GW BS would have been realized to be false years ago. Instead, we have thrown billions/trillions of taxpayers dollars down the toilet in an attempt to brainwash the populous and mitigate an imaginary Co2 boogie man.
Yet you see through the konspiracy. Who’s behind it all? The Jews? The Illuminatti?
Embittered KGB agents hiding out in some nursing home in Florida?
Nice try but I do my own research with real data.
No you don’t. You swallow Monckton’s talking points and believe in the big, bad, global konspiracy. It’s a joke.
You suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
That’s why your “research” will never leave the internet and enter a scientific journal.
You should do your own research too and drop the blind trust, even if 99999999.99 percent are all saying the same thing as you claim.
Why the “if”? There’s no uncertainty about it.
Your pet konspiracy is truely global and covers every single scientific community on the planet. There are no exceptions. Not one. Go ahead an google it. It’s easy to verify.
There’s no doubt about it.
Sorry, my friend, but majority rule does not prove a theory in the scientific community.
Yes, but you fail to comprehend that the scientific consensus did not happen by magic.
Scientific theories are accepted because they are useful.
They are supported by a massive preponderance of evidence.
Climatology and AGW are no exception. All the work has been done the boring, old-fashioned way. No short-cuts. No hanky-panky.
You can’t accept the conclusions so you reach for silly konspiracy theories to make yourself feel better.
illusion of superiority
@ Cedric
Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy? Making incorrect assumptions as to what I said speaks volumes as to the validity of your beliefs. Climate Science has morphed from a science to an agenda. Their claims have placed them out on a limb on which they have staked their reputations on.
Their efforts can be likened to attempting to prove scientifically that a square peg fits into a round hole. Shaving away at the edges enough they can claim that it fits. So you can see why there is such vitriol here in the Pro AGW posts.. the “Deniers” are holding the saw and the saw represents the facts. When facts get in the way of science the only tool left is name calling and personal attacts.
I am convinced that most truly believe what they are spouting, but they have lost all objectivity and you seem to be swept up in their misfortune.
Objectivity. ‘Scientists are not as objective as their traditional image implies. Although science has built into it many safeguards for encouraging objectivity, scientists are still human like everyone else. They have unconscious, if not conscious, notions about what the results of an experiment should be. These notions often influence not only the design of the experiment but also the gathering and interpretation of the data. Some scientists begin to “believe,” not just use, certain pet theories and they become so emotionally attached to the theories that they lose their objectivity. Some scientists play politics and some are affected by profit motives, budgets, fads, wars, and religious beliefs. This is not to say that scientists do not strive for objectivity, but only that they might not always attain it.’ (Zumdahl)
Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy?
You did.
Climate Science has morphed from a science to an agenda.
Yeah, an “agenda”. Ooh, spooky!
In an unbiased a-political scientific world, this GW BS would have been realized to be false years ago. Instead, we have thrown billions/trillions of taxpayers dollars down the toilet in an attempt to brainwash the populous and mitigate an imaginary Co2 boogie man.
Yep, that’s good ol’ fashioned conspiracy talk right there. Brainwashing, imaginary boogie men and corruption in the scientific world. Oooh, spooky! Yet you see the trooth.
Who’s behind it all? The Jews? The Illuminatti?
Embittered KGB agents hiding out in some nursing home in Florida?
Their efforts can be likened to attempting to prove scientifically that a square peg fits into a round hole. Shaving away at the edges enough they can claim that it fits.
Yes, the scientists are doing silly things and perverting the science. Oooh, spooky. Yet you see the trooth.
I am convinced that most truly believe what they are spouting, but they have lost all objectivity…
Yes, the global community of scientists have lost all objectivity. All of them. All at once.
By magic or something. The details are as yet unclear.
Some scientists begin to (…) Some scientists play(…) This is not to say that scientists do not strive for objectivity, but only that they might not always attain it.’
In your world, it’s not “some” scientists at all. It’s every single scientific community on the planet. Somehow one solitary scientist can control the whole of NASA from some sekrit bunker somewhere.
Or would you prefer crayons and manipulated/adjusted James Hansen data which you have bought into.
James Hanson is not some Dr Evil. He doesn’t get to call the shots or anything.
You are inventing a conspiracy out of whole cloth. Hanson doesn’t have any “data”.
NASA has data. Climatology is a collective effort.
If there was something wrong with NASA’s work, then other scientific communities would gleefully point it out.
There you go again with incorrect assumptions again. I don’t get “talking points” from anyone. I do my own research.
Then it’s just one of those freaky coincidences that you just happen to bring up the same PRATT’s that Monckton has. Funny how often that happens.
(shrug)
I do my own research.
Which will remain forever only on the internet. Not very impressive at all.
Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Trust me…
Hell no. You are some anonymous guy on the internet.
…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the truth, though in some cases, the brainwashing can have insurmountable effects.
Yeah, “brainwashing”. Typical konspiracy talk.
Going to NASA is not a sign of brainwashing any more than going to the CDC or the NIH is brainwashing.
When I want to find out something on science, I go straight to the scientific community.
That’s what smart, educated people do. I don’t bother with the wannabees.
@ Cedric
I want to sincerely compliment you for proving my point.
Read the last paragragh of my first post more carefully.
I don’t follow Monkton, but it is very apparent that you do. I do my own research. You should try it too! Oh,, wait a minute! I did it for you!
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=10622&sid=61fd10a0c0ec6869d17a0083df6fe85c
I don’t follow Monkton, but it is very apparent that you do.
Well, your talking points are the same. You got them from somewhere. Monckton fits the bill and you don’t seem to be keen on revealing where you cribbed your talking points from.
(shrug)
I do my own research. You should try it too! Oh,, wait a minute! I did it for you!
Yeah but there’s no reason why I should just go along with what you say.
You are a nobody on the internet.
When I want to find out something on science, I go straight to the scientific community.
That’s what smart, educated people do. I don’t bother with the wannabees.
I do my own research.
Which will never leave the the cozy safety of the internet.
Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Read the last paragragh of my first post more carefully.
You mean this one?
You should do your own research too and drop the blind trust, even if 99999999.99 percent are all saying the same thing as you claim. Sorry, my friend, but majority rule does not prove a theory in the scientific community.
Nothing has changed with it since the last time I read it.
(shrug)
Going against “the consensus” does not make you some modern day Galileo or anything.
Crackpots of all types also “go against the consensus”. It’s a common shtick.
You are doing nothing new or original in any way.
Konspiracy theories are for suckers.
Their only ammo left is to resort to a barrage of insults and name calling which, in your case, is your strongest trait.
Prove me right.. Insult away!
NASA is not insulting you.
Honest. They probably don’t even know you exist.
“ It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.” Robert L. Park
Hmm… Who is being lied to? Does this make you a flat-out Lie-ee?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/
There you go again with incorrect assumptions again. I don’t get “talking points” from anyone. I do my own research. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself. May I suggest you start with a graphing program and actual satellite data-sets. Or would you prefer crayons and manipulated/adjusted James Hansen data which you have bought into. Trust me, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the truth, though in some cases, the brainwashing can have insurmountable effects. The processs can only begin by thinking for yourself.
@Cedric
Nice try Cedric, but Conspiracy, Brainwashing and Objecticity are totaly diffiernt words with totaly different meanings.
You are incorrectly assuming AGAIN I said something that I did not. No wonder you are in a quandry. Either that or you don’t know the meaning of the word conspiracy.
con·spir·a·cy
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
My point was that they have lost OBJECTIVITY, not that they are conspiring. As I stated earlier, they truly believe what they say to be true.
How you assume conspiracy exists only in your mind. If you read the e-mails leaked during the ClimateGate scandal, you will learn that this is NOT a conspiracy. They were just fiddling with data to bolster their TRUE perceived beliefs.
I would agree with you though about agenda’s. (Please look up the meaning before responding) Their efforts are centered around elaborate attempts to prove the un-provable to a gullible populous. And, for the most part, they have been successful in this endeavor with non critical thinking people. This IS very scary.
But an agenda and loss of objectivity doesn’t suggest a conspiracy. You just assumed you knew what I meant.
Your homework is to go back and read the two last lines I posted from Dr. Zumdahl’s quote for more understanding.
My point was that they have lost OBJECTIVITY, not that they are conspiring.
“They” have lost objectivity?
They?
Konspiracy.
There is no “they”. There is no single group of people or secret cabal.
There’s NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
How does every single scientific community on the planet lose objectivity…at the same time?
How do you brainwash people without a konspiracy?
How do “they” create a boogie man to fool everybody without a konspiracy?
What you are suggesting is daft.
… this is NOT a conspiracy. They were just fiddling with data to bolster their TRUE perceived beliefs.</i.
(giggle)
So…there's no konspiracy but "they" were fiddling with the "data" to bolster their "beliefs"?
Ah.
(…awkward silence…)
And nobody from any other scientific community has happened to notice?
Ah.
But an agenda and loss of objectivity doesn’t suggest a conspiracy. You just assumed you knew what I meant.
Yeah, well the brainwashing and the boogie man talk does sound distinctly crazy.
You have to stop swallowing Monckton talking points and believing everything you read on blogs. The man is a kook. It’s unhealthy.
Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe you should verify what it is you think you know with sources…outside…the blogosphere?
The seductive thing about conspiracies is that they explain everything.
Why does NASA support and conduct active research on climate change?
Well, they are in on it.
And the Royal Society says nothing because…?
Well, they are in on it too. They back each other up.
The AGU?
In on it.
The RMET.?
In on it.
What about…
They are ALL IN ON IT! ALL TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME!!
That includes the scientific journals like Nature and Science too?
Oh yes.
That’s a brilliantly organised conspiracy. Only a few details on how it actually works are missing.
(shrug)
@Cedric
Is this a joke?
Showing your inability to grasp the meaning of such a simple word as conspiracy tells me it would be pointless for further discussion, especially considering that I have posted the dictionary definition for you. You are lumping two different words together to obtain a different meaning which I have not condoned. Repeating your mistake over and over only makes it right in YOUR mind.
For starters, you can’t even spell the word. Your “konspiracy” hang up is preventing a logical discussion. Worse still, you insist on makeing claims about me that are untrue, ie, you have a “Monkton talking points” hang up you need to get over. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else but I could care less about Monkton. I don’t even know where Monkton’s talking points are and am not going to waste my time googling for them. I am a mouthpiece for myself and no one else.
To go any deeper with you would be pointless untill you can wrap your head around this.
I’ll await your epiphany, but until then, refer back to my earlier posts.
Oh come on. Tell us how you figured it all out.
You are lumping two different words together to obtain a different meaning which I have not condoned.
Well, you were the crackpot that brought up brainwashing and hidden agendas and “them” creating imaginary boogiemen to make mysterious “billions/trillions” (zillions?).
“They” have somehow lost all objectivity…and no scientific community noticed!
Wow.
What’s not to love about that?
Talk about having insider information. Reveal all. Don’t let “the man” keep you silent.
For starters, you can’t even spell the word. Your “konspiracy” hang up is preventing a logical discussion.
Yeah, right. I don’t spell conspiracy correctly so you are going to take your bat and ball and go home to momma. Sad.
Listen up, sparky.
I spell the work conspiracy as “konspiracy” because conspiracy theories are…stoopid.
Savvy?
They are brain-dead. They are for people who demand yet already know “The Trooth.”
(Creationists, anti-vaxxers, HIV deniers, Birthers, Moon Landing deniers and climate deniers etc.)
The idea that one scientist can control a vast, government body like NASA is risible.
The idea that a group of scientists doesn’t work either.
How do they keep other scientists in line? Torture them? Threaten their wives with rape? Take away their car parking privileges?
There’s no practical mechanism that would work. It’s a dead idea that can’t even get off the ground.
Grown-ups could figure out the practical problems in seconds.
That’s just ONE scientific community. What about the Royal Society? How did they get corrupted or brainwashed AT THE SAME TIME? How do they co-ordinate their deception without creating mixed messages? Then there’s the American Physical Society and NOAA and a host of others. All with different jobs and different interests and different paychecks and different auditors and different political backgrounds and different nationalities and different languages and different religions and human rivalries and petty feuds etc. Yet they all mysteriously and magically move in lock-step with each other over a vastly complicated field like climatology and have done for many decades. All over the planet.
Dumb.
Awesomely dumb.
…you have a “Monkton talking points” hang up you need to get over. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else but I could care less about Monkton. I don’t even know where Monkton’s talking points are…
Every blessed thing you have said is straight from Monckton. Not one of your ideas are original. Not one.
Yet, mysteriously, you just happen to be saying exactly the same thing?
Ok. I am prepared to believe you.
You psychically channel Monckton and yet…you’ve never even heard of him.
Ah, the wonder of it all.
When you sound like Monkton, don’t be surprised if you get treated like Monckton.
The man really is a complete loon in a nice suit.
//// Marco
“I did not claim every single thermometer shows warming. I challenged you to find a few places that showed cooling.” ////
So, if you are not claiming that, then I do not need to disprove the claim you did not made. However, if you decide to claim or imply that, then you should provide links, references etc. to support such a claim or implication. It is usual in a debate.
My point is, that as long as the AGW proponents only claim a rise in average temperature and do not say, how many thermometers show the claimed rise and in which areas, we have absolutely no reason to believe, that all of the thermometers or even most of them actually show the claimed rise. Because of the nature of “average”, there well can be less thermometers showing “warming”, than cooling and the most of them showing “unchanged”.
Unfortunately, that implication about all the thermometers showing a rise in average temperature is widely spread in the press. As a result, a lot of people bought it and thus are misled on that issue. Maybe you are one of them.
My point is, that as long as the AGW proponents only claim a rise…
You mean NASA?
Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?
“AGW proponents” is so very vague and wispy.
My point is, that as long as NASA only claim a rise in average temperature and do not say, how many thermometers show the claimed rise and in which areas, we have absolutely no reason to believe, that all of the thermometers or even most of them actually show the claimed rise.
Doesn’t sound so good, does it?
Once you insert NASA into the paragraph, you sound just a bit silly.
It’s all very well to spout off about mystery “proponents” and such but NASA?
Everybody knows NASA, you see. People like NASA.
If somebody says “Oh no. Don’t trust NASA. They’ve got it in for you. The Jews have infiltrated them” or something similar…then people are entitled to look at you in a funny way. You have to have extraordinary reasons to disregard NASA’s and every other scientific communities’ findings on AGW.
And you don’t have it.
Some anonymous crank on the internet declaring that he’s unconvinced and that he sees no evidence…is a tad unconvincing.
(shrug)
Unfortunately, that implication about all the thermometers showing a rise in average temperature is widely spread in the press. As a result, a lot of people bought it and thus are misled on that issue. Maybe you are one of them.
Let’s try that again, shall we?
“Unfortunately, that implication about all the thermometers showing a rise in average temperature is widely spread in the press because all those reporters read the NASA website. As a result, a lot of people bought it and thus are misled on that issue. Maybe you are one of them.”
NASA doesn’t have a reputation for misleading anybody.
If NASA did mislead anybody…then the Royal Society would notice and say something in a very loud voice.
Or if NASA and the Royal Society were magically, somehow in cahoots with each other…then you’d expect the European Space Agency to pipe up and make a comment.
Or some other scientific community. There’s lots out there.
Greg, the thing is that I challenged YOU to prove your assertions. I know you don’t want to do any work there, because you just are the typical obfuscator. You think that as long as we are discussing, nothing happens. You’re wrong about that.
//// Cedric Katesby said:
“NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
How does every single scientific community on the planet lose objectivity…at the same time?” ////
Cedric, you repeatedly refer to NASA and “every single scientific community on the planet” supporting the AGW claim. I need to tell you something: even if that were true, your kind of argumentation is completely wrong, sorry to say that.
Your argumentation is a combination of 2 logical fallacies: “argumentum ad populum” and “argument from authority” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority).
That’s why your argument about scientific community is not a valid one in the debate. You can believe whatever you want, but in a debate you need to present valid arguments.
To the AGW claim, you need to understand, that if it is based on something unproven, then the whole thing is unproven. In case of AGW a high school basic education is sufficient to show that the AGW claim is based on unproven things. Because, you know, if there is no proof of a certain thing, then this thing is logically unproven, isn’t it? So, it is time for you to start thinking critically.
Cedric, you repeatedly refer to NASA and “every single scientific community on the planet” supporting the AGW claim.
Yes, I do.
I need to tell you something: even if that were true…
There is no “if” about it.
It’s easily verifiable. Ten seconds on google will confirm it.
Really.
Go ahead and look for yourself. If you really need help, I will (again) give you step-by-step instructions on how to find it.
It’s very easy.
Your argumentation is a combination of 2 logical fallacies: “argumentum ad populum” and “argument from authority”
Nonsense.
Going to NASA is not an argument ad populum any more that going to your dentist for a filling is an argument ad populum.
I don’t care what “everybody” thinks or doesn’t think about scientific issues.
Going to your dentist for dental work is sane and normal.
Getting information about biology from your local university biology department is sane and normal.
Going to NASA for information on rockets and satellites and climate change is sane and normal.
That’s what NASA gets paid for. There’s no point in having scientific communities if you are just going to ignore them when it’s convenient.
I rely on experts because they do the work. They publish in the peer-reviewed literature.
They enter the scientific arena and come out winners.
You, however, only have blogs and nursing home escapees.
An argument from authority is not applicable when you are dealing with a scientific community like NASA and you want to engage their knowledge and expertise on a relevent subject.
It’s a common plea by climate deniers but it’s a misconception:
“Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
(Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam)
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person’s reliability in the area.
More at the Link
To the AGW claim, you need to understand, that if it is based on something unproven, then the whole thing is unproven. In case of AGW a high school basic education is sufficient to show that the AGW claim is based on unproven things.
Yeah but…there’s no reason to just take your word on this.
The people at NASA have a high school basic education…and more.
A lot more.
They are the best and the brightest. They do the work and they have a well deserved reputation.
You don’t.
Enter the scientific arena. Write that paper. Claim that Nobel Prize with you precious high school basic education.
Otherwise, you get put in the crackpot box with the creationists and the HIV deniers.
//// Cedric Katesby said:
“An argument from authority is not applicable when you are dealing with a scientific community like NASA” ////
Cedric, you need to understand the difference. Whether it is applicable or not about NASA depends on the subject of the debate.
In short, if I say something like “NASA might be wrong on something” and you say “it is impossible, because they are so good in science”, then you commit exactly that “argument from authority” fallacy. You simply refuse to look into the issue and claim, actually, they are right because they are always right. Or because the Royal Society agree with them. If I said “the Royal Society is not right on the issue”, then you could say “but NASA agree with them”.
What else you need to understand is, that even if every post of yours contains that appeal to NASA’s authority, it contributes nothing to the actual debate about simple AGW basics. So I allow me to suggest you put aside NASA’s authority for a while and try and find substantial arguments about the issue. After all, to find the truth is in your personal interest, too.
In short, if I say something like “NASA might be wrong on something” and you say “it is impossible, because they are so good in science”, then you commit exactly that “argument from authority” fallacy.
This is a strawman. I’m not saying that. Not even a little bit.
You simply refuse to look into the issue and claim, actually, they are right because they are always right.
Again, a strawman. Didn’t say it.
If I said “the Royal Society is not right on the issue”, then you could say “but NASA agree with them”.
Yes, I could. And I do. You need to be able to explain that. They all check each other’s work. They all love to point out other people’s errors. Scientists are born iconoclasts.
In case of AGW a high school basic education is sufficient to show that the AGW claim is based on unproven things.
Yet but….EVERYBODY at NASA has much more than a high school basic education.
As does the Royal Society.
And the AAAS.
And the NAS.
And the British Antarctic Survey.
And every single scientific community on the planet.
All of them are on board with the consensus of AGW. There are no exceptions.
That did not happen by magic.
They do the work. They get my attention.
You are just some guy on the internet.
There’s no reason to take you seriously.
If you’ve really figured out that all of the Earth’s scientists are wrong…then get out there and publish and claim your Nobel Prize.
All else is crackpottery.
@Cedric
Is this a joke?
Showing your inability to grasp the meaning of such a simple word as conspiracy tells me it would be pointless for further discussion, especially considering that I have posted the dictionary definition for you. You are lumping two different words together to obtain a different meaning which I have not condoned. Repeating your mistake over and over only makes it right in YOUR mind.
For starters, you can’t even spell the word. Your “konspiracy” hang up is preventing a logical discussion. Worse still, you insist on makeing claims about me that are untrue, ie, you have a “Monkton talking points” hang up you need to get over. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else but I could care less about Monkton. I don’t even know where Monkton’s talking points are and am not going to waste my time googling for them. I am a mouthpiece for myself and no one else.
You are living in a make believe world if you believe that ALL scientists tow the AGW line.
http://www.garagetv.com/video-gallery/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
And your grasp of the English lanquage makes it pointless to debate you.
I’ll await your epiphany, but until then, refer back to my earlier posts.
You are living in a make believe world if you believe that ALL scientists tow the AGW line.
Never said they did.
Stop creating strawmen.
All scientific communities on the planet are on board with AGW. That’s just the way it is.
Easily checkable.
There will always be scientists who disagree on something that is well established.
Lift up enough rocks and check out enough nursing homes and you’ll find somebody to disagree on something that’s well established in science and has been for decades.
You are living in a make believe world if you believe that ALL scientists tow the “tobacco causes cancer” line.
You are living in a make believe world if you believe that ALL scientists tow the HIV/AIDS line.
You are living in a make believe world if you believe that ALL scientists tow the efficacy of vaccines line.
You are living in a make believe world if you believe that ALL scientists tow the Theory of Evolution line.
Standard denialist fare.
Although the HIV deniers condemn scientific authority and consensus, they have nevertheless worked to assemble their own lists of scientists and other professionals who support their ideas. As a result, the deniers claim that they are just on the cusp of broader acceptance in the scientific community and that they remain an underdog due to the “established orthodoxy” represented by scientists who believe that HIV causes AIDS.
In an effort to support its claim that an increasing number of scientists do not believe that HIV causes AIDS, Reappraising AIDS has published a list of signatories agreeing to the following statement:
“It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group [of] diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken”.
These signatories do not, however, suggest who the “suitable independent” group should be, since, presumably, many scientists have already been “indoctrinated” into believing that HIV causes AIDS. (Indeed, many of the signatories to this statement lack any qualifications in virology, epidemiology, or even basic biology.) They also ignore thousands of epidemiological studies that have already been published in the scientific literature. And the signatories fail to provide a convincing case that there is widespread acceptance in the scientific community for their marginal position.
Nevertheless, Farber wrote in a 1992 article that “more and more scientists are beginning to question the hypothesis that HIV single-handedly creates the chaos in the immune system that leads to AIDS”. Similarly, a March 2006 article appearing on the AIDS denial Web site “New AIDS Review” claims that, in reference to the theory that HIV causes AIDS: “…the fabric of this theoretical mantle is threadbare to the point of disintegration”. Mainstream scientists, of course, do not believe in the imminent demise of the HIV theory; instead they continue to produce novel research on preventing and treating HIV and publish thousands of papers every year on the topic.
Further, deniers exploit the sense of fair play present in most scientists, and also in the general public, especially in open and democratic societies. Calling for a fair discussion of dissenting views, independent analysis of evidence, and openness to alternatives is likely to garner support, regardless of the context. But it is misleading for the HIV denial movement to suggest that there is any real doubt about the cause of AIDS.
HIV Denial in the Internet Era
Re: Challenging the Core Science: Contrast the Null Hypothesis of Natural Causation vs Anthropogenic Causation. e.g., consider the following “inconvenient facts”:
Natural Components of Climate Change During the Last Few Hundred Years Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Published in:
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Natural Science Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010) doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149
Such natural variations must be quantified and accounted for when trying to distinguish anthropogenic changes.
For full graphs (Caution 51 MB) see:
Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change
See also:
Sea Level Changes in Bangladesh New Observational Facts by Nils-Axel Mörner, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 21 No. 3 2010
Ah, yes, Akasofu’s “recovery”.
Which notably ignores a very large body of research that completely debunks his claims. That is, old science already showed Akasofu to be wrong.
Funnily enough he got that published in a, uhm, rather questionable publisher’s journal:
http://improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academic-journals/
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html
And Mörner has been debunked so many times, it isn’t even funny anymore…
Cederic & Marco
Regarding challenges to AGW theory, see:
Climate Change Reconsidered – the 2009 880 page report by the NIPCC
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
David, why should I read the report of an openly ideological organisation? (I started it a few times, but every time I got too pissed when I saw yet another half-truth or even outright lie)
And I know several of the people on the list, who are claimed to have written papers that challenge some part of AGW, have been debunked so resoundly that a REAL skeptic would hide from those people in shame. Starting with William Gilbert (see here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/12/paradigm-shifts-in-convection-and-water-vapor/)
By the way, I can also find such lists of scientists disagreeing with the theory of evolution:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
(the list is here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660), So I guess that if you want to try an Appeal to Popularity on us, you also MUST, by necessity, agree with the people who signed this statement. Yes? No?
Marco: If you don’t regard the IPCC or SkepticalScience.com as openly ideological organizations then you don’t understand the situation. The debate is between openly ideological organisations, and between openly ideological scientists. AGW is an openly ideological movement.
If you don’t regard the IPCC or SkepticalScience.com as openly ideological organizations then you don’t understand the situation. The debate is between openly ideological organisations, and between openly ideological scientists. AGW is an openly ideological movement.
Idle nonsense.
NASA does science. So does the Royal Society. So does the British Antarcitic Survey.
So do all the other scientific communities on the planet.
Vague, unsubstantiated mutterings about ideology are silly.
You are grasping at straws to find an excuse to not listen to the global scientific community.
Actually I was pretty specific Cedric, by naming the IPCC and SS.com. I can also analyze NASA, as I study it as well. The ideological nature of the UNIPCC is obvious. As for SS.com, here is my assessment, based on considerable study:
SkepticalScience.com is a tour de force of pro-AGW argument. They present over 100 important skeptical arguments in such a way as to make skeptics look ignorant. The formula is simple. Present the skeptical argument in naive terms then answer it with a relatively sophisticated pro-AGW response, preferably citing a paper or two. They now even have three levels of response sophistication in some cases. As propaganda goes it is an impressive achievement.
The glaring fallacy is that there are skeptical counter arguments of equal, or even superior, scientific merit, for every argument listed. There is no hint on SS.com that these counter arguments even exist. SS.com is the poor man’s IPCC.
The good thing about SS.com is that it makes clear just how complex the debate really is, Once you get passed their intentionally deceptive formula that is. Every one of the skeptical arguments they address is significant, once it is properly understood. Many are quite deep.
But I was not aware that the Royal Society does climate science. Have to look into that. But it is irrelevant to my point. As I said to Marco, if you do not understand the ideological dimension to the climate debate then you do not understand the situation.
The debate is between openly ideological organisations, and between openly ideological scientists. AGW is an openly ideological movement.
Standard denialist twaddle.
HIV deniers and Evolution deniers and anti-vaccers all say the same thing.
That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what’s right”. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness”
HIV Denial in the Internet Era-Tara C Smith
The “ideological movement” you so stalwartly oppose over the internet is global, I’m afraid. It’s not just the Royal Society but also the British Antarctic Survey. And the CSIRO. And the USGS. But there’s more…oh so much more….
All the major science journals are in on the conspiracy too.
The ideological bias that you have so cleverly detected has infiltrated every single scientific community on the planet.
And the only people that see “the trooth” are people on the internet.
(shrug)
Standard AGW twaddle. This has nothing to do with HIV. Nor is an ideological movement a conspiracy, in fact it is just the opposite. I have been tracking the rise of environmentalism as a political movement since 1968. Happily it seems to have run its course with AGW.
Dangerous AGW was adopted as national policy by the US and most other countries in 1992, with the UNFCCC. Then came the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, which is now dying. This is politics, not science. On the science side AGW became the new paradigm, heavily funded, but that was policy driven. But now the political backing for AGW science is also fading so we may finally see some balance in the research. And yes the internet has a lot to do with it.
The interesting thing is that I came here merely to discuss global temperature statistics, leading me to point out the differences between the surface statistical models of global temperature an the satellite readings. You keep trying to play the grand consensus card, which just does not work, thanks to the internet.
David Wojick said:
Yes, thanks to the internet we have dishonest, arrogant, ignorant, politically motivated deniers like Wojick et al spreading their lies and misinformation for the gullible to accept and add their own noise to the denier echo chambers. Why they are so hateful of science is unknown but they clearly show ignorance of science and hatred towards scientists.
it is unfortunate that there is no “knowledge” filter on the internet to keep dishonest trolls under their rocks.
This has nothing to do with HIV. Nor is an ideological movement a conspiracy, in fact it is just the opposite.
All science deniers such as climate deniers or HIV deniers or vaccine deniers use the same methodology and rhetoric. Switch the labels around and what you say works beautifully for a denier of another science subject.
You keep trying to play the grand consensus card, which just does not work, thanks to the internet.
Bingo!
Yes, David, the U.S. used to be a world leader in addressing environmental problems.
Unfortunately, ideology is now the problem: the Bush perspective on free market fundamentalism was a major delayer of communication of objective science to the public and also to government. This has been historically documented and is acknowledged now e.g. by NAS, among others. His government abdicated responsibility to legislate mitigation, adaptation and overall efficiency strategies – because his government objected to legislation, in principle.
Your groupthink is part of the vestigial remains of this problem. The loose ideological coalition that has so successfully preached climate change denial to itself is dominated by mostly white male Republicans, libertarians and the occasional neo-liberal such as Judith Curry.
It is discouraging, but not insurmountable in a democracy.
If you wish to discuss any of this further, I for one welcome you to move to the Open thread.
And of course I would say feel free to continue to make scientifically illiterate statements on this one, because that is why it is here, after all.
Have a great day.
Marco
“why should I read the report” . . .
Because if you have any respect for the scientific method, then you will want to thoroughly check out ALL evidence, and test the models (aka “kick the tires”) against the evidence to see what is valid and what is not. (If not, your loss.)
It only takes one stubborn fact to disprove popular theories. See Galileo vs the Aristotelians, the bacterial theory of ulcers, plate tectonics, quantum physics etc.
The NIPCC report summarizes, with thorough documentation, much of the literature left out by the IPCC, or since the IPCC’s AR4. Check out the evidence for yourself from the original journals – if you dare.
Don Easterbrook presented similar earlier predictions that are holding up better than the IPCC’s.
That list of skeptics is not an “appeal to popularity”, but evidence that there is no “consensus” – besides true science is ALWAYS skeptical and continues to hold lightly theories in light of potential new evidence.
If you are willing to look at the actual data, see the trends for the last decade:
NOAA: May cooler than April.
Note the baseline:
Lucia will be including the other data sets as they become available. (You can search for her previous analyses).
When Easterbrook and Akasofu’s models are giving projections closer to the ongoing temperature data than the IPCC’s I will continue to look at them carefully. Will you test AGW model projections against the ongoing data? Or hold to your prior beliefs?
That list of skeptics is not an “appeal to popularity”, but evidence that there is no “consensus” – besides true science is ALWAYS skeptical and continues to hold lightly theories in light of potential new evidence.
It’ amazing how similar denialist arguments are.
It’s like they just copy and paste from each other’s playbook.
The HIV =AIDS believers insist that the mainstream consensus
is so overwhelming that dissentersmust bewrong. History of science
is not kind to this argument. As scientific understanding has
advanced, sooner or later the most firmly held mainstream views
have been modified, indeed often overturned completely. Near the
end of the 19 century it was the consensus that all the major
discoveries had already been made—just before the Second
Scientific Revolution turned on their heads the firmly held beliefs
about atoms and much else. Medical science firmly believed that
schizophrenia could be cured by infecting the sufferer with malaria
(Nobel Prize, 1927) or by cutting out bits of brain (Nobel Prize, 1949)
before settling—for themoment?—on drugs.Diseases…
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/bauer.pdf
Oops, the link doesn’t want to work. It’s from
“Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or
Scientifically Warranted?” by Henry H. Bauer, Ph.D.
It’s taken from http://plagueblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/hiv-dissent.html
David, I already informed you I started on the report on several occasions but had to stop because I found half-truths and outright lies. A true skeptical scientist has little patience in reading clearly ideologically coloured papers. The ACTUAL scientific literature is much more appropriate there. And when I checked that, I found the NIPCC report to be heavily biased and containing more than questionable analysis. They essentially also deny the possibility of interglacials to take place (climate sensitivity cannot be as small as they claim).
And the “Galileo” approach is laughable. There have been thousands of pseudo-Galileo’s, who were certain their ideas rocked the world and that they observed something unique. And then they were shown wrong, and nobody ever heard from them again. You’re focusing on Black Swans. The few people who were right.
Regarding the ‘predictions’ of Akasofu and Easterbrook: if you fit a curve to a date that is very close to the current date, and then project a little bit forward, the autocorrelation almost guarantees you you are very close to the actual values. Of course, Easterbrook has been actually claiming cooling for many years already, and none has been forthcoming.
Lucia’s analysis nicely ignores that you can find multiple periods in the record where, if the model was ‘extrapolated’, it would run either too warm or too cold. Such short periods simply are not good enough to evaluate the models (at the very least the NIPCC report didn’t look at such short time periods, AFAIK).
Regarding what I said above (now far above) about the huge differences between the temperature profiles in the surface statistical models and in the satellites, here are the official records (not whatever SkepticalScience.com cooked up).
The UAH satellite record is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
There is clearly no significant warming from 1978 to 1997, just oscillation about a flat line.
Here is the HadCru record, showing the only significant warming since 1940 to be over roughly the same period:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
That these two contradict each other is undeniable.
David, it is quite interesting to note you take only ONE of the satellite records, and ‘by chance’ the one made by two people who for years had embarrassing mistakes in their algorithm. The same data set has also seen increases in warming trend with every new update, and still has a lower trend than the RSS analysis (which has a trend over the 1978-1997 period that is about 15% lower than that of HADCRUT).
Marco: I believe UAH. I consider RSS to be a mistake, like all of the ideologically motivated “corrections”. RSS is not a record, it is a manipulation, like Hansen’s GISS.
But in any case my original claim that these two records contradict one another stands, your continued attempts to change the subject (as usual) notwithstanding.
I’m with you David. It only takes a person a few months of entering the monthly GISS data-sets to realize how Hansen is re-writing temperature history. I have followed this for two years.
Although his numerous adjustments on a monthly basis may seem small, (+-.01), over a period of decades this could add up to major changes. Someone please explain to me how Hansen can reach back into the 1800’s and know now that the temperature has changed from what he previously reported!
In my opinion he is attempting to “Flatten out” the slope in an attempt to portray a smoother slope. Just my opinion though. Unfortunately, he continues to make these adjustments and get away with it “under the radar” with his disclaimer at the top of each data-set. Furthur scrutiny is needed.
It only takes a person a few months of entering the monthly GISS data-sets to realize how Hansen is re-writing temperature history. I have followed this for two years.
So Hansen is Dr Evil?
He somehow controls NASA?
Nobody is checking his work at the Royal Society or anything?
Hmm.
The mind boggles.
Someone please explain to me how Hansen can reach back into the 1800′s and know now that the temperature has changed from what he previously reported!
So it was only Hansen? No other scientists from other scientific communities have checked his work? Oh my. This is scandelous…if it’s true.
In my opinion…
In your opinion?
…he is attempting to “Flatten out” the slope in an attempt to portray a smoother slope. Just my opinion though.
Yeah, it’s just your opinion though. It will remain trapped forever on the internet. Heaven forbid you should move beyond malicious hearsay.
Unfortunately, he continues to make these adjustments and get away with it “under the radar” with his disclaimer at the top of each data-set. Furthur scrutiny is needed.
Yes, futher scrutiny. Maybe you will get lucky and somebody with a blog will come along and scrutinize it.
After all, that’s how real science is done, right?
People who have been reading blogs for two years with a high school basic education could figure this how global warming scam in a jiffy.
And they do. Repeatedly.
David, yes, I know your logic is to invoke the conspiracy theory. Better believe the record which was shown to be wrong for years due to embarrasing mistakes, and keeps on getting warmer with every correction that needs to be made.
That Roy Spencer is on the board of the Marshall Institute, an openly ideological organisation, of course does NOT make David wonder whether there is ideological motivation in the UAH record. Outright hypocrisy.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, the thing is that I challenged YOU to prove your assertions.” ////
No, you did not, because that was not my assertion, it was my doubt of your implication. If it was not your implication, no problem.
It was not my statement, that some thermometers show cooling. If I stated that, then your challenge would be OK.
What I said was that we can not believe, that all the thermometers show “warming” just because we’ve been told, that there is a rise in average temperature. Average, Marco.
From “average” you can not produce “each”. A lot of constellations are possible, including “fewer thermometers show warming than cooling” and “only a small percentage of thermometers show warming”. Of course, the opposite is possible, too. Do you agree with this theoretical part?
On the other hand, I never heard or read a statement from an AGF proponent, like “all thermometers show warming” or even “most of thermometers show warming”. I did not read or heard it in the press either. In related pro-AGW Wikipedia articles I found nothing about that. It is not a kind of information the AGW proponents have a reason to withhold, isn’t it?
That’s why I suspect, that either they have not calculated the trends for every single thermometer at all, or they did, but not published the results, because they were unfavourable for their concept.
So, again, my point is: we can not be sure, that all or most of the thermometers in the network show warming, it might well be the opposite.
The only thing we can produce from the “rise in average” is “at least 1 thermometer shows warming”. It is a simple math.
Greg, select 5 records from each continent, randomly, and check the slopes. It’s easy to do.
It’s a challenge. Not willing to do the work merely shows you don’t want to evaluate the evidence.
//// Marco said:
“By the way, I can also find such lists of scientists disagreeing with the theory of evolution” ////
Marco, do I understand the implication correctly: if the scientists disagreeing with the theory of evolution are wrong, then the scientists disagreeing with the theory of AGW are wrong, too?
Anyway, can we agree on that: if there is a list of scientists agreeing or disagreeing with something, the list is not enough to judge, whether those scientists are right or wrong? Lists prove nothing?
No, you do not understand the implication correctly. The implication is that if someone claims there is no consensus on AGW, that same person must, by necessity, also claim there is no consensus on the theory of evolution.
And indeed, a list as such does not prove something is right or wrong. However, the likehood something is right is higher if a long list of experts in the field hold the same opinion.
And indeed, a list as such does not prove something is right or wrong. However, the likehood something is right is higher if a long list of experts in the field hold the same opinion.
And by “experts”, I’m sure Marco means actual scientists specializing in the field concerned as opposed to say vets or geography teachers or semi-retired refrigerator salesmen. You go to biologists for biology. You go to epidemiologists for diseases. You go to dentists for dentisty.
Further, it’s not just about their qualification or where they got their degrees.
It’s about their active, current research and their ability to defend their ideas in the scientific arena.
Evolution vs. Creationism:Experts vs. Scientists-Peer Review
Hi Greg!
You must be the umpteenth person to teach Cedric Katesby the meaning of ‘argument from authority’. Has he talked to you yet about the consensus position on global warming of the American Society of Podiatrists? Cedric’s just a harmless troll, though there is the potential to waste lots of time.
Keep it up. 🙂
Are you the band or the God?
Either way, you are mistaken about the role of arguments from authority. Sometimes we cannot do without appeals to experts and their information, in modern society. It is not a mistake in reasoning, per se. The point is to pragmatically and critically evaluate the quality of sources of information when we make an appeal to authority as part of an overall argument.
And obviously, the expert to whom you appeal has to actually be an expert in that area of knowledge.
It’s about a relevant expert, and reasoning that does not depend just on an appeal to an expert but rather to the whole context, as part of pragmatic evaluation of a situation.
This is what we are doing when we cite the voluminous climate research and overwhelming evidence of AGW accepted by the majority of the world’s climate scientists, in the context of social and political analysis that is aware of not only the institutionalized nature of science but also the broader political and economic interests at play that have resulted in the denial or delay of needed emissions reductions, energy efficiency and aid/adaptation to vulnerable people. In this form, appeals to authority are not errors in reasoning – quite the opposite.
In contrast, if you appeal to notoriously irrelevant, industry-funded and anti-science lies and frauds, with little or no objective or pragmatic analysis of either the sources/quality of your information or the ideological context (i.e. the dominant interests and power relations), you are making a fallacious appeal to authority. Try Heartland science or e.g. our friend, Judith Curry, on ‘policy’, for that kind of thing. 😉
Martha, Your “If you can’t see it you are stupid” argument is sooo right out of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Don’t you have anything original to post?
Don’t get so distracted. You are on the challenging the core science comment thread. What did you want to say about that?
But you are the one doing the distracting.
“argumentum ad populum” is not a proof.
“argumentum ad populum” is not a proof.
Two dollops of dumb from Sylvian.
1) Science deals in evidence-not “proof”.
2) Refering to science communities such as NASA and the overwhelming preponderance of peer-reviewed research is not an “argument ad populam”.
Hi Martha
What do you have to say for this, then?
“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), representing more than 60,000
pediatricians, today urged Congress to protect children from health hazards posed by climate change.”
This is from a 2008 release from the AAP: The American Academy of Pediatricians.
re. AAP statement
I think that science is central to medicine and that both medical and scientific organizations are not only free to make statements about climate change and to raise social questions including anticipating the impacts on child and maternal health, but that they should; and that in the practical context I suggested above, these position statements are an appropriate communication of both expertise and concern for the well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable people (children).
//// “Marco said:
Greg, select 5 records from each continent, randomly, and check the slopes.” ////
Marco, maybe you misunderstand my point.
My point is, that until we have seen the evidences for the AGW claims, we should not believe it.
The first AGW claim is about rise in global (=average) temperatures since 1980. However, it looks like we have not seen the proof, that their thermometer network is representative, hence this claim should be considered unproven.
Your implication, that every single thermometer in that (probably non-representative) network is showing warming is not new and has been sold to the public through the press for decades. I haven’t seen the evidence of it either, neither from you here nor from anybody elsewhere. Neither have I seen a direct statement by an AGW proponent about every single thermometer showing warming.
But maybe we can agree on that: until now we have seen no evidence of every single thermometer in the network showing warming?
You see, all what I am trying to show you is whether there are evidences presented by the AGW proponents or not.
Of course, any claim without evidences may still be true by a lucky chance, but I would suggest we talk about evidences.
“I would suggest we talk about evidences”
Actually, Gregory, working scientists have been discussing that with you. Take it or leave it.
You’re the man. 😉
Greg, it seems you believe that AGW means that every part of the globe has warmed. If you indeed believe this, I think you should read up on basic elements, and then come back.
So far you have just been handwaving away any and all evidence thrown in your face. I have little interest in discussing with someone who deliberately ignores evidence.
//// Marco said:
“And indeed, a list as such does not prove something is right or wrong. However, the likehood something is right is higher if a long list of experts in the field hold the same opinion.” ////
Well, wouldn’t you find it a little bit funny, if experts argued about who is right by comparing the length of…, you know… their lists? 🙂
If *experts* would be discussing that, it would be odd, yes.
What I have seen is people comparing the actual expertise (e.g. Anderegg et al), and someone coming with some list (Mark Morano). The first is a focus on real Authority, the latter an Appeal to Authority. Note that this latter fallacy implicitely contains the element of unprovingly assuming someone’s authority in one field, also makes him an authority in another field.
Why is it that some people are incapable of staying on topic? There are plenty of other places where wacko conspiracy theories can be, and are, discussed. The rules for this thread are clear enough and the time is long overdue for them to be enforced.
//// Marco
“Greg, it seems you believe that AGW means that every part of the globe has warmed.” ////
No, I do not. The definition of AGW does not contain the claim, that every part of the globe has warmed.
At the same time, there is a wide spread implication, that the warming is everywhere, but I have seen no evidence of it yet.
So if we both do not think that this implication is true – splendid.
[…] applaud Mike Kaulbars for not censoring this GreenFyre discussion which I see as rather embarrassing to the alarmists who seek to enlist the force of the Global […]
I just posted this on http://SerfCity.US : The Global Statist War on the BuildingBlock of Life . Look there if some of the images or other HTML does not render here .
I applaud Mike Kaulbars for not censoring this GreenFyre discussion which I see as rather embarrassing to the alarmists who seek to enlist the force of the Global State’s guns and prisons to suppress the welfare of the living for fear of an asserted future catastrophic effect on global temperature from the couple of spectral lines of the CO2 molecule which is the anabolic half of the respiratory cycle of life .
The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles “challenge[s] the cult of the omnipotent state” . We see here the deification of the State and its agencies . The utterances of NASA are unequivocal and unbiased despite their guru Hansen comparing the coal trains which supply the electricity which empowers this very conversation to nazi death trains , and the condemnation of this fraud by their last astronaut to have walked on the Moon . Any group which questions the State funded view and believes in the superior intelligence , imperfect tho it is , of a citizenry optimizing the welfare of their families in a free market , undistorted by forced ( ie , State ) cash flows is denigrated and its arguments and evidence dismissed by the most perversely ill logic .
One of Harry Browne’s favorite classical liberal observations was that War is the lifeblood of the State . For the State to justify its use of Force , it must induce fear of an enemy . When it runs out of external enemies , it criminalizes its own citizens . In this iteration , the Global State is trying to criminalize our making a bit more carbon available to the biosphere from previous lush epochs to power our connected lives .
As sort of a Pavlovian experiment , I mentioned the pompous but talented Christopher Monkton wondering if it would trigger a cascade of abuse against all connected with this feared opponent without regard the fact that I was abstracting an incident at a Heartland Conference where he gave me exactly the same crap about not even glancing at anything other peer reviewed publications which the ecoStatists on the blog were dissing me with . Yep . Sorry blogs like this are the max I have time for .
There also was a bunch of twatter , siccing the Dunning-Kruger effect on those of us deigning to question their core science . It’s essentially the claim : You’re dumber than you think you are but I am as bright as I think I am . Well , back at you , baby .
It’s been established that none of the alarmists in the thread know that albedo ( reflectivity ) never occurs in the calculation of the temperature of a radiantly heated gray ( flat spectrum ) ball . That only comes in when you have a colored spectrum .
Here’s more of a highschool level question :
Here’s some basic data : thermometer records ( centigrade ) from some of the first cities to keep them going back to 1820 and beyond . Looks pretty linear to me .
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is said to have increased from about 28 molecules per 100,000 to 39 over that period , an increase of about 39% . Our temperature over that period increased from about 287.0 kelvin to 287.7 , or about 0.24% . Assuming that total increase in our temperature is due to CO2 , what is the simple extrapolated increase in our temperature for another 39% increase in CO2 concentration ? Is that frightening ?
Weighing against that fear , one might consider how much plant life is starving for those extra CO2 molecules :
Bob, another 0.7 degrees is a lot. Remember that the Little Ice Age was about 0.7-1 degrees lower than today.
And those poor plants lacking CO2 are not that much fond of higher temperatures and associated changes in rainfall.
….the alarmists who seek to enlist the force of the Global State’s guns and prisons to suppress the welfare of the living…
(…)
War is the lifeblood of the State . For the State to justify its use of Force , it must induce fear of an enemy . When it runs out of external enemies , it criminalizes its own citizens . In this iteration , the Global State is trying to criminalize our making…
(…)
…which the ecoStatists…
BIG GUBBIMINT. It’s all a big gubbiment konspiracy!
We see here the deification of the State and its agencies .
(…)
…despite their guru Hansen…
(…)
Deification? Guru?
No, that won’t do. Science is not the same as religion. They work differently.
Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore’s book remarked,
“There is classical science, the way it’s supposed to work, and then there’s religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”
Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion
HIV Denial in the Internet Era.-Tara C. Smith
There also was a bunch of twatter , siccing the Dunning-Kruger effect on those of us deigning to question their core science .
You are not “questioning” anything. You are just farting on the internet and refusing to listen to NASA.
NASA and all the other scientific communities involved with the Earth Sciences are the one’s that do the work.
It’s been established that none of the alarmists…
You mean NASA?
…in the thread know that albedo ( reflectivity ) never occurs in the calculation of the temperature of a radiantly heated gray ( flat spectrum ) ball . That only comes in when you have a colored spectrum .
So you think that NASA doesn’t know anything about the albedo effect?
Really? You think you need to give them a wake-up call on this?
Really?
Hmm. Dunning-Kruger Effect.
“Actually , the evidence is I am exceptionally good at it .”
(…)
“The latter sounds very plausible to me…”
(…)
” I do my own research.”
(…)
“Nice try but I do my own research…”
(…)
“In case of AGW a high school basic education is sufficient to show that the AGW claim is based on unproven things.”
(…)
“It only takes a person a few months…”
(…)
“It is a simple math.”
(…)
“Here’s more of a highschool level question”
Dunning-Kruger Effect. In spades.
Any jackass with high school edumacation and a few weeks on the internet can figure out how NASA is involved in a mass scientific conspiracy.
And they do. Frequently.
Dunning-Kruger and Creationists.
//// Marco said:
“Bob, another 0.7 degrees is a lot.” ////
Marco, just imagine you have in Greenland on average 0.7 degrees higher temperatures. Why would do you think it would have a negative impact? Or a positive one, or no impact at all?
Cedric, please, do not say “because NASA…”, please. 🙂
Greg, apart from the fact that you can expect the warming on Greenland to be higher when the global average is 0.7, you’d be talking about significantly faster ice melt. Greenland already has a negative mass balance for its ice cap, it would only get bigger. Faster ice melt = faster sea level rise.
Moreover, do be aware that you can already see changes in the distribution of species with such ‘small’ differences in temperature. That is, biotopes are moving due to temperature alone. Add changing precipitation, and you have yet another stress factor. History of the earth teaches us that evolution of many species isn’t that fast.
////Marco said:
“Greg, apart from the fact that you can expect the warming on Greenland to be higher when the global average is 0.7, you’d be talking about significantly faster ice melt.” ////
OK, I am ready to generously assume a 1 degree average warming on Greenland, for the sake of the debate.
The question is, why do you think that a 1 degree average warming on Greenland would lead to significantly faster ice melt on Greenland?
The concept of “warmer” is not known to you?
(and make it more like 1.5-2 degrees)
//// “Marco said
The concept of “warmer” is not known to you?” ////
No, it is not (kidding).
We both know, I guess, what the difference between “warming” and “average warming” is: the latter is a statistical thing. I was asking about average warming on Greenland.
So, why do you think that a 1 (1.5, whatever) degree average warming on Greenland would lead to significantly faster ice melt on Greenland?
( Just in case, concepts of “faster”, “melting” “lead to something” etc are known to me. 🙂 )
Simple: more energy available for melting.
//// Marco said:
“Simple: more energy available for melting.” ////
Marco, this is exactly the false implication so many people bought, including journalists and politicians.
More energy statistically available for melting does not necessarily lead to melting. For ice melting to start you need temperatures above 0.
E.g. If you have a temperature increase from -20 to -18, you do not get ice melting at all. If you have an average increase in temperatures in areas, where there is no ice (19% of Greenland’s territory), you still might have even average decrease in temperatures in other areas or not enough increase to cause ice melting.
Remember: the core AGW concept is statistical.
You can not conclude anything about certain areas from a statistical overall change. There is an almost endless number of possible constellations. You can have a statistical cooling and more ice melting at the same time, and the other way round: you can have a statistical warming and at the same time an increase in amount of ice.
Greg, -20 to -18 also is relevant (ever heard of sublimation?)
Besides that, on the scale of Greenland, temperature anomalies are highly interconnected. It is not to be expected that the highly uneven temperature changes you propose would ever occur.
Note also this:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html
//// “Marco said:
Greg, -20 to -18 also is relevant (ever heard of sublimation?)” ////
Yes, I did, but I never heard an AGW proponent talking about threats for the mankind because of sublimation, they are talking about ice melting because of global warming.
Below 0 there is no ice melting, so as long as you have a statistical average warming, but the temperatures stay below 0, no melting occurs. No way.
Greg House shows his complete lack of any sort of scientific knowledge.
So you think that when ice sublimes it just disappears? Never to be seen again? Goof grief, try thinking (I know that is hard for you deniers) before you type.
Sublimation means that ice is turned in to water vapour, it then migrates and falls as rain therefore increasing sea levels. It matters not a whit whether the ice melted above 0 degrees C and run into the ocean or sublimated below 0 degrees C and fell as rain into the ocean the end result is the same, sea level will rise. Please do not tell us you have had a science education, that would be one dreadful lie.
Greg, the ice is already melting on Greenland. Think about that for a few minutes, and how that fits with your handwaving “below zero there is no ice melting”.
//// Ian Forrester said:
“Sublimation means that ice is turned in to water vapour, it then migrates and falls as rain therefore increasing sea levels.” ////
Ian, it is very interesting about sublimation, but I am specifically talking about alleged ice melting as a result of a statistical average warming.
If you like, we can talk about sublimation later, but now I would like to put it aside for a while.
Do you agree, that below 0 there is no ice melting, so as long as you have a statistical average warming, but the temperatures stay below 0, no melting occurs?
Greg, try an experiment. Next winter when it’s below freezing, put a pan of ice outside and see how long it lasts, particularly in the sun. You are demonstrating not only lack of education but also an incurious mind.
//// Marco said:
Greg, the ice is already melting on Greenland. Think about that for a few minutes, and how that fits with your handwaving “below zero there is no ice melting”.” ////
Marco, you do not really mean there IS ice melting below 0, do you?
Ice has always been melting in areas around the world, including Greenland, in times, when the temperature goes above zero. If there is ice in certain areas on Greenland or in Florida, or in a refrigerator, then this ice will start melting as soon as the temperature goes above 0, but it will not start melting as long as the temperature stays below 0.
I think we all know that. But again, the AGW proponents say, the statistical average warming leads to more ice melting. Simple high school level physics does not support that claim. You can well get a statistical average warming and increase in ice amount at the same time.
Let me give you one simple example. Let’s say, on 5 days you have these temperatures: (-10, -8, -6, + 1, +3), the average is -4. Then on the same days next year you have (-7, -5, -4, -2, +3), the average is -3. You have a 1 degree average warming, but at the same time more days, where the temperatures stays below 0. You do not expect a “faster ice melting” under these circumstances, do you?
As I said before, a lot of different constellations are possible, but to disprove a general claim 1 example is sufficient.
Greg House obviously lives in a tropical country and has never experienced ice, snow or below zero temperatures.
Keep it up Greg, you are a great example of someone afflicted with the denier disease, Dunning Kruger Syndrome.
Greg, the warming you suggest is unlikely to occur. Analysis all over the globe indicates an increase in both daily minima and maxima (the former generally faster than the latter). And that’s without the other issues already raised.
Now, I fully admit the analysis on Tmax trends has not yet been done for Greenland, but right next to it, in Canada, it has been:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2011001/ct019-eng.htm
Looking forward to the next objection, which I am sure is forthcoming.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, the warming you suggest is unlikely to occur.” ////
Marco, I do not suggest any warming.
I hope to have shown, that one of the core claims from the AGW concept about global (statistical average) “warming” causing more ice melting is easy to disprove. [1]
We need to face the reality, Marco, what is scientifically wrong is wrong.
—-
Greg, what you “proved” is that you can handwave your way out of any inconvenient information. You did not disprove anything, you just came with a hypothetical situation, which does not fit with observations.
What is scientifically wrong is indeed wrong. And so far, your ‘science’ is mostly loads of objections based on hypothetical situations that do not fit with real observations.
And that’s apart from the odd idea that ice only melts when the air temperature is >0 degrees.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, what you “proved” is that you can handwave your way out of any inconvenient information. You did not disprove anything, you just came with a hypothetical situation, which does not fit with observations.” ////
Marco, please remember, that the “warming” AGW proponents claim to happen is a statistical average thing. [1]
The nature of statistical average is that you can have a great number of very different constellations [2] and the same average. That is why geographically you can not conclude anything about certain area from a global average. Unfortunately, AGW proponents do it.
As for ice melting, a statistical average “warming” leads to nothing, because, again, a great number of very different constellations and the same average are possible. [3] I gave you an example to illustrate that. That is why the claim of the AGW proponents about statistical average “warming” leading to more ice melting is wrong. It is already wrong on the theoretical level. [4]
Generally speaking, there still can be more ice melting or less ice melting, we simply do not know. [5]
And, of course, single cases (pictures) of disappeared glaciers somewhere do not prove anything, because at the same time you can have a faster additional ice formation somewhere else.
—-
Greg, your simplistic ‘logic’ is once again “I don’t care about statistics in one place, unless you show it for every single mm2 of the earth, I don’t believe it”.
Of all the glaciers being monitored, the vast, vast majority is melting. Ice sheets monitored using satellites…melting. Greg House “ooh, but there may be glaciers growing faster elsewhere!”.
This is not even being contrarian, it is outright trolling.
//// [2] – I’m guessing that you speak native English (no offence intended) – but usually we talk constellations about groups of stars. Perhaps you meant areas/regions/countries?” ////
No offence taken, I am not a native speaker. If you find something ambiguous in my posts, please do not hesitate to ask me, what I mean.
The word “constellation” has also the meaning “an arrangement of parts or elements” according to WordWeb. Maybe I should have used “set of values” instead.
What I meant was, that e.g. if you are told, that the average of 2 numbers is 7, you can not conclude anything about those 2 numbers from that average, there are a lot of possibilities, like: (6,8), (5,9), (4,10), (3,11), (-10,24) etc.
//// “[4] – We know that the population of the world is getting bigger and heavier.” ////
Well, I did not know that, but here you also can have different trends in different areas, even opposite trends.
Let’s take a simple example. You are a coach of a soccer team (11 players). After vacation you have got the information, that they gained 1 kg weight on average. That means, that all of them together gained 11 kg. The question is: should all of them go on diet?
You do not know. There are a lot of possibilities. E.g. only the keeper got really fat, because, you know, he has too little to do :), and the others are as skinny as before. Or all of them equally gained 1 kg each. Or the fat keeper gained 21 kg and the others lost 1 kg each.
You see, these are the limits of statistics.
Greg House said:
No you have not shown that, all you have shown is that you do not understand anything about statistics. Statistics is a lot more than “averages” as anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge (which you have shown you do not have) will know.
//// “Marco said:
Greg, your simplistic ‘logic’ is once again “I don’t care about statistics in one place, unless you show it for every single mm2 of the earth, I don’t believe it”.” ////
Marco, there is a natural water cycle, ice melting and ice formation are parts of it.
It is like people losing and gaining weight. If a person loses some weight, that does not mean a decrease in “global average”, because other persons may gain weight.
Greg, if we would measure the weight of a significant proportion of the population on earth (oh, let’s say 10% of the whole population), and 90% of that selected population is losing weight, you would STILL be handwaving that “other persons may gain weight”
Here, enjoy yourself with the glaciers
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
And that’s without the monitoring of the arctic and antarctica, by far the two largest ice sheets.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, if we would measure the weight of a significant proportion of the population on earth (oh, let’s say 10% of the whole population), and 90% of that selected population is losing weight, you would STILL be handwaving that “other persons may gain weight” ” ////
Marco, if you look at 100 people and find by looking at them, that some of them lost weight… well, you know what I mean. Generally, I would say “that depends”, if you have to do with statistical claims.
As for the AGW concept we still do not know, how many weather station show “warming”. It is possible, that only small percentage of them show “warming”, small percentage of them show “cooling” and the others show “unchanged”.
Another problem of the AGW concept is, that they conclude something about certain single area, like Greenland or Antarctic, from statistical “global average”. This is scientifically wrong.
Unfortunately, a lot of people believe that sort of claims, because they do not know, that “global” in the AGW concept is not something really proved to be everywhere, but just a statistical average.
Greg, I already challenged you to do some work and prove your handwaving. You don’t. I know why: you know what the outcome will be, and it is not the outcome you like.
It is also quite telling you try to move the discussion again, after I provided you a link that you know contains information you do not want to know.
I’ve dealt with people like you before: obfuscators and evadors.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, I already challenged you to do some work and prove your handwaving. You don’t. I know why: you know what the outcome will be, and it is not the outcome you like.” ////
Marco, wouldn’t it be more constructive, if you make your point instead of giving me “some work” to do?
One point of mine is, that until now the AGW proponents have not provided following information: how many weather stations show “warming”, how many weather stations show “cooling“, how many weather stations show“unchanged” and in which areas.
It is, of course, just my impression based on the fact, that I nowhere found a link to this information.
You can easily put it right and provide such a link. Otherwise you maybe can agree, that probably this information is not available and hence we do not know, how “global” the alleged statistical average “warming” really is.
//// Marco said:
“It is also quite telling you try to move the discussion again, after I provided you a link that you know contains information you do not want to know.” ////
Thank you for that link, but again, what is your point?
They even do not claim there, that they deal with a random sample of glaciers.
And we have been talking about the AGW claim about Greenland’s ice melting away because of “global warming”. Your link is not about it. Let us stick to that claim for a while.
Greg, people learn a lot more from doing the work themselves. But that’s where the problem is for you: you don’t want to learn. This is obvious from each and every handwave you provide (again on the glaciers, this time).
Greg and Marco
I don’t want to interfere in your entertaining discussions, but way back up the thread I posted this in reply to you and Marco. The debate quickly moved on so no doubt you mssed it.
There are many places that are cooling
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
This is a small fraction of the total-the numbers were confirmed by one of the worlds leading climate scientists (Not Dr Curry) who in personal email correspondence reckoned the number that were cooling to be some 28% of the total. A substantial proportion of the stations that are warming are because of encroachment of the urban area on to a previously rural site (the uhi effect) and/or a physical move whereby an entirely different micro climate is being monitored. This is a large impact that overwhelms the cooling signal. There is also another large proportion of stations that are warming because they are in that stage of their natural cycle.
In answer to another of your comments, the basis on which the temperature record is predicated is highly flawed. My article here examined in some detail the history behind the construction of these land temperature records
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability-2/
A companion piece relating to sea surface temperatures will shortly be carried at Climate Etc.
Hope this helps.
Tonyb
Tony, your piece on SST’s just ran: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/27/unknown-and-uncertain-sea-surface-temperatures/
Combining the measurements of a constantly changing medium, from different ships, using different instruments, taken at points many miles apart, at different times, hardly constitutes a temperature record. The confidence intervals would be staggeringly wide, if they could even be calculated. This is hodge-podge statistics, not even a convenience sample, it is no sample at all!
Tonyb is another one who ignores the satellite record and relives the already proven false claims that UHI is the main reason for warming. No surprise then that tonyb posts at Wattsupwiththat.
In the meantime glaciers are not listening to your claims of UHI, bird migrations are contradicting your claims, and arctic sea ice continues to melt (despite Anthony Watts trying his “recovery” every year).
Hi Greg and Marco
Marco, you cite Canada as a good example of temperature analysis. It is in fact a terrible one as their records are highly controversial for a number of reasons. My colleague Verity Jones spent a great deal of time trying to dig beneath the headlines and the results are shown in her series of five related articles that deal with Canada.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/canada-top-of-the-hockey-league-part-1/
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/canada-2-ghcngiss-comparisons-with-environment-canada/
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/canada-3-comparing-eureka/
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/canada-4-anomalies-and-comparisons/
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/canada-5-warming-north-of-the-border/
This last one explores the general problem of fluctuating numbers and locations of temperature stations, which means we are constantly having to compare apples and oranges when examining records.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/the-station-drop-out-problem/
Tonyb, several people have shown that the station drop-out (or rather, not fill-in) did nothing to the global average. And yet it is once again used by your ‘colleague’ as some kind of evidence. Sigh.
I tend to trust the actual scientists doing the work a lot more than those who cite E.M. Smith and repeat nonsense that has been debunked many, many times already. You just confirmed that you are also someone who I can safely ignore.
Marco
You show that you have a closed mind and only want to llisten to those whose message you like. The satellite record is far too short to give us any indication of what is happening on any meaningful time scale.
As for the glaciers-of course many are melting-as have most since around 1750, This is not surprising as the world started to warm up around the begining of the 17th century.
tonyb
Tony, I have seen your attempts at creating a narrative. Not a factual story, a narrative. I have a closed mind when people try the narrative on me, especially when they also refer to people who point to long debunked stuff (like E.M. Smith’s hopeless analysis). I have no intention to listen to any and all crackpot who believes he knows better than anyone else. Some people are worth listening to, many simply are not. You fall in the latter category
Also, the satellite record is not too short to show it essentially gives the same results as the surface record.
Finally, I thought you claimed the temperature record was not good enough to claim it was warming…on what then do you base your claim that the world started to warm up around the beginning of the 17th century?
(and a final question: what caused it?)
Marco
Individual Instrumental temperature records which can show us an approxinate direction of travel, if not the fine tuning, when combined with the thousands of records of past events from such as Hubert Lamb amongst others.
Which is not to say that within all that there are not counter trends-such as the current identifiable cooling trends which are evident amongst the warming ones.
As for the reasons for the rise? I’ve no idea although there are several theories.
tonyb
Tony, you contradict yourself again. The temperature record is not good enough, and yet you refer to the temperature record.
And I’m not surprised to see somebody focus on the old work of Hubert Lamb, and ignore all the new work. As I said: you are trying to push a ‘nice’ narrative, rather than the facts.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, people learn a lot more from doing the work themselves. But that’s where the problem is for you: you don’t want to learn. This is obvious from each and every handwave you provide (again on the glaciers, this time).”
Marco, in the document you gave the link to I did not find a claim, like “there is statistical average mass loss in glaciers worldwide”. So, if that was your implication, your link does not support it.
You can find some examples there, and I assume this might have created a certain impression in you, but it is not a scientific evidence.
Later I’ll take a little bit apart another link about Greenland you gave earlier, although unwillingly, because I would not like to discuss secondary flaws of the AGW concept yet, we are not done with the primary ones. But I am going to do that just to show you, that you need to see claims and examples critically.
And again, it would be better for the debate, if you make clear points, not just send your opponents to the library read books (well, I exaggerate a little bit 🙂 )
Greg, you lazy git, Figure 5.9 in the report.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, you lazy git, Figure 5.9 in the report.” ////
Well, Marco, then it is even worse, then I expected. I first simply searched the document for the keywords “random” and “sample” and the results showed me, that the guys were not talking about a random sample of glaciers worldwide.
Having a random sample is the least they needed to conclude anything about global changes, otherwise it would be completely unscientific. It is also impossible, that they surveyed all the over 100 000 glaciers worldwide, so I concluded logically, that they they can not claim anything about “global”.
But they guys actually did it!
They talk about “the mean of all glaciers” and “global average annual mass loss”. At the same time, look at this (p. 29): “However, these values are to be considered first order estimates due to the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets.”
“Probably limited representativeness”, Marco. So the guys probably know it. Nevertheless they are talking about “global average”. This is not scientific.
As expected, Greg once again believes in the miracle that a large selection of glaciers, chosen because they are comparatively easily accessible (and in that sense both random and not-random), just happen to be the once giving a very clear negative mass balance.
You are religious, right, Greg? Your belief in miracles is so large, it cannot be any other way.
Marco said:
“As expected, Greg once again believes in the miracle that a large selection of glaciers, chosen because they are comparatively easily accessible (and in that sense both random and not-random), just happen to be the once giving a very clear negative mass balance.
You are religious, right, Greg? Your belief in miracles is so large, it cannot be any other way.” ////
Marco, we are talking about science, not about religion.
There are scientific studies and, you know, just scientifically unsupported claims.
The claim about “global average annual mass loss” of glaciers is scientifically unsupported for the reasons you can find in my previous post. So let’s forget our impressions and face the reality.
Greg, your complaints are handwaving. These are scientifically supported estimates. You are an obvious obfuscator. No need to further engage with you.
//// Marco said:
“As expected, Greg once again believes in the miracle that a large selection of glaciers, chosen because they are comparatively easily accessible (and in that sense both random and not-random)” ////
In addition to the last post of mine. Marco, you need to understand, that even if only comparatively small number of over 100 000 glaciers are easily accessible, this is not a reason to consider unscientific claims about “global average annual mass loss” to be scientific.
If a study has not been made according to the scientific standards, then its results are not scientific facts. If you mean, it was not possible for whatever reason to the researchers to do their job properly, their results are still not scientific facts.
As for your “both random and not-random”, there is no such a thing in a strict scientific sense, as far as I know. But if you know better, you are welcome to provide a scientific definition of this term, possibly with quotations and links, I am looking forward to it.
Greg, scientific standards do not say you have to measure every single sample. The population under investigation is considered a random sample of the whole population.
And “strict scientific sense” is just semantics. Look up probability and nonprobability sampling. Monitored glaciers are in essence a nonprobability sample, but it is doubtful that there are significant biases in the selection (upon which one may well considered the sample as random).
//// Marco said:
Greg, scientific standards do not say you have to measure every single sample.” ////
Marco, the authors of the document have actually admitted, that “global average annual mass loss” is not a scientific fact. Look at this again: “However, these values are to be considered first order estimates due to the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets.” ( Page 29)
Unfortunately, they buried that deep in the document. At the same time in the foreword and in the summary in the beginning of the document they create the opposite impression.
We should seriously consider the possibility, that they are intentionally selling their wrong claims, disguised as scientific facts to the public, politicians and journalists.
To your “Greg, scientific standards do not say you have to measure every single sample”. It is misleading. You need to have a representative sample. And the authors of the document know that, see above.
Here is the link for readers, again: http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/
As expected, Greg cherry picks and tries the “uncertainty”-line.
I thought Greg’s response was quite intelligent. He is actually reading the science. Uncertainty is the issue, not the line. Posturing is not an answer.
As I said, the obfuscators are at work again. Greg will have to explain how he believes in the miracle that the mass balance may well be positive, considering that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets show negative balance AND considering Figure 5.1.
Good Marco, now you are dealing with the science. Keep it up. However, it is some studies, not the ice sheets, that show negative mass balances. (Which studies are they?) The issue is actually quite uncertain. It is also, once again, a change of subject. You do that a lot.
David and Greg, you do not demonstrate the most basic understanding of the meaning and significance of scientific statements e.g. ‘first order estimate’. You both deal with the evidence inattentively and selectively. You both imagine you are provocative. In reality, any response is going to seem like a change of topic, to you. There is no excuse for this, since you both say you read and are serious about discussing science.
Well, Martha, this comment of yours unfortunately does not demonstrate your understanding of the meaning and significance of ‘first order estimate’. Go ahead, what is the meaning and significance of ‘first order estimate’ in your understanding? Please, make a clear point. And please, tell us, why your understanding is right.
Martha, I have a Ph.D. in mathematical logic and philosophy of science, so I know quite a bit about the meaning of scientific statements. More than most people in fact, including most scientists. Switching from the issue of the statistics of glaciers to ice sheet mass balance is a change of topic. Marco does this all the time.
As for first order estimates, as you may know there are studies that suggest that the mass balance of the world’s glaciers is actually increasing, as well as the mass balance of Greenland and/or Antarctica. This is a controversial topic, to a first order, which is all we have.
Good grief, so many lies in one paragraph.
You are the most dishonest poster on this blog and that is saying a lot.
Why do you continue to promote your lies and distortions? Do you get well paid for your nonsense?
What lies are you referring to Ian? And which paragraph? You do understand that honest disagreements are not lies, don’t you?
“Switching from the issue of the statistics of glaciers to ice sheet mass balance is a change of topic. Marco does this all the time.”
Except he doesn’t. What Greg quotes refers to a first order estimate of the contribution to (relative) sea level rise in the specified period(s) from “glaciers and ice caps”, using a mass balance approach. Are you telling me, David, that you actually do not know that the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are (continental) glaciers?
The rest of the statement simply says that the mass balance approach under-represents the effects of climate change on many glacial regions.
Moving on, the report looks at past and current science and we see that the Greenland sheet has had a negative mass balance in recent years. The mass balance for the entire Antarctic region is also negative: West Antarctica melting has accelerated to the point of doubling in recent years (similar to Greenland) and while East Antarctica is gaining mass due to precipitation, it is nowhere near equal to the losses in West Antarctica. So – negative.
Yet you tell me that there are scientific studies that show a positive mass balance for Greenland or Antarctica, and/or positive global glacial mass balance. O.K. Give me the links to the studies you believe show this.
Good grief, there’s a WHOLE REPORT I referred to, and you ask me for the studies. Read it first, and then try your “ooh, but maybe they just accidentally mostly selected the glaciers that are showing a negative mass balance.”
That Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass is so well known that ‘skeptics’ already get all excited when there’s a (potential) correction reducing that mass loss.
Of course, your ‘logic’ is also that since stuff is uncertain, we should just assume it is all uncertain in one direction. Nothing to worry about that comet racing towards us, it’s all uncertain whether that 90% chance of impact is real. could just as well be zero, so let’s not do anything.
Boom.
Darn, I should have realised David does not work with the word “accidentally”. If he doesn’t like something, he immediately believes it is fraudulous (see his comments on the RSS data; David believes the data from UAH, despite the years of Spencer & Christy getting it all wrong, is much more reliable…).
//// Marco said:
“As expected, Greg cherry picks and tries the “uncertainty”-line.” ////
Marco, my line is very simple: to take a closer look at the AGW basic claims.
The claim about “warming” is not based on scientific facts, it is based on handling of a non-representative thermometer network as representative. The information about the possible opposite trends, that every single thermometer shows has not been made available to the public. That “warming” was wrongfully called “global” and so quite successfully sold to the public, politicians and journalists.
Another sort of claims concerns things, that are in a contradictory manner claimed to be impacts or evidences of “global warming” . Again, the purely statistical nature of “average warming” is concealed through omitting the words “statistical ” and “average” when talking to the public. If the public had been aware of that, they would not have bought those claims. One good example is that thing about glaciers.
What a load of rubbish.
You have definitely shown you are incapable of understanding science, maths, statistics or logic.
It is time you stopped showing how ignorant you really are. Maybe it is time to find a home for the neuronally challenged. That way you will stop being an embarrassment to other, more honest, deniers.
Greg, you can find some small places that show cooling relative to mid century. A few. the majority of places show warming:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Map_jpg
As global as you can get. This is the information you claim is withheld from the public. What does the image tell the public? It tells the public you are full of crap. So, yes, let us show this image to the public.
Glaciers? Same story. Figure 5.1 in the document I referred to shows that (and according to your line of reasoning this is just by chance) the vast majority of glaciers under long term scrutiny are getting shorter and shorter. At the same time you ignore the fact that negative mass balances are also shown for Greenland and Antarctica, by FAR the largest ‘glaciers’.
Marco said:
“Greg, you can find some small places that show cooling relative to mid century. A few. the majority of places show warming:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Map_jpg
As global as you can get. This is the information you claim is withheld from the public.”
No, Marco, your colourful picture is not an answer. I was specifically talking about the trends, that every single thermometer in the network shows. Every single thermometer, Marco. You did understand that, didn’t you?
Apparently this information has not been made available to the public until now.
Actually, the climate science must be interested in what trend every single thermometer shows, this is exactly the subject of the climate science. So I can not believe, that those calculations have not been made. But the results are apparently not available to the public.
//// Marco said:
“Glaciers? Same story. Figure 5.1 in the document I referred to shows that (and according to your line of reasoning this is just by chance) the vast majority of glaciers under long term scrutiny are getting shorter and shorter.” ////
Marco, you do understand, that “wrong” + “wrong” still = “wrong”, don’t you?
You can not claim to scientifically find a statistical global trend without making a statistical study meeting scientific standards. The study you are referring to does not meet scientific standards, the authors admit it themselves on the page 29. Do I need to give you the quote again?
So, if that all you have on the issue of glaciers, let us agree on “we do not know”. Later we can talk about why it is possible to sell “we do not know” to the public, politicians and journalists, as if it were “we know for sure”.
Greg, you can do the analysis yourself with a much smaller ‘smoothing’, and you’ll get the same results (but with some grey spots due to poor coverage in some regions). Your notion that this still is meaningless, because it may well be one thermometer going up and ten going down, is believing in miracles.
Your handwaving with the “scientific standards” (please quote them, from the relevant authority that decides “scientific standards”) is obvious. Yes, the glacier report mentions uncertainty in the mass balance graph. But combined with the data in Figure 5.1 and the information about Greenland and Antarctica, nobody doubts the trend. Well, nobody but Greg House, but that’s because he doesn’t like it. We DO know, Greg, you just don’t want to know it.
//// Marco said:
At the same time you ignore the fact that negative mass balances are also shown for Greenland and Antarctica, by FAR the largest ‘glaciers’.” ////
Marco, I intentionally refrain from talking about this sort of claims for a while. Remember, what I said before? “I would not like to discuss secondary flaws of the AGW concept yet, we are not done with the primary ones.”
It is not the secondary claim about “negative mass balance” of Greenland, what is most interesting, it is the primary claim, that “global warming” causes that.
This primary claim is absolutely unscientific already on the high school level. An increase in average can not cause anything in any single area. So that sort of message the public constantly get from the media is scientifically wrong. I am afraid, you have bought it, too.
Greg, you are still believing in the miracle that the increasing average may mean that a lot of temperatures remain ‘cold’, and only one is a lot warmer. The fact is that research shows the melt season on Greenland to get longer and longer.
Your handwaving and unwillingness to do any data analysis is unscientific. You can get away with that on WUWT, not here.
A paradigm of nonresponse! No science here. Move on!
David, you told me, above, that there are scientific studies that show a positive mass balance for Greenland or Antarctica, and/or positive global glacial mass balance. You were asked to give the links to the scientific studies you believe show this. You haven’t, and your inability to back up your claims is not unnoticed.
In addition, you take no responsibility (ignore) your misunderstanding of the most basic scientific statements, even though you claim to understand scientific statements better than most scientists. For example, you said “Switching from the issue of the statistics of glaciers to ice sheet mass balance is a change of topic. Marco does this all the time” when in fact what Greg quoted refers to a first order estimate of the contribution to relative sea level rise in the specified periods from glaciers and ice caps, using a mass balance approach, making the topic introduced by Marco (namely the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, which are continental glaciers) clearly not a change of topic – unless of course you do not know that ice sheets are continental glaciers and you did not even glance at the research report you pretended to have read and to be discussing.
Pretty much all of your other comments reveal more of the same.
The fact that you think your PhD (from 40 years ago in an unrelated field) makes your uninformed statements appear more worthy to others, is quite the chauvinism.
//// Martha said (to David):
“For example, you said “Switching from the issue of the statistics of glaciers to ice sheet mass balance is a change of topic. Marco does this all the time” when in fact what Greg quoted refers to a first order estimate of the contribution to relative sea level rise in the specified periods from glaciers and ice caps, using a mass balance approach, making the topic introduced by Marco (namely the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, which are continental glaciers) clearly not a change of topic – unless of course you do not know that ice sheets are continental glaciers and you did not even glance at the research report you pretended to have read and to be discussing.” ////
Martha, the authors of the report see it apparently differently, than you.
When they talk about glaciers, they do not include ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica in this term.
Maybe you can call any piece of ice a “glacier”, I don’t know and it doesn’t matter, because the authors of the report do not call the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica “glaciers”. They clearly differentiate between these things.
I’ll give you a few examples from the report.
1. On the page 11 in “Introduction” the say:
“Note that drawing a distinction between ice sheets on one hand, and glaciers and ice caps on the other, is in accordance with the definition of the Essential Climate Variables as put forth by GCOS (2004). The term ‘glacier’ is used in this context as a synonym for different types of surface land ice masses including outlet glaciers, valley glaciers, mountain glaciers and glacierets.”
You did read the introduction, Martha, didn’t you?
And they provide the definitions there, too:
“Ice sheet: a mass of land ice of continental size …
Ice shelf: a thick, floating slab of freshwater ice extending from the coast, nourished by land ice …
Glacier: a mass of surface-ice on land which flows downhill under gravity and is constrained by internal stress and friction at the base and sides …
Ice cap: dome-shaped ice mass with radial flow, usually covering the underlying topography.”
2. On the page 17:
“glaciers and ice caps, surrounding the continental ice sheets”
“Fig. 3.6 Worldwide distribution of perennial surface ice on land. The map shows the approximate distribution of glaciers, ice caps and the
two ice sheets from ESRI’s…”
“Table 3.1 Ice sheets, ice shelves, glaciers and ice caps”
3. On the pages 31, 32, 33: “glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets”
Let’s briefly review everything, Greg, because it seems that you you no longer have any idea what you want to say.
The report confirms the trend in accelerated ice loss in the past 2 or 3 decades for glaciers and underscores the rapid changes occurring from climate change. The report highlights the data on what are often called small glaciers, and refers the reader to the extensive research on Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets (what are sometimes called continental glaciers) for the big picture.
You apparently read this report, and of everything in this report and referenced in this report, you extracted a single statement that you used to erase all the data, every research summary in each chapter, and the conclusion. In order to achieve this remarkable feat, you completely and utterly misunderstood what you quoted.
As I already explained to you, in what you quote, the “values” referred to are a first order estimate of the contribution to (relative) sea level rise in the specified period(s). Not the data presented about ice loss in glaciers.
Undeterred, you go on to completely misunderstand and similarly grossly misrepresent a statement about data gaps. You have a remarkable imagination: the statement is not “buried” – unless highlighting and emphasizing it for discussion on the next page and addressing this gap throughout the report counts as ‘burying’ something.
(If you have read and understood that section, then you have to know that the statement you quote very clearly does not mean what you pretend it means. And if you read the next section, you might appreciate the integrated approach being used to address the under-representation that is clearly identified, and the bias and data gaps introduced by the relative abundance of data for Northern Hemisphere glaciers.)
Marco’s point was that if you believe the report does NOT show the trend that the data so clearly shows for glaciers, then you do not know how to read a graph; and furthermore, if you meant global mass balance for all (i.e., small glaciers and ice sheets), you would be making an especially miraculous claim given the negative mass balance for Antarctica and Greenland (which is clearly demonstrated in the research to which you are referred in the introduction of this report, and which is compiled in some of the other referenced papers).
On your behalf, David went on to claim that there are studies showing a positive mass balance for Greenland or Antarctica, and/or positive global glacial mass balance. I asked for those links. I’m still waiting. Since you are answering for David, I guess I’m waiting for you to provide these to me.
That is where things stand if you want to move forward with me — those links, or a discussion of what you have seriously misrepresented in your quoting of the report on glaciers.
p.s. I joked that ice sheets are (continental) glaciers, for David’s benefit ( “ice sheet: a mass of land ice of continental size”, as you note).
//// Martha said:
“p.s. I joked that ice sheets are (continental) glaciers, for David’s benefit” ////
Come on, Martha, you did not.
Look at what you said to David:
“In addition, you take no responsibility (ignore) your misunderstanding of the most basic scientific statements, even though you claim to understand scientific statements better than most scientists. For example, you said “Switching from the issue of the statistics of glaciers to ice sheet mass balance is a change of topic. Marco does this all the time” when in fact what Greg quoted refers to a first order estimate of the contribution to relative sea level rise in the specified periods from glaciers and ice caps, using a mass balance approach, making the topic introduced by Marco (namely the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, which are continental glaciers) clearly not a change of topic – unless of course you do not know that ice sheets are continental glaciers and you did not even glance at the research report you pretended to have read and to be discussing.
Pretty much all of your other comments reveal more of the same.
The fact that you think your PhD (from 40 years ago in an unrelated field) makes your uninformed statements appear more worthy to others, is quite the chauvinism.”
And now you claim that to be a joke?
Can you tell me, how you managed to read the report and miss the basic thing about ice sheets NOT being glaciers?
//// Martha said:
“The report confirms… The report highlights… and of everything in this report and referenced in this report…” ////
Martha, this report is finished.
Although it contains some scientific things, it is not a piece of science to me, it is rather a piece of propaganda, given their fear inducing statements like “If all land ice melted away…”
The authors admitted on the page 29, in case you missed it:
“However, these values are to be considered first order estimates due to the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets.”
I have a very strong feeling, that they buried this passage so deep in the document well knowing, that the most readers would only read the foreword, summary and maybe introduction, and if someone digs deeper, than they have their alibi on the page 29.
I have a very strong feeling, Greg, that you do not know how to put your shovel down.
Regarding your main argument, it cannot rest on your misinterpretation of what you read. As I have explained, the “values” referred to in the above quote are a first order estimate of the contribution to sea level rise (1961 to 2006, if I recall correctly – but don’t hold me to it) not the calculations/data of mass balance/ice loss or an attempt to estimate contribution to future sea level rise of increasingly rapid or even accelerated ice melt. Since this particular estimate of the past contribution to sea level rise was based on a mass balance calculation that relied on limited observational data, and there has been observation of a ‘massive downwasting of many glaciers over the past two decades’, the most rational interpretation of the import is that more data from more reference glaciers may show that the negative impact of climate change on glaciers (other than the continental glaciers/ice sheets) has been relatively overlooked and underestimated. That is discussed on the next page. It is an important discussion in this research study and in no way ‘hidden’.
Regardless, with the two ice sheets at negative mass balance, it would, as someone has already suggested to you, be miraculous if (in combination with these observations of mountain and tropical glacier melt) your suspicion of things was correct. Since you don’t link to science-based information or attempt to back up your claims with anything like a reasoned argument, however, it’s very unclear why your response should be viewed as the more reasonable.
Ah, you’ve disproved global warming. (I wish – we’d all be getting out of a whole monkeyload of trouble.) Now how about getting off your computer and following world news about weather over time. Has that too been cancelled? Records are being broken all over the place, and droughts, floods, fires etc. are becoming commonplace. Warmer seasons have lengthened. The Arctic is melting. The inaccuracies of IPCC4 are being shown to mostly be underestimates. But you don’t like evidence do you, since human’s presented it and they are fallible (though you aren’t).
Sounds like since you can prove humans collected temperature records and humans are not god (though many who have made god in their image would argue with that) you feel the planet should fall in line.
The only thing getting exercise here is my fingers moving the tracker rapidly over a rapidly deteriorating series of nonarguments with a few sensible wakeup calls from those a little more observant.
A wide variety of measurements, increasing over time, and a long list of proxies, along with theoretical science which has acquired a good bit of knowledge over the centuries about how to understand things, has moved on.
Claiming Galileo as authority is a sick argument. Either side can do that, but it stinks of nonsense.
//// Susan Anderson said:
“Ah, you’ve disproved global warming. (I wish – we’d all be getting out of a whole monkeyload of trouble.) Now how about getting off your computer and following world news about weather over time.” ////
Let us be logical. If I “disproved global warming”, as you put it, and a newspaper tells you the opposite, then something is wrong with the newspaper.
But, as a matter of fact, I did not “disprove global warming”. I hope to have shown, that the claim about “global warming” is not scientifically proven.
//// Susan Anderson said:
A wide variety of measurements, increasing over time, and a long list of proxies,” ////
To prove a statistical claim, which AGW is, you need more, than a reference to a “wide variety” or a “long list”.
To illustrate that, I’ll give you an example of a wrong statement, for which I can provide a long list of correct evidences. The statement is: “”every even number contains 0”. Now my long list of evidences: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100,110… Well, my long list of evidences is actually endless, but the statement is nevertheless wrong.
//// Martha said:
“Regarding your main argument, it cannot rest on your misinterpretation of what you read. As I have explained, the “values” referred to in the above quote are a first order estimate of the contribution to sea level rise (1961 to 2006, if I recall correctly – but don’t hold me to it) not the calculations/data of mass balance/ice loss…” ////
Martha, you do understand what “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets” means, don’t you?
And you have noticed, that that quote is from the page 29 of the report, whereas in the beginning of the report you can find passages like “If all land ice melted away…”, haven’t you?
It does not look good for the “glaciers melting” as a tool to incite fear among the world population. I mean, of course, in scientific sense.
Unfortunately, only very few people read reports like that one critically, so, I am afraid, the “glaciers melting” tool will work for some time. That is sad.
Greg, that is not what I said. I said:
“As I have explained, the “values” referred to in the above quote are a first order estimate of the contribution to sea level rise (1961 to 2006, if I recall correctly – but don’t hold me to it) not the calculations/data of mass balance/ice loss or an attempt to estimate contribution to future sea level rise of increasingly rapid or even accelerated ice melt. Since this particular estimate of the past contribution to sea level rise was based on a mass balance calculation that relied on limited observational data, and there has been observation of a ‘massive downwasting of many glaciers over the past two decades’, the most rational interpretation of the import is that more data from more reference glaciers may show that the negative impact of climate change on glaciers (other than the continental glaciers/ice sheets) has been relatively overlooked and underestimated. That is discussed on the next page. It is an important discussion in this research study and in no way ‘hidden’.”
You make it very clear that you don’t have the time or interest to finish a paragraph or bother with an accurate interpretation or explanation of what anyone says, never mind what you read in a science report. You are not thinking or interacting: you are just going around and around posting repetitively and compulsively.
I really don’t need to know why your private opinion of yourself and your abilities is so high. However, contrary to your assertion that you are one of ‘only very few people’ with critical thinking skills, many people read science research and reports on science and discuss the communication of science using critical thinking skills; and then they rationally discuss disagreements, differences of opinion, the problem at hand or the evolving science. Unfortunately, you are not one of these people. What is important to you is only what you think something means and/or want it to mean.
Each time you comment, you reveal that you cannot assess your own knowledge, you have no analytic skills, you are unable or unwilling to interpret anything in context, and you do not know how to make a correct inference.
You apparently are not going to acknowledge the evidence in that report. Unless you wish to also deny that scientific knowledge involves evidence, you need to post data or scientific studies that you think provide evidence of a positive mass balance for Greenland or Antarctica, and/or positive global glacial mass balance, in order to challenge the issue at hand.
Greg, if you’re serious, please provide the links to the studies you believe show this.
//// Martha said:
“Unless you wish to also deny that scientific knowledge involves evidence, you need to post data or scientific studies that you think provide evidence of a positive mass balance for Greenland or Antarctica, and/or positive global glacial mass balance, in order to challenge the issue at hand.” ////
Martha, do I need to remind you again of what the report is talking about? Not about the two ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. They are talking about glaciers and explicitly exclude the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica from the definition of the term “glacier”.
The problem of that report is, that on the one hand they are talking about “global average annual mass loss” and “the mean of all glaciers”, but on the other hand they admit: “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets”. This is a clear contradiction.
If you won’t recognise that, then it is your right to have whatever opinion, but your latest suggestion, that I need to provide “data or scientific studies” or whatever has nothing to do with the contradiction in the report itself.
In other words, I do not need to provide anything, the report itself provides the confession about “rather small number of mass balance observations” and “their probably limited representativeness”.
You do need to provide something. You seem to have lost track of your main argument. I haven’t. You said:
“ice melting somewhere can not be an evidence of “global warming”
“even if ice were melting everywhere, you still could have an average “global cooling”
“More energy statistically available for melting does not necessarily lead to melting”
“there is a natural water cycle, ice melting and ice formation are parts of it.”
Etc. Your main argument is that melting mountain glaciers is not ‘proof’ of climate change.
However, no one says it is. Everyone but you seems to understand that climate science is about a balance of evidence.
What you think you have understood from one report shouldn’t matter so much to you. In addition to rapid melt of mountain glaciers for which we have data, there is record decline of Arctic sea ice, ancient permafrost has been thawing, a major ice sheet in Antarctica has been in trouble, oceans are warming… that is why you are asked to post data or scientific studies that you think provide evidence of a positive mass balance for Greenland or Antarctica, and/or positive global glacial mass balance — any science-based evidence, really – because the issue at hand is the strength of the LINE of evidence ( and your knowledge and understanding of that).
You are expected to be somewhat familiar with the concept of evidence. It would also be helpful if you could show that you are somewhat familiar with scientific literature that provides evidence – on a thread where you purport to challenge the core science.
//// Martha
“Your main argument is that melting mountain glaciers is not ‘proof’ of climate change.” ////
No, this is not true. I did not make such an argument.
Regarding glaciers, I hope to have shown, that the claim about “global mass loss” is not scientifically proven.
I have been specifically talking about the claim of “global warming”, not about “climate change”.
“I have been specifically talking about the claim of “global warming”, not about “climate change”.
Yes, I got it. You feel the surface temperature record is not representative. You deny that there is independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and ocean temperature records, too. You ignore that climate science depends on multiple lines of independent evidence.
Last year, you were arguing that there is currently “global warming” but it is “completely natural”. This year finds you arguing that the temperature record is unreliable/not representative/does not measure a rise in Earth’s average temperature (average global temperature). I’m wondering how you knew, last year, that the globe is warming (never mind your claim that the cause of the current warming trend is natural) if you believe we cannot measure a rise in Earth’s average temperature. I’ll leave that problem with logic for you to sort out by yourself.
You have managed to trot out every ridiculous and unscientific argument ever made by Tim Ball, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter.
I wonder if you want to deny the temperature record because you (still) want to deny that human activity is altering the concentration of GHG and is the main driver of the current warming. Or maybe you just feel that there is not enough evidence of any kind to say that the current warming is related to C02 emissions from human activity. I don’t know your mind.
But what I do know is that you have been repeatedly asked for science-based references/links for whatever claims you wish to say you are making. You ignore the guidelines posted at the top of this thread (i.e., to challenge science you back it up with science). You don’t do that, in any of your dozens of comments. Clearly you cannot, and you actually view your ideas as scientific and you could go on like this forever.
Good bye now, and take care.
//// Martha said:
“Last year, you were arguing that there is currently “global warming” but it is “completely natural”. This year finds you arguing that the temperature record is unreliable/not representative/does not measure a rise in Earth’s average temperature (average global temperature). I’m wondering how you knew, last year, that the globe is warming (never mind your claim that the cause of the current warming trend is natural) if you believe we cannot measure a rise in Earth’s average temperature.” ////
Martha, you have probably mixed me up with someone else.
I never said, that there is currently “global warming”.
I did not post here last year. I started posting here on the the June 10, 2011 at 9:30 pm: https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/challenging-the-core-science-comment-thread/#comment-12274
//// Martha said:
You ignore that climate science depends on multiple lines of independent evidence.”
Martha, you can have an endless line of “evidences” supporting a wrong statement, remember my “every even number contains 0”?
To prove a statistical claim like “global warming” or “global mass loss glaciers” you need more, then examples. Otherwise it is not scientifically proven.
//// Martha said:
I wonder if you want to deny the temperature record because you (still) want to deny that human activity is altering the concentration of GHG and is the main driver of the current warming. Or maybe you just feel that there is not enough evidence of any kind to say that the current warming is related to C02 emissions from human activity.” ////
Well, we are obviously done with glaciers, so why not take a look at “greenhouse gases”.
But please take into consideration, that in absence of scientific proof for “global warming” you can not refer to a correlation between “global warming” and “greenhouse gases” concentrations.
//// Martha said:
But what I do know is that you have been repeatedly asked for science-based references/links for whatever claims you wish to say you are making.” ////
Martha, Marco provided what is supposed to be a “science-based” report on glaciers and I found a contradiction there. It is not, that I make claims here, I simply show, that certain claims are not scientifically proven facts.
Greg, my report showed that of all the glaciers being monitored in detail, the vast majority is shrinking. Combined with the Arctic, Antarctica, and Greenland showing a negative mass balance, you’d have to believe in fairies to think that the glaciers that are not being monitored in detail may well be increasing in size/mass. Especially since we now have data from satellites that show a reduction in ice cover in EVERY significant glacier region.
//// Marco said:
“Greg, my report showed that of all the glaciers being monitored in detail, the vast majority is shrinking. Combined with the Arctic, Antarctica, and Greenland showing a negative mass balance, you’d have to believe in fairies to think that the glaciers that are not being monitored in detail may well be increasing in size/mass.” ////
You may believe whatever you want, it is your right, but the report itself refutes its own claims.
Remember the claims about “global average annual mass loss” and “the mean of all glaciers”? And then this: “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets”?
Marco, the report is finished.
As for your “combined”, you need to understand, that, generally, combining unproven clams you can only get another unproven claim, a kind of unproven “meta-claim”.
We have not dealt with claims about “mass balance” of ice sheets, but, frankly, I have serious doubts, that those claims are not of the same quality, as the ones about glaciers, namely merely a bunch of examples without any scientific proof for those examples being a representative sample.
Greg, your belief in miracles is now well established. The report contains references to papers that investigate mass balance using satellites of both the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland, and various glacier-covered areas. You believe in the miracle that all those areas are, by chance, giving a negative mass balance, while the non-covered areas could be positive.
The only reason the report I cited discussed a first order estimate, is its acceptance that the number is not as accurate as it would be if all glaciers would have been monitored for a long period of time. You make that into uncertainty that the mass balance is negative.
But for the benefit of those that may get fooled by your continuous attempts at obfuscation, here are a few references:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html
(negative mass balance of Antarctica, as shown by satellite measurements)
Click to access paper_102.pdf
(negative mass balance for northwestern Canadian glaciers, as shown by satellite measurements. Note also that it points out that 1 K of increasing summer temperatures increases ice melt, something Greg House tried to obfuscate earlier on this thread)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2011/00000057/00000201/art00009
(negative mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet as determined by satellites)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n2/abs/ngeo737.html
(negative mass balance of Alaskan glaciers determined by satellites)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X09007158
(Asian high mountain glaciers also have a negative mass balance according to satellite-based measurements)
With those regions we already have the vast majority of our ice sheets and glaciers covered, and I could easily find similar papers for other regions of our world, so I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether Greg House’s miraculous idea that global negative mass balance is not scientifically proven has any merit.
Marco said:
“But for the benefit of those that may get fooled by your continuous attempts at obfuscation, here are a few references: …”
Marco, you do know, that to read 4 of those references in full, readers have to pay 113 American dollars, don’t you? Well done, Marco.
So, even if I bye those articles, I do not really expect the readers of this thread to do the same to check, if my comments on these articles are right. It doesn’t make sense, Marco.
Greg, you are aware that most readers will be able to go to a university library and likely have full access to all these references?
Of course, the abstract, freely available, already tells the story, so the reader will rapidly be able to see if you are telling bupkis even without buying the article.
//// Marco said:
“The only reason the report I cited discussed a first order estimate, is its acceptance that the number is not as accurate as it would be if all glaciers would have been monitored for a long period of time. You make that into uncertainty that the mass balance is negative.” ////
No, I don’t, here is the quote from the report again: “However, these values are to be considered first order estimates due to the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets.” ( Page 29)
You may believe whatever you want, but this confession from the report itself makes other claims in the report about “global average annual mass loss” and “the mean of all glaciers” completely invalid and worthless. I mean it, of course, in a pure scientific sense, as a propaganda tool it still works, unfortunately.
Greg, your inability (or rather, deliberate obfuscation) of scientific information is already well established on this thread. No reason to repeat that, unless you want to be known as a serial obfuscator.
//// Marco said:
“Of course, the abstract, freely available, already tells the story, so the reader will rapidly be able to see if you are telling bupkis even without buying the article.” ////
Bupkis-shmupkis 🙂 , but we have just had a discussion in this thread about a glacier report from the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers ), where the summery does not tell the whole truth and thus creates a misleading impression.
The readers need to dig deeper to discover on the page 29, that “…these values are to be considered first order estimates due to the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets.”
This example shows clearly, that we’d better dig deeper to find the truth.
Greg, why do you so eagerly show your ignorance?
There’s a difference between a first order estimate of glacier melt contribution to sea level rise (the sentence you refer to discusses THAT part) and the conclusion that globally glaciers are melting (which is what the abstract discusses, and for which additional data is shown).
Greg, are you willfully ignorant, or do you simply lack the mental capacity to understand basic scientific argumentation?
How hilarious is it that the scientifically illiterate David Wojick initially paraded Greg House as a ‘bulldog skeptic’ but quickly dumped him because he was too scientifically illiterate and an embarrassment even for David Wojick.
//// Marco said:
“There’s a difference between a first order estimate of glacier melt contribution to sea level rise (the sentence you refer to discusses THAT part) and the conclusion that globally glaciers are melting (which is what the abstract discusses, and for which additional data is shown).” ////
The report makes claims about “global average annual mass loss” and “the mean of all glaciers”.
On the other hand they admit: “…the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets.”
The contradiction is clear.
The “contradiction” is only there if you close your eyes and shout “lalalalalala” whenever someone explains it to you. I’ll try to explain it once more, after that my discussions with you are over: The graph this comment relates to is about the total contribution to sea level rise. There is a LOT of additional information provided in the report that *scientifically* (see also below for a question to you) show that the vast majority of glaciers are melting. The number in that particular graph may be uncertain, but no rational person would ever doubt the SIGN and ORDER OF MAGNITUDE of the number. Only Greg House and other obfuscators would do so.
From the Greg House perspective, the world’s climate and glacial and environmental scientists have the fundamental science all wrong.
Other than an organized fraud and fabrication on the part of all of these scientists, he sees no other explanation for the ‘contradiction’ he believes he has uncovered by misunderstanding one sentence in a report.
He STILL does not understand that “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets”, tells the gentle reader that given the state of the evolving science, it is not the BEST estimate. If anything, it is probably an underestimation of the contribution of these glaciers to recent total observed sea level rise, but regardless, the data does not preclude a REASONABLE estimate of both the above contribution and the mass balance based on the evidence.
Of course, these smaller glaciers are a tiny part of the ice that covers land surface, and their estimated contribution to sea level rise is thus comparatively small. The issue for this study is that they are sources of fresh water/irritation/food, in many regions of the world.
In combination with other observations and data from decreases in snow cover, changes in permafrost and frozen ground, and the estimated negative mass balance of most Arctic glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, the science is forming a REASONABLE picture based on the evidence..
Greg House has no clue how scientists calculate anything, he shows he does not care to know how they calculate anything, and he apparently would not know an observation series from his own ass.
Of course there are always many questions to be addressed in the science, but as anyone can see, Greg House will not be discussing any of these until he increases his scientific rsearch literacy.
That report introduction could be revised. It could say ‘Dear Greg House, there is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people, and we hope you understand the significance of this report but we understand you will not’.
Since the majority of the world depends on glaciers for water, irrigation and food and there are 7 billion people presently living on the planet and this is expected to reach 9 billion in 20 years, at the current rate of glacier melt from climate change, the idea that hundreds of millions could experience either drought or outburst flooding is a reasonable discussion of risk.
Perhaps Greg House just doesn’t like the idea of emissions reductions?
//// Martha said:
“…He STILL does not understand that “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets”, tells the gentle reader that given the state of the evolving science, it is not the BEST estimate. If anything, it is probably an underestimation of the contribution…”
The report does not contain the word “underestimation” at all. Zero, Martha. On the 88 pages of the report you will not find the word “underestimation”. The authors of the report apparently did not see any “underestimation”, otherwise they would have written it down.
“The rather small number” and “probably limited representativeness” means “we know too little to state anything for sure”. The problem is, that they did state it, as if they knew it for sure.
Martha, it won’t help. The report is finished. The core of this report, its main message is not a scientific fact, and the authors know this and actually admit this deep in the report. The report looks rather like a piece of a fear exciting propaganda.
Overall, the UNEP report provides ‘mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers worldwide, which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions of people’.
People like Greg House believe they know more about all the data than any of the numerous glaciologists around the world or the international World Monitoring Service. Who knew we had so many world-class scientist who are underemployed as internet trolls?
In reality, leading glaciologists are providing unprecedented observational data. The record loss in 1998 has already been exceeded three times (in 2003 and 2004 and 2006) with the losses in 2004 and 2006 being almost twice as high as the previous 1998 record loss. The global average annual mass loss of more than half a metre during the decade of 1996 to 2005 represents twice the ice loss of the previous period, 1986-1995). That is over four times the rate for the period 1976-1985. Etc. for anyone to see.
As is the case with scientific publications, the data gaps are clearly highlighted. The data gaps are not of the sort that bring the core science into question. The summary communicates warnings based in science and identifies how the observational network will be monitored and strengthened in future. Greg House prefers to ignore the science and denies there is significant risk for e.g. people and wildlife of Asia and South America, where meltwater is life support.
Apart from his irremediable scientific illiteracy, his racism is not very subtle. I don’t think he belongs anywhere on this thread, or this site.
//// Martha said:
“Overall, the UNEP report provides ‘mounting evidence…
The global average annual mass loss of more than…” ////
Martha, what you call “mounting evidence” are merely examples. You may calculate an average of those examples, but if you wish to call this average “global”, you need to prove, that your examples are a representative sample for our whole planet.
Maybe you have got such a proof and simply not presented it yet, but if you are referring to the UNEP report on glaciers we’ve been discussing here, then you need to understand, that this report refutes your claim about “global”, admitting “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land, outside the continental ice sheets” (page 29).
Greg, please provide the methodology to prove your sample is representative.
You finally have a way to actually contribute constructively to the debate, so grab your chance!
“you need to prove, that your examples are a representative sample for our whole planet”
“maybe you have got such a proof”
Actually, Greg, contemporary science doesn’t use the term ‘proof’ to explain or interpret the evidence. Not since Popper.
The overview is not mine, it’s the report’s; the published data sets and calculations are not my examples, they are the report’s; why the length change series provides a good qualitative overview is explained and referenced in the report along with why the mass balance series provides good quantitative measures of 230 reference glaciers; that the data is calculated for benchmark representativeness and is combined with other published data for entire mountain ranges and the big picture for global representativeness and the progression to a global observing strategy, is explained and referenced in the report e.g. Molnia (2007) for Alaska, Casassa et al.(2007) and Kaser and Osmaston(2002) for South America and East Africa, Andreassen et al. (2005) for Norway, Zemp et al. (2007b) for the European Alps, Kotlyakov et al. (2006) for Russia, Chinn (2001) and Hoelzle et al. (2007) for New Zealand – and last but not least, Hoelzle et al. (2003), Grove (2004), Zemp et al. (2007a) and USGS (in prep at the time of the report) for global overviews.
The term ‘representativeness’ is a multi-faceted scientific concept that has already been explained to you but you don’t grasp it.
See all of your above comments and the responses if you have any further questions.
//// Martha said:
“230 reference glaciers… the data is calculated for benchmark representativeness… referenced in the report e.g. … The term ‘representativeness’ is a multi-faceted…” ////
Apparently, Martha, the authors of the report you refer to do not share your opinion about “multi-faceted representativeness”, otherwise they would not have written about “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land”. You really need to accept that.
You do understand the meaning of “rather small number” and “limited representativeness”, don’t you? If not, that simply means something like “not enough”.
Your e.g. is not proven to be representative for the whole world, the report itself confirms that.
Come on, Martha, it is time to recognise, that the report refutes itself.
See all the above.
//// Marco said:
“Note also this:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html” ////
Yes, this is another example, how AGW science works. I guess, the authors were not quite comfortable with their claims, so they felt it necessary to include this as a scientific evidence (this is a full quote of that part of the report):
“Anecdotal Data
A long-term resident of Greenland wrote on 4 February, 2010: “we don´t have snow, we don´t have the cold” … “This weather this year is really different, in 30 years that I live in Ilulissat [69.0°N along Greenland’s west coast], that is the first year in this conditions. We have lot of dog sledding tourists, but we cannot do the tour, too much ice on the hills and dangerous to drive by sled.” … “no snow at all”. Later, the same source remarked of “10-12 days of” continuous “heat wave” like weather, in June, with “a lot of blue skies”. ”
It looks like satire, but unfortunately it is not, they mean it seriously! What a nice “scientific” method. Feel the numbers are maybe not convincing enough? Call a resident! That simple is that.
You are clearly incapable of understanding anything remotely scientific. Hence your attack on this anecdotal information. What is it, Greg? Starting to realise you are wrong?
//// Marco said:
“You are clearly incapable of understanding anything remotely scientific.” ////
Marco, that “anecdotal evidence” doesn’t look scientific at all to me.
What it looks to you is irrelevant.
//// Marco said:
“There is a LOT of additional information provided in the report that *scientifically* (see also below for a question to you) show that the vast majority of glaciers are melting.” ////
The report itself refutes this claim of yours, remember: “the rather small number of mass balance observations and their probably limited representativeness for the entire surface ice on land”? (page 29)
You do understand the difference between their “the rather small number” and your “the vast majority”, don’t you? And their “probably limited representativeness” does mean something to you, doesn’t it?
P.S. I suggest we right our replies in a chronological order, otherwise they can be easily overlooked. If a full quote of a comment is necessary, then we can simply give the link to the comment.
Let’s see:
1. I asked you a very specific question you ignored. Not surprising, as it would demand you to provide some evidence and argumentation
2. You once again ignore our explanations and fail to see the difference between mass balance and the other evidence for melting glaciers (e.g. the data on retreat, which you just keep on ignoring).
Discussion with Greg House over, as this is definite proof you are incapable of learning anything new that does not fit your ideology.
//// Marco said:
“You once again ignore our explanations and fail to see the difference between mass balance and the other evidence for melting glaciers (e.g. the data on retreat, which you just keep on ignoring).” ////
Marco, the UNEP report on glaciers has refuted itself on the page 29 and apparently doesn’t care about explanations like yours.
But, you know, maybe you need an “anecdotal evidence”! Just like the report of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), see above. Can be something like that: “A long-term resident wrote…” 🙂
I agree. What is the point of providing information to Greg House? On the rare occasion when a denier actually follow a link, it’s used to simply make up false interpretations or conclusions that are completely unethical. It’s the lack of ethics that is so frustrating, not his level of ignorance.
Martha, to disagree is not unethical. Unless you meant he is a blasphemer.
Except neither is what I meant. Maybe we can look at an example since you seem to need me to state the obvious.
Apparently the latest is that Greg missed the world-wide heat wave and specifically the Northern Hemisphere heat wave in summer 2010. More specifically, severely math-challenged Greg thinks that the average (i.e., mean) monthly temperature and the single highest temp recorded for June of that year in Ilulissat, Greenland, tells him there was no ‘heat wave-like’ weather in June 2010 in Ilulissat (as experienced and reported by a citizen and recorded by science e.g. WMO, NOAA). Indeed, Greg claims NOAA has put this “lie”, the temperature record and a citizen’s observation from traditional knowledge, into their report.
In reality, the only lie is made by Greg and it is one in a very long list of false i.e., deliberately dishonest and deceitful, foolish claims made by Greg on this thread. He is a typical denier. Contrary to your suggestion, Daver, it is not a scientific ‘disagreement’ or blasphemy or anything so exciting as all that when the problem is merely that a person refuses to learn how to read a graph or a table and believes he has a lot more knowledge than he does.
As anyone can see, it was the warmest year on record at most Greenland stations and there were many days in June 2010 in Ilulissat, Greenland, when the temperature was way above average. It is understandable that a resident might have ‘remarked’ it was ‘heat-wave like’ weather in not only June but also late January and early February, in the popular sense of a prolonged period of unusually high temperatures for the region. Basically, it was; but people like Greg will argue up down and all around that it is not so, no matter that his problems have no basis in the data, accurate interpretation of the data, experience or logic.
Of course, weather is not climate, and Ilulissat 2010 should be put in the context of the warming TREND and how Greenland is doing in terms of the trend, so far, and ice melt:
Box, J.E., L. Yang, D.H. Bromwich and L,-S. Bai, 2009, Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007, J. of Climate, vol. 22, pp. 4029-4049. DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1.
Ettema, J., et al., 2009. Higher surface mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet revealed by high-resolution climate modeling, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 36, L12501, doi:10.1029/2009GL038110.
Kaufman, D.S. et al 2009, Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science, Vol 325, doi:10.1126/science.1173983.
Rennermalm, A.K., L.C. Smith, J.C. Stroeve and V.W. Chu, 2009. Does sea ice influence Greenland ice sheet surface-melt?, Environmental Research Letters, volume 4, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024011.
M. Van den Broeke, J. Bamber, J. Ettema, E. Rignot, E. Schrama, W. J. van de Berg, E. van Meijgaard, I. Velicogna, and B. Wouters. 2009. Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss. Science 12 Vol. 326. no. 5955. Nov 2009
Velicogna, I. 2009. Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.) See also related article: R.A. Kerr. Both of the world’s ice sheets may be shrinking faster and faster. Science, Vol 326, p. 217. Pritchard, H.D., R.J. Arthern, D.G. Vaughan and L.A. Edwards. 2009. Extensive dynamic thinning of the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Nature, doi:10.1038/nature08471.
Vinther et al. Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet. Nature, Vol 46, doi:10.1038/nature08355. Also: Smith, K. Climate change warning from Greenland. Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2009.917.
The Greenland ice sheet is measured in kms. The max is over 3 km. The rate of decline is in cms. At that rate it will be thousands of years before it melts away.
And how exactly is this relevant to Martha’s comment?
Melting is melting.
//// Marco
“…Hence your attack on this anecdotal information.” ////
Unfortunately, it looks like this “anecdotal data” from the report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration contains a lie.
Look at that again: ““Anecdotal Data
A long-term resident of Greenland wrote on 4 February, 2010: “we don´t have snow, we don´t have the cold” … “This weather this year is really different, in 30 years that I live in Ilulissat [69.0°N along Greenland’s west coast], that is the first year in this conditions. …Later, the same source remarked of “10-12 days of” continuous “heat wave” like weather, in June, with “a lot of blue skies”. ”
According to http://english.wunderground.com/history/airport/BGJN/2010/6/1/MonthlyHistory.html (History for Ilulissat, Greenland) those are the highest temperatures (Celsius) for each day of June, 2010:
6, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 12, 6, 11, 9, 14, 8, 9, 7, 4, 9, 14, 16, 8, 11, 14, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 11, 8, 9, 8 .
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2010 was 18 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 7 degree Celsius. No hit wave at all.
Maybe, it was unusual? Not, it wasn’t.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2009 was 14 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 6 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2008 was 18 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 7 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2007 was 15 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 6 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2006 was 15 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 5 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2004 was 14 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 5 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2003 was 19 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 8 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2002 was 20 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 5 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2001 was 18 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 6 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 2000 was 17 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 7 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 1999 was 11 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 4 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 1998 was 18 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 7 degree Celsius.
The highest temperature in Ilulissat in June, 1999 was 18 degree Celsius. The average temperature was 9 degree Celsius.
(I omitted June 2005 because I suspect an error in the record: 50(!) degrees on one day. Maybe, they mixed up Celsius and Fahrenheit.)
So, no hit wave, no unusual temperatures.
The question is, why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put a lie in their report.
Sorry for “hit wave” 😳 , I meant “heat wave”.