Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Cadsuane]

Whoah. When is something legitimately contested? Your only reason to say that their contention should be ignored and is invalid is your opinion that this organization is "conservative".

Is that it? Scandal of the century? You don't get to say that some people's speech doesn't count just because you disagree with their political philosophy. You also don't get to claim a list is "bullshit" after failing to tackle any of its points (technically speaking, you should debunk every one of its points before you claim you won the fight).

Spare us from this circular logic. Why is it that liberals are always the ones who try to regulate speech?

Actually it's that they're political at all and commenting on a scientific issue. I'd have the same reaction to an egregiously left wing paper. Also the words tabloid, think-tank, and funded by political interests etc. must have flown beneath your radar.

Come on, you can do better than that. Prove it.
...

YES! Very, very slowly. So slowly in fact, that if we contribute only "0.00022%" every 200 years, it is still very, very slow.

Actually very very fucking fast. If we're going use those numbers 0.00022% is 4950 times greater than 0.0000001% which means these last 200 years of emissions have been equivalent to 990000 years without us, and it would take 990000 years worth of natural CO2 absorbing processes for the planet to compensate for our presence. Even though this is a gross simplification, your tabloid bullshit is almost certainly 4 or 5 orders of magnitude off.

So that's bullshit. If we'd been emitting that much CO2 the surface temperature of the earth would be hot enough to melt lead.

Really? I don't know what challenges you are talking about, but as it so happens, I don't have anything to prove here.

I'm like the defense attorney in the global warming trial. You, as the prosecutors, have to prove that global warming exists, is man-made, and has the potential to cause consequences so severe we need to shut down the American economy as a result.

My job is to prove you wrong. There is no burden of proof on my side. I get to pick holes in your case all day. As it turns out, the American people don't like the whole idea of shutting down the economy on phony science either. Too bad.

Oh, I like that analogy. You're a lawyer, with no conviction or personal stake, an advocate, a demagogue, a liar. Like a lawyer, your primary interest is winning the case. Establishing the truth is tertiary to throwbacks like you.

I'm done with you, piss off.

[Max™]

How about me?

I've made the same points and I am anti-politics, anarchistic megalomaniac for life and shit, am I now also a conservative journalist?

Does the fact that I've pointed out much of these same arguments well before this issue with the emails not matter?

I mean... it isn't like I KNEW they were being shady about something... yet skepticism and a love of science led me to doubt their conclusions.

Crazy huh, it's almost like I was a scientifically minded thinker or something... but obviously I'm a conservative journalist.

Actually very very fucking fast. If we're going use those numbers 0.00022% is 4950 times greater than 0.0000001% which means these last 200 years of emissions have been equivalent to 990000 years without us, and it would take 990000 years worth of natural CO2 absorbing processes for the planet to compensate for our presence. Even though this is a gross simplification, your tabloid bullshit is almost certainly 4 or 5 orders of magnitude off.

So that's bullshit. If we'd been emitting that much CO2 the surface temperature of the earth would be hot enough to melt lead.

OR

Perhaps we were emitting that much, and CO2 isn't actually a dominant forcing factor in climate change?

Think like a scientist here, doubt everything, see what you can't get rid of, THEN start touting it as being usefully true.

[Cadsuane]

You are scientifical and everything, but if you don't find the majority of those points ridiculous if not contentious then you need to get your fucking head checked mate.

Perhaps we were emitting that much, and CO2 isn't actually a dominant forcing factor in climate change?

Think like a scientist here, doubt everything, see what you can't get rid of, THEN start touting it as being usefully true.

Except we aren't emitting that much, which you can verify by taking a cursory look at one of your many graphs which you evidently can't read. Atmospheric CO2 levels haven't even doubled since the industrial era began. Did you actually believe for a moment that we emit close to 5000 times the amount of CO2 emitted by natural processes? When did you become a fucking retard Max?

Is CO2 not a greenhouse gas anymore?

[Jaybar]

I know this was mentioned before, but can't most of these "correlations" be in part due to Milankovitch's Theory?

Also, relevant I suppose:

Source:

The complexity of the inter-related systems that create global climate, however, makes predicting the climatic effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide extremely difficult.

It's mostly an informational journal on global climate and what affects it. The last paragraph delves into the uncertainty of "Global warming" and what type of simulations could arise if it were to happen.

[Max™]

You are scientifical and everything, but if you don't find the majority of those points ridiculous if not contentious then you need to get your fucking head checked mate.

Well, I did delete the ones that I haven't specifically brought up myself.

I enlarged the ones that stand out the most.

Nonetheless, I'm not stating them as disproof, I'm simply casting doubts, as any good scientist should when they notice something isn't being rigorously questioned enough.


Do you actually think anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact?

Spoiler: show

Except we aren't emitting that much, which you can verify by taking a cursory look at one of your many graphs which you evidently can't read. Atmospheric CO2 levels haven't even doubled since the industrial era began. Did you actually believe for a moment that we emit close to 5000 times the amount of CO2 emitted by natural processes? When did you become a fucking retard Max?

Is CO2 not a greenhouse gas anymore?

Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 383 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass.[19] The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes). Its concentration varies seasonally (see graph at right) and also considerably on a regional basis, especially near the ground. In urban areas concentrations are generally higher and indoors they can reach 10 times background levels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.





Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[21][22] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[23]
Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide.[24] It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity. Carbon dioxide is also produced by hot springs such as those at the Bossoleto site near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy. Here, in a bowl-shaped depression of about 100 m diameter, local concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals, but warm rapidly when sunlit and disperse by convection during the day.[25] Locally high concentrations of CO2, produced by disturbance of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37 fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986.[26] Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year.

150~ million tons from volcanos per year, which is 1/1000th that of all other natural causes, and 1/100th of human causes.

So 150,000,000,000 tons per year currently.

Let's just multiply that by 4.6 billion years, and divide it by 3,000,000,000,000 (150 million tons x 100, x 200 years just to rough it out)

690,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons/3,000,000,000,000 tons = We produced 1/230,000,000th as much Co2 in the last 200 years as all other natural causes would have in the last 4.6 billion years, assuming we were pumping out 15 billion tons per year.

Roughly 650 extra tons per year if you divvied it up over the entire 4.6 billion year span from us.

Or 0.000000004 times as much as natural processes over the entire span of the Earth's history, assuming everything was roughly similar enough to just retard average it like I did there.

Now, we're obviously adding it at a much faster rate, and 100 ppm over the last couple hundred years is a significant increase over the natural trends.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...core-petit.png

Naturally that math is stupid, these processes aren't exact, and we don't pump it out at the same rate constantly either, in fact I should probably take off a large chunk of the 200 years of emissions, since we didn't pump it out at the modern rates til fairly recently, the last 50 years.

If you do the entire projected emissions by natural processes over 4.6 billion years, and our 15 billion tons per year x 50 years, it's like 1 billionth the total amount.

Which is what that number stated, I thought.

It said "less than 0.00022%", 750,000,000,000 vs 1,518,000,000,000,000... yep, even without taking into account that I fudged the numbers for the total emissions over historical times pretty badly.

When did you become a fucking retard Max?

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

Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, and people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported.

Been one all my life, apparently.

[Cadsuane]

Good scientists casts legitimate doubt and criticism, not spurious bullshit, or they get made fun of for being solipsists and denialists. As a third party watching my utterly fruitless discussion with Lief, I would appreciate it if you took away the helpful principle that the detractor has the responsibility of making sure his objections are valid. Don't stand there and hide behind some puerile excuse about burden of proof like Lief is, about how positive proof of AGW doesn't exist which allows you to embark on the same exercises in pseudo-science you think you're exposing.

You pretentious fuck, you accuse me of not thinking critically when you gullibly swallow the red herrings of the daily fucking express, ironically, in the name of scientific skepticism. I doubt, yes; I doubt the arguments and the integrity of this denialist movement manned by pseudo scientists and the politically compromised.

In response to your spoiler, yes, whatever, having done all that tedious computation we can see that 0.00022% is a bullshit figure since the real figure is several orders of magnitude smaller which we can see with rudimentary arithmetic. Thanks for verifying my goddamn point.

edit: ech, sorry. I lost my patience.

[Tristam]

How about me?

I've made the same points and I am anti-politics, anarchistic megalomaniac for life and shit, am I now also a conservative journalist?

Does the fact that I've pointed out much of these same arguments well before this issue with the emails not matter?

I mean... it isn't like I KNEW they were being shady about something... yet skepticism and a love of science led me to doubt their conclusions.

Crazy huh, it's almost like I was a scientifically minded thinker or something... but obviously I'm a conservative journalist.




OR

Perhaps we were emitting that much, and CO2 isn't actually a dominant forcing factor in climate change?

Think like a scientist here, doubt everything, see what you can't get rid of, THEN start touting it as being usefully true.

As an early-career researcher (I save the title scientist for a funded PI), I can say that you are making philosophical arguments, which isn't "thinking like a scientist". You lecture people about how scientists should think, yet I've never met a real scientist that would be so pretentious. Why don't you doubt the silly blogs you post from? Or better yet, doubt your own ego. Most of all, doubt leif lol.

The arguments you posted from Leif are hideously ignorant and would be embarrasing to a "scientist". If you can't see that you're in trouble as a "scientist".

Take argument #16, the "argument ad-Harvardium" I guess as a variation of the argument from authority. If you can't see why that's shit for logic, then you're hopeless.

Stick to data and primary lit. there champ, you should go to a conference, see how real scientists debate. You think those e-mails were nasty? Naw, that shit's tame. I've heard people talk shit about Nobel prize winners that was nastier than anything said in the e-mails.

edit: I love how your last post didn't take into account the rate of CO2 removal from the atmosphere. It's a budget there genius. I already told you that current atmospheric C02 levels in the past when stable coincided with a planet that was 3-6 deg. warmer than now. That's a primary lit cite too.

[Max™]

Good scientists casts legitimate doubt and criticism, not spurious bullshit, or they get made fun of for being solipsists and denialists. As a third party watching my utterly fruitless discussion with Lief, I would appreciate it if you took away the helpful principle that the detractor has the responsibility of making sure his objections are valid. Don't stand there and hide behind some puerile excuse about burden of proof like Lief is, about how positive proof of AGW doesn't exist which allows you to embark on the same exercises in pseudo-science you think you're exposing.

Well... I actually agree with him on this... weird, I know. It disturbs me too, but I can't deny it.

I'm not saying the burden of proof is specifically one group or another groups to bear. It is actually something everyone would ideally strive to meet, but when dealing with the public, not known for being too interested in scientific rigor, morals, honest disclosure...

I'd take issue with it if they were posting studies with this sort of mistreatment of data, and lax morals regarding the velocity of unladen ground swallows, particularly if they focused only on the north african variety to the exclusion of all else.

You pretentious fuck, you accuse me of not thinking critically when you gullibly swallow the red herrings of the daily fucking express, ironically, in the name of scientific skepticism.

No, I came up with the same arguments on my own. So you can imagine how surprised I was to see Lief post a list full of shit I've been bitching about on this subject for years, from a conservative british rag no less!

I doubt, yes; I doubt the arguments and the integrity of this denialist movement manned by pseudo scientists and the politically compromised.

I am not denying climate change, I am denying that this subject was handled properly by the aforementioned scientists. Funnily enough, because I was bitching about it for literally years before this email shit came out... perhaps the reason isn't because I'm trying to convert people to my own agenda... but instead trying to prevent people from blindly accepting shoddy work as if it were the same as rigorous science?

In response to your spoiler, yes, whatever, having done all that tedious computation we can see that 0.00022% is a bullshit figure since the real figure is several orders of magnitude smaller which we can see with rudimentary arithmetic. Thanks for verifying my goddamn point.

edit: ech, sorry. I lost my patience.

Eh, I'm quite abrasive at times too, no worries.

[Cadsuane]

Well... I actually agree with him on this... weird, I know. It disturbs me too, but I can't deny it.

Strictly speaking your position isn't remotely similar to his, so it behooves you not to say that it is. Like you've pointed out there's a difference between denying the very notion of industry affecting climate at all and quibbling over the degree to which it's been proven to do so. With that said it doesn't seem entirely consistent of you to adopt arguments that are fundamentally denialist in nature and not conducive to the more moderate position you occupy on this issue. There's one particular point that you bolded which is even inconsistent with basic scientific methodology:

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

Since we both know very well that induction and simulation are both satisfactory as proof.

I'm not saying the burden of proof is specifically one group or another groups to bear. It is actually something everyone would ideally strive to meet, but when dealing with the public, not known for being too interested in scientific rigor, morals, honest disclosure...

I'd take issue with it if they were posting studies with this sort of mistreatment of data, and lax morals regarding the velocity of unladen ground swallows, particularly if they focused only on the north african variety to the exclusion of all else.

I have a video for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro

[Max™]

lol

That is my point exactly, the general public falls into that sort of category with most of these subjects.

I don't have beliefs, I can't, allergic to them, you see. I hold deep down in my core a nugget of certainty that nothing is certain, which is somewhat ironic, except only when I call it ironic.


My objections are not, as you seem to be implying with this video, based on my own certainty that global warming can't possibly be happening. That I must be right, I'm much more often wrong than I am right, but I'm able to determine this with logical thinking, and scientific investigation.


My objection is that while I can look at all sorts of other scientific studies, follow the data, see how they reached their conclusions, and THEN worry about agreeing or disagreeing with them... which I generally don't like to do, unless it's funny.


This subject presents an obstacle that is not of my own making, it isn't something I can't understand, it isn't something which I would prefer was another way, and it isn't something which I am specifically invested in other than curiousity, and that tendency I have of pointing out when something is broken.


This obstacle is a blank spot in the chain.

It should be possible to follow it simply:

[Observations]
[Data gathered into a useful form]
[Thinking, asking questions, hypothesizing]
[Conceiving of, and performing experiments]
[Disclosure of results, possible sources of error, uncertainties, which way the wind was blowing, whatever... if it might matter, it is better to make a note of it]
[Publish, review, lather, rinse, repeat... don't forget to scrub behind your ears]


Then we have this mess:

[Observation] *which I can't help but point out isn't thorough, omitting everything before some arbitrary date is ridiculous*
[A spot where data can be found, and where some is missing]
[Something done to the data that can't be reproduced for some reason] < wat?
[Declarative hypothesizing]
[Modeling which doesn't seem to attempt to disprove the hypothesis]
[????]
[Facthood!]


Instead of, ya know... being scientific about it.

"I suspect it's gotten warmer every year for the last few decades."
*checks* "Oh! It seems that it has, I wonder what could cause that?"
*prod my navel til it offers up a suitable explanation*
*beat on the explanation to see if it breaks*
*try to come up with more explanations*
*see if they can break*
*sweep away the mess* "I say, I think I've got a sound hypothesis here, I should show it to someone!"
*do that*
*let them beat on it, see if they can find alternative explanations*
"Well, I'm tired of beating this hypothetical meat, shall we publish it for review by other scientists?"
*sprinkle in a pinch or two of science here, mix to taste, and stir over a low heat until a consensus is reached*
"Hey everyone, check out my theoretical dick! It makes things warm, besides my wife!"


Science is a tool.

[pahnphoenix]

if your concern with this topic is political in nature, you should be asking even more fervently for scientific rigor than max is. however, i see no reason to have political motivations for believing one way or the other about humans' effect on the climate; the political impetus is believing that corporations should be regulated and that the environment should be respected. if your only basis for arguing either of those is advanced global warming, you need to read more fucking books and think way harder. myself, i don't give a shit if people are warming the globe or not; it makes no difference at all to how i think people should conduct themselves.

it's like, maybe a guy on the street doesn't mind if you piss in his face. however, you still shouldn't be pissing in people's faces. whether or not anyone minds about getting piss in their face isn't something i'd ever bother arguing too hard about. climate change is a much easier issue, as there is rampant oppression and cruelty coming from unbridled capitalism. the measures one would take to fight that kind of shit would bring hostile-to-the-environment actions right along with them.

so, if you want to investigate climate change, do it scientifically and without bias. any political motivations you have to enter the debate should, in the natural course of working for the things that instilled those motivations in you, subsume whatever action regarding climate change you're inclined to make.

as a sidenote, the last time i talked about this shit with someone in person, i pointed out the extreme folly of arguing about climate change: you don't have a voice in the large scale things we do that may or may not affect the climate, so it really doesn't matter who you believe or don't believe (it doesn't even matter if you're a phd working on climate change!!). if you think any of this shit matters, maybe you ought to be focusing on social justice in the hope that people might someday be empowered enough that their views on climate change matter beyond how smart they look on messageboards.

p.s. i am stone drunk.

[Cadsuane]

Yes you have beliefs, ridiculous from an epistomological standpoint not to. If nothing else you have a belief nothing is certain, which you can't be certain about by definition which makes even that nonsense. Don't be so foolish as to conflate skepticism with objectivity.

My objections are not, as you seem to be implying with this video, based on my own certainty that global warming can't possibly be happening. That I must be right, I'm much more often wrong than I am right, but I'm able to determine this with logical thinking, and scientific investigation.

The implication is that your objections are either stemming from that certainty, or your lack of understanding of the field from not being educated in it or not having read primary literature. The second is fairly evident both by your own admission and a lack of reference to anything besides pseudo-science.

I'm fairly certain that the existence of prior climate events on a geological time scale does not preclude the hypothesis of current climate trends being substantially influenced by human activity, nor has any serious climatological literature rested on the assumption of stable pre-industrial global temperatures like you've repeatedly asserted. Those assertions have already been addressed and corrected by posters more informed and more qualified than myself in this thread, and you would do well to go back and make sure you understand them.

But let's examine the claim you're making. AGW is shorn under with a glaring foundational falsehood which should be obvious to any astute layman, yet it went undetected and uncorrected by hundreds of the foremost experts in all the myriad scientific fields that contribute to modern climatology for decades, and that they continue to promote AGW even after it's been shown to be so basically flawed that even a layman such as yourself, or any one of the millions of unqualified individuals who have all of a sudden produced an opinion on the matter over the past month or so, can realize that flaw.

This is an extraordinary claim to make, which is to say it's not a plausible one, particularly when weighed against the alternate explanation that your poor understanding of climate science has bred bogus objections that you mistakenly believe are validated simply by your particular brand of pro-science transcendentalist rationalism, or at least your belief in adherence to such a thing, which is a philosophical faux pas you've rightfully been called out on repeatedly.

I suggest that you seriously consider that you may be wrong; that the description of shoddy research quality you've offered may be exagerrated if not fictional, that the objections you've raised may be invalid or just not make any sense, that the literature you are quoting may be dishonest. In fact, consider that this is all extremely likely, in view of the obvious opportunity for bias to inflate the credibility of those who don't deserve it in this instance, and that there is very little possibility that you have raised any legitimate concerns that have not been already been raised in 50 odd years of research.

[Solefald]

How does my computer make all the pretty images that appear on its screen? "Scientists" tell me that it's done through a complex network of electrical signals, but their explanations just don't make any sense to me. I suppose some other factor must be at work; perhaps a colony of tiny fairies lives inside my computer and they create everything it displays. Why aren't scientists looking for proof of these fairies, instead of concocting obviously false notions like "transistors" and "protocols"? After all, if I can't comprehend those things, nobody can!

[Max™]

Spoiler: show

Yes you have beliefs, ridiculous from an epistomological standpoint not to. If nothing else you have a belief nothing is certain, which you can't be certain about by definition which makes even that nonsense. Don't be so foolish as to conflate skepticism with objectivity.

Belief: something you accept is true.

I'm excessively literal, beyond simply preferring it, to the point where holding something like a belief in my mind is like juggling coals, it's unnatural, it clashes with the drapes in there, and don't even get me started on the rug. My inability to honestly* believe is beside the point though.

*I say honestly because I "can" do it in a sense, but my brain screams at me that it's a lie. It does that with some things, like claiming there is undeniable proof that humans are causing global warming.

The implication is that your objections are either stemming from that certainty, or your lack of understanding of the field from not being educated in it or not having read primary literature. The second is fairly evident both by your own admission and a lack of reference to anything besides pseudo-science.

I'm not officially educated in it, true, but it is hardly pseudo-science, I assume you're using a definition I'm not familiar with... as pseudoscience implies UFO/Bigfoot/ESP type bullshit to me. I don't have a magic rock that tells me Mann cooked the books to make his hockey sticks.

I understand the climate systems surprisingly well, I'm good at grasping complex systems like that mentally actually, starting from physics makes other physical sciences feel kinda like playing with Legos. Just stick the pieces together in the right ways, in the right quantities, and let em propagate appropriately.


I know that Co2 doesn't just arbitrarily force temperatures to rise, it isn't a strong enough factor. I know that the IPCC papers actually don't SPECIFICALLY attribute it to Co2 as well. They say the Co2 triggers another factor, which then sets off an undefined positive feedback effect (no, not just the normal greenhouse gas, this is part of why I don't like the IPCC stuff... I can't find what this mystery effect is supposed to be), and THAT causes the dramatic increases in temperature and whatnot.


I can't actually say honestly that the increased Co2 won't have any effect, or that it hasn't had an effect to date. It is quite reasonable to expect a perturbation of that magnitude to disturb the rest of the system, which is in a semi-stable cyclical state anyways.

So now we're already in an upswing portion of the global climate, leaving an ice age, and we're putting more pressure on the warming forcing factors.


Now, you could just leave it there, and get something like a sound hypothesis about AGW.


I can't help but notice that the uh... inertia in a system this large is significant, and that there was a state that was near a balance between the cooling factors and the warming ones.

As the cooling forces dominate, you get something like a backlog of warming factors, and it pops like a pressure cooker, kicking us out of an ice age in mere thousands of years.

The cooling factors are still there, as are the prior warming factors.

Now though, we're lifting the lid off the pot artificially, aren't we?

I can't ignore the natural processes which actively cool the globe and just assume we're going to get a runaway greenhouse, or AGW would make total sense. Considering those though, I see us disturbing the balance of a barely metastable state in an uncontrolled, unguided fashion.

THAT is something I worry about, but that makes me think that trying to completely reduce our carbon emissions enough to bring the ppm down to normal levels could be too drastic.


Again though, that's just what happens when I consider observations, data, historical records, and the simple physics behind these processes in an effort to understand how they reached their conclusions.

I'm fairly certain that the existence of prior climate events on a geological time scale does not preclude the hypothesis of current climate trends being substantially influenced by human activity, nor has any serious climatological literature rested on the assumption of stable pre-industrial global temperatures like you've repeatedly asserted. Those assertions have already been addressed and corrected by posters more informed and more qualified than myself in this thread, and you would do well to go back and make sure you understand them.

lol

You're really preaching to the choir here dude, I know a lot more about this shit than you think. It's something of a hobby as I said.

The fact that the climate has always had natural causes driving it definitely should be properly represented in any model claiming that almost all of the current changes are NOT caused by said natural forces.

You should also explain why they are not present, or if they are, why they are um... hindered in some manner IN ADDITION to the anthropogenic global warming effects, which don't actually specify that they're stopping previous factors.


See, they simply couldn't make the models fit using natural forcing factors, but they COULD make them fit using the anthropogenic Co2 + their secret sauce positive feedback "trick"... does that sound like something to base global policy on to you?

But let's examine the claim you're making.

Yes, let's do that, to see what you think I'm saying. That would be most helpful in this discussion.

AGW is shorn under with a glaring foundational falsehood which should be obvious to any astute layman,

Actually it's the opposite, it should be obvious to an attentive scientifically trained mind, and quite easily overlooked by the vast majority of people.

The fact that the falsehood is hidden by the most attentive scientists directly involved in the subject... well, that helps explain why it wasn't a bigger buzz. Only people who specifically dug into this and actually knew what they were looking at, and for, would see any problems. I mean, the guys who did this stuff are kinda scientists, while I may not agree with their methods, they do know how to make it LOOK convincing on the surface. Which is part of what that climategate thing was about, have you heard of it?

yet it went undetected and uncorrected by hundreds of the foremost experts in all the myriad scientific fields that contribute to modern climatology for decades,

Actually, it was a group of perhaps 60 scientists who were actually "in on it", and a larger circle of signers who were more or less convinced to put their name on it as a show of public support of science, without actually knowing what was going on. It wasn't their field after all.

and that they continue to promote AGW even after it's been shown to be so basically flawed that even a layman such as yourself,

I'm hardly a layman at this point, sweety, I'm not a degree holding climatologist, but I'm a bit more versed with the scientific method, and this specific subject, than your average bloke who heard about it on the news. I first took an interest to the global warming stuff in what, the early 90's I recall? I didn't notice the funny business til a few years ago though.

or any one of the millions of unqualified individuals who have all of a sudden produced an opinion on the matter over the past month or so, can realize that flaw.

No, most people honestly don't realize what is wrong here. You yourself don't seem to understand my point, are you one of those millions of unqualified individuals?

This is an extraordinary claim to make, which is to say it's not a plausible one, particularly when weighed against the alternate explanation that your poor understanding of climate science has bred bogus objections that you mistakenly believe are validated simply by your particular brand of pro-science transcendentalist rationalism, or at least your belief in adherence to such a thing, which is a philosophical faux pas you've rightfully been called out on repeatedly.

Ok, if you are right, would you be so kind as to show me where other climate models were tested, provide these links to their data that, despite searching through the NOAA sites enough that the servers know my comp on a first name basis now, I have yet to find.

Can you also show where I've gone wrong in my understanding of climate science, especially since I've barely even touched upon any actual statements regarding my knowledge there... my point is more about the science side, than the climate side.


My philosophies are weird, but what do you expect from a semi-kantian almost empirical objectivist with platonized ideals of mathematics and anarchistic, yet peaceful views on human relations? Is there a normal set of philosophies that people are issued at birth?

I suggest that you seriously consider that you may be wrong;

Oh, it is quite possible that I could be wrong about many things... but that is the crux of this issue, if I am wrong about this, then I have CLEARLY misunderstood the entire purpose of the scientific method, and how to exercise it honestly.

that the description of shoddy research quality you've offered may be exagerrated if not fictional, that the objections you've raised may be invalid or just not make any sense, that the literature you are quoting may be dishonest.

They threw away data, they won't even specify WHICH data, and they still have "secret tricks" they performed while processing the data.

How is that not shoddy again?

You know this stuff is all on the public record now, right? I'm actually not imagining it, or making it up, it's straight from the horses mouth.

If you're saying it is invalid to object to people calling whatever the fuck those guys did science, then you've invalidated your ability to criticize anyone regarding science and it's purpose, haven't you?

In fact, consider that this is all extremely likely, in view of the obvious opportunity for bias to inflate the credibility of those who don't deserve it in this instance, and that there is very little possibility that you have raised any legitimate concerns that have not been already been raised in 50 odd years of research.

The concerns I have been raising for a couple of years now, were just proven apt due to those leaked emails.

Those emails are EXACTLY the shit I've been bitching about, actually.

That is kinda ya know... a point in favor of my arguments. In science if you can produce a theory which successfully predicts new phenomenon, the theory gains a significant amount of credibility in the process.


Yet stating that they were being dishonest in their review practices, lackadaisacal with their data, and doing "something" fishy to produce their results... years before they got hacked and emails leaked out showing just that.

No credibility there... that's ok, I'm not out to make a name for myself in the field, just shining a light where it needed to be aimed so perhaps others could take note as well.

Man that's a rambling post, gonna spoiler it cause it drags at the page.

[pahnphoenix]

How does my computer make all the pretty images that appear on its screen? "Scientists" tell me that it's done through a complex network of electrical signals, but their explanations just don't make any sense to me. I suppose some other factor must be at work; perhaps a colony of tiny fairies lives inside my computer and they create everything it displays. Why aren't scientists looking for proof of these fairies, instead of concocting obviously false notions like "transistors" and "protocols"? After all, if I can't comprehend those things, nobody can!

unfortunately for your example, humanity's effect on the climate might be just a bit more complex and less understood (by experts) than computer monitors. good try though.

[Jaybar]

I think that post was in general to the public knowledge of "science" and not just about this issue. But you are correct in thinking this scenario is far too complex to simulate accurately.

[Max™]

This is the stuff that is really interesting to me, and is something that I was actually trying to figure out without realizing it was being done by another group.

I try to avoid straying into any opinion weighted discussions, sticking to raw data wherever I can, avoiding gleaning too much from a site with a specific bias without searching for a canceling bias for reference, and of course stating the bias in those other sites.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...econstruction/

Spoiler: show

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Fa..._m2a00a61d.png

Tree data.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Fa...l_m7e711aa.png

Adjusted due to MM.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Fa...l_7955bc86.png

More proxies added on.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Fa...l_32969d82.png

Further tweaks.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Fa..._m3db92977.png

"Comparison as in Figure 4, but showing the continuation of our reproduction of the MM reconstruction (based on their ‘censored’ version of the MBH98 network discussed in the text) through the end of the calibration interval (green curve). The full instrumental Northern Hemisphere temperature record (1856-2003) is shown for comparison. The failure of the MM reconstruction to verify against independent instrumental temperature is evident from the extreme discrepancy in variance between the green and red series during the 1854-1901 verification interval."

Apparently this MM thing has been worked at for a while, here's a sample from an early run: http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/14/r...econstruction/

Spoiler: show

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....5/ipccfi23.gif

"Figure 4. Briffa Unadjusted Versions: Red – digitized from IPCC; green – smoothed from Briffa 2001 archive; black- emulation from regional chronologies.

For the purpose of showing differences in shape (Without worrying for now about how the up-down adjustment was actually derived), I’ve plotted the figure below using a forced fit of the archived version. On the right hand side, the closing shape is fairly conclusive evidence that, instead of using actual data for the smooth, Mann truncated first and then extrapolated using end-period padding. The effect is not a huge effect, but it’s an all too characteristic form of double-dipping. At the start of the record, the Mannian smooth has a ski jump – what causes this? Who knows? It’s Mann at work. The point at which Briffa and Mann started the deletion is quite clear here."

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....5/ipccfi24.gif
"As above, with forced adjustment to digitized values."

Later after getting a better form of the data, trying to reproduce the charts published in IPCC and other locations from it.

http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/14/b...h99-smoothing/

Spoiler: show

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....5/diverg33.gif
"I reported that I had been unable to replicate the upside-down S in the MBH smooth version (in IPCC here) and also in MBH99 and Mann et al 2000. Here’s my replication using a 40-year Hamming filter with end-period mean padding (as stated in the IPCC caption) as compared to the digitized version of the MBH99 smooth from the original article (this is zero-ed on 1902-1980 rather than 1961-1990 so the vertical scale is a little different, but that doesn’t affect the comparison below). The 40-year Hamming filter applied to MBH99 data (red) does not produce the Swindlesque S-curve in the 20th century that is in the MBH99 and IPCC smooth (black)."

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....05/compar3.gif

"Grey – MBH99 from WDCP archive; black – digitized MBH99 smooth from MBH99; red – my smooth using 40-year Hamming filter with end-periiod mean padding.

It turns out that I’m not the first person to have failed to replicate Mann’s closing slalom course. Here is an excerpt of the 1400-2000 period from Plate 3 of Briffa et al 2001, summarized online here with large graphic version here . The MBH99 smooth is in purple here and precisely matches the smooth that I obtained – without the Swindlesque S-curve of the MBH99 smooth in the 20th century."

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....e3rescaled.gif

"Excerpt taken from Briffa et al 2001 Plate 3. MBH99 smooth in purple.

I attempted to reverse engineer the weights in the filter by making a linear regression of the smoothed series against the original data with plus/minus K leads and lags, experimenting with different values of K between 15 and 30, all without success. Here is the fitted value using the stated bandwidth of 40 years."

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....05/compar2.gif
"Black – digitized smooth. Red – fitted by reverse engineering (linear regression with bandwidth of 40 years).

For comparison, here are the reverse engineered filter weights compared against 50-year Gaussian weights and 40-year Hamming weights. Hamming weights have considerably longer tails than gaussian weights. The Mannian weights – which remain unknown if they even exist – have a considerable amount in common with Hamming weights, but do not match exactly. The implementation of Hamming weights used here is adopted from Meko’s lecture notes (Meko being a dendro and is a useful source of anthropological information on the statistical customs of dendros) and reconciles to Meko’s example."

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....05/compar4.gif
"Black line – gaussian; red – Hamming; points – reverse engineered from MBH99 smooth."

In much greater length here.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....5/splice29.gif
"Experiment with graft of MBH99 1981-1998 instrumental values

So I tried one more variation: I grafted the instrumental record for 1902-1998 onto the reconstruction up to 1901. This further improved the replication of the MBH smooth version, but the exact topology of the MBH smooth version remains elusive."

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress....5/splice30.gif
"Splicing instrumental record for 1902-1998 to reconstruction up to 1901.

As to whether Mann grafted the instrumental record onto the reconstruction in the calculation of the MBH smooth version illustrated in IPCC TAR, Mann himself commented on the more general issue of grafting instrumental records onto reconstructions as follows: 'No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.'"


Now, it's easy to point out that there is no love lost between McIntyre and Mann, which limits how seriously you can take this stuff.

...but then this happened.

" From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
NR4 7TJ
UK"

I mean... it isn't like I'm saying that there is nothing going on, or that everyone who says anything about the climate is wrong.

I'm not talking about the climate part of climate science, I'm talking about the science part.

Leaving people to puzzle for years over how you obtained results, discussing how you obtained those results with your colleagues, yet still refusing to openly disclose what was going on with "dissenting scientists", much less the public?

That's the kind of issue I have with this, there's a hole in the methods I, or anyone else, can find of how they got from data A, to result B, and there should not be.

[Shiroikage]

Guys, I know a lot about global warming, it's not happening.

[Tristam]

I am skeptical of Max's knowledge. And I doubt his sanity. I think liek a sceintistis!!!!!!

[Shiroikage]

I believe that scientists are people who know things, and I know a few things.