The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[otoc]

Not at all. "Self", the way I read it, refers to the creator of the poll.

Let's see how SPPI said it again...

The 97% “Consensus” is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists–

Considering the methods used were clearly stated, included more than just climate scientists, and the authors were not climate scientists, I don't agree with your argument. SPPI was clearly obfuscating the results of the study.

You yourself took the time to bold this excerpt:So clearly, you're arguing for the sake of arguing over something that isn't disputable. Self selected and by invitation are one and the same.WTF? The question posed had nothing to do with "the article". It had to do with your discussing my opinion as "climate change" when I clearly said "man made global warming".

Yes, but that wasn't my original point. And I followed you on the sham part. MMGW is a sham. A 100% position. Fine.

I'll take this as the usual change of direction from you that we've all gotten accustomed to. A simple question gets a lengthy, convoluted and empty answer... about something else.Again, It had to do with your discussing my opinion as "climate change" when I clearly said "man made global warming".

I s'pose you just ramble on when you have no good answers to a simple question.Imagination? No otoc, climate change and man made global warming are not one and the same. By your non-answer, can we all assume you agree?

Of course, then we have to ask, when someone says red, why do you argue about blue?No sham. Here's the semantics... again, it had to do with your discussing my opinion as "climate change" when I clearly said "man made global warming". Since your argument was all about the former, you were in effect arguing by yourself.

You should listen to George Thoroughood... when you prefer to argue alone, you should prefer to be by yourself.You're certainly awesome, but I don't know what this break you took for patting yourself on the back has to do with the discussion.

So they say. They haven't even shown that the warming wasn't what caused the CO2 increase. But again, thanks for taking a moment out of this discussion to say what we already know they say.Definitions and semantics are not one and the same, otoc. Aside from your understanding about what consensus is, where's your explanation in your long and bloviating post... again... if you think "climate change" and "man made global warming" are indeed one and the same, I'd be interested in hearing you explain how that can be. Using one word in place of another to make a point... that would be semantics.

This isn't the first time you've been asked to explain one thing and retorted with explanations of a number of other things, but never responding to the point.

Its like you have an agenda.

Dutch, long post (yes, I am referencing a recent post of yours), and full of your imagined things about me. I was clear on my responses. We are done.

You disagree with me for the usual reasons. Wow, what a surprise.

[AeroSim]

Aero, that wasn't your question to me. I answered the one about it being a theory. Did I miss something?

Actually, there were a number of questions I thought you could help me with, but the one pertinent here (I'll cut as much sniping out of it as possible)-

....
The MMGW proponents need to convince me that GW is both man-made and that it will change the environment to be inhospitable to life as we know it. In both cases- they have failed. Where is the proof that is going to change what meager scientific opinion I have ...?
....

Thanks for the heads-up on saying it is a theory and that you have had some chemistry. It does show that you have at least had some exposure in scientific critical thinking.

Just know that I'm well aware that the training does not cure corruption, politics and religion. A big step in my career was being able to admit that I can be wrong and move forward with correction and solution anyhow. Unfortunately, my worst experiences have been with those whose expertise was more conjured than delivered. I'm also well aware of how agenda both influences and corrupts process. More recently, I've had my opinion of government and financials taken down many notches and little has been done to improve it.

And I think it all ties together. "Scientists say ..." is something that people need to regard with more scrutiny now more than ever.

[Dutchcedar]

We are done.

otoc quits again without answering the very simple question he spends a series of posts acting like he's answering.

Surprise, surprise.

You're an absolute waste of forum space.

But fun to toy with, nonetheless.

[otoc]

Actually, there were a number of questions I thought you could help me with, but the one pertinent here (I'll cut as much sniping out of it as possible)-

The MMGW proponents need to convince me that GW is both man-made and that it will change the environment to be inhospitable to life as we know it. In both cases- they have failed. Where is the proof that is going to change what meager scientific opinion I have

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough in my involvement here. Yes I rebut bad logic, that last post of scooters being one. Here we had a climate scientist arguing against current global data by cherry picking paleo ice cores from only Greenland. If his position was to call current readings suspect, I'd say his position was mooted.

Reading the literature and studies, I see those with a position towards man's involvement to be relatively calm, stating where there is surity and where there is not.

Take Hansen's last report. Did he ignore the issues of the landbased readings in the arctic? No. Did he overstate the importance? No. Does he call his methods absolute? No. And neither do any of the other articles I've read. That includes all the big names on the warming side. They are aware there is a debate and it is all about %s.

I don't see that in the viral blogs where this is described as a sham. That's my objection to the description of the issue. I understand consensus, and by the nature of the definition of the word it is accurate. There is a consensus. Is the situation 100% determined and proven? No. Nor would I expect it to be in my lifetime. So a position is best described as either believing in the possibilities or not. To call it a sham or something not 100% is not something I accept. But that is my opinion.

My other opinion is that I ignore the talking heads outside of science. On either side. There is too much sensationalism going on there.

So here's what I see for one more time.

Data, both land and satellite based, is showing a continual rise. The oceans and solar forcings have been in a low. By all expectations this past decade should have gone down. But they didn't on a global scale. To me, there is something to this.

As to the final effect, I personally don't think we know enough on the short term and more data is needed on the issue of a tipping point. The recent CO2 plant study is a good start towards that. Science shouldn't be stopped on this, it should be encouraged. Better satellite coverage should be encouraged and not less.

Thanks for the heads-up on saying it is a theory and that you have had some chemistry. It does show that you have at least had some exposure in scientific critical thinking.

More than some, although the best exposure I got in scientific critical thinking was when I made the shift in my career towards marketing where quantitative vs qualitative data was used daily. Where organic chemistry applies to my current thinking is when superadditivity can affect a process beyond expectations brought on via mathematical projections. Only experiment can determine the outcome in cases like that and it can defy logical expectations.

Just know that I'm well aware that the training does not cure corruption, politics and religion. A big step in my career was being able to admit that I can be wrong and move forward with correction and solution anyhow. Unfortunately, my worst experiences have been with those whose expertise was more conjured than delivered. I'm also well aware of how agenda both influences and corrupts process. More recently, I've had my opinion of government and financials taken down many notches and little has been done to improve it.

Let's keep this simple. Although bias, and I mean real bias in the information we receive is a very valid point. That's the first step I make in reviewing a source. Are they biased and why. Then there's the psychology that effects a viewpoint that can corrupt conclusions made beyond pure data. It's more than quantitative vs qualitative. It's also why I share the opinion that Hansen has crossed the line of objectivity in spite of all the contributions he has made to that field. To me, the something similar to the McGuirk effect comes in when we deal with qualitative conclusions. Sometimes our senses are overwhelmed by other stimuli. That's what marketing taught me and something that you could only determine quantitatively after the prediction was made.

And I think it all ties together. "Scientists say ..." is something that people need to regard with more scrutiny now more than ever.

No disagreement there. As long as people have enough reasoning to know when a scientist is actually stating it and what they are stating.

This debate simply boils down to one akin to an insurance policy. It's not absolute. It's a matter of consequences. I will rebut any 100% sham as much as you are entitled to rebut it hasn't been 100% determined.

[otoc]

fun to toy

Why do you have the need to repeat what I say? Is it a last word need? I know that's what you are doing.

[SteveW]

Why do you have the need to repeat what I say? Is it a last word need? I know that's what you are doing.

The "Last Word" is my department this month.

[AeroSim]

The "Last Word" is my department this month.

You hit me just right- !

[otoc]

^^lol, so many last words. So little content. So little time.

Oh, my, did I spoil the last word?

This could very well be an example of superadditivity for forums....

[AeroSim]

... Yes I rebut bad logic, that last post of scooters being one. Here we had a climate scientist arguing against current global data by cherry picking paleo ice cores from only Greenland. If his position was to call current readings suspect, I'd say his position was mooted.

....

Take Hansen's last report. Did he ignore the issues of the landbased readings in the arctic? No. Did he overstate the importance? No. Does he call his methods absolute? No. And neither do any of the other articles I've read. That includes all the big names on the warming side. They are aware there is a debate and it is all about %s.

....

Data, both land and satellite based, is showing a continual rise. The oceans and solar forcings have been in a low. By all expectations this past decade should have gone down. But they didn't on a global scale. To me, there is something to this.

As to the final effect, I personally don't think we know enough on the short term and more data is needed on the issue of a tipping point. The recent CO2 plant study is a good start towards that. Science shouldn't be stopped on this, it should be encouraged. Better satellite coverage should be encouraged and not less.
....

Let's keep this simple. Although bias, and I mean real bias in the information we receive is a very valid point. That's the first step I make in reviewing a source. Are they biased and why. Then there's the psychology that effects a viewpoint that can corrupt conclusions made beyond pure data. It's more than quantitative vs qualitative. It's also why I share the opinion that Hansen has crossed the line of objectivity in spite of all the contributions he has made to that field. To me, the something similar to the McGuirk effect comes in when we deal with qualitative conclusions. Sometimes our senses are overwhelmed by other stimuli. That's what marketing taught me and something that you could only determine quantitatively after the prediction was made.

This debate simply boils down to one akin to an insurance policy. It's not absolute. It's a matter of consequences. I will rebut any 100% sham as much as you are entitled to rebut it hasn't been 100% determined.

In answer to your last comment, if they want me to take out weather insurance, they can try to sell me the policy and not try to tax me or our industries because of questionable science.

And it brings me back to our original problem: Are you trying to say the Greenland data is 100% sham because you didn't like how the data was presented?

And what makes you think that the global warming climatologists did any better with their Antarctic data?

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010...-suspect-data/

You know, at least Ross McKitrick is gracious enough to admit that the data could have been an honest mistake.

Moreover, one of the MMGW data critics is honest enough to say

Millennial-scale oscillations thus
seem to be an important feature of the high-latitude climate
system, but the actual periodicity (or periodicities) are
equivocal and different forcing mechanisms are most probably
involved (for a synthesis, see Paul and Schulz 2002). It
is possible that millennial-scale oscillations of sea-surface
conditions in the western Arctic is an amplified response to
changes in incoming solar radiation, given that it has a similar
periodicity as a Holocene cycle observed in the Greenland
Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core (Grootes and
Stuiver 1997). It is also possible that tidal forcing plays a
major role, since it intensifies vertical mixing in the water
column. In the Nordic seas, such a mechanism linked to lunar
forcing seems also to have affected regional sea ice (cf.
Yndestad 2006) and may do so in the Arctic Ocean as well.
Lastly, variable contribution of Pacific water entering the
Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait must be considered,
especially as it is influenced by the AO (Steele et al. 2004).

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications...al_CJES_08.pdf

Too bad that MMGW proponents don't consider the same problems with their data sets and want to jump right from theory to policy.

I would recommend that you not miss the content- this time.

[AMDScooter]

^^^^ My challenge to the warmers has gone unanswered for years. Since MMGW only exists in the heavily manipulated computer models of a select few agenda driven "scientists" who are less than forthcoming with their methods and data. I'd like to see the model that has accurately predicted what the climate has done for the last 10 years... unedited... from 10 years ago. The short, it'll never appear because it does not exist. Like MMGW itself.

[AMDScooter]

NASA GISS Adjusted adjustments adjusted yet again..

NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments

I don’t feel hugely energetic right now in terms of writing anything very complicated. As a simple exercise, I decided to quickly revisit the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts – also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony‘s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 – an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen’s Y2K error.

As CA readers recall, Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.



This impacts comparisons made in 2007 between GISS and CRN1-2 stations. At the time, it was noted that GISS adjustments for UHI resulted in the GISS US temperature anomaly having quite a bit in common with a TOBS average from Anthony’s CRN1-2 stations.

Critics of Anthony’s surfacestations.org project commented on this rather smugly – too smugly given the large differences with NOAA and CRU versions in the US and the incoherence of Hansen’s adjustments outside the US. The post-2007 adjustments to GISS adjustments change this.

The increased trend in the GISS US statistic comes at the expense of reconciliation with CRN1-2 stations: the trends no longer cohere.

In the past, Hansen said that he was too busy to joust with jesters – see here. At the time, I observed:

presumably he’s too busy adjusting to have time for jousting. We by contrast have lots of time to jest with adjusters.

Little did we appreciate that Hansen’s new adjustments were not in jest.
Update Dec 26- Hansen’s new article on GISTEMP – Hansen et al 2010 here updates Hansen et al 1999, 2001. Section 4 contains a discussion of US adjustments under different systems, each purporting to show that UHI doesn’t matter. Later in section 9, there is a section on US adjustments, with a brief whining mention of the Y2K adjustment and the following graphic purporting to show that change to USHCN v2 had negligible impact.



It is entirely possible that the change in GISS US since August 2007 is primarily due to the replacement of USHCN v1 methodology (TOBS and that sort of thing that we discussed in the past) with Menne’s changepoint methodology used in USHCN v2.

Menne’s methodology is another homemade statistical method developed by climate scientists introduced without peer review in the statistical literature. As a result, its properties are poorly known.

As I mentioned some time ago, my impression is that it smears stations together so that, if there are bad stations in the network, they influence good stations. Jones used the Menne method in Jones et al 2008, his most recent attempt to show that UHI doesn’t “matter.”

My guess is that it will be very hard to construct circumstances under which UHI will matter after data has been Menne-transformed. And that tests of the various night lights scenario on data after it has been Menne-transformed will not tell you very much. This is just a surmise as I haven’t waded through Menne code. (I requested it a number of years ago, but was unsuccessful until 2009.)

It’s too bad that the Menne adjustment methodology wasn’t published in statistical literature where its properties might have been analysed by now. It’s a worthwhile topic still.

The usual MMGW cult "peer review" and "statistical methodology" otherwise known as simply making sh*t up to suit the desired predetermined outcome in full effect...

[kbohip]

I wonder how much carbon based electricity the MMGW zealots have burned in this thread alone. Just a thought. Oh I forgot, it's all for a good cause. Just like Gore's private jet trips around the world.

[AeroSim]

More data.

While I'm not on board with all of the conclusions, it is a good compendium of public domain "contrary" data-

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/w...peratures.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/temperatu...l-proxies.html

"Contrary" data I presume are data that shows we are experiencing nothing unusual in earth weather patterns. In fact, the evidence suggests that if trend follows cycle- we haven't seen nothing yet. It may take a couple of million years before we might say "we have seen it all".

[otoc]

^^^^ My challenge to the warmers has gone unanswered for years. Since MMGW only exists in the heavily manipulated computer models of a select few agenda driven "scientists" who are less than forthcoming with their methods and data. I'd like to see the model that has accurately predicted what the climate has done for the last 10 years... unedited... from 10 years ago. The short, it'll never appear because it does not exist. Like MMGW itself.

http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3148
http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3149

And your response was GIGO and nothing more. I'm not going to waste my time again because you apparently aren't going to accept an answer other than what you wrote above.

BTW, everyone who is preparing data uses models on both sides. And those models are based on formulas.Your comment above is ridiculous as is the smokescreen that methods (programs) and data aren't available as a norm these days. Seems like the skeptics pulling reports together aren't having any trouble. Let's deal with the present instead of focusing on the past. Certain valid complaints have been won by the skeptics. The issue is moot at this point. Even Hansen is placing his data out there at this point. Again, the issue was valid in the past, but now, let it go. Your side won.

Now scoot, if you want to rebut me, prove how a model from a skeptic isn't modeled or show me someone using pure data from a specific reading source for actual trends. Even the sat data is massaged for various reasons and that comes from a MMGW skeptic.

[otoc]

NASA GISS Adjusted adjustments adjusted yet again..

NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments



The usual MMGW cult "peer review" and "statistical methodology" otherwise known as simply making sh*t up to suit the desired predetermined outcome in full effect...

Interesting. McIntyre is too tired to review what Hansen put out in draft form many months ago. This was the report I used and linked to both versions in my rebuttal to your recent post. Draft and final.

Where's the data McIntyre used to produce his quick chart in his opening volley? Do I have to submit a FOIA request? Better still, I'll wait for McIntyre to be less tired and snipish (and that blog entry was pretty bad in that sense) and see how it gets reviewed after he gets around to it. Oh my, reviewed? McIntyre has never produced a report for peer review, has he?