Climate Predictions Come Up Short (As Usual)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
This is an area where I respectfully disagree with our host. My default is that the government cannot take away our freedom until and unless they prove that it is justified. Environmental laws inevitably take away our freedom. So the government as a matter of practice should not impose such regulations unless it can prove that the dangers it is guarding against are real.
And for me, the most damning fact is that over and over again, climate “scientists” make predictions and those predictions prove to be wrong:
A year ago tomorrow [December 6], just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, ‘is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record’ – a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961-1990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: ‘Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far – 1998.’…
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office’s own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.
As they say, read the whole thing, but the takeaway here is that once again, they have made predictions about the climate with much fanfare. No one stands up and contradicts them, except for those tarred as deniers of our impending environmental holocaust. And then once again, they turn out to be wrong.
I mean I would understand if the scientists said, “look, we just can’t predict what the global temperature will be with that much accuracy.” I wouldn’t fault them from staying out of the prediction game. But they make that prediction and turn out to be wrong, time and again. They claim to know what the future will be, and are proven wrong, again and again. They can’t predict two weeks from now. They can’t predict the climate one year from now. But we are supposed to trust their predictions into the next century?
Further, the fact that no other scientist contradicts them is damning, too. For instance, the other day NASA unveiled a claim that they discovered a new form of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA. This was a tremendous deal, if true. And now we are seeing that assertion questioned, as scientists come out questioning the science behind the claims. Now I won’t pretend to know who is right in that food fight, but this is what you expect to see when science is operating properly—that when scientists hold a press conference and start getting things wrong, that other scientists speak up and tell us this. The fact that these climate scientists very publicly make a string of clearly erroneous predictions, and no one contradicts them (except the so-called deniers) says to me that the scientific process has been corrupted.
Now for all I know, the Global Warmmongers might very well be right. But at this point, it would be coincidental if they were. The scientific process has been hopelessly corrupted.
I would add that it doesn’t help matters when liberals environmentalists make fascist proposals like this:
Mr. [Ted] Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.
“If we’re going to be here [as a species] 5,000 years from now, we’re not going to do it with seven billion people,” Mr. Turner said.
(emphasis added.) Ted you are a frightening idiot.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
How many years do you have to be an advocate of population control before you can be called a “long-time advocate of population control?”
It must not be too terribly long since Mr. Turner is the father of 5 children.
Susan (75c4b9) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:51 amFunny how China has loosened up on that “One Child” policy. They took one look at the near and long term demographics and yelled “uncle.”
Neo (7830e6) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:01 pmPowerline has a nice article dated december 7, 2010 regarding the rising sea levels – specifically in response to AP report on low lying pacific island disappearing due to rising sea levels.
Joe (6120a4) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:01 pmOK, so if poor people could sell their fertility rights, does that mean they could sell their children too? And if they sold their right to have a child, and then they had one anyway… what would Ted’s Thugs do? And if people can sell their children, would it be illegal to set up a little bazaar in the city center and auction them from the block? (After we’ve inspected their teeth, etc., of course.)
My, what a strange world we live in.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:04 pm“Liberals” are totalitarian by their very nature. No shock in Ted’s totalitarian approach to help the poor and “save” the world. Liberals idea of “justice and capitalism” goes something like “take away people’s rights and then make them pay to get them back.”
Which goes to my next point … my father always said Commie Totalitarians always promise sexual freedom, free food and board and absence of black-n-white morality all in an effort to have the masses willingly give away their rights and freedoms.
He also felt the biggest difference between Right and Left Totalitarians is the Left would cause humans to descend to animals — a reverse Darwinism — simply interested in base materialism. The Right however would always allow some personal and economic freedoms b/c they would always be bound by some moral code so long as their political power was not assaulted.
Lastly, when people like Ted Turner die it does the world good. The sooner they die the better off we are. It is simply a net net net positive. Same goes for George Soros and other filth like Ted Kennedy.
Torquemada (15521c) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:07 pm“and no one contradicts them (except the so-called deniers) says to me that the scientific process has been corrupted.”
The deniers are scientists too so they count A.W., even the ones that people think are wrong.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:19 pmSorry, Ed. The process is obviously corrupted just based on how Michael Mann and his many friends treated science (real data, verifiable experiments, reporting real results regardless of what you want them to be). The process was corrupted in how a few powerful idiots kept great work from being given a fair shake.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:26 pmEd
Well, that is a step forward calling them scientists. But typically they are called industry shills and shunned. No, the process is broken.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:02 pmWhen will conservatives and teabaggers ever be able to separate the science from the “fascist proposals”. It is a sworn gospel of the teabaggers to deny climate science, not based on any scientific understanding, but on what mining industry editorial writers tell them and what their headlines shout. Note the article writer – David Rose – mining company guy, not a climate scientist. Its the same story if you research writers of such articles.
Scientists are in the business of reviewing data and calling out false claims. Energy execs are in the business of politics, pollution and making money.
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:03 pm“Mr. [Ted] Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. ”
Good luck with that policy in the Middle East.
Jay Stevens (6ac69b) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:04 pmThank you for your idiocy, “bill”. You and the resident racist midget hilljack would get along quite nicely.
AW – did you see where our representatives are willing to agree to give out 1.5% of our GDP to combat the ravages of global warming?
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:08 pmBill
The ad hominem is a fallacy.
Did he lie? Is his math wrong? You don’t bother to dispute that. So you shoot the messenger.
Sorry, that is not science. Science says anyone can prove anyone wrong.
JD
No, i didn’t. if you have a link it would be appreciated.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:14 pmScience is ever refining and correcting.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Doesn’t change the facts, the earth is warming at a rate that corresponds with fossil fuel burning.
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:20 pmAW – isn’t “bill” short for william? I wiLl try to find link for you.
JD (85b089) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:22 pmBill
Sure, they keep making erroneous predictions. But their prediction about the earth warming is gospel. Even though there hasn’t been any, you know, WARMING for about 15 years.
Hide the decline.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:24 pmJD
btw, bill does not appear to be yelverton. I honestly didn’t get that vibe, anyway. Interestingly yelverton popped up in our filters again today.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:27 pmBill, notes that the article you link is just about more modeling. And interestingly, it incorporates a criticism of the AGW models and predictions that dates back over a decade to the old days when John Daly was doing the heavy lifting of skepticism.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:32 pm“hide the decline” “drill baby drill” buzzword du jour
Forget what climate labs around the world, get your climate science from the mining industry.
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:33 pmBill
So that is all you got? Ad homs on the scientists. Not facts, just “look! They’re mining industry guys”?
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:37 pmAW – http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/cancun-climate-change-shakedow
Bill likes calling people teabaggerz and deniers. It gives him a little tingle.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:37 pmUntil climate hysteria I was never afraid of anything “warming”. That’s what you do with dinner buns and leftovers.
Birdbath (8501d4) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:38 pmAnd whose buzzword was that, Bill? ‘hide the decline’ was from frauds pretending global warming is proven.
The ‘climate labs around the world’ you’re relying on were caught red handed.
All you’ve got in reply is to pretend everyone you disagree with is ‘the mining industry’, or that this is even relevant.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:38 pmRight on. And if Babe Ruth predicts he will hit 65 home runs this year, and he only hits 61, he sucks as a baseball player.
Anyway, commenter “bill” is right. The author of the Daily Mail article is a hack. He can’t get three words into his column without making a mistake. “A year ago tomorrow” would have been December 6; the British Meterological office didn’t make its forecast (which is different than a prediction) until December 10).
And if you read the actual press release, the scientists were not “confident” that 2010 would be a record hot year. In fact, this is what they ACTUALLY wrote:
[Source]
There are other mistakes and lies in the Daily Mail’s article — too numerous to go into. But the point is, the bullsh*t isn’t coming from the scientists, but the hack deniers (and people like A.W. who perpetuate the lies)
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:38 pmKman, how many times have you completely failed to back up your case?
When you say mistakes are ‘too numerous to go into’ we all realize this means you just lied to us for the umpteenth time.
“But the point is, the bullsh*t isn’t coming from the scientists, but the hack deniers (”
Cute. Everyone who disagrees with you is no longer a real scientist. Their data is ignored. The people who agree with you get to be the real ‘scientists’ even long after they are proven frauds.
You’re calling AW a liar… you need to back up your accusation with something concrete, creep.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:40 pmI gave a link to the source — something which, by the way, the author of the Daily Mail piece didn’t do.
The problem, Dustin, is that you haven’t bothered to check out the links — NOT that I’ve failed to provide them.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:45 pmIts all a big conspiracy…. climate labs in Japan, Germany, Australia, the US, and Europe…. all manipulating data for a world wide fascist agenda. Same as evolution.
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:47 pmNothing like AGW for the leftists to prove how religiously anti-science the are.
Cute, but irrelevant Babe Ruth analogy.
JD (306f5d) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:49 pmKman
So your complaint is that they made a prediction but hedged their bets. whatever. if they can’t predict even one year’s temperature with CERTAINTY, why should we credit any of their predictions?
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:50 pmBill
Actually there are three labs total that generate original historical climate data. All three of them have been corrupted.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:53 pmOnly three climate labs in the world?
Rich!
Here’s but a few…
Center for Climate System Research – Japan
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:58 pmNational Institute for Environmental Studies – Japan
Canadian Center for Climate Modelling and Analysis – Canada
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – Australia
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research- England
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory- USA
Max Planck Institute für Meteorologie – Germany
National Center for Atmospheric Research- USA
Okay, first of all, a forecast isn’t a prediction.
But my complaint is that David Rose, the author of the piece you cite, stated something which simply isn’t true. MANY things. So how can you believe his (unsupported by ANY science) headline that “global warming has halted”?
Please. So you’re not going to acknowledge the possibility of global warming until scientists can “predict” global temperature to the 100ths of a degree? That’s where you’re setting the bar?
And even if they could, you would insist that it be done to the 1000ths of degree.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:58 pmKman
> Okay, first of all, a forecast isn’t a prediction.
bwahahahahahahaha!!!
Hack.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:59 pmAW doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/8/2010 @ 1:59 pmAW – is it, or is it not true that the original sets of figures used in the AGW studies are not available for peer review, and said numbers were manipulated in a manner that the AGW proponents cannot or will not disclose?
Bill and kman – what is the ideal temperature of the earth? What can we do, specifically, to achieve that?
JD (85b089) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:00 pmif they can’t predict even one year’s temperature with CERTAINTY
sometimes, with complex systems, the medium-term future is easier to predict than the short-term future. the short-term future is governed by fluctuating conditions, which should average out over the long-term.
now, even the medim-term predictions in those cases aren’t usually certain, but it doesn’t strike me as being problematic to say that there’s a 30% certainty of something X in a year and a 75% certainty of something Z in ten years, if X is known to be controlled by contingent factors and Z is known to be controlled by an average of contingent factors.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:01 pmI know, I know. To an ignorant person, they mean the same thing. Just like to a REALLY ignorant person, accounting is the same as economics.
But your laughter just shows how little you know. Keep it up.
Kman (d30fc3) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:02 pmKman
> AW doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
And
> a forecast isn’t a prediction.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:03 pmKman and bill are demonstrating how one must act when being a congregant at the Church of AGW.
JD (85b089) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:05 pmKman
Well, apparently the writers of Webster’s dictionary are ignorant:
Sorry we can’t all be as smart as you.
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:06 pmBill, your angry non sequiturs don’t work.
It used to make sense to snark that it’s ridiculously paranoid to think some scientists are actually conspiring to falsify data and exclude real science (including deniers, but mainly just data they don’t want to see).
Now, that’s not paranoia: it’s history. It’s fact. It’s the truth. You may think you’re scoring points by issuing insult after insult in the name of ‘science’, but all you’re really doing is showing contempt for science.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:08 pmI think there’s a difference in denotation between a forecast and a prediction. A forecast is saying, based upon our knowledge, our estimate of what is going to happen is [x]. A prediction is saying, based upon our knowledge, what is going to happen is [x].
Weather forecasts aren’t taken as being certainties; they are taken as being likelihoods.
Same as business forecasts about next quarter’s earnings.
So: while I think it’s likely that your complaints about the climate forecasts apply just as well to forecasts as to predictions, I also think the words as used in everyday speech don’t mean the same thing; there’s some space between them.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:10 pmaphrael, I’m confident predictions are not always taken as certainties.
At best, you’ve shown that forecasts are a type of prediction, and there are also predictions that aren’t like forecasts.
It’s just basic language, as Aaron has shown, that forecasts are predictions the same as red is a color. Even though there is also blue.
Regardless of all this, it’s clear that climate scientists with the most alarming predictions are very often incorrect. We need more evidence, particularly in light of the rampant fraud in this grant greedy profession.
Bill would tell us that anyone denying his view is motivated by greed from mining (which is ludicrous on its face). What about all these AGW proponents who know they can’t get a grant if they release skeptic oriented results?
The system is broken. That’s Aaron’s point. We can’t trust the next prediction or forecast or even their data about what’s happening today. It’s pathetic, but the bright side is that these people don’t seem to be afraid enough of AGW to take their work very seriously, so maybe I shouldn’t worry about it much.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:16 pmIt’s just basic language, as Aaron has shown, that forecasts are predictions the same as red is a color. Even though there is also blue.
I think a closer analogy would be a situation in which ‘color’ was usually used as a synonym for ‘blue’ but had a largely-falling-into-disuse meaning where it meant what we mean by ‘color’.
But this may also be a dialect issue.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:20 pmBill is starting to remind me of Yelverton, especially with that evolution crack.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:21 pmNot to mention that habit of not understanding his own links.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:22 pmA change in temperature of 0.8 degrees over decades is a global crisis that demands immediate action towards some unknowable and unattainable goal. Missing a forecast for the next year ny 0.6 degrees is a rounding error.
JD (306f5d) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:24 pmaphrael, one interesting aspect of calling a forecast a calculation based on data is that this calculation appears to be very wrong. As JD notes, the error is not minor compared to the general nature of AGW claims, either.
That means their data is crap (likely) and/or their calculations are crap (likely).
I think it’s worth noting they were doing a kind of prediction that is particular. If they are really attempting science, their hypothesis was just falsified.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:30 pmsometimes, with complex systems, the medium-term future is easier to predict than the short-term future. the short-term future is governed by fluctuating conditions, which should average out over the long-term.
now, even the medim-term predictions in those cases aren’t usually certain, but it doesn’t strike me as being problematic to say that there’s a 30% certainty of something X in a year and a 75% certainty of something Z in ten years, if X is known to be controlled by contingent factors and Z is known to be controlled by an average of contingent factors.
– Comment by aphrael — 12/8/2010 @ 2:01 pm
I agree with the concept, but not in application to global warming. This is my biggest reason to doubt the certainty of global warming, man made or any other. When they looked at data through the mid-70’s, they were predicting an upcoming ice age. Supposedly with 15-20 more years of data they were able to say, with certainty, that there was global warming and declare they understood the mechanism. Knowing that they manipulated data, that their modeling was mathematically in error, and that their claims of past climate contradicted what was previously held to be true, leaves me with what they started with; and that is simply 15-20 more years of climate data on top of a relatively few decades of prior data. They are trying to make projections, forecasts, predictions, whatever you want to call it for the next century based on a miniscule sample, when considering how long the earth has been having weather and climate.
One can easily raise and discuss scientific theories, but when you claim the world’s population must commit enormous resources to something, you need to have convincing data that is transparent, reproducible, and convincing.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:36 pmOh it’s the usual from the Climate Conspiracy people…
Hey A.W.
Here’s how our policy on protecting oil, natural, gas and coal interests are (arguably) costing us jobs..
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67A3JK20100811
Renewable energy tech and implementation is a market with jobs, even if you don’t believe in GW.
Look at it another way. Our country just blew a trillion plus on a war to insure our oil supply (Afghanistan was arguably about kicking terrorist/Taliban ass so I’ll leave that one out). In the meantime other countries gave lots of government subsidies to their renewable industries (China to the point that there have been complaints about market tampering)so that they DONT have to fight wars and go into debt to insure their oil supply. Who wins? Not us.
Because we can’t commit to supporting a nascent market potential investors are doing what they do and taking their money elsewhere.
But hey, at least some people get to be “right” about global warming (maybe) huh?
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:38 pmDoesn’t change the facts, the earth is warming at a rate that corresponds with fossil fuel burning.
Really? Then please give sources that refute the dramatic global warming that took place in the Middle Ages:
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
Then please also refute the theory that the Maunder Minimum just might be having a dramatic effect on our climate over the past few decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
C’mon Billy – let’s see you strut your stuff.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:53 pmBill probably has no idea that a retired Canadian engineer was the first person to poke massive holes in Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick schtick, and that later “Dr.” Hanson had to retract his entire numbers and conclusions regarding GW.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/8/2010 @ 2:55 pmI agree with the concept, but not in application to global warming
Fair enough. My poorly articulated point was that the person I was responding to was rhetorically staking out a position which would deny the concept in general, and that doing so is an error.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:09 pmhttp://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Expand your view
1) The “Middle Ages” is considered a very recent and short period of time on geologic time scale.
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:11 pm2) ‘modern’ humans have been around an extremely short period of time on geologic time scale.
3) Modern humans have existed in a relatively stable climate (as compared with past warming/cooling events)
4) In such a stable climate, even a relatively small change in climate can have catastrophic consequences for modern society
5) Humans can and are changing the climate.
6) The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that caused the melting of the arctic was the result of a 5 to 8°C sea surface temperature rise over a few thousand years, likely caused by geo-thermal or volcanic activity. The present trend would clearly indicate a similar event is a likely possibility, and despite what denialist say and fail to understand, a one degree global temperature rise over 100 years IS a big deal, just as sea level rise of a foot.
Bill – is that NASA link based on the manipulated numbers, that cannot be reproduced? What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
JD (306f5d) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:15 pmWhat does change the ‘facts’ are the actual facts, such as the fact that temp changes do not correspond at all with fossil fuel burning rates.
In fact, temps dropped for quite a while. You know, ‘hide the decline’ and all that. Ring a bell? Did we stop burning fossil fuels? No? We burned more than ever during this period thanks to China and India? Ya don’t say.
Air pollution is bad on its own. Failing to move to better energy sources is bad on its own.
I don’t need AGW as a boogeyman to see that. AGW is unproven and it’s sad people try to crush dissent the way Bill has in this thread with ad homs.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:20 pmJD,
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:21 pmHuman society is based on stability, especially in coastal areas. Don’t worry, you will not be around to see the worst of it. Man will adapt, there will be cataclysms, cities lost, long after we’re gone. Most of the effects we’re already seeing in Arctic and island communities.
Before the success of CNN, Ted was affectionately known as “The Mouth from the South”!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:23 pmHe hasn’t changed much – if anything, he’s gotten weirder.
Polar Bears are playing golf and little islands are disappearing. It is not unnoticed that your vague platitudes and breezy dismissal failed to address what should be a simple question.
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:24 pmLong time Dustin, like since 1998, right?
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:25 pm“…corresponds with fossil fuel burning…”
Yes, no one was burning coal for fuel during The Little Ice Age!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:25 pmJohn L. Lewis had all the miners out on-strike.
Isn’t it just a little suspicious that every admitted error by IPCC, NASA, etc. has been in favor of the AGW position?
wiff (6940b0) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:26 pmConsider these two sets of data:
Both short time periods but notice the first graph from a denialist website, then look at the second, the larger view.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/uah_may_08.png
http://www.transitiontownwestkirby.org.uk/images/gtc2007.gif
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:27 pmBill: since you’re the expert here…
JD asked you 2 specific questions.
1) what’s the ideal temperature for the earth and
2) what can we do to get it there
Answer these or just shut the fuck up
Lord Nazh (0d312a) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:32 pm(JD consider me denounced)
Again, no arguments come from you, even though you insist you’re the brilliant lover of reason.
Well, here’s another science lesson for you: folks had a hypothesis that the sun’s different levels of activity accounted for most of the changes in Earth temperatures, rather than AGW, and to test this, they used a control (Mars).
They had a prediction too, and tested it, and it supported their hypo.
The science has been piling up for years.
What’s sad is that you just don’t need this AGW myth to convince people to limit air pollution or build nuclear plants (you do support that, right? otherwise you’re unserious).
What you charlatans have done is suck all the oxygen out of the cause of environmentalism for a lie, ruining much better projects. You want to demonstrate loyalty and purity to your faith, which is why you condemn in such irrational terms.
You’ve had many hours to assemble evidence of your claims, or even to refute the arguments against it, and all you’ve done is insult people.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:35 pmBill is decidedly anti-science. The ironic part, lost on him, is that science demands skepticism. Religious fervor and manipulation of data are the opposite of science. Yet he continues to sneer at skeptics using deniers, harkening back to holocaust deniers. Go f@ck yourself, willie.
JD (85b089) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:36 pmaphrael,
Your point could not have been too poorly articulated, as I understood it.
That’s what a group discussion is for, one person throws out an idea, another person clarifies, another verifies whether the application is valid, etc.
The problem is such collegiality can not exist in the midst of interruptions by others not necessarily of good will.
Bill- your points in #53 seem to be circular and counterintuitive reasoning. Yes, we know the Middle Ages and modern man’s existence on earth has been relatively small, which is why basing global trends on a relatively puny sample set doesn’t make sense to me. One must assume things were stable when we “weren’t looking”, and when we look (at the selected time periods we want that is, from 1975 to 2000), we think we see shange and then say, “Aha! Man is changing the climate”.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:41 pmThey wouldn’t have changed the data if the data didn’t prove them wrong. They were worried about losing grants and power and fame. They were traveling around and having a great time, while greedily distorting the data hoping their little house of cards wouldn’t collapse too soon.
What’s really sad is that a lot of people have forgiven this behavior because they actually want AGW to be true. They would actually be sad if it weren’t. It’s their little god.
It’s too late for them. History will remember the Michael Manns and Al Gores and their little weirdo cult followers like Yelverton (who deleted my comments from his blog in a hissy fit) the way they remember flat earthers.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:43 pmBill,
joed (2115f2) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:45 pmwhat I got out of your two links was that it was cold during a period known as the “little ice age”.
Thanks for that. I was wondering about the meaning of “little ice age” but you cleared it up for me thanks. My thinking is that they call it a little ice age because it was warmer both before and after the “little ice age.” Other wise it would just have been the “normal age” right? But who knows what those crazy miners will think of next.
My favorite part of the AGW hysteria pushed by the likes of willie and kmart is that the solutions to the prior global cooling crisis and the current global climate change crisis are the same. They have a solution, and just affix it to their pet problem of the day.
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:51 pmNavy Admiral Titley said the ice volume has declined and is not coming back.
“We’re really seeing a tremendous change in the Arctic,” he said, adding that the “new” normal for the Arctic is to be not completely frozen all year.
Forget about science, rising sea level and AGW. Someone needs to tell the military to stop worrying about climate change, Republicans are basing our global warming policy on the Bible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51054
Bill (9ce21d) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:51 pmNow, if you will excuse me, I am off to buy some carbon carbon credits and offsets from myself.
JD (85b089) — 12/8/2010 @ 3:52 pm“…the ice volume has declined and is not coming back…”
That seems awfully definitive when the history of the world is anything but “definitive”.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:02 pmWould you have the same certainty about declaring that an asteroid will never again strike the Earth causing major species extinctions?
Oh, and BTW, Bill…
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:03 pmYou’re a Maroon of the First Order!
Now “Bill” is using the same links that Yelverton used. Together with the irrational lies that skeptics are creationists. I consider the identification conclusive.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:09 pmBingo, SPQR.
JD (b98cae) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:17 pmBill – I’m for what’s popular. Do you know anything about incest babies?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:18 pmWell said, Aaron. Global warming is more religion than science. The Great Prophet Algore has made that clear.
I distrusted that arsenic bacteria paper almost from the beginning, mainly because of the unwarranted hype about extraterrestrial life. Last night, I saw Craig Venter say he was skeptical of the paper, likening it to the unproven claim that a meteorite from Mars had signs of microbial life.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:19 pm____________________________________________
get your climate science from the mining industry.
As opposed to this big phony?:
Look up the definition of “limousine liberal” and you’ll see a photo of Al Gore smiling right back at you.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:25 pmHey, Bill, why did you delete my comments from your boring self worship blog?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:25 pmkman #23 – from your own Source – “The Met Office, in collaboration with the University of East Anglia, maintains a global temperature record which is used in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” … yup, that same University of East Anglia wot got its witnesses (check the Latin) in a mangle when a bunch of its email got released to public view … and the cold clear clean light of day exposed the corruption and outright intentional falsification upon which so much of the Cult of AGW is based …
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:32 pmBill, a good example of the bias and the problem…
A year ago with great fanfare, the journal Nature published a cover article supposedly showing the antarctic is warming all over, and more than anyone thought. Very little dissent.
Qualified statisticians went to work to show how wrong this “new” finding was… in reality just an artifact of bad math. Due to intense opposition from a reviewer who Did Not Want To Let The Truth out, it took most of a year for the rebuttal to be published. Happily, it has been approved.
The nature cover article is simply wrong: http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/
MrPete (cd708a) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:45 pmApparently the insurance industry disagrees with you as well Aaron/Dustin etc.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s01-usec.html
Maybe their actuarial tables are in on the global AGW conspiracy too?
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 4:56 pmEd, the Mann conspiracy for hiding the decline isn’t a fiction you can just dismiss as kooky, because it’s totally proven. Granted, many people sincerely believe in AGW, but some were actually duped by the frauds. All reasonable people now have healthy skepticism.
Your ancient article on discounts for hybrid drivers doesn’t seem relevant. It sounds like marketing. I would sell insurance to a prius driver at less than a corvette driver’s rate because their cars are slow.
Your completely asinine argument, combined with your attitude of mocking something long ago proven, while hysterically promising doom to the world, is an interesting mix of sentiments, to say the least.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:03 pmEdWood, evidently you are ignorant of the fact that the expects in catastrophic weather events have denounced the IPCC’s baseless claims of there being more weather catastrophes in recent years. Experts like Chris Landsea, who while not a skeptic of AGW, denounced the IPCC’s claims regarding hurricane intensities.
But then if you are digging up stale articles like the above, it is clear that you don’t actually spend any time learning about the issues, just googling up crap.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:31 pmEd previously told us we should just accept AGW as a fact, and work to simply mitigate the damage of the proposed solutions. He drank the Kool Aid, and rather than admit he was duped, likes to write off everyone else as a kook.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:32 pmDustin, either you really don’t know that the insurance industry takes global warming models into account when they make decisions on where to write insurance or not etc.etc. and have been for a while or you are being disingenuous on purpose. I can’t ever decide which.
“while hysterically promising doom to the world”
Statements like these however are completely dishonest. Stop it. I hate it when we fight.
The obsession of certain people with Mann and the hockey stick graph is really bizarre. You know, Richard Nixon and several of his operatives were caught being lying, thieving crooks so under your logic because one set of Republican “conservative” types were lying thieves we should dismiss any Republican or “conservative” ideas since they come from all those other “conservatives” and their dupes that are part of the great Republican conspiracy to bilk the American taxpayer of billions of dollars, contracts, etc.
Ha ha and you know that the sad thing is that there are people who actually believe in the great Republican conspiracy, following the same logic that equates Mann with the “almost all climate scientists are dupes/frauds” conspiracy theory.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:42 pmSPQR- I consider Landsea to be one of the best critics of Global Change hypotheses and a solid scientist who keeps people honest. Other people think same. He kept the “hurricanes are going to get more frequent/worse” crowd from going completely off the rails after Hurricane Katrina and the other 26 hurricanes/tropical storms that year really freaked people out.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:47 pmed, you’re freaking out, but I think I noted my point. You article is ancient and logically fallacious. It’s an appeal to an authority, and the authority is silly.. insurance companies.
so a business is giving a discount to promote a green image.
That’s proof to you that they must have used global warming models which, because they are now an authority, AGW is proven?
that’s a fallacy.
Your rambling about Nixon and republicans totally misses the point. The data a lot of people were relying on was fraudulent, and Mann’s behavior is proof. I can point that out, especially in this case where your proof is old and unreasonable.
Instead of pointing to another ‘expert’ I should trust, you need an actual argument.
Anyhow, you clearly believe in a zany conspiracy theory, but there’s nothing theoretical about Mann’s conspiracy to commit fraud. Why did he do that, Ed? He had all the data he needed, so why did he try to hide the truth? You keep losing this argument because I rely on reasonable arguments you are unable to respond to (I don’t consider your insults to be an actual response).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:50 pmComing in a little late to the thread, but I want to point out why Bill’s position is, from the point of view of real science, completely untenable.
1)We know that Earth had warmed and cooled off throughout its history; that the warmest periods have been hotter, and the coldest periods colder, than anything experienced in human history. It is therefore obvious that anthropogenic causes were not involved in these changes.
2)Scientists have not succeeded in determining what actually caused those changes.
Therefore:
3)It is impossible for them to determine what is causing the (alleged) change in global climate which we are now (allegedly) experiencing.
Which means:
4)No one is a position to say if human activity is involved in the changes, or how much.
Which means:
5)That anyone who says human activity is to blame for the contemporary changes in climate is wrong, and can be safely described as (if honest) in serious error, or (if dishonest) as willfully fraudulent.
Another point to consider:
1)We know the global climate has been warmer in the geologically recent past–the period known as the Medieval Warming Period. We also have evidence to show that humans were in general better off during that period as compared to the eras immediately before and after (the period after being the “Little Ice Age” and corresponding to early modern history) for reasons directly related to the warmer climate (for instance, more land was available to farm and crop yields were higher). As an illustration, Greenland was settled as an agricultural colony by the Norse during the Medieval Warming Period, and completely died out as a result of the climate changes associated with the Little Ice Age. In the year 1000 CE, they could raise crops in Greenland; in the year 1500 CE, agriculture was impossible and the only residents were Inuit/Eskimo populations.
And by the way, no one seems to have noticed rising sea levels during the Medieval Warming Period, or at least none they considered worth recording. And the polar bears certainly survived.
Which raises this question:
kishnevi (24c046) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:50 pm2)Won’t humans be better off with a warmer global climate? Perhaps we should be attempting to keep the planet warm on purpose.
JD- Yes but you forgot to mention that I backed down from that position after you explained why and convinced me that it was a non-starter.
But there are lots of people now who are talking about cloud seeding and other “fixes”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/geoengineering-debate-sur_n_792409.html
You know, just in case…. So I will still say that while you are all working on being “right” about global warming please spend some time criticizing or at least watching these other people. I’ll help. You may find that you and a bunch of those looney liberal AGW kool aid drinkers have something in common.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:56 pmThat’s very well said, Kishnevi.
I particularly find your last point pretty interesting. It’s always been unclear to me why a slightly warmer planet would be a doomsday. I understand the positive feedback loop hysterics with C02, but we know that didn’t happen in the past so I am not worried about it.
A world with more food doesn’t sound so bad, but I guess politicians wanting massive control need to agitate the community with something scary. No surprise, for the rest of human history, the same people will be telling us we’re doomed unless we give them tons of power.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 5:59 pmJD, I didn’t realize this was that character warning about incredibly unrealistic doomsday ‘solutions’ if skeptics didn’t somehow thwart them.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:02 pmAnd you Dustin keep avoiding my point that finding out that one small group of researchers may have fudged some data, and that there are missing data points in one climate database does not mean that all climate science and models pointing to global warming are fraudulent.
One tainted apple does not mean that all apples are tainted. Is that clear enough for you?
Your insinuation that somehow all climate science is based on this one lab’s research and all climate science is based on the USC database is dishonest.
Be honest. What about all the OTHER climate scientists all over the world who are not Mann?
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:04 pmIt is not really backing away from it if you continue to make people out to be kooks for being reasonable skeptics.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:06 pmIt is not “one tainted apple”. It is the foundation of countless studies that followed.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:10 pmThat’s your point?
I didn’t realize this was your point because you were rambling about Nixon and car insurance discounts.
I concede this point of yours. You need more than this to actually prove anything about the climate.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:14 pmAnd JD’s right. It’s unreasonable to insinuate people are crazy for simply being skeptical about things that are unproven, in an academic environment where fraud is rampant and forgiven.
There’s no reason to trust your studies unless they are extremely open and careful. I’m not a kook because I’m skeptical.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:16 pmKishnevi is wrong.
During the Medieval warming period, evidence shows the period between 950 and 1100 likely the warmest but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.
I am not disputing that. It is acknowledged scientific fact. It has no bearing on the discussion. Go back and read what I wrote.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:22 pmExpand your view
“Bill,” do you not even realize that Dr. Hanson was the discredited AGW advocate who published his findings via NASA? Yet that link you provided was based on his now – fraudulent numbers. Jeebus, you’re quite a numbnuts.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:26 pmDo you think Hansen is responsible for all climate data and modeling in the world? Gee, that’s amazing.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:33 pmMr. [Ted] Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.
Just wait until somebody clues Turner in to the fact that this will eventually result in an increase in white westerners, and a decrease in third-world people of color. Market forces, and all that…can’t wait to hear what his fix for that unintended consequence will be.
TimesDisliker (cad390) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:45 pmDustin, you are not a kook because you are skeptical.
But you (and others) seem to be obsessing over this one case as if its some sort of referendum on the work of hundreds of other people that have nothing to do with it, do not use the man’s data, and pursue their own research. It’s not a referendum.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:04 pmThat obsession, and statements like this “in an academic environment where fraud is rampant and forgiven” which seem to go beyond the Mann controversy and are completely unproven do seem, well, a little kooky.
Comment by kishnevi — 12/8/2010
I will take Al Gore seriously when I hear he is buying up real estate in Greenland. Of course, it could be claimed that Vikings were known for their sarcasm, and named it “Greenland” as a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Some say that global warming will cause problems because:
1) Coastal flooding, destroying major cities and flooding some agricultural areas
2) Shifting the “breadbasket” of N. America farther north will mean poor soil conditions, where glaciers from the last Ice Age scraped off all of the topsoil.
Even if there was solid evidence for Global Warming, I’m not sure we know enough to predict exactly what regional effects would be.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:24 pmTed Turner is a very good sailor and should stick to that. He was very lucky to hit the internet age and the all news station age just right. He is very much out of his depth talking about climate and human population. Jane Fonda must have been a great lay.
Bill,
3) Modern humans have existed in a relatively stable climate (as compared with past warming/cooling events)
That is simply false. The Greenland settlements were destroyed by the Little Ice Age. People were skating on the frozen Thames. You just are ignorant.
The temperature sensors have been polluted by urban heat island effect. Many are at airports surrounded by asphalt parking lots. Lots were discontinued when their records did not support the theory of AGW. The data is crap.
Mike K (568408) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:37 pmEd wood – are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just unaware of how Mann’s study became the foundation for the IPCC reports and the centerpiece of the AGW “science”. It introduced proxy temperatures, heat islands, tree ring data, and other sciencey issues into the mainstream of the AGW industry.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:43 pm“And you Dustin keep avoiding my point that finding out that one small group of researchers may have fudged some data, and that there are missing data points in one climate database does not mean that all climate science and models pointing to global warming are fraudulent.” Comment by EdWood — 12/8/2010 @ 6:04 pm
I am sure that Dustin, AW, JD and all the rest of us who are leery of the religion of AGW would be more than willing to look at any research that is not based on the manipulated data from East Anglia. I, for one, would love to see the raw temperature data that those studies would have to be based on. Where did that data originate, who collected it under what circumstances, what were their protocols for ensuring the accuracy of the data, etc. I would also give extra credit if they released not only their conclusions but their data set, raw data and programs used to run the models.
I anxiously await the pending flood of studies NOT based on the East Anglia data set.
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:45 pmJay Curtis- it makes you a denier to request the raw data. A real scientist would just take their word for it.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:49 pmJD – But I am a denier! Does that make me a bad person?
I am skeptical of Obama’s nativity as well.
Maybe I was really born in Missouri. I insist that people prove themselves as I an entirely too skeptical of the truthfulness of those who want control over my life.
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:57 pmMike K,
No, Bill is right and he is definitely not ignorant. We have had it relatively easy (at least all us “modern” humans). The Greenland settlements were destroyed but they were on marginal land for the Viking lifestyle (the Skraelings did just fine tho). The key word is “relatively”. Some climate shifts further back in the past were much worse than the little flutters we have had in the last 10,000 years or so.
Your next statement is even stranger. You state that temperature sensors polluted by heat island effects were discontinued because their records did not support AGW and that their data is crap.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:01 pmWell you are right but you have your reasoning backwards. Someone pointed out that there was a heat island effect and the data was crap so the sensors were discontinued….a researcher could apply a correction factor, but the data would still be weaker than data from a sensor like an oceanic buoy that was nowhere near a city. Better to use the better data.
EdWood, think of it as though you caught a mining study on global warming that was completely fallacious, and then read another mining study that appeared to be either based on the false one, or refused to give up raw data. It would be smart to be skeptical at best.
There’s no reason to believe in AGW, or that it’s a doomsday scenario, or that the solutions proposed would do any good. My believe is that the sun changes in activity, and that explains why other planets and the Earth go through changes, and why there is a dramatic discorrelation in temp changes and fossil fuel use.
I also believe it’s largely irrelevant. Aside from keeping the government the hell out of this issue, I strongly believe in reducing pollution in as many forms as possible, including air, as well as finding many new power sources such as nuclear and ‘renewable’. So what’s the problem? The problem is that I am daring to be honest about the complete load of crap that is the AGW hysteria. I’m a heretic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:07 pmTed Turner also owned WCW wrestling, which never made a dime.
TimesDisliker (cad390) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:13 pmThe biggest difference between WCW and Global Warming is that wrestling is real.
I’m pretty sure the climate will change. I’m also pretty sure that human activity can change the climate. However I can’t say if that change would be better or worse.
Predicting the future is useless, even for scientists.
The climate-change people are the modern Luddites. All they know is if something doesn’t change Right Now! all future is lost.
They also seem to put a great amount of faith in mankind, which seems to be misplaced simply because of their own arguments.
I really don’t know why to pay attention to them, because the ultimate goal of Gaia-bothering is to transfer wealth.
The whole idea is a bit racist if you really think about it.
Ag80 (e828a4) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:26 pmBill,
3) Modern humans have existed in a relatively stable climate (as compared with past warming/cooling events)
That is simply false. The Greenland settlements were destroyed by the Little Ice Age. People were skating on the frozen Thames. You just are ignorant.
Mike K
Your perception is narrow and relative. Farming in Greenland is a far cry from melted icecaps as were the case during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.
Take a broad view before you say someone is ignorant.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:58 pm“Dustin, either you really don’t know that the insurance industry takes global warming models into account when they make decisions on where to write insurance or not etc.etc. and have been for a while or you are being disingenuous on purpose. I can’t ever decide which.”
EdWood – The insurance industry uses catastrophe modeling to help it decide where to insurance, how much to write, how to price it, how much risk to retain and how much reinsurance to purchase. Insurance regulators have been asking insurance companies for increased disclosures concerning their exposures to global warming for several years now. Given the unreliability of the modeling of global warming, such data is worthless, IMHO. Catastrophe modeling has an established track record and accepted procedures within the industry. People understand what you mean when you ask about a probable maximum loss in the insurance industry.
Can you outline for me insured losses which you can attribute specifically to global warming rather than some other cause?
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:01 pmJD
Dude, you need to use like an irony tag. just sayin’.
Btw, you notice how kman disappeared after i spanked him on the definition of forecast?
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:36 pmKind of like Aaron Worthing disappeared after suggesting all the world’s climate data comes from 3 labs.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:48 pmMr. Worthing, those people weren’t actually visiting to debate. They had their talking points.
But yes, that was funny. His response was out of Monty Python’s “Argument Room.”
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:07 pmWhat is amazing about this debate is that denialists still hang on to the manufactured ‘climate gate’ scandal, even after an extensive independent examination of all 1,073 emails by the Associated Press and a panel of moderate climate scientists found no evidence whatsoever that the science of global warming was faked. Further, an Academic Board of Inquiry at Penn State also cleared scientist Michael Mann, who was also a prominent figure in the hacked emails, of any wrongdoing in his widely criticized use of the word “trick”. “The so-called ‘trick’ was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
But the teabagger minions have already been trained to recite: “hide the decline” as part of their gospel .
Bill (9df40f) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:17 pmOne important fact which is not widely known is that NONE of the climate models which the warmalists use to predict apocalyptic temp increases going forward work as hindcasts. that is, if you start any model with the known temps of saym, 1920, they do not produce the actual known temps of 1930, 1940, 1950, etc…
John Cunningham (7e6e43) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:28 pm“Academic Board of Inquiry at Penn State also cleared scientist Michael Mann”
What a surprise!!!!!!
daleyrocks (c07dfa) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:54 pmIf Global Warming increases agricultural production, making more food available to the population, won’t that impact Michelle’s Great Crusade Against Obesity?
AD-RtR/OS! (a6afdf) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:57 pmComment by John Cunningham — 12/8/2010 @ 10:28 pm
They will as soon as they come across the correct specification for the chicken-bones.
AD-RtR/OS! (a6afdf) — 12/8/2010 @ 11:58 pm@ Bill:
If you want to advance your cause on this blog you may first consider dropping the “teabagger” slur which won’t win you any convert. You should also stop branding the Climategate scandal as “manufactured” and pointing as evidence to the verdict of independent commissions that are anything but. Even George Monbiot found the behavior of climate scientists concerned to be problematic, so it’s not just a denier’s thing. I for one believe in AGW and I’m tired of seeing it taken as a hostage by various political factions, but approach like yours is precisely what causes it in the first place. When people don’t agree with you and you think they’re mistaken, first assumption must/should be that they’re acting in bad faith; accusations of bias should come only when so-called bias is manifest.
Optimus Prime (0692b1) — 12/9/2010 @ 1:47 amMost commenters in this thread seem to me mistaken, but only because they believe that recognizing AGW entails accepting the most extreme measures promoted by environmentalists who all too often aren’t even climate scientists. Well, I’ve good news for them: it doesn’t.
Bill,
“During the Medieval warming period, evidence shows the period between 950 and 1100 likely the warmest but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.”
Are you freakin kidding me? no one knows the temperature to within .1 degree yesterday. And yesterday we had digital max/min thermometers all over the globe. in 950AD we didn’t have mercury thermometers. anywhere. If you believe a tree can tell you the temperature to within .1 degree globally 1000 years ago you are out of your mind.
Also I think Aaron was talking about global temperature series. and he is right there are 3 independent groups doing this. Hadcrut, NCDC and Giss. Of course they all use the same processed data, which they then process again. One more thing Bill, these 3 groups which all use the same data, from thermometers, don’t agree to within .1 degree. How the hell do you know the temperature to within .1 degree 1000 years ago.
joed (ebfde1) — 12/9/2010 @ 4:29 amThat is just one of the dumbest things I’ve read in a while. Did you think about it before you typed? Or did you just read it somewhere and thought it sounded great. Think critically. Or at least try.
Jay Curtis 106
We went through this all about a month ago. I posted a list of papers from the primary literature that were not based on Mann’s work. These were ignored of course because they don’t fit the narrative. You can go back in the posts here and find them if you wish.
I think only one other person in that thread posted an actual peer reviewed paper that backed up anything they said. One person posted a website which had some papers listed in it, but no actual papers backing up what they said. Nobody in this thread has posted any papers backing up what they have said even though I put in two or three actual dissenting papers in my post the last time this came up. I guess nobody bothered to read those either.
I also noticed that the “all the worlds climate data comes from 3 labs” meme just sort of disappeared after Bill posted a list of more than 3 labs that climate data comes from. Well done Bill.
EdWood (501c59) — 12/9/2010 @ 4:55 amBill at 118,
Yep, there are a lot of people who can’t stand it that Mann’s work was reviewed by an independent panel and given the OK. Drives em nuts…and into the camp of the GW conspiracy theorists.
EdWood (501c59) — 12/9/2010 @ 5:05 amBill at 118 and ed @ 126
Reviewed by an independent panel consisting of former members of the CRU – not real independent. As OJ said – I am not a murder because I investigated myself.
joe (93323e) — 12/9/2010 @ 5:27 amNo, as usual, you are wrong, Schneiders two decades ago, made it clear that apocalyptic scenarios of
megatron (6075d0) — 12/9/2010 @ 5:50 amclimate change, were the way to go, actually Strieber and Kinetka, started the trend five years earlier
EdWood, you misrepresent what was reviewed, and by who. This is because you don’t seem to actually understand any of the issues, you just regurgitate what you’ve googled off of NASA and RealClimate websites.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/9/2010 @ 6:19 amUEA researcher Phil Jones conceded earlier this year that we don’t know how warm the Medieval Warm Period was. If it was as warm as the present, it knocks a giant hole in AGW.
The science is not settled.
Eric Blood-axe (fb9e90) — 12/9/2010 @ 6:24 amGack. That was me!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/9/2010 @ 6:25 amAW — now there is simply no doubt that “bill” is willie the racist hilljacks. Same links. Sam slurs. Same sneering condescending attitude. He may have started using proxies, or was at a different computer, but that is the Prof of Plagiarism.
Excuse me while I go investigate myself.
JD (85b089) — 12/9/2010 @ 6:31 am#118: want to bet Professor Yelverton cut and pasted much of that…and that he cannot define most of the science involved?
He should go back to chopping wood. Wait! That generates greenhouse gas, Professor Yelverton! How could you?
Eric Blair (c23ad3) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:01 amJD
You are right. He has done something to change IP addresses but I can say without a doubt its the same guy.
i have temporarily unapproved all of his comments in this thread. I will let patterico know about it and decide what he wants to do. I am not sure he is banned or what, so… i don’t know.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:04 amBtw, Yelverton, I didn’t disappear over your misinformed attack on my statements. I dissappeared because my wife has that ulcer-causing stomach germ and needed to go to the doctor.
Interesting, that, btw. For years doctors insisted that ulcers were caused primarily by stress then one doctor proved them all wrong. so much for consensus science.
As for the my claim, I was innaccurate, but close. I stated it was 3 labs, but the number was four, and the issue was data sets. And three of the four are hopelessly corrupted.
I apologize for the slight but irrelevant inaccuracy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:08 amI don’t want him banned, I just want the midget plagiarizer to be honest. Too tall of an order for the short guy, apparently. You are a coward, Yelverton.
JD (0d2ffc) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:12 amAaron, actually that link you supply in 12/9/2010 @ 7:08 am is far more important in my opinion that its made out to be.
The AGW crowd is proposing policies of massive economic disruption, and they can’t even be relied upon to preserve the fundamental data.
These are not scientists.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:15 amSPQR
GIGO = garbage in, garbage out.
Seriously, anyone who relies on Al Gore is making a big mistake.
Btw, i have been playing the new assasin’s creed game and noticed that in their setting, Rome, what keeps appearing? “SPQR.” So that led me to look up on the net what that means, and now i know. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:29 amI hope your wife gets to feeling better, Aaron. My wife is under the weather too today.
SPQR’s right. That’s a powerful link. Science is not an appeal to authority, and it’s important skeptics have all they need to truly put AGW data to the test.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:30 amYep, there are a lot of people who can’t stand it that Mann’s work was reviewed by an independent panel and given the OK.
Right, about that “independent” panel…here’s your hero bleating with impassioned invective to please not elect a GOP congress, lest his “research” be opened up to actual objective scientific scrutiny:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484.html
He certainly sounds confident in his innocence, does he not? Here are a few gems from his treatiste:
We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer,
Check one strawman.
and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.
Check two strawman.
Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels.
Assumption made without any evidence offered.
scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity.
A demonstrable lie and he knows it, because no evidence is offered for this broad statement, but he still includes his weasle word of “near – certain link.” Uh huh.
And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too.
And the big finale, where he screeches about how his work is really “for the children!” With the expected prediction of all – out catastrophe if we don’t follow his recommendations immediately.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:32 amDmac
I didn’t notice this line from Yelverton:
> and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.
Um, wasn’t acid rain and the ozone holes supposed to be killing us by now? I mean when i was a kid i was led to believe that by now if i opened my umbrella, it would melt.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:37 amI think another point that deserves way more attention, SPQR, is that their models do not even work with known data sets, yet we are to believe them to be gospel in forecasting for the omnipresent global climate crisis.
JD (109425) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:41 amIf it was as warm as the present, it knocks a giant hole in AGW.
Actually, we know that the Medieval period was warmer than our current era from archeological and other evidence. As I said before, large areas were agriculturally viable in that period that are not viable now, and people could farm at higher altitudes than they can now. For instance, in area of Catalonia, they’ve found the remains of farms in areas of the Pyrenees which are currently too elevated to support farming. Inevitable conclusion: the climate was warm enough back then to support farming at those altitudes, but is not warm enough now.
So we know it was warmer. We just can’t be sure of how much warmer it was. By the same token, we know the Little Ice Age was colder; but we don’t know exactly how much colder. The Little Ice Age ended about the 18th century, about the time the first stirrings of the Industrial Revolution gave way. AGW supporters have distorted this to “prove” that fossil fuels are involved in the change. Actually, it was just Mother Nature doing her thing, and her thing is probably moving us from the Little Ice Age temperatures to the Medieval Warming Period temperatures and then, doubtless in some future period, back down again.
But I should note the last quote from Jones on the Bishop Hill Blog agrees with what I know–that most of our information comes from Europe and the North Atlantic area, and there is little data, pro or con, from Africa and most of Asia/Oceania. So it is possible the MWP was not actually global in extent.
And I ought to add that one can accept global warming while rejecting anthropogenic causes for that warming. Climate may well be changing, but, as I said before, it is scientifically impossible to say what role human activity has in that change. Humans just don’t know enough about what drives climate change. It’s rather like an early 19th century doctor claiming to know the causes of pneumonia, cholera, or almost any other disease, in an era when medicine had not yet settled even the basic principles of germ theory.
kishnevi (38f6c3) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:41 amBTW: did I mention that Fort Lauderdale had a record low temperature Tuesday night/Wednesday morning (39 F; the old record was 43 F)–and that (if I heard this right) on Monday we set a record for the lowest daily high temperature ever?
kishnevi (38f6c3) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:48 amSPQR, JD
The fact is there is so much wrong with the science, its a little hard to know where to begin.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:53 amRecord colds are proof of AGW. Denier.
JD (109425) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:54 amThanks, kishnevi. What really amazes me is the utter certitude of the political class about AGW, when that certitude isn’t supported by the evidence.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:56 amThats it! If someone starts quoting science… BAN THEM!
Bill (9df40f) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:57 amYour next statement is even stranger. You state that temperature sensors polluted by heat island effects were discontinued because their records did not support AGW and that their data is crap.
I didn’t make that clear. Thousands of sensor stations have been removed. Those remaining tend to be at airports where they are subject to UHI effect. In China, a few years ago, it was discovered that the person who was supposed to be monitoring stations was in the US and hadn’t been to China in 5 years or more.
Mike K (568408) — 12/9/2010 @ 8:00 amI also noticed that the “all the worlds climate data comes from 3 labs” meme just sort of disappeared after Bill posted a list of more than 3 labs that climate data comes from. Well done Bill.
Comment by EdWood
The data has been merged and it is all contaminated. There are not three or more data sets. There is only one.
Mike K (568408) — 12/9/2010 @ 8:02 amVirtually every scientific reference will tell you the Medieval warming period was warmer than post 1980 standard.
But this is irrelevant! It proves absolutely everything we already know.
The climate is changing constantly and is fragile. Any number of factors can change the climate, volcanic/geothermal, sun activity, earth impacts, etc… it just so happens we’ve learned fossil fuel burning will also.
Again, we live in a very stable climate – especially the climate of the past few hundred years and the rapid warming we’ve experienced – especially now at a time of sun inactivity – could have major consequences especially to coastal areas.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/9/2010 @ 8:08 amSorry , meant to say the opposite : Virtually every scientific reference will tell you the Medieval warming period was NOT warmer than post 1980 standard.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/9/2010 @ 8:09 amBradley and I have discussed AGW for many years. People come to the idea with rock solid belief that scientists don’t have political agendas. And it fits the meme that “Mankind is bad.”
I was very suspicious of the “certitude” of AGW, because of the way that modelers in science work. The most damning item is that the models are not “back predictive” (I have said this many times, apologies). If the models are to be trusted, than the past concentrations of greenhouse gases should predict climate—-where we have records (even if imperfect). The models, frankly, do not work.
So what the modelers have are guesses, and those guesses are informed by political concerns regarding economic development and anti-Western memes.
I have never said that AGW doesn’t exist. What I have said, repeatedly, is that many of its proponents are MUCH more interested in the politics of it than the science.
For many—Professor Yelverton comes to mind—it is a tenet of the Religion of the Progressive Left.
And here I thought it was about science.
The funny part about Yelverton, by the way, is on his blog he brags about splitting a large quantity of wood for his fireplace. Um. Carbon footprint, anyone?
It’s like these yo-yos in Cancun. They want other people to make the sacrifices. Glenn Reynolds puts it best: we’ll treat this like a crisis when the powerful treat it like a crisis, by giving things up.
Sacrifice, it seems, is for the little people.
Eric Blair (a27ac1) — 12/9/2010 @ 8:11 amNo, false. Eric Blair has every right to think critically about science but he must realize that 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS… not any scientists, but climate scientists that are most prominent and most published in their field agree that AGW is real. It is about as accepted as settled science as human evolution. A database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports were surveyed. 97-98% agreed AGW (ACC) was real and the most telling part is this: the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of (AGW) ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Now where Eric Blair falls short. Try to find one teabagger who isn’t skeptical of AGW (ACC). They are uniformly in lock step. I’ve never seen anything like this level of group think. Look at the conservatives on these comments. I know many so called ‘liberals’ and I include myself, that do not deny the fact of AGW (ACC) but do not subscribe entirely to cap and trade and human efforts to abate AGW (ACC). Yes Eric, there are some people who can consider the science independent of politics. These may seem strange to you, I know.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/9/2010 @ 8:36 am“#
And you Dustin keep avoiding my point that finding out that one small group of researchers may have fudged some data, and that there are missing data points in one climate database does not mean that all climate science and models pointing to global warming are fraudulent.
One tainted apple does not mean that all apples are tainted. Is that clear enough for you?
Your insinuation that somehow all climate science is based on this one lab’s research and all climate science is based on the USC database is dishonest.
Be honest. What about all the OTHER climate scientists all over the world who are not Mann?
Comment by EdWood — 12/8/2010 @ 6:04 pm
”
That sounds an awful lot like “fake but accurate”.
Machinist (74634b) — 12/9/2010 @ 8:51 amfurther annoucement. Patterico clarified. Bill, aka William Yelverton, is not generally banned, but i am to screen his comments and as long as they are basically appropriate, publish them.
And Billy, contrary to your claims, you got in trouble because you were sockpuppeting as the regulars here, and outside of the official sock puppeting thread.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:03 amProfessor Yelverton: you must stop burning wood immediately! The climate is fragile, and you are harming it.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:11 amAlso, given Professor Yelverton’s proven ignorance of science (remember that he prattled on about isotopes and couldn’t define the term?), I love him actually having the temerity to mention “virtually every scientific reference.”
Please.
That would be like me criticizing his music.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:13 amThat’s what I expected. I suggest you carefully consider this guy’s appropriateness and meditate on it over supper. Perhaps sleep on it.
It would be a shame to rush such an important task.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:22 amYou teabagger deniers are anti-science. Period. End of story. Because a racist midget hilljack plagiarist and coward said so. That is all.
JD (109425) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:31 amJD
You’re killing me man. i had to check to see if that comment was really you or yelverton.
Please do not do a deadpan imitation of him. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:34 amAW – I find it amusing that he is unable to hide his identity behind whatever name he chooses. There are so many cues, tics, and tells with him that it is hard to not identify him.
JD (0d2ffc) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:46 amThat’s what I expected. I suggest you carefully consider this guy’s appropriateness and meditate on it over supper. Perhaps sleep on it.
It would be a shame to rush such an important task.
Comment by Dustin — 12/9/2010 @ 9:22 am
Heh.
no one you know (325a59) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:50 amMe, I keep thinking about all the global warming gas generated by internet usage. Professor Yelverton should help save the delicate climate!
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/07/10/green.internet.CO2/
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:54 amJD, why is Professor Yelverton so very angry? I’m serious here.
I mean, I look at all the energy some of these TLEs use trying to change ISPs, getting anonymizers, and so forth.
Completely seriously: this fellow has a lot in his life to make him happy. But he clearly isn’t. It’s a mystery.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:57 amEric, he’s angry because he is ill. His family would intervene, only he’s too ill to have made a family. I’ve looked over his websites and he’s insufferably in love with himself.
JD’s point is all the more funny when you realize this guy puts a hell of a lot of effort into constructing fake persona, one after another, often just to be his own girlfriend or just someone who agrees with himself, and it only take a few comments before it’s obvious it’s the same guy again.
He’s the Wiley Coyote of the internet, and his schemes only undermine his self worship. I just can’t get mad at something that pathetic.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 10:01 amits really a hoot to talk with people who are in lock step because they hate facts! It’s really fun to rub facts in the face of denialists. Actually a hobby, very entertaining. lol!!!!
Call me any name you wish. It’s like trying to have a discussion with children. From the personal attacks, false attributions, Eric Blair’s infantile “tests” and false assumptions that “I’m angry” when I am about the happiest and luckiest person I know, particularly since I’m on paid vacation for the next several weeks.
Bill (9df40f) — 12/9/2010 @ 11:17 amThat the Medieval Optimum ( approx 1000 AD ) was warmer than current is not irrelevant. The entire purpose of the now-discredited MBH ’98 paper (“Hockey Stick”) was to establish that the current temperatures were unprecedented and that because they were unprecedented they must be human-caused.
That there was a similarly warm period a millenia ago undermines this to the extent that the climate alarmists must now find a way to prove that the current warming is of a fundamentally different cause than previous warming – a burden of proof they can’t meet and so try to avoid.
We don’t know how much variability in the solar input is inherent in our climate cycles. The studies that purport to determine the contribution of variability actually work backwards by assuming an amount of contribution by CO2 increases. Assuming your conclusion isn’t science either.
The reality is that we’ve got high quality data for a very tiny and geologically insignificant time period. The AGW crowd has a high burden of proof to meet to justify the destructive policies they advocate. A burden that they avoid with appeals to “consensus” and never truly meet with the kind of high quality science that their proposals really demand.
SPQR (159590) — 12/9/2010 @ 11:24 amWhat about me? I don’t advocate destructive policies yet tend to accept the scientific consensus on AGW. What are you going to do with me since I don’t fit your mold?
Bill (9df40f) — 12/9/2010 @ 11:29 amWasn’t one of the problems the peer review process itself? Any scientist that disagreed with Mann and his colleagues were prevented from getting their papers reviewed and published.
jfap (e7577d) — 12/9/2010 @ 11:32 amSPQR at 129.
“EdWood, you misrepresent what was reviewed,…. you just regurgitate what you’ve googled off of NASA and RealClimate websites”
And you, SPQR, along with several other experts here, have yet to reference a single peer reviewed paper to support anything you have claimed. Which sites to you google to get your talking points…oop …arguments from?
How about some real scientific evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper to back up what you think is true? They are out there, there are some good ones, so the “hiding the truth” conspiracy theory is not place to hide having to back up your argument with some science. If you want to shift the argument from “is it real” to “should be do anything” you can try the economics literature. You will find some really good arguments there.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/9/2010 @ 11:50 amSPQR – now it has moved into pure sophistry. Tus a shame, because Ed is a bright guy.
JD (306f5d) — 12/9/2010 @ 11:57 am“Which sites to you google to get your talking points…oop …arguments from?”
?
JD’s right. You’re being a sophist. You’re the one with the doomsday prediction. It’s been refuted by virtue of its actual flaws and some very reasonable logic (it’s been hotter before, for example). It’s convenient that you ignore all links and evidence, but also convenient that we don’t need them because the burden of proof is actually on you.
You want to tell us to proof a negative because you continue to fail to prove your own case. You keep saying it’s a conspiracy theory when it’s actually logic.
Anyway, you just admitted there are peer reviewed papers out there ‘good ones’, etc.
Great. But it’s pathetic to call it ‘hiding’ when a lot of reasonable arguments have been presented to you, and you consistently sneer at it.
You have to prove ‘should we do anything’. You failed. You have to prove ‘is it real’. You failed.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 12:10 pmBill – Some of the most compelling data supporting the cooler MWP theory is the tree ring data. The NASA climate website lists the reconstructed temps for periods going back as far as the mid 7th century using tree ring data/proxies. out of approx 50-70 sets of tree ring studies, I found at least 12 of the tree studies where the temps were reconstructed into the 7th century and 15 or more going back to the 13th century.
Now I ask you as a scientist – how reliable do you think those studies really are.
A) given that the average live span of a tree ranges 40-150 years depending on the tree species, and the longest living trees being the sequia’s in northern california which are now in the range of 350-400 years old – how do you think the top scientist could date the decade a tree ring related to or to which century the tree dated to? Unless you knew when the tree was cut down, you cant know what date to use to count backward to date the tree ring in question.
B) assuming you could overcome the hurdle of dating the tree ring, do you think you could locate a specimen that wasnt degraded (due to natural rotting) to reconstruct the temp for that year?
C) assuming you overcame the hurdle of dating the tree ring, and assuming you located a specimen that wasnt degraded, How could you determine that the extra growth or reduced growth was due to either warmer, colder wet year or dry year, – yes partly could tell by wood density, but what about slower growth due to colder weather or weather warmer growth than the tree’s optimum range (trees grow slower if is both colder than normal or warmer than normal)
D) Assuming that you have overcome A, B & C, how do you suppose that post 1960, the tree ring proxies have only correlated to approximately 40% of actual temps but amazingly correlate 100% to real temps pre 1960.
And how do you think an independent inquiry judged the science to be sound after the media hyped climate gate was exposed? Did they go back and look at the data and reconstruct it or accept the science as valid, not withstanding the leaps of faith in the “chain of custody ” issue?
Joe (6120a4) — 12/9/2010 @ 12:10 pmFor what it is worth – Someone linked the Nasa climate webiste from which I viewed the tree ring data studies. I was quite impressed with the organization and detail.
But then it occured to me when I saw numerous temp reconstruction from various parts of the world with several tree ring studies going back to the 7th century – and then you have to ask the question – How is it possible to even obtain a specimen to perform the study?
Joe (6120a4) — 12/9/2010 @ 12:17 pmJoe – these tree ring, are they the ones from Russia, where they used a tiny portion of the sample, because the others did not track with their conclusions?
JD (b98cae) — 12/9/2010 @ 12:19 pm[object]
jfap (e7577d) — 12/9/2010 @ 12:42 pmWatts pointed to an interesting paper (Link to excerpts of paper in pdf) describing just how bad the various global climate models are. Citation would be Anagnostopoulos, G. G. , Koutsoyiannis, D. , Christofides, A. , Efstratiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. ‘A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55:7, 1094 – 1110.
And has been mentioned above, after years of skeptic criticism, NASA modeling efforts suddenly incorporate feedback from plant life from increased CO2 levels, and viola, the magnitude of predicted warming goes down.
SPQR (8762be) — 12/9/2010 @ 1:03 pmJD – The NASA climate website showed the linked to about 60 -70 studies (sorted by various regions of the globe) Most of the studies were from Europe, though several from africa, australia, etc, where the available data is supposedly sparse. The site did include the Biffa study which I believe to be the yamil study in question.
One additional point is that the NOAA shows the MWP to be much cooler than normal with the exception of northwestern europe, eastern coastal area of canada greenland and the north atlantic. As a scientist, attaching a high confidence level to the conclusion based on data in areas of the globe where the data is the sparsest strikes me as a little to convenient.
Joe (6120a4) — 12/9/2010 @ 1:04 pmDustin- It’s convenient that you ignore all links and evidence,
Sorry Dustin but I haven’t seen any links or evidence to ignore.
“but also convenient that we don’t need them because the burden of proof is actually on you.”
Now THAT is true sophistry. Well done Dustin.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/9/2010 @ 1:40 pmSPQR at 175- Thank you. Now I have some reading to do. I’ll return the favor with an interesting article (not peer reviewed) that I found a year ago that really changed my thinking about Global Change and what should or shouldn’t be done.
http://theamericanscene.com/2007/11/30/why-i-oppose-a-carbon-tax
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/9/2010 @ 1:43 pmI think Lomborg’s had it right all along, most reasonable people agree that the earth may indeed be warming over a long trajectory, but disagree what it to be done about it (if anything). Spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to prove a hypothesis that’s unproven is pure folly, while spending those same trillions on more worthwhile goals could benefit all societies, immediately. For example, helping to eradicate poverty and rampant disease in the 3rd world, developing new technology that actually may have standing as worthwhile options in the coming decades (not biofuels), cleaning up our oceans, etc. When the recently leaked documents indicated that the research had to be massaged and manipulated towards receving more funding, the game was up.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=104&filename=925823304.txt
Dmac (498ece) — 12/9/2010 @ 2:09 pmYou are just another teabagging denier that is taking scientific fact out of context in order to pursue your anti-science new earth political creationist agenda.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/9/2010 @ 2:15 pmedwood, I think your last comment speaks for itself. That’s all you bring to the table… insults and projection. And yet you still fail to meet your burden of proof.
I see you’re committed to having the last word and speaking louder, but you’re going to have to work a lot harder to change anyone’s mind.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 2:18 pmBehold: those who respect science!
And yeah, I realize this is a silly ad hom, but my theory that people pretend to be certain about AGW in order to compensate for not understanding much of a damn thing has gained an additional little bit of evidence.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 3:26 pmthe longest living trees being the sequia’s in northern california which are now in the range of 350-400 years old
Joe, some of the great sequoias (The giganteas) are 2,000 years old. The tree ring data that has been used so uncritically comes from 12 trees. There is serious question about the effect of precipitation on the rings as an alternative to temperature.
Mike K (568408) — 12/9/2010 @ 3:37 pmThe key tree ring data in North America are bristlecone pines. These are the tree ring sets that create the Hockey Stick itself, as McIntyre established. You remove the bristlecone pines and the hockey stick disappears.
Bristlecone pines rings, according to people who actually study tree rings, are influenced more by precipitation than temperature. It is climate scientists who claim that they make great temperature proxies. So much for peer review.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/9/2010 @ 4:19 pmBut then it occured to me when I saw numerous temp reconstruction from various parts of the world with several tree ring studies going back to the 7th century – and then you have to ask the question – How is it possible to even obtain a specimen to perform the study?
It’s not easy but possible. The primary resource is archeological finds: excavate the remains of something that was built with wood; if you’re lucky some of the wood will have been petrified/carbonized/preserved in a way that allows the tree rings to be studied. Then establish the date the structure was built and the likely source of the wood, which will give you at least an approximation of the date and place the original tree was cut down. If you have a large enough series of such finds, you can establish a reliable chronology of tree rings. However, the complications you noted in point C of you comment at 171 remain in full force.
kishnevi (b40a74) — 12/9/2010 @ 4:47 pmKishnevi – I agree you can get close based on the methodology you describe – something in the range of plus/minus 25 – 50 years from areas of the globe where you have some documentation of prior civilizations, europe, many parts of asia, the middle east, parts of africa. But several of the tree ring proxie reconstructions were from australia, se asia, where prior civilizations were much sparser and less advanced resulting in a much lower ability to establish likely dates.
joe (93323e) — 12/9/2010 @ 7:02 pm“And yet you still fail to meet your burden of proof.”
Dustin at 181-
And you Dustin have yet to come up with any peer reviewed proof for your position at all. I did (in an earlier thread I’ll admit), SPQR did, why can’t you? You are all rhetoric and no evidence. Nothing but a mouth.
EdWood (501c59) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:33 pmMore insults.
What is there for me to show a peer reviewed proof for?
I can’t prove a negative, and as I showed already, Mann and his pals kept a lot of great science from being published. You keep calling this my obsession, but it’s actually a very relevant problem.
This isn’t math. Stop using the word ‘proof’ if you can’t understand it.
If you want to prove AGW is true, you’ll need something better than ‘Dustin hasn’t posted any peer reviewed proof it isn’t true’.
To say the least.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:38 pmMy position is one of skepticism, based largely on the fact that I do not think this is a matter than can be proven in the near future.
So… what’s edwood talking about? It seems a lot like he wants to trash talk his way through this argument, but the real reason he can’t overcome my position is that it’s a lot less controversial and extreme than his.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:40 pmBeing a skeptic means you are a teabagger denialist that probably believes that people rode on dinosaurs and new earth creationist christer nonsense.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/9/2010 @ 9:52 pmIn fact, given what we know now about peer review corruption, anyone including that little stipulation is either trying to troll or woefully ignorant.
You might as well demand all AGW research be approved by Pennzoil.
All we need is raw data, repeatable experiments, and our own faculties. We can ignore anyone demanding ‘peer review’ authority as a zealot.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 12/9/2010 @ 10:03 pmEd Wood – does it not bother you that they cannot produce the raw data? Does it not bother you, or even make you question, that their models cannot back predict known data sets?
JD (eb5afc) — 12/9/2010 @ 10:08 pmEd Wood shows he doesn’t understand science by asking for peer-reviewed evidence to doubt a theory.
Here’s an article from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist that explains the inherent problems in global warming theory.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/9/2010 @ 11:28 pmWhy not?
They’re still giving that dumbass motherf
*****r Paul Ehrlich awards, accolades, and grants over and over again!If the man predicted that the sun would rise tomorrow, I’d get very, very worried…
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 12/10/2010 @ 2:12 amComment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R.
I liked this comment: Common sense tells us that damaging a thing this old is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish—like invading Russia.
As we all know, “starting a land war in Asia” is one of the craziest ideas around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfWDilXZQEo
Comment by kishnevi
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/10/2010 @ 6:20 amJust about anyone who has watched something grow, especially if trying to grow it, knows both temperature and water are necessary. It seems only one with severe tunnel vision could assume tree rings were caused by one and not the other. Unless you have observations under known conditions and can differentiate differences in tree rings caused by temp. vs. hydration, it seems pretty foolish and arbitrary to assume what the cause is.
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
– from Comment by jfap — 12/9/2010 @ 12:42 pm
Thank you for this.
(Somebody has finally listened to me.) 😉
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/10/2010 @ 6:36 amMD in Philly,
The CAGW “consensus” was always fragile. It depended on intimidating people into suppressing their doubts. But enough people have refused to be intimidated that the public can see the catastrophic global warming movement for the intellectual bullying and bad science that it is.
It’s interesting to watch the hysterical reactions of the CAGW camp to those who accept global warming but reject catastrophic views, like Roger Pielke Sr, and even believers like Judith Curry who carry on respectful dialogue with skeptics. Faith-based movements (as CAGW has been shown to be) have always hated heretics.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 12/10/2010 @ 6:52 amYou can differentiate the growth due to water vs temp by the density of the ring. However, as is known post 1960 when there were reasonably reliable records of actual temps and rainfall, the tree ring proxies only correlated approx 40% to actual temps – yet the AGW scientists treated pre 1960 tree proxies as being close to 100% correlated. The explanation for using 100% correlation when using known temps showed only a 40% correlation – because “the extra co2 in the atmosphere created an anomolly that post 1960 distrupts the natural growth” – too convenient of a scientific explanation.
Joe (5e0a70) — 12/10/2010 @ 8:26 amJoe- Your grasp of the topic is impressive. Let’s say “even if” the temps were 100% correlated, would the samples from hundreds of years ago be preserved to the degree that the density of the rings would be interpretable? (just curious)
Brother Bradley- The main problem, I believe and I think you would agree, is that most of the public does not hear about the doubters.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/10/2010 @ 8:37 amMD – dont attribute any impressive knowledge to my comments regarding the tree ring proxies – there are thousands of individuals vastly more knowledgable on the subject than I am.
One question – is how did this get past the “peer reviewers” with such certainty when a layman can spot the numerous and obvious deficiencies. Or is the science settled?
Joe (5e0a70) — 12/10/2010 @ 8:48 amYet more teabagger deniers. I bet you believe in new earth creationism and think cavemen rode around on dinosaurs. Prolly racist too.
JD (688ec2) — 12/10/2010 @ 8:51 amMD in Philly
Brother Bradley- The main problem, I believe and I think you would agree, is that most of the public does not hear about the doubters.
True, but this is changing. Some journalists are diverging from the orthodoxy that CAGW is proven beyond debate. In the New York Times, of all places, environmental journalist Andrew Revkin has respectfully considered the arguments of dissenters. While a warmist, Revkin admits that there’s nuances and valid differences of opinion about what threat climate change poses. And he’s spoken out against CAGW sloppiness. This drives the CAGW hypesters like Climate Progress batty.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (29bc4d) — 12/10/2010 @ 9:07 amBrother Bradley – Saying that drives Climate Progress batty assumes that they were not already batty to begin with, a fact not in evidence.
JD (688ec2) — 12/10/2010 @ 9:11 am#143 Kishnevi – you are correct that not much data is available pro or con from from oceana or from asia – but the conclusion by the NOAA and NASA with much certainty that it was cooler over the 3/4 of the globe where data is sparse or non existant is troubling. Granted it may have been cooler, but a “300 year regional weather pattern” would be highly unusual (suspect to say the least)
Joe (5e0a70) — 12/10/2010 @ 9:12 amI had read that much of the data from Russia (Asia) was thrown out (to hide the decline?).
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/10/2010 @ 9:24 amHey, I’ve seen Fred Flintstone and Alley Oop do it, that’s proof enough for me, since I use the exact same high-quality scientific standards the AGW -believers- do.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 12/10/2010 @ 9:58 amTrue, but for them, this is a stroll around the neighborhood, not a 12-hr plane ride to the Far East.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 12/10/2010 @ 10:00 am