A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…]

Independent Climate Change Email Review (U.K.)
  • Finding: Several members of the Panel were unsuited to be panellists, having strong connections to UEA or having a tendency to make alarmist statements on the impact of manmade global warming.
  • Finding: No known critic of CRU was on the Panel.
  • Finding: Only two interviews were held with key CRU staff. The majority of the Panel, including the chairman, Sir Muir Russell, did not attend.
  • Finding: No interviews were held with critics of the CRU.
  • Finding: The Panel correctly noted that hiding the divergence problem in the WMO report was misleading but failed to investigate similar issues in the IPCC reports.
  • Finding: The Panel appear to have exonerated CRU staff of undermining the peer review process without any evidence beyond unrecorded statements from Phil Jones. The Panel themselves acknowledge that such uncorroborated testimony is inadequate.
  • Finding: The possibility of improper approaches having been made to another journal was not investigated.
  • Finding: The Panel ignored the recommendation of their own advisor that they investigate the possibility that CRU staff had breached the confidentiality of the peer review process.
  • Finding: No substantive defence against McKitrick’s allegation of fabrication has been made.
  • Finding: The Panel misunderstood the nature of the IPCC process, almost certainly affecting their conclusions as a result.
  • Finding: The Panel refused to publish the evidence of one of the most important witnesses.
  • Finding: The Panel did not address the question of whether Briffa chose to ignore the problems with the Wahl and Ammann paper or to break the IPCC rules by using a preliminary version.
  • Finding: The Panel did not publish David Holland’s evidence that the change to the IPCC timetables was unauthorised and did not mention it in the report.
  • Finding: The Panel did not discuss strong third party evidence that Briffa acted outside IPCC rules, preferring to rely on submissions from scientists at the centre of the allegations.
  • Finding: The Panel failed to ask Jones whether he had deleted emails, but said they had not seen anything to suggest he had, despite having evidence to the contrary.
  • Finding: The Panel failed to consider important evidence of breaches of Freedom of Information legislation.
  • Finding: The Panel failed to investigate allegations of cherrypicking.
  • Finding: It is not possible to question the Panel’s findings on the issue of ‘bodging’ since they rely on unpublished research.
Pennsylvania State University (U.S.)
  • Finding: By failing to interview Mann’s chief critics, the inquiry failed to notice clear falsehoods in the evidence presented to them.
 
dvdjs said:
As I mentioned earlier there is quite a literature on the hockey stick. But this is mainly about where or not Mann et al screwed up and 'fessed up, rather than about the actual scientific hypothesis. And that is the problem with the approach of the the denialists: the mistakes of misdeeds of this person or that many be trumped up to sow doubt among the uniformed, but it doesn’t change in the least the actual truth of the matter. I hold in higher esteem those who are working to build up knowledge, even if they make mistakes along the way, versus those who do little more than sit on the sidelines and heckle.
Click to expand...
This is completely incorrect and pure misinformation. Mann hockey stick paper is not some obscure study but a deliberately manufactured attempt to remove the existence of the Medieval Warming Period from the debate and a key talking point for AGW alarmists. I hold up in high esteem those who expose propaganda like the Hockey Stick graph for what it is.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Hockey Stick Graph appeared:
  1. Prominently throughout the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report
  2. Al Gore’s movie: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
I have no idea who “denialists” are.
 
Poptech said:
Not understanding Climategate is not an argument.

Which part of the whitewashed “investigations” do you wish to discuss?

The Climategate Inquiries (PDF) (55 pgs) (The Global Warming Policy Foundation)
Click to expand...
I will discuss any aspect that you can cite via primary sources. This one, for example, purports to show what this UK investigation found. So please use a source associated with the investigating organization. I’m sure it exists. Yet you chose to cite these findings via a secondary source, complete with biased analysis. To save some time, why don’t you quote what you believe is the most conclusive single fact that proves scientific misconduct by the IPCC that discredits the AGW conclusions they reached. Please no shotgun approach, as if the quantity of items listed can compensate for their irrelevance.
 
Poptech said:
This is completely incorrect and pure misinformation. Mann hockey stick paper is not some obscure study but a deliberately manufactured attempt to remove the existence of the Medieval Warming Period from the debate and a key talking point for AGW alarmists. I hold up in high esteem those who expose propaganda like the Hockey Stick graph for what it is.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/bathtub.gif

The Hockey Stick Graph appeared:
  1. Prominently throughout the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report
  2. Al Gore’s movie: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
I have no idea who “denialists” are.
Click to expand...
Where can I find this “corrected” graph? And why does it stop at 1950?
 
dvdjs said:
As I mentioned earlier there is quite a literature on the hockey stick. But this is mainly about where or not Mann et al screwed up and 'fessed up, rather than about the actual scientific hypothesis. And that is the problem with the approach of the the denialists: the mistakes of misdeeds of this person or that many be trumped up to sow doubt among the uniformed, but it doesn’t change in the least the actual truth of the matter. I hold in higher esteem those who are working to build up knowledge, even if they make mistakes along the way, versus those who do little more than sit on the sidelines and heckle.

Sam Rayburn one noted that it takes a carpenter to build a barn, but it only takes a jackass to knock one done.
Click to expand...
The issue with Mann’s graph is that he did not mention the sources at the bottom of the graph (as is usually required for scholars), but he did give them in the body of the paper. I think because the sources were complicated (some from tree ring proxies, some from instrumental data) he didn’t do that. He probably never in the wildest of his imaginations thought people would make a big stink about it. And really it is up to the editor and peer-reviewers to catch these things and make sure they are corrected.

As for virtually no real scientific studies or models to refute GW, only criticism on the sidelines (mostly of the red herring type), a climate scientist I know and his wife did this cartoon:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
“Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998,”
Zeke Hausfather, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, 30 June 2017, at carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

QUOTE:
A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.

Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The figure above shows a comparison between the new RSS record and the global surface temperature record produced by NASA. RSS v4 shows about 5% more warming than the NASA record since 1979, when satellite observations began….
END QUOTE
And for the study on which this article is based see: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

Now all that fuss about models being totally wrong, about no warming based on satellite data, or there being a “pause” after 1998 can be thrown in the wastebasket (toxic, do not recycle), and at long last we can hop to mitigating global warming in earnest!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That does not answer my question. I asked if Breitbart had ever published anything supportive of a liberal position. No? Then that is proof that Breitbart is not objective.
Click to expand...
Such a leap of logic demonstrates why I cannot take your arguments seriously.
 
Poptech said:
This is completely incorrect and pure misinformation. Mann hockey stick paper is not some obscure study but a deliberately manufactured attempt to remove the existence of the Medieval Warming Period from the debate and a key talking point for AGW alarmists. I hold up in high esteem those who expose propaganda like the Hockey Stick graph for what it is.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/bathtub.gif

The Hockey Stick Graph appeared:
  1. Prominently throughout the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report
  2. Al Gore’s movie: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
I have no idea who “denialists” are.
Click to expand...
Something is seriously wrong with your graph. From what I know the temps did not rise that high during the MWP, maybe half that amount at most.

And, of course, the current temp is more than double now what your high MWP temp anomaly was (≈.45), so the hockey stick concept is still quite valid, even if Mann made some mistakes (and he did include the error bars which do go up quite a bit higher for the MWP, since proxies tend to have large error bars…and it goes down a lot lower as well and could be anywhere in the gray area, but most likely at the most likely spot).

OTOH, even if the MWP had gotten up to current levels or even higher, that in no way disproves the current GW. In fact, it lends great support to it.

I usually point out the end-Permian warming, which was much greater than today’s level (some 6 to 10C higher), when 95% of life died due to that great warming and its knock-on effects. From current GHG emissions and those projected into the future on a business as usual path, that’s pretty much where we might be headed, IF people refuse to do what they can to reduce their emissions.

This whole MWP is not only a red herring, but it actually helps support the notion of global warming. That’s for proving GW!!
 
lynnvinc said:
Now all that fuss about models being totally wrong, about no warming based on satellite data, or there being a “pause” after 1998 can be thrown in the wastebasket (toxic, do not recycle), and at long last we can hop to mitigating global warming in earnest!
Click to expand...
Incorrect, the pause is still there in the updated UAH satellite temperature record, even though RSS is desperately trying to adjust it away.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2017/trend
 
vz71 said:
Such a leap of logic demonstrates why I cannot take your arguments seriously.
Click to expand...
Let me spell out the logic for you then. I was debating with josie L who was extolling the virtues of Breitbart as a reliable source of information, as opposed to “corrupt” and “biased” sources like the MSM or Wikipedia. I asked josie L why Breitbart should be considered credible. There was no answer to that question. But it appears to me that one test of credibility is whether their reports have a range of political views, or are they all on one side. I challenged josie L to find a story on Breitbart that was aligned with the liberal view. You can find such stories for conservative views on the MSM and artciles in Wikipedia. You can argue that there are not enough and that some bias still exists, and I will not deny it. But on Breitbart one-sidedness is complete. Unless I am missing something.
 
Poptech said:
This is incorrect, the MWP was much warmer than today.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle2007small.gif

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
*(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
  • Craig Loehle*
Click to expand...
This temperature reconstruction is Craig Loehle’s view, and it was published in Energy & Environment, which has been criticized for having " low standards of peer review and little impact." This reconstruction is by no means universally accepted as accurate.
 
Poptech said:
Incorrect, the pause is still there in the updated UAH satellite temperature record, even though RSS is desperately trying to adjust it away.
Click to expand...
The RSS has published their reasons. You may evaluate them on their merits. You don’t need to hypothesize their motives while ignoring the supporting data they present.
 
Poptech said:
This is completely incorrect and pure misinformation. Mann hockey stick paper is not some obscure study but a deliberately manufactured attempt to remove the existence of the Medieval Warming Period from the debate and a key talking point for AGW alarmists. I hold up in high esteem those who expose propaganda like the Hockey Stick graph for what it is.
Click to expand...
I await proper evidence that Mann et al are guilty of scientific misconduct, s suggested here.

I would like to see a reference to your graph that details the methodology used. Preferably something from a peer-reviewed journal. Recent studies, long after Mann et al, look much more like Mann et al than what you post. nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html In particular they note:
There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.
Click to expand...
have no idea who “denialists” are.
Click to expand...
No doubt.
 
lynnvinc said:
The issue with Mann’s graph is that he did not mention the sources at the bottom of the graph (as is usually required for scholars), but he did give them in the body of the paper. I think because the sources were complicated (some from tree ring proxies, some from instrumental data) he didn’t do that. He probably never in the wildest of his imaginations thought people would make a big stink about it. And really it is up to the editor and peer-reviewers to catch these things and make sure they are corrected.
Click to expand...
From the little that I have read, Mann et al undertook an ambitious project that mixed many kinds of data over large times scales, with various levels of uncertainties that are correlated with time. While at face value the trend looked reasonably clear, the lack of proper error analysis, and the faulty use of some analytical methods that help find the significant trends in noisy, composite data opened them to criticism. Statisticians are often critical of the way physical scientists handle error analysis; in this situation they have a good point, but it is not clear that these problems invalidate the fundamental result,especially in light of continuing results,
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This temperature reconstruction is Craig Loehle’s view, and it was published in Energy & Environment, which has been criticized for having " low standards of peer review and little impact." This reconstruction is by no means universally accepted as accurate.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect, Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
 
dvdjs said:
Nice. But I was wondering about applying scientific critical thinking to the hypothesis that Mann intentionally misrepresented.
Click to expand...
Occam’s razor

Mann was no neophyte to climate research and the temperature record, yet evidence shows his research was highly defective and always produced the temperature hockey stick that supported his agenda.

Either he was grossly incompetent or practicing deception. I’ve seen no other evidence he was a moron, hence I must conclude it was intentional deception that supported the political agenda he wore on his sleeve.
 
Poptech said:
This is incorrect, Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

I didn’t say it wasn’t peer-reviewed. I said that the quality of that peer-review was questionable. In any case, I was not incorrect to say that Loehle’s temperature reconstruction is by no means universally accepted. That is true regardless of the peer-review used at E&E.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top