Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

[vz71]

You would have also missed this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif

That’s from Church 2008.

And this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-2.gif

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but on the left side of these graphs, it looks like the measurements are in millimeters.
Am I correct?

If so, can we please explain how they are that accurate with sea level measurements in the 1870’s?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Had a situation not that long ago in which they found the measuring instrument was sinking.

Kind of threw the data down into the dumper.

[How big is a millimeter? A thousandth of a meter … a thousandth of 40 inches. A hundredth of four inches. A tenth of 0.4 inches. Or … about 0.04 inches. An eighth of an inch is 0.125 inches. So, there are people making claims of a ten foot increase or more … and the graphs of actual are less than an eighth of an inch.]

Somebody check my math.

[are you serious?]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Even a non-scientific journal such as Newsweek gagged when confronted with these sea level predictions. It was too much even for them.

newsweek.com/2010/03/23/the-real-climate-scandal.html

And if you google " sea level measurement errors " all KINDS of good and interesting stuff comes up.

I gotta find that David Legates presentation.

He compares actuals with the predictions. What Legates should do is arrange to Jay Leno or David Letterman to make the actual presentation … the level of sarcasm would go up through the roof … and not being science folks, the standup comedians could get away with it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I googled “sea level measurements sinking”

Another huge number of useful finds.

heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/29954/3_Sinking_under_Their_False_Sealevel_Predictions_Alarmists_Change_the_Data.html

And this one is kind of interesting:

seekerblog.com/2010/01/23/sea-level-rise-and-sinking-vanuatu/

Excerpt:

The data is very noisy. Below the trend chart is a global map showing the variance of the local trend data plotted above. On quick inspection it appears that the “hot spots” showing high positive increases have variance almost as large as the signal.

Local changes can be very different from the global mean, including falling sea level trends. To investigate local trends there is an interactive display tool. Here I found my knowledge of the data and processing procedures lacking. E.g., I don’t understand why the local trends map I have displayed looks very different from the first map shown above.

So, more homework to be done. What is the truth and significance of this meme

The people of Vanuatu are already feeling the pointy end of climate change. Rising sea levels, bleached coral reefs and turbulent weather is affecting VanuatuÂ’s tourism and its main export, coconuts. In late 2005, an entire coastal village in northern Vanuatu was relocated to higher ground. One hundred residents of Tegua Island became the first climate change refugees.

We just spent two months cruising New Caledonia which is just south of Vanuatu. We saw no evidence of material sea level rise anywhere in New Caledonia. Similarly, we met with a number of other yachts who have been cruising Vanuatu – nobody reported anything unusual there.

UPDATE: In the comments, John Nicholls has contributed some first-hand reports on the Maskelynes group in Vanuatu. I emailed John regarding sea level rise datum “When you report one meter/year rise are you measuring vertical → water level height; or horizontal → lost beach?” John replied “horizontal”. So we have anecdotal evidence of increasing horizontal beach coverage. The UC Boulder satellite data above shows a maximum of 15mm/year rise in that general part of the South Pacific. At a beach slope of 1:67 that translates to one meter per year of “horizontal breach drowning”. I would guess the beach slopes are more like 1:20 so there is a factor of 3]mismatch between the satellite observations and John’s anecdotal report. /INDENT

There is just no substitute for field work.

What the field work demonstrates is that the manipulated data bases have created a bunch of BS … Apologies for being crude. But this is just a bunch of false information.

Disinformation.

In other words, field work demonstrates the sea level rise “stuff” is just a crock.

Sorry, but that’s what it is.​

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So … stay away from the manipulated data … there is no substitute for actual, get your nails dirty, field work.

Get out there!

Buy an airline ticket and see what is actually, really going on.

Most newspaper accounts are based on press releases from somebody who wants government money.

So … stay away from the manipulated data … there is no substitute for actual, get your nails dirty, field work.

Get out there!

Buy an airline ticket and see what is actually, really going on.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Apologies for not letting go.

I did this Google search: hong kong seal level instrument sinking

OMG. Sorry, Lord}

But much more stuff is coming up.

The instrument locations are corrupt.

Come on, guys!

GIGO, at its worst.

 

[kimmielittle]

]the temperature record doesn’t have a warming bias

despite all those pictures of thermometers next to A/C exhausts might carry some weight for people like you who believed him when he said that it did.Can you provide us of evidence of the bolded part, please.

Mr Watts…has said continues to say ] That individual measurements at faulty placed stations effect the readings at those stations.

What Mr Watts did say via his recent paper, which doesn’t include UHI ] IS that BAD stations and GOOD stations, on this FIRST review paper ], show a canceling out of each other.

In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class. This finding needs to be assessed globally to see if this also true more generally.

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/
blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/05/something-for-everyone-fall-et-al-2011/
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/a-summary-of-our-new-paper-analysis-of-the-impacts-of-station-exposure-on-the-u-s-historical-climatology-network-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-fall-et-al-2011/

BTW: This paper wasn’t by Mr Watts alone.

AND as I stated…

One of the things we learned is that there are so few well sited stations with long records, and** even those have been compromised. There may not even be enough to do meaningful comparisons,** but we are doing a follow up paper where we are drilling into the metadata deeper and we may have some additional insight. – Anthony

And I think there’s a word for making claims about “potential bias” and “tainted work” when you know very well that those claims can and have been thoroughly disproven, isn’t there?

Well…you certainly haven’t disproved them

Here is how you can -
Show me RAW data that hasn’t undergone subjective adjustments.. Subjective adjustments… IS introducing potential “bias” and “taints” the RAW data.

Just as starting out with a clear broth…and then throwing in a few potatoes…a bit of meat etc. You no longer have a clear broth - you are now on your way to a stew.

You have all that information for GISS, and yet you refuse to actually look at it for fear that it might prove your accusations wrong and instead continue to talk about “potential bias”.

Is your memory slipping again?

The problem with argument by analogy, of course, is that you need to prove that the anology itself is valid but in this case the water has been thoroughly proven to be clean. To assert that your analogy applies in the first place is simply begging the question.

Actually wrong!

I repeat:

Show me RAW data that hasn’t undergone subjective adjustments.. Subjective adjustments… IS introducing potential “bias” and “taints” the RAW data.

Instead of your fallacies in logical thought ruling you…try proving me wrong.

In addition, there have been many independent attempts to “start over” that have all come up with the same results —

Actually wrong! once again…
Provide evidence that ANYONE has proven the unproven hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of climate And that ONLY by reducing CO2 can / will we lower global temperatures. OR even come close to the major claims made of such as Mr Gore / Hansen.

If I believe the claims by CRU - The Raw Data is gone.

Richard Muller and BEST. I assume you caught his testimony to Congress?

As an objective “scientist” what did you think of it?

Do you normally accept evidence…without “data” being presented or published papers?

that was really unfair of me - because I truly believed based on your prior posts to me and others] you would eventually bring up Mr Muller’s testimony - as evidence = you did not disappoint me. ]

So, just to be clear:

1. 
   *]Hansen’s source code and data are publicly available and have been for years.

1. 
   

   *]Hansen’s temperature record has been validated again and again by many independent groups, including those starting with his source code and reimplementing it in a different language, and those starting completely from scratch.

   *]Hansen’s climate prediction way back in 1988 is a matter of public record and has been verified.

   Mr Hansen has had 30 + years with “Raw data” - “adjusted data” and even “adjusted - adjusted data”. He made his claim, "That CO2 was the Main Driver of Climate And that ONLY by reducing CO2 can/ will we…lower global temperatures back in the 1980’s .
   
   1:This unproven hypothesis - fails Mr Poppers Falsifiability Test.lycos.com/info/karl-popper–sir-karl-popper.html
   

   a theory must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific…otherwise it is pseudo-science

   2: “It has to be CO2 because we haven’t identified anything else” Is an “appeal to ignorance”, “argumentum ad ignorantiam”, or “Argument from ignorance” because there is no verified “null” ]. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
   
   In Short: I don’t need Mr Hansen - Mr Jones et al AND their government funding to tell me the Climate Changes. I can observe it for myself, as can anyone else.
   
   The attempt is being made to sell us temperatures as empirical evidence for an unproven hypothesis… that is not science…that is pseudo-science.
   
   AND that unproven hypothesis is being used to fund agendas.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Place where I worked was doing some computer modeling and getting strange results.

Since I was not working on the project, that made me a disinterested person.

I talked with the “chief modeler” and found out that they said that they KNEW what the results of the model were supposed to be, and so they adjusted to data going into the model to get the results they wanted.

That person left the organization and, believe it or not, ended up as chief modeler for a much larger group.

[Not Hansen.]

 

[Ender]

I was talking about the time you claimed that NOAA contradicted Phil Jones when it turned out that not only were they talking about two completely different things…

This discussion was tedious then and has not improved with time. The “completely different things” being discussed were global warming over the previous decade and … global warming over the previous decade. NOAA, which had removed the cyclic ENSO contribution, said no warming had occurred. Jones, who had not, said that warming continued … and you said there was no contradiction.

they were actually trying to show that ten years of zero trend in ENSO-adjusted data was a perfectly normal occurrance during an overall warming trend and nothing should be read into it — in other words, warning against exactly what you were trying to do.

This was an assumption on your part, and a bad one at that, as I even acknowledged NOAA’s comment that a ten year hiatus in warming was still within model parameters. I never claimed a decade without warming disproved AGW; I merely said we had experienced such a period - and, based on your chart, a period clearly not anticipated by Hansen.

I’m sure you can appreciate why I now like to check everything you claim to be quoting. … Sigh… I had assumed that you would know that I wouldn’t take anything that someone like Legates says at face value and that I wanted a link to the actual science.

You would find reason to cavil regardless. Since I was quoting Legates, he was my source and I provided the link to his talk … which contained the chart I cited.

OK, so the reason that the models have a pretty big range of values for this physical quantity is that it is poorly constrained by observation. …The paper is talking about “cloud water over ocean”, which is, according to the latest science, likely to be a very weakly positive feedback (Christy actually thinks negative) but pretty much a wash.

So, we don’t have good observational data about oceanic cloud cover and we have only recently determined that the phenomenon is “likely” to make little difference … but we are to be impressed with models that both get the values wrong and don’t know how to apply them because it turns out that their mistakes (in this area) don’t happen to affect the results?

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

Of course, it’s an excellent resource

.

Feel free to prove me wrong, though — post a comment or a question there that you think shows a real flaw in the science and find out if you’re censored or not. You can post it here as well so we can see for ourselves what they censored if they do. No need for conspiracy theories when there are virtually unlimited avenues for you to prove what they’re not letting through.

William Connelly and Wikipedia -

He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:

Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

THAT IS CENSORSHIP

Using RealClimate as an example is even funnier since they introduced the Bore Hole, where they publish all comments (other than spam or profanity) that they “censored” from the regular posts specifically so that nobody can accuse them of censorship! It’s an excellent resource because it shows all the abuse that they’ve been having to put up with all these years. Clearly some of the posters thought they could abuse the RC folks and nobody else would find out about it — they were actually relying on censorship to abuse with impunity.

Tsk Tsk…RealClimate started off as a censored blog - all you need to do is read the climate gate email.

From: “Michael E. Mann” To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa Subject: update Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500 Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

mike

– Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University Park, PA 16802-5013

met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

 

[kimmielittle]

I talked with the “chief modeler” and found out that they said that they KNEW what the results of the model were supposed to be, and so they adjusted to data going into the model to get the results they wanted.

Of course they KNOW…anyone that says different…I have little hope for.
You can not “program” a models functions without subjective (name removed by moderator)ut. Things like “anomalies” would not show-up. AND “anomalies” are what is being measured.

 

[JasonSB]

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but on the left side of these graphs, it looks like the measurements are in millimeters.
Am I correct?

That’s correct.

If so, can we please explain how they are that accurate with sea level measurements in the 1870’s?

The first graph is the one which measures sea levels in the 1870s:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif

Note the grey range surrounding the measurement? That’s the one standard deviation error range, which means that the global mean sea level was somewhere between 50 mm and 100 mm below ~1940 levels with a probability of approximately 67%. The range is so wide precisely because the number of reliable tide gauges going back that far is relatively small and the potential land movements relatively large, and the range narrows as we get closer to the present.

Likewise, with the second graph:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-2.gif

The one-standard-deviation error for the trend is also larger back then. With the current satellite altimetry the accuracy is 0.8 mm/year.

How is it possible to achieve those levels of accuracy? I suggest reading the paper that those graphs were taken from for an introduction, but basically the first step is to understand land movement where possible (due to glacial isostatic adjustment as the glaciers melt) and throw out readings where it’s simply too hard to know what land movement there has been with sufficient accuracy. The rest is pretty straightforward — if you have large numbers of observations with normally-distributed errors then you can increase the accuracy by averaging them. This is why you can buy GPS monitoring systems with sub-millimetre accuracy even though the GPS signal itself is only accurate to 10-20 m.

 

[JasonSB]

Had a situation not that long ago in which they found the measuring instrument was sinking.

Kind of threw the data down into the dumper.

Given that all land-based measuring instruments are going to be rising or falling at some rate, why would you think this is some new discovery? The only way to get accurate sea level changes is to explicity take glacial isostatic adjustment into account, as described in the literature, and well-known to the practitioners in the field.

And [of course](http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/coastal/publications/pdfs/Donnelly GRL 2004.pdf) those practicitioners are routinely in the habit of cross-checking with other, independent methods of sea level change to make sure that they have got it right.

[How big is a millimeter? A thousandth of a meter … a thousandth of 40 inches. A hundredth of four inches. A tenth of 0.4 inches. Or … about 0.04 inches. An eighth of an inch is 0.125 inches. So, there are people making claims of a ten foot increase or more … and the graphs of actual are less than an eighth of an inch.]

Actually, the rise since the last glacial maximum is over 120 metres, and that was following a 6 °C rise in temperatures. The last time CO2 levels were this high, “global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland”. So there is most certainly a prima facie case for concern about future sea level rise, don’t you think? If you want to dismiss the possibility that CO2 levels can result in substantial sea level rises, you really need to explain why that won’t happen again.

What makes it worse is that we know that the current models under-estimate future sea level rise because they don’t take into account meltwater runoff, which is currently responsible for about half the sea level rise:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

But to get back to your comment: “and the graphs of actual are less than an eighth of an inch” is simply wrong. Here is the graph of actual sea levels again:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif

Somebody check my math.

You seem to be very good at a trivial unit conversion from millimetres to inches, but terribly bad at reading the numbers off a graph. The graph clearly shows approximately 200 mm of sea level rise since 1870 — over sixty times as much!

Perhaps you got really confused and tried to compare the rate of sea level rise with actual sea levels. That would be like me finding the distance between LA and San Francisco implausible because of how fast my car was going in mph.

 

[JasonSB]

Even a non-scientific journal such as Newsweek gagged when confronted with these sea level predictions. It was too much even for them.

newsweek.com/2010/03/23/the-real-climate-scandal.html

I have to assume that you can’t have actually read the link you’ve provided — or at least, you stopped reading before you reached the words “I have to stop this parody” and the fact that it was inspired by a RealClimate post complaining about the fact that the news is making a big deal about an overestimate of a problem (Himalayan glaciers) but completely ignores a much more serious and well-known underestimate of a problem.

Yes, the IPCC report greatly underestimates sea level rise. This is well known and the reason for it is also spelled out clearly in the report itself. I even illustrated this in my last post:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

To try to use this to cast doubt on the fact that future sea level rise is going to be significant borders on the absurd.

It also explains many of your misconceptions on these issues. At the very least, try to read past the headlines in future.

 

[JasonSB]

I googled “sea level measurements sinking”

Another huge number of useful finds.

heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/29954/3_Sinking_under_Their_False_Sealevel_Predictions_Alarmists_Change_the_Data.html

I wonder why you would consider the Heartland Institute a reliable authority on sea level rise and not the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

Their post combines a too-short-period of measurement (sea level rise since 2006) with a claim that Glacial Isostatic Adjustment is “scientifically unjustified” despite all the science to the contrary and the common sense intuition that says if the land is rising (or falling), you need to compensate for that.

I can’t believe anybody listens to these guys. Do you believe then when they claim that there are no health effects from second-hand smoke? If not, what makes you think they’re being honest about the science this time?

And this one is kind of interesting:

seekerblog.com/2010/01/23/sea-level-rise-and-sinking-vanuatu/

Indeed. Quoting Barry Brook it says:

“You need to correct for crustal movements and a range of other biasing factors in order to accurately assess localised sea level rise. This is standard practice. The most comprehensive monitoring of the SLR in the Pacific Basin and Australia is the SeaFRAME (Sea Level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment) programme, which includes coverage of Vanuatu…] With all appropriate corrections applied, the rate for Vanuatu is 2.5 mm/yr.”

The author then goes on to say:

“Dear reader, I recommend that you proceed directly to the SeaFRAME links above provided by Dr. Brook don’t bother reading the rest of this post.”

So it seems the person writing the post was convinced by what he learnt of the need to compensate for changing land heights but you think his earlier post, where he didn’t yet know what was going on, is more valuable? Interesting indeed.

 

[JasonSB]

Can you provide us of evidence of the bolded part, please.

Which part are you disputing – the claim that he said the surface temperature record has a warm bias, or the claim that you believed him at the time?

The first is easy, which you would know if you had simply followed the link I provided. Here is what he was saying just a year ago:

“I can say with certainty that our findings show that there are differences in siting that cause a difference in temperatures, not only from a high and low type measurement but also from a trend measurement and a trend calculation.”

"The early arguments against this project said that all of these different biases are going to cancel themselves out and there would be cool biases as well as warm biases, **but we discovered that that wasn't the case. The vast majority of them are warm biases, and even such things as people thinking a tree might in fact keep the temperature cooler doesn't really end up that way.**"

Emphasis mine.

Compare that to the quote you helpfully provided:
Watts in 2011:

In the United States the biases in maximum and minimum temperature trends are about the same size, so they cancel each other and the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class.

Emphasis mine.

Notice how that is exactly the opposite of what he was saying a year ago? QED.

The second I can’t prove, because you could have been deliberately trying to create the impression that you believed all this rubbish when, in fact, you knew it was false. I’m simply assuming that you are posting in good faith.

Mr Watts…has said continues to say ] That individual measurements at faulty placed stations effect the readings at those stations.

So does Hansen and the rest of the scientific literature. That’s why they need to make adjustments that have been thoroughly described and documented for over 20 years now. But Watts went further and clearly said that the biases affected trend measurement and trend calculation, which is all that matters because that’s what Hansen et al are actually producing.

What Mr Watts did say via his recent paper, which doesn’t include UHI ] IS that BAD stations and GOOD stations, on this FIRST review paper ], show a canceling out of each other.

No, that’s not what he said. He said that BAD stations with a warming bias cancelled out BAD stations with a cooling bias so that the average trend for BAD stations was almost identical to the average trend for GOOD stations. That’s what it means when he says “the mean trends are not much different from siting class to siting class”. The mean trends of stations in the bad siting class are “not much different” to the mean trends of stations in the good siting class.

Which directly contradicts what he claimed before, and directly agrees with what he says others claimed when he said “The early arguments against this project said that all of these different biases are going to cancel themselves out and there would be cool biases as well as warm biases”. Guess what? They were right, and Watts now admits it.

Of course, if you cherry-pick those bad stations with a warming bias and ignore those bad stations with a cooling bias then you can accuse scientists of fraud and sustain outrage for years.

BTW: This paper wasn’t by Mr Watts alone.

No, but Watts is the one who spent years making all the big claims beforehand and his data was used and he did sign on as a co-author and therefore stands by the results.

Well…you certainly haven’t disproved them

I don’t need to, it’s already been done.

Here is how you can -
Show me RAW data that hasn’t undergone subjective adjustments.. Subjective adjustments… IS introducing potential “bias” and “taints” the RAW data.

Not only have I already shown how you can access the RAW data way back in the first thread, I showed you how to access to the RAW data before it had any adjustments, subjective or not. (Adjustments which, I should point out, we now know do NOT “bias” and “taint” the data anyway.)

The fact that you are still asking me to show it to you proves you either don’t understand what’s being given to you or that you are simply asking for it over and over again to waste people’s time and have no intention of actually checking it to see the truth for yourself.

Is your memory slipping again?

Mine certainly isn’t — I know what I gave you. You’re the one who appears not to understand.

I repeat:
Instead of your fallacies in logical thought ruling you…try proving me wrong.

Easily — the RAW data I pointed you to hasn’t undergone any adjustments so, by definition, it hasn’t undergone any subjective adjustments.

Actually wrong! once again…

We were talking about the temperature record, so you are actually wrong, once again.

Provide evidence that ANYONE has proven the unproven hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of climate And that ONLY by reducing CO2 can / will we lower global temperatures. OR even come close to the major claims made of such as Mr Gore / Hansen.

Please see large numbers of previous responses to you on this subject. I’m not going to waste time banging my head against a brick wall when you can’t even understand the fact that I’ve given you links to the RAW data before!

 

[JasonSB]

If I believe the claims by CRU - The Raw Data is gone.

Only if you don’t understand what they said.

It’s really not that complicated, but given the concept of RAW data seems to be beyond you perhaps I’m expecting too much.

The CRU asked bureaus of meteorology all over the world to give them data.

The CRU then analysed that data looking for obvious errors and adjusted it to remove them.

The CRU then discarded the original data because they could do all their work with the adjusted data.

The original data is still available at all those bureaus of meteorology all over the world! None of it was lost. If anybody wants to do the same thing, they can do exactly what the CRU did. Nobody is stopping them. Why should the CRU keep it? They put in all that effort to improve the quality of the data so that they could then use it — what would be the point if they’re still going to use the original data?

Don’t like it? Don’t trust their adjustments? Fine — don’t use their temperature record! Use GISS instead — after all, the RAW data, the source code, and the algorithms are ALL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

Of course, you don’t want to do that because GISS shows more warming than CRU does, doesn’t it? So you’d rather complain about CRU’s lack of openness while continuing to use their result than use a perfectly good result that is COMPLETELY PUBLIC AND OPEN.

As an objective “scientist” what did you think of it?

I have no opinion on his work because I have not assessed it (and AFAIK he has not published his methods nor his source code — unlike Hansen, for example), but like I said before in relation to Watts, Muller’s statements in support of the existing work should carry some weight for those who accept any statements critical of the existing work with no evidence.

Do you normally accept evidence…without “data” being presented or published papers?

No. Do you? (Sorry, trick question.)

that was really unfair of me - because I truly believed based on your prior posts to me and others] you would eventually bring up Mr Muller’s testimony - as evidence = you did not disappoint me. ]

Funny. I wasn’t impressed with Muller’s public posturing before he started, and I’m not impressed by his group’s lack of transparency now, but don’t expect me to ignore the fact that he has changed his tune so completely and the support he used to get amongs the “skeptics” has completely evaporated purely based on what he claims his results are. In other words, the “skeptics” will believe absolutely anybody who says anything they want to hear, and attack anybody who says anything they disagree with, even when it’s the same person.

Which is why I always use quotes around the word “skeptics” to describe these people.

Mr Hansen has had 30 + years with “Raw data” - “adjusted data” and even “adjusted - adjusted data”.

Then you shouldn’t have any difficulty finding where he went wrong, should you kimmie? Isn’t that the beauty of having all of that source code and RAW data PUBLICLY AVAILABLE?

1:This unproven hypothesis - fails Mr Poppers Falsifiability Test.lycos.com/info/karl-popper–sir-karl-popper.html

You really don’t know what that means, do you?

AGW made numerous predictions that came true, as I spelt out in great detail in the previous thread. The simply fact that can make those predictions and that those predications may or may not have turned out to be true makes the theory “falsifiable”. There is absolutely nothing at all “unscientific” about the theory, and repeatedly making this ridiculous claim simply shows how little you understand about both the theory and science.

2: “It has to be CO2 because we haven’t identified anything else” Is an “appeal to ignorance”, “argumentum ad ignorantiam”, or “Argument from ignorance” because there is no verified “null” ].

Which, of course, is also completely wrong. The science predicts — and, in fact, predicted — global warming because of the CO2 emissions long before the warming was actually detected.

If you want to claim that something else is responsible for the warming, then the first thing you have to do is explain why physics is wrong because physics predicts that increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in warming.

In Short: I don’t need Mr Hansen - Mr Jones et al AND their government funding to tell me the Climate Changes. I can observe it for myself, as can anyone else.

Actually, even when they do tell you things, you ignore it anyway — even something as basic as where the RAW data is.

The attempt is being made to sell us temperatures as empirical evidence for an unproven hypothesis… that is not science…that is pseudo-science.

How can you get the science this wrong after all that background information that I provided you with before?

Only by ignoring what you don’t want to see, I guess.

 

[JasonSB]

Place where I worked was doing some computer modeling and getting strange results.

Since I was not working on the project, that made me a disinterested person.

I talked with the “chief modeler” and found out that they said that they KNEW what the results of the model were supposed to be, and so they adjusted to data going into the model to get the results they wanted.

That makes no sense. Are you sure he didn’t mean they were adjusting free parameters in the model to calibrate it to known observations?

In any case, your anecdote would only have relevance if you could show that the global temperature reconstructions or the climate models work the same way.

Which, of course, you can’t, because the data going in is publicly available in raw form and the source code for several temperature reconstructions and climate models is publicly available as well so if they were “adjusting the data going in” to get the “results they wanted” you’d be able to demonstrate that.*]

I suppose that relating irrelevant anecdotes is a good backup strategy for some audiences when you can’t prove something is wrong even though all the information is available to you.

*] Actually, there is some (name removed by moderator)ut data that is poorly constrained by observations and is therefore “adjusted” in a way similar to what you describe. (Not exactly — in real life when something is poorly constrained you do a sensitivity analysis to see what range of possible outcomes the different possible (name removed by moderator)uts could have and it therefore introduces uncertainty in the possible outcomes, but why spoil a good conspiracy theory?) I’ll be interested to see if you know what I’m talking about.

 

[JasonSB]

This discussion was tedious then and has not improved with time. The “completely different things” being discussed were global warming over the previous decade and … global warming over the previous decade.

No.

The “completely different things” were an ENSO-adjusted trend of 0.0 C/decade from 1999-2008 by NOAA and a warming trend of 0.12 C/decade from 1995-2009 by Jones. If Jones had used ENSO-adjusted figures like NOAA did then the warming trend would have been 0.14 C/decade from 1995-2009.

Both the time period (10 years vs 15) and the thing actually being compared (ENSO-adjusted temperatures vs actual temperatures) were different.

To characterise both as “global warming over the previous decade” means you completely failed to grasp this.

NOAA, which had removed the cyclic ENSO contribution, said no warming had occurred.

No, NOAA said that the ENSO-adjusted trend was 0.0 C/decade from 1999-2008 but that that apparent lack of warming was merely a product of internal climate variablility and they explicitly explained that this was perfectly normal in an ongoing warming trend. They specifically reinforced the point about short time periods made in the video I pointed you to that you claimed NOAA disagreed with.

Jones, who had not, said that warming continued … and you said there was no contradiction.

Precisely because there was no contradiction.

This was an assumption on your part, and a bad one at that, as I even acknowledged NOAA’s comment that a ten year hiatus in warming was still within model parameters. I never claimed a decade without warming disproved AGW; I merely said we had experienced such a period - and, based on your chart, a period clearly not anticipated by Hansen.

You clearly suggested Jones was being dishonest because he reached a different conclusion to NOAA (apparently oblivious to the fact that they were using data from a paper that Jones himself had co-authored), and you clearly claimed that I was in disagreement with NOAA when I was not. E.g. “This is quite different than the 0.12 degree trend Phil Jones identified. So, which is correct? Is NOAA right or do you contest their report and reject their finding?” NOAA was right and so was Jones. Did you present a false dilemma because you were unaware of that or were you hoping that I was?

As for whether Hansen’s model anticipated a ten-year period of zero trend, the fact you raise that means you still haven’t got it.

Firstly, you’re looking at a single realisation of a few decades of Hansen’s model. Even if there was quite a significant chance of a decade of zero-trend in Hansen’s, you’re unlikely to see it in that graph.

Secondly, Hansen’s model prediction was of actual temperatures, not ENSO-adjusted temperatures! If you look at every single 10-year trend in the GISS record starting from every possible start month from January 1970 onwards, there are only ten times where you would have a decade of negative or zero trend — the last finishing over 15 years ago — vs. 367 times when the trend is positive. That’s only a 2.7% chance of having a non-positive trend for a decade in the past 41 years. The fact that Hansen’s model prediction may not have had a non-positive trend during the period in the graph is therefore completely realistic.

You would find reason to cavil regardless. Since I was quoting Legates, he was my source and I provided the link to his talk … which contained the chart I cited.

Par for the course, I suppose. If you were too forthcoming there’s a real risk I might find it before I gave up looking.

So, we don’t have good observational data about oceanic cloud cover and we have only recently determined that the phenomenon is “likely” to make little difference …

This is pretty basic stuff. If an effect is obvious and easy to measure then it’s normally precisely because it’s important and it matters. If an effect is elusive and hard to quantify then it’s normally precisely because it’s less important and isn’t as significant.

Newton’s Laws vs Relativity are a good example. Newton’s Laws were discovered hundreds of years before Relativity was and for most of that time nobody realised they were wrong because the difference was undetectable.

What has only recently been determined is that the phenomenon may, indeed, be a slightly postive warming feedback, contrary to what several “skeptics” have suggested. It was clear for a long time that it didn’t make a huge difference.

but we are to be impressed with models that both get the values wrong and don’t know how to apply them because it turns out that their mistakes (in this area) don’t happen to affect the results?

Think about it — if global warming was highly sensitive to cloud moisture content, and cloud moisture content was highly sensitive to warming from greenhouse gas emissions, then we’d be able to quantify it. The very fact that it’s only recently that slightly more evidence is piling up on the “positive feedback” side than on the “negative feedback” side is evidence, in itself, that global warming is not highly sensitive to this effect and therefore neither should the models be.

It wasn’t that long ago that prominent “skeptics” were insisting that clouds would be a strongly negative feedback and that therefore there was nothing to worry about.

You seem strangely silent about the obvious bait-and-switch by Legates, though. Don’t you think his presentation was “rather reliant” on false claims for you to be citing it as a source? After all, conflating water vapour (with a known, strongly positive feedback) with cloud moisture content (with a largely unknown but likely slightly positive feedback) seems like more than an “oopsie”, don’t you think?

 

[JasonSB]

.

William Connelly and Wikipedia -

No wonder you keep getting confused about the word “proof”.

Here’s a hint: The number of times William Connelly has edited pages on Wikipedia is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Michael Mann’s comments about RC are at least on topic, but, sadly, do not invalidate the observation that RC has changed policy since then and introduced the Bore Hole that I already described to you. (Not that this has any relevance whatsoever to the correctness of the science — it’s still a red herring, pure and simple.)

It’s interesting that you think a 2006 email invalidates an observational fact.

It’s also interesting that you’re using this to in response to my comments that Skeptical Science is an excellent resource, yet there is absolutely nothing pertaining to Skeptical Science in your response.

Apparently your entire “argument” boils down to “”. Also par for the course.

I clearly described how you could prove me wrong. I guess it didn’t work out the way you expected, eh?