thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 90,708
The error bars should be shown on historical climate modeling.
Even the modelers know that models aren't accurate. Useful, yes, accurate, no.
Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?
- Thread starter toubab
- Start date
The error bars should be shown on historical climate modeling.
Even the modelers know that models aren't accurate. Useful, yes, accurate, no.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Voila.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Exactly who picked this 'optimum' global temperature, the deviation from which is considered an 'anomaly?'
The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods are well documented, and steadfastly ignored by the alarmists, why is that? Could it be that they're associated with prosperity and plenty? Prosperity and plenty make it damn difficult to alarm the peasants.
Why is it that statistically derived historical temperatures are always subject to question, statistically derived modern temperatures are never to be questioned? (Although that seems to be changing recently............finally.)
I wonder if the alarmists ever stop to consider the consequences of what they want to be done about atmospheric CO2? They are now pushing the notion that CO2 is a pollutant. I suspect that if you could interview the Oak tree you might get a differing opinion. Crop yields have been increasing annually for quite some time now. A great deal of that is due to genetic engineering (and/or selective breeding) along with more sophisticated farming methods. But a great deal is also due to the increased atmospheric CO2. Nursery operators have been using bottled CO2 to increase the saturation in their nurseries for decades now to increase yields and produce more robust plants. On a planet where the worlds grain reserves are a mere 70 days now it would seem to me that reducing atmospheric CO2 may not be the smartest idea being floated. Unless, of course, the idea is to starve a couple billion people. I can see a couple of groups, both left and right, that would be on-board for that notion.
Ishmael
The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods are well documented, and steadfastly ignored by the alarmists, why is that? Could it be that they're associated with prosperity and plenty? Prosperity and plenty make it damn difficult to alarm the peasants.
Why is it that statistically derived historical temperatures are always subject to question, statistically derived modern temperatures are never to be questioned? (Although that seems to be changing recently............finally.)
I wonder if the alarmists ever stop to consider the consequences of what they want to be done about atmospheric CO2? They are now pushing the notion that CO2 is a pollutant. I suspect that if you could interview the Oak tree you might get a differing opinion. Crop yields have been increasing annually for quite some time now. A great deal of that is due to genetic engineering (and/or selective breeding) along with more sophisticated farming methods. But a great deal is also due to the increased atmospheric CO2. Nursery operators have been using bottled CO2 to increase the saturation in their nurseries for decades now to increase yields and produce more robust plants. On a planet where the worlds grain reserves are a mere 70 days now it would seem to me that reducing atmospheric CO2 may not be the smartest idea being floated. Unless, of course, the idea is to starve a couple billion people. I can see a couple of groups, both left and right, that would be on-board for that notion.
Ishmael
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Scientific Integrity Versus Ideologically-Fueled Research
May 25, 2015
by Judith Curry, Ph.D.
Scientific Integrity Versus Ideologically-Fueled Research
...
• If this value of science is to be protected, evidence must be able to challenge currently held views. Premature declarations of ‘consensus’ and attempts to marginalize those that disagree have become institutionalized in climate science, with strong statements of advocacy being made by professional societies (e.g. AGU, APS).
• . . . failing to be responsive to genuine empirical concerns, because doing so would make one’s political point weaker or undermine a cherished ideological perspective. JC: Climate science is rife with such examples, the most notorious example being the ‘hockey stick’. Another example is Lindzen’s iris hypothesis (which is the topic of a forthcoming post).
• If a scientist, or a political leader using science, insists on making a point based on evidence even when clear criticisms undermining their use of that evidence have been raised, and they fail to respond to those criticisms, one is warranted in suspecting that the cherry-picked evidence is but a smokescreen for a deeply held value commitment serving an improper direct role, and that ultimately, the evidence is irrelevant. JC: Well this pretty much sums up the approach being used by President Obama and his advisors with regard to climate change.
• One needs to assess whether a sufficiently diverse range of scientists (to ensure adequate criticisms of each other’s work are being raised) are working on a range of projects that do not just serve a narrow set of interests. JC: This is an issue of key importance for climate science, which was raised recently by the post "Is federal funding biasing climate research?"
more...
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/25/scientific-integrity-versus-ideologically-fueled-research/
by Judith Curry, Ph.D.
Scientific Integrity Versus Ideologically-Fueled Research
...
• If this value of science is to be protected, evidence must be able to challenge currently held views. Premature declarations of ‘consensus’ and attempts to marginalize those that disagree have become institutionalized in climate science, with strong statements of advocacy being made by professional societies (e.g. AGU, APS).
• . . . failing to be responsive to genuine empirical concerns, because doing so would make one’s political point weaker or undermine a cherished ideological perspective. JC: Climate science is rife with such examples, the most notorious example being the ‘hockey stick’. Another example is Lindzen’s iris hypothesis (which is the topic of a forthcoming post).
• If a scientist, or a political leader using science, insists on making a point based on evidence even when clear criticisms undermining their use of that evidence have been raised, and they fail to respond to those criticisms, one is warranted in suspecting that the cherry-picked evidence is but a smokescreen for a deeply held value commitment serving an improper direct role, and that ultimately, the evidence is irrelevant. JC: Well this pretty much sums up the approach being used by President Obama and his advisors with regard to climate change.
• One needs to assess whether a sufficiently diverse range of scientists (to ensure adequate criticisms of each other’s work are being raised) are working on a range of projects that do not just serve a narrow set of interests. JC: This is an issue of key importance for climate science, which was raised recently by the post "Is federal funding biasing climate research?"
more...
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/25/scientific-integrity-versus-ideologically-fueled-research/
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 90,708
Historical, not recent history. If history could be accurately modeled to a tenth of a degree, plus or minus, there's be fewer arguments.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
That is utterly ridiculous. There's no possible way for mere human activity to be causing such a worldwide increase in crop yields or benefitting any oak trees.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
A tenth of a degree would be nice, but the top graph (GISP 2 Greenland) tells us a lot. We do have a lot of years of current record and because the sample was taken from the same core we can extrapolate temperatures going back several thousands of years. It appears that the Earth heats up and the Earth cools down regardless of mans activities.
Maybe a line of research that at least makes a passing attempt to explain those past temperature excursions might be more fruitful. Could it be the Sun? The Gods forbid that the Earths primary source of energy, by orders of magnitude, be found to have an effect. That would pretty much ruin the whole damn narrative they're trying to sell us.
Ishmael
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
All the scientists studying the sun are government shills.
Super-Surprise
Loves ****
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Posts
- 74,462
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 90,708
I wish to see the error bars on the GISP 2 Greenland plot.
Still, everyone wants the one answer........when there are many contributing factors.
There is no one answer.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
"However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise."
-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorologic Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorologic Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
________________________
Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's CRU publicly admitted on the BBC this year [2010] that there is no statistically significant warming.
Q: “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?"
A: “the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. "
Q: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
A: “Yes"
Q: “Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?"
A: “No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."
A: “the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. "
Q: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
A: “Yes"
Q: “Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?"
A: “No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant."
BBC interview with Professor Phil Jones of CRU – 13 February 2010
Full interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
_________________
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith regarding the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? …We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
-Phil Jones
_________________________
“Why should I make my data available to you when your only objective is to find something wrong with it?"
-Phil Jones, Ph.D.
Professor, University of East Anglia
Climate Research Unit
Professor, University of East Anglia
Climate Research Unit
________________________
The change in my written views since 2008 is most easily summarized by my rejection of argumentum ad populam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ). I along with many others trusted what the IPCC has done and generally supported the consensus. I no longer substitute the judgment of the IPCC for my own in my written or oral presentations. And if you think I was wrong to do so in the first place, well so do I, but most everyone else was doing it, and I fell for the argument “don’t trust what one scientist says, but trust what thousands of international scientists have to say in a formal assessment process." The other change has been my serious investigation into the subject of scientific uncertainty, which I think has been woefully lacking in most of the field and certainly the IPCC.
-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorologic Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorologic Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
...For the purposes of this book there are two main conclusions to be drawn from the emails. Firstly that senior climatologists have sought to undermine the peer review process and bully journals into supressing dissenting views. This means that the scientific literature is no longer a representation of the state of human knowledge about the climate. It is a representation of what a small cabal of scientists feel is worthy of discussion. Secondly, the IPCC reports represent the outcome of a process in which a relatively small group of scientists produce a biased review of a literature they themselves have colluded to distort through gatekeeping and intimidation. The emails establish a pattern of behaviour that is completely at odds with what the public has been told regarding the integrity of climate science and the rigour of the IPCC report-writing process. It is clear that the public can no longer trust what they have been told. What is less clear is what we, as ordinary citizens, can do in the face of the powerful, relentless forces of corrupted science, to set things right. Awareness, however, is the essential first step.
-Andrew W. Montford
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science
London, England (UK) 2010.
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science
London, England (UK) 2010.
__________________
...interview with Prof Richard Muller:
On Climategate–
“What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/...k-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/
The Age Of Disinformation
https://medium.com/@spann/the-age-of-disinformation-98d55837d7d9
"I have been a professional meteorologist for 36 years. Since my debut on television in 1979, I have been an eyewitness to the many changes in technology, society, and how we communicate. I am one who embraces change, and celebrates the higher quality of life we enjoy now thanks to this progress.
But, at the same time, I realize the instant communication platforms we enjoy now do have some negatives that are troubling. Just a few examples in recent days…
I would say hundreds of people have sent this image to me over the past 24 hours via social media.
Comments are attached… like “This is a cloud never seen before in the U.S.”… “can’t you see this is due to government manipulation of the weather from chemtrails”… “no doubt this is a sign of the end of the age”.
Let’s get real. This is a lenticular cloud. They have always been around, and quite frankly aren’t that unusual (although it is an anomaly to see one away from a mountain range). The one thing that is different today is that almost everyone has a camera phone, and almost everyone shares pictures of weather events. You didn’t see these often in earlier decades because technology didn’t allow it. Lenticular clouds are nothing new. But, yes, they are cool to see.
No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis.
The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.
Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.
But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper. There is no comparison. In fact, many circulated this image in recent days, claiming it is “Houston underwater” from the flooding of May 25–26, 2015. The truth is that this image was captured in June 2001 during flooding from Allison.
Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.
On the other issue, the entire climate change situation has become politicized, which I hate. Those on the right, and those on the left hang out in “echo chambers”, listening to those with similar world views refusing to believe anything else could be true.
Everyone knows the climate is changing; it always has, and always will. I do not know of a single “climate denier”. I am still waiting to meet one.
The debate involves the anthropogenic impact, and this is not why I am writing this piece. Let’s just say the Houston flood this week is weather, and not climate, and leave it at that.
I do encourage you to listen to the opposing point of view in the climate debate, but be sure the person you hear admits they can be wrong, and has no financial interest in the issue. Unfortunately, those kind of qualified people are very hard to find these days. It is also hard to find people that discss climate without using the words “neocon” and “libtard”. I honestly can’t stand politics; it is tearing this nation apart.
Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.
You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…"
https://medium.com/@spann/the-age-of-disinformation-98d55837d7d9
"I have been a professional meteorologist for 36 years. Since my debut on television in 1979, I have been an eyewitness to the many changes in technology, society, and how we communicate. I am one who embraces change, and celebrates the higher quality of life we enjoy now thanks to this progress.
But, at the same time, I realize the instant communication platforms we enjoy now do have some negatives that are troubling. Just a few examples in recent days…
I would say hundreds of people have sent this image to me over the past 24 hours via social media.
Comments are attached… like “This is a cloud never seen before in the U.S.”… “can’t you see this is due to government manipulation of the weather from chemtrails”… “no doubt this is a sign of the end of the age”.
Let’s get real. This is a lenticular cloud. They have always been around, and quite frankly aren’t that unusual (although it is an anomaly to see one away from a mountain range). The one thing that is different today is that almost everyone has a camera phone, and almost everyone shares pictures of weather events. You didn’t see these often in earlier decades because technology didn’t allow it. Lenticular clouds are nothing new. But, yes, they are cool to see.
No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis.
The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.
Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.
But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper. There is no comparison. In fact, many circulated this image in recent days, claiming it is “Houston underwater” from the flooding of May 25–26, 2015. The truth is that this image was captured in June 2001 during flooding from Allison.
Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.
On the other issue, the entire climate change situation has become politicized, which I hate. Those on the right, and those on the left hang out in “echo chambers”, listening to those with similar world views refusing to believe anything else could be true.
Everyone knows the climate is changing; it always has, and always will. I do not know of a single “climate denier”. I am still waiting to meet one.
The debate involves the anthropogenic impact, and this is not why I am writing this piece. Let’s just say the Houston flood this week is weather, and not climate, and leave it at that.
I do encourage you to listen to the opposing point of view in the climate debate, but be sure the person you hear admits they can be wrong, and has no financial interest in the issue. Unfortunately, those kind of qualified people are very hard to find these days. It is also hard to find people that discss climate without using the words “neocon” and “libtard”. I honestly can’t stand politics; it is tearing this nation apart.
Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.
You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…"
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Because someone who has made his living as a TV weatherman is who we should be getting climate science information from.....
Last edited:
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Because someone with a doctorate in electrical engineering who has made his living as a TV weatherman is who we should be getting climate science information from.....
You're suffering a very bad case of mental diarrhea.
Most would find it an embarrassing public display.
Suggested procedural order:
1. Check facts
2. Post comment
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
So you're assertion is that he's NOT a weatherman? The very first sentence of the linked article he refers to himself as a TV weatherman for nearly 4 decades.
A TV weatherman, the only occupation in existence that can be absolutely wrong 90% of the time and still have a job next week.
Yup, that's where *I* go for my climatology information.
Also, it took you five minutes to post THAT? My post was edited 5 minutes before you managed to post the old quote.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Twenty (20) years. No warming.
Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed
time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from
CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the
changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the
simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate
Source: Remote Sensing Systems ("RSS")
RSS is the collector and compiler of one of the primary temperature datasets used in climatology. The data are in general agreement with the other temperature datasets (Hadley Centre-Met Office, NASA-Goddard Institute and NASA-UAH).
Last edited:
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,469
lol
Every reading since 1994 is above the norm. It cracks me up that you post these graphs that say exactly the opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate.
Every reading since 1994 is above the norm. It cracks me up that you post these graphs that say exactly the opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Not just above the norm, way above the norm. The zero line is the average between 1974 and 1989. An average zero line between 1951 and 1980 would be off the graph completely.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,469
I know. I was just making with the funny that Trysail's graphs always say the opposite of what he thinks they say.
Similar threads
- seeshelly
- General Board