I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
<3373> Bradley:
Not as damning as some of the others, but funny in context.
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:
No, but we are definitely getting there. IPCC AR5 si moving climate sensitivity estimates down and reduces estimates of human activity impacts, increases the role of natural climate variability. All things that skeptics were claiming all the time.
It will take some more time, but I can see that scientific process starts to heal itself and maybe, in 5-8 years, 'climate science' will be trustworthy again...
1. Muller is a skeptic....or was...
2. Study funded by Charles Koch Foundation
3. Site: http://berkeleyearth.org/
It is what it is, but likely on a lesser scale then previously predicted. In the end there's still an effect however hyped it may be.
Good Quote:
Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.
"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."
What is telling about Muller's PR unscientific and biased PR blitz AHEAD of peer review, is that his coauthor, Judith Curry, totally disagrees with him on these concusions and calls the papers "still deeply flawed".... Personally, I think Muller did this simply to get off the governments funding blacklist...
IntLibber wrote:What is telling about Muller's PR unscientific and biased PR blitz AHEAD of peer review, is that his coauthor, Judith Curry, totally disagrees with him on these concusions and calls the papers "still deeply flawed".... Personally, I think Muller did this simply to get off the governments funding blacklist...
Who needs the government with one of the Koch brothers behind you? I view his research more like the neutrino FTL debate. They eliminated one potential error from the research (cities as warm zones). This by no means states that our impact is as great as it is estimated, but I don't think there's much denying we have an impact on our system.
Regardless of your view on our impact, that does not mean we should simply avoid cutting CO2 overall to allow a more natural state. I think we have to be realists here and say, alright we've got on-going research, but in the meantime what can we do to at least reduce our carbon footprint.
Completely independent study, run by skeptics, funded by skeptics. Don't know what else you want.
To show that there is AGW, you need to show three things:
1) it is getting warmer.
2) the warming is unprecedented.
3) the unprecedented warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
Saying, a skeptic agrees on point 1, case closed, is pretty lame, IMHO. You are taking the aside of the reliability of the industrial temperature record and pretending that it is the entirety of the skeptical argument when, in most cases, it is a very small part of it.
Most serious skepticism about AGW is centered around points 2 and 3. The most damning points in the Climate Gate emails surround those points as well. I think you should take the time to understand the actual argument before you so easily dismiss it.
Completely independent study, run by skeptics, funded by skeptics. Don't know what else you want.
To show that there is AGW, you need to show three things:
1) it is getting warmer.
2) the warming is unprecedented.
3) the unprecedented warming is caused by CO2 emissions.
Saying, a skeptic agrees on point 1, case closed, is pretty lame, IMHO. You are taking the aside of the reliability of the industrial temperature record and pretending that it is the entirety of the skeptical argument when, in most cases, it is a very small part of it.
Most serious skepticism about AGW is centered around points 2 and 3. The most damning points in the Climate Gate emails surround those points as well. I think you should take the time to understand the actual argument before you so easily dismiss it.
Seed, I completely agree. Having a skeptic say they agree on a single aspect isn't enough, however; I don't think that's the case.
1. We all agree it is warming.
2. There is disagreement here, but I doubt warming is unprecedented personally.
3. It is agreed that some of the warming is the result of our CO2 emissions, how much is up for debate.
It's ideal to have this research carried out such that we eliminate potential errors. What none of us want to see is that we take too long eliminating errors and then find out it was real and too late. Regardless, I still think cutting CO2 emissions in general is a good thing.