Climategate II -

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Climategate II -

Post by seedload »

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... s-arrived/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Fun, Fun, Fun!
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.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

On Models:
["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:
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

Aren't we over this? There was no climategate in the first place. Nada. The scientists aren't making shit up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Completely independent study, run by skeptics, funded by skeptics. Don't know what else you want.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

JohnSmith wrote:Aren't we over this? There was no climategate in the first place. Nada. The scientists aren't making shit up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

Completely independent study, run by skeptics, funded by skeptics. Don't know what else you want.
Except for the part about being independent, or run by skeptics, or funded by skeptics.

Or doing decent statistical analysis.

Or that the other lead author agreed with Muller's claims.

Or that most skeptics even disputed the general notion of a 1850-2010 warming trend to begin with.

Or the dozens of instances of dishonest, tendentious behavior revealed in the emails, e.g.:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/m ... e-problem/

I could go on but there are only so many hours in the day.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

It Just Keeps Getting Better

Post by Jccarlton »

An exchange from Climate audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behi ... more-15041
When you have data that you admit is "crap" and use it anyway because it serves your agenda you have just screwed yourselves.

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

JohnSmith wrote:Aren't we over this?
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...

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Professor Muller, a vocal skeptic did a study not too long ago.

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/10/3 ... g-is-real/

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."

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

ScottL wrote:Professor Muller, a vocal skeptic did a study not too long ago.

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/10/3 ... g-is-real/

1. Muller is a skeptic....or was...
Only as so much as he disagreed with Mann's "hockey stick".

It is funny how all these claims are always distored (from both sides), especially in internet flamewars.

E.g.:

"Professor Muller, warming sceptic, did a study, now says global warming is real".

Reality:

- Professor Muller exists

- He was part of team that checked some temperature data, he did not do it alone.

- He was only ever sceptic w.r.t. to Mann's hockey stick. It is interesting that you get labeled "denier" if you disagree with any part of faith...

- They have found the climate has warmed in the last century.

Now tell how all this translates into "this proves we have to cut CO2 or we are all going to die" mantra?

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

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...

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

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.

charliem
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 8:55 pm

Post by charliem »

I just cut my hand.

It's not a big cut but I've been told that there's always a possibility of gangrene, even from minor wounds, a life threatening condition.

What should I do?

Will cleaning it with a bit of a disinfectant be enough?

Maybe I should go to hospital and ask to stay a few days, just in case.

Or, following the precautionary principle, wouldn't it be safer to have my left arm removed?

You know, being my life at risk, and in the absence of positive proof that this cut is harmless, it would be reckless not to.

[ironic mode off]
"The problem is not what we don't know, but what we do know [that] isn't so" (Mark Twain)

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Cause there's no such thing as a centuries-long history of the exact symptoms and diagnostics and caring for hand-cuts. Just like global climate.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

JohnSmith wrote:Aren't we over this? There was no climategate in the first place. Nada. The scientists aren't making shit up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

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.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

seedload wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:Aren't we over this? There was no climategate in the first place. Nada. The scientists aren't making shit up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

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.

Luzr
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:23 pm

Post by Luzr »

ScottL wrote: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.
What I want do not want to see that we have wasted money and time then find something ELSE was real and it is now too late.

And we might even make the real problem worse by pursuing CO2 cuts. E.g. what if the real problem is deforestation?

In the name of reducing fossil fuel consumption, large scale deforestation is being performed to e.g. produce palm oil....

Post Reply