Eat that GW believers!

[bcglorf]

I wonder what peoples responses are to this link...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

Without following the link, I would consider 1998 an unfair year to start a sample on because of the strong El Nino. I think it deceptive to start in 1998.

I'd agree on the bigger basis that a 10 year trend is hardly a fair assessment of global climate trends.

On the same basis, it seems equally unfair to choose 1950 as the year to switch from proxy to instrumental data in representing temperatures of the last 1000 years. That didn't stop multiple papers doing exactly that from passing peer-review and being hailed by the IPCC as a lynch pin proof of human influence on climate...

[IntLibber]

I wonder what peoples responses are to this link...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

Without following the link, I would consider 1998 an unfair year to start a sample on because of the strong El Nino. I think it deceptive to start in 1998.

I'd agree on the bigger basis that a 10 year trend is hardly a fair assessment of global climate trends.

On the same basis, it seems equally unfair to choose 1950 as the year to switch from proxy to instrumental data in representing temperatures of the last 1000 years. That didn't stop multiple papers doing exactly that from passing peer-review and being hailed by the IPCC as a lynch pin proof of human influence on climate...

Replying to seedload. Its equally unfair to choose 1979 either, which was at the end of a 40 year cooling period, and the point of maximum ice extent in the arctic. Whats good for the goose....

[jmc]

Replying to all of you READ THE LINK!!!!!

This link states that global sea-temperatures have actually risen since 1998 and the total ammount of heat including the sea and land has steadily gone up. The link states that the reason it got cooler on land was simply due to a transfer of energy from the land to the sea and that overall global warming can be shown to have continued.

I was wondering how people would reply to this.





On another note, there is an interesting graph showing levels of urbanisation and the temperature anomaly around the world and there doesn't seem to be a correlation, this could suggest that while the standards of the NOAA database are outrageusly below par, this fact still doesn't falsify global warming.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2 ... island.php

[TDPerk]

"Replying to all of you READ THE LINK!!!!! "

Yeah. Yeah. I read the link. Then I read the webpage it linked to ;^)

Who cares?! Why should anyone?!

The "paper", which I'm sure is or is going to be "peer reviewed", stands in support of known fraud.

The best explanation for it's agreeing with known fraud is that is either overt fraud, or the result of self deception.

If by genuinely critical, manifold replication by other investigators, their idea that the oceans have warmed while the atmosphere has cooled is shown to be true*, then it will have value. Right now it has no more import than a small boy crying wolf...

...there may even be a wolf, but who in their right minds would believe them at this point?

Also, it comes from a site dedicated to the notion that persons critical of AGW and their skepticism should be torn down. Given the direction the dominoes are falling in this debate, and exclusivity so far of skeletons being in the AGWarmers closets, the idea that that is the appropriate direction for skepticism to go is a little presumptious. When obvious forests are taken from eyes, worry then about possible splinters.

*There's also the little problem that there is no known mechanism by which CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased energy to go to the oceans without the only known heat transfer mechanism--a warmer atmosphere--existing to cause the ocean temp increase.

Additionally the paper used the GISS dataset, which is now known to be affected by the AGW fraud.

There's nothing here of import.

When eight or ten papers by people with no professional relationship to each other agree with these results, arrived at by varied means, then it will begin to have weight.

[alexjrgreen]

*There's also the little problem that there is no known mechanism by which CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased energy to go to the oceans without the only known heat transfer mechanism--a warmer atmosphere--existing to cause the ocean temp increase.

Increased condensation, as a result of cosmic rays or atmospheric particulates, will cause heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean.

[KitemanSA]

Increased condensation, as a result of cosmic rays or atmospheric particulates, will cause heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean.

Perhaps you mean a loss of evaporation? In the overall heat balance, evaporation from the ocean is the main ocean cooling mechanism, no? After all, condensation happens up in the clouds where the vapors give up their heat to the atmosphere.

IF, and this is a big if, AGW is happening, it may be accompanied by "Global Dimming" which hypothesizes a reduction in evaporation from the oceans, which then decreases the cooling of the ocean, ... One mechanism to "warm" the ocean is the sun, with a reduction in cooling. Atmospheric temperature need not apply.

No stake in the fracus per se, just a thought.

PS: if you want a REAL conspiracy theory about AGW:
The aliens want us to kill ourselves with AGW while thereby making the biosphere more compatible with their cold-blooded reptilian bodies, so they influence semi-powerful folks and medium grade scientists to grossly oversell the data with respect to the existing (but only marginally detectable) phenomenon and then cause a leak to the "oversell" to be made public, therein discrediting all future REAL science about this disasterous condition. Having discredited the subject, AGW runs amok and accomplishes the alien's dastardly scheme!
WOW, we're all dead!

[seedload]

... this fact still doesn't falsify global warming.

Personally, I don't deny global warming. I think it has gotten warmer recently. Showing that the ocean is a big heat sink or presenting that second terrible justification for there not being an urban heat island effect in GISS data doesn't really mean much to me. I agree that it is getting warmer. I just don't agree that it is due to CO2.

The causal relationship has not been demonstrated.

The AGW supporters know this. They can't demonstrate cause. So, in order to attempt to demonstrate cause, they resort to trying to show that the recent temperatures are unpresidented. Personally, I think this is weak evidence of a causal relationship even if they could show it, but it is all they really have to hang their hats on, so thats where they go.

In the process, the MWP disappears due to really crappy proxy reconstructions and the instrumental temperature record is tweaked to show a slightly exagerated warming. All in the effort to show cause. Sometimes independently, sometimes subconciously, sometimes purposefully, and sometimes in agreement with others.

The fact that these things have happened is confirmed. Ignoring it is not justified. Actually, I believe the fact that a person independent of situation would choose to ignore it is a pretty good verification of the kind of conspiracy that is actually taking place. It is a conspiracy of belief. There are a lot of scientists, supporters, environmentalists, and politicians out there that want to believe in AGW so much that they are willing to ignore and dismiss evidence of fraud using much the same rational for doing so that the original perpitrators probably used in committing the fraud in the first place.

That said, I don't think the potential for fraud eliminates global warming, which I agree is happening over a very short time scale.

[bcglorf]

Replying to all of you READ THE LINK!!!!!

This link states that global sea-temperatures have actually risen since 1998 and the total ammount of heat including the sea and land has steadily gone up. The link states that the reason it got cooler on land was simply due to a transfer of energy from the land to the sea and that overall global warming can be shown to have continued.

I was wondering how people would reply to this.

I stand by stating a great big so what? Ten years doesn't tell us very much about long term climate trends, it doesn't matter to me which 'side' wants to point at it and claim victory, it's equally meaningless.

What seems more interesting to me is the sudden shift from global temperature to global heat content. The energy balance was always the better data to go after over temperature, but suddenly we want to appeal to it when temperatures peaked 10 years ago.

This is the 'bias' that has been sitting behind the scenes, and is what was most damning about the emails leaked. Not any malicious or deliberate bias, but rather an intent eagerness to try and find relationships between warming and CO2 increases. It has created an environment where the accuracy of a new reconstruction is not judged on it's merits, but on it's 'fit' with existing results.
1. Both the GISS and NOAA 'error corrections' more than double the observed warming in the instrumental record over the last 100 years, and reference the proximity to each other as verification of accuracy. And oh, happy coincidence, in agreement with estimates of CO2 warming within the same papers...
2. When the proxy data reconstruction in temperature graphs doesn't spike from 1900 onwards, it is massaged and if needed outright replaced with the instrumental record. If one of the proxy data sets goes off in the wrong direction after 1900, no worries, for some reason we don't understand fully the way to 'correct' for this is to simply invert that dataset...
3.Jones openly discusses in one of the leaked emails the process by which a reconstruction is approached. One where a great deal of external knowledge is applied to get the 'right' temperature over a region. Not based on raw data or methods, but on what is already 'known' to be the more accurate result. Data massaged in this way can not by used as independent verification of anything, but Jones clearly discusses acceptance as a REASON this kind of adjustment was important.
4.The leaked source code reveals that number 3 is by no means an anomaly. It seems more likely the case it is standard procedure, which DOES call into question not only Jones' results, but the independence of any results derived in a similar fashion with similar assumptions of what answers were right or wrong.

This whole thing speaks to a poisoning of the basic scientific method and reliability of the independence of temperature reconstruction models that rely heavily on such 'adjustments' and 'corrections'.

[alexjrgreen]

Increased condensation, as a result of cosmic rays or atmospheric particulates, will cause heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean.

Perhaps you mean a loss of evaporation? In the overall heat balance, evaporation from the ocean is the main ocean cooling mechanism, no? After all, condensation happens up in the clouds where the vapors give up their heat to the atmosphere.

Memo to self: engage brain...

[TDPerk]

"1. Both the GISS and NOAA 'error corrections' more than double the observed warming in the instrumental record over the last 100 years, and reference the proximity to each other as verification of accuracy. And oh, happy coincidence, in agreement with estimates of CO2 warming within the same papers... "

And then they take the satellite data, and decide now they know exactly how much the satellite sensors have degraded, and they tweak those number up until they agree with the upwardly tweaked "surface instrument" temperatures.

All of them need to be laughed at, and some of them need to go to prison.

How many hundreds of millions would have died early or never lived because they wanted us to abandon the resources that permitted them to live?

[Josh Cryer]

Take a random sample of all measurements: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ssessment/

Lots of smoke: http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smo ... lsify-data

Remember the whole "weather stations are suspect" nonsense? They even made a website where people could go take pictures of weather stations, in order to "discredit" the science, of course we know the science is still sound: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

[TallDave]

Or this graph. Created from the unintentionally released CRU's code, an arbitrary adjustment to the temperature record.
regards

Wow, that is incredibly damning.

[Josh Cryer]

Or this graph. Created from the unintentionally released CRU's code, an arbitrary adjustment to the temperature record.
regards

Wow, that is incredibly damning.

It would be damning if that graph made it in to any publications. They already said the artificial correction code was commented out in any published papers, it was merely there as a test case. Don't be so easily misled.

But yes, it would be horrific if that code was used as a basis for publication in peer review, if anything this shows that it most certainly was not.

[TallDave]

Or this graph. Created from the unintentionally released CRU's code, an arbitrary adjustment to the temperature record.
regards

Wow, that is incredibly damning.

It would be damning if that graph made it in to any publications. They already said the artificial correction code was commented out in any published papers, it was merely there as a test case. Don't be so easily misled.

But yes, it would be horrific if that code was used as a basis for publication in peer review, if anything this shows that it most certainly was not.

Uh huh. I trust those statements about as far as I can throw Al Gore. What proof is there the code was commented out in publication? This is the first time anyone has ever seen the code.

Why doesn't the raw data match the massaged numbers?

Don't be so quick to believe. Science is skepticism.

[TallDave]

Take a random sample of all measurements: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ssessment/

That selection is NOT ARBITARY.

As an example, we extracted a sample of raw land-surface station data and corresponding CRU data. These were arbitrarily selected based on the following criteria: the length of record should be ~100 years or longer, and the standard reference period 1961–1990 (used to calculate SAT anomalies) must contain no more than 4 missing values.

We've lost something like 90% of stations. Guess which are more likely to be 100 years or longer, those in rural areas or urban/suburban? Guess which is more likely to have growing heat island effects?

Remember the whole "weather stations are suspect" nonsense? They even made a website where people could go take pictures of weather stations, in order to "discredit" the science, of course we know the science is still sound: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

That website is here http://www.surfacestations.org

90% don't meet Class 2 standards.

The NOAA response bascially says "Oh don't worry, we have 114 stations that might be good, and they get averaged in."

Then they go on to do something even more ridiculous: they claim the 70 good stations SS found have almost exactly the same trend as the rest -- except they don't use the raw data, so the bad stations are already averaged in! This isn't science, this is three-card monte.