Temps Stable til 2050, Plenty of Time to Fix

[IntLibber]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 1650v3.pdf

Stockwell and Cox' latest paper shows the breakpoints in temp data and conclude that the current lack of warming will persist until 2050 AD, thus giving us plenty of time to determine if CO2 emissions actually are a problem and to develop the technology to do something about it affordably (or otherwise change to a noncarbon energy economy).

[Josh Cryer]

It's theoretical, without an explanation (I don't like that very much), but it's falsifiable, and we'll know within 10-15 years if their trend is true (I like that very much). I like this very much.

RC has a different take on the matter (don't respond to it directly, but discuss "cooling trends"): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... riability/

[MSimon]

It's theoretical, without an explanation (I don't like that very much), but it's falsifiable, and we'll know within 10-15 years if their trend is true (I like that very much). I like this very much.

RC has a different take on the matter (don't respond to it directly, but discuss "cooling trends"): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... riability/

RC is infested with ClimateGate participants. Hardly a recommendation in this day and age.

And when they are honest I agree with them. The trouble with them is you get a paragraph of honesty in a page of obfuscation. Or worse lies. And they have a habit of shutting skeptics out of the debate. The same MO they used as "scientists".

Too bad we are on to their TRICKS.

And now Jones and Mann are under investigation for FRAUD.

Citing them weakens your argument.

[Josh Cryer]

What argument am I trying to "bolster" by linking them, MSimon?

[IntLibber]

DISCLOSURE: as of this evening I am now a moderator on wattsupwiththat.com

[MSimon]

DISCLOSURE: as of this evening I am now a moderator on wattsupwiththat.com

Woooo Hooooo!

[MSimon]

This argument Josh:

It's theoretical, without an explanation (I don't like that very much), but it's falsifiable, and we'll know within 10-15 years if their trend is true (I like that very much). I like this very much.

RC has a different take on the matter (don't respond to it directly, but discuss "cooling trends"): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... riability/

BTW I don't think the article has much merit either. I do like the Russian guys who say Solar and cooling to 2055 (roughly).

Or the PDO argument which says cooling until 2035.

[CaptainBeowulf]

MSimon, is there a good source for the Russian guys online? I've read a bit about them in print newspapers, but the articles weren't in too much depth. They seemed to have their facts straight, though.

[MSimon]

MSimon, is there a good source for the Russian guys online? I've read a bit about them in print newspapers, but the articles weren't in too much depth. They seemed to have their facts straight, though.

This may be what you are looking for:

http://www.physorg.com/news75818795.html

[Josh Cryer]

This argument Josh:

You think that I was making an argument? I was stating obvious facts from reading the paper. It is theoretical. It is based on no empirical observation outside of an arbitrarily picked temperature variance. It is a best guess.

I find it appalling how you can question very complex models, but somehow a very simplified statistic approach is somehow going to be accurate at predicting the behavior of a chaotic system.

(Where the models have led to improved data points, meaning that they are at least good enough to cause investigation within the science.)

And yes, it is very easily falsified, which is why I don't have a problem with the paper.

[MSimon]

This argument Josh:

You think that I was making an argument? I was stating obvious facts from reading the paper. It is theoretical. It is based on no empirical observation outside of an arbitrarily picked temperature variance. It is a best guess.

I find it appalling how you can question very complex models, but somehow a very simplified statistic approach is somehow going to be accurate at predicting the behavior of a chaotic system.

(Where the models have led to improved data points, meaning that they are at least good enough to cause investigation within the science.)

And yes, it is very easily falsified, which is why I don't have a problem with the paper.

Papers from ClimateGate participants do not merit my attention since their facts are suspect. I didn't read it. Since I didn't read it I didn't call their facts into question based on their paper. Just their current reputation for fraud. I applied the principle:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Had you given a Pielke url I'd have looked. I trust him to be honest even if I disagree.

[alexjrgreen]

I applied the principle:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

FIUFIO is a legal principle, not a scientific or investigative principle. It is primarily used (and makes sense) in the courtroom. That's why lawyers are so aggressive at trying to impeach the credibility of a witness (and lawyers on the other side labor so hard to prevent that from happening). If a witness can be shown to have been mistaken or to have lied about one thing, then by the principle of FIUFIO, it is reasonable to question everything else in that witness' testimony. In a criminal case such questions could easily be enough to cast "reasonable doubt" on the testimony. The problem is, this principle doesn't work in science. Why? The scientific literature literature is littered with papers whose results were later shown to be either incorrect or only partially correct. In most cases, being incorrect doesn't mean the scientists were lying, and it is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed. Moreover, it is not valid to treat all of science as a single source. Science is not a single witness that can be interrogated. Well-accepted scientific theories (like evolution, for example) are supported by many interweaving lines of evidence from many different sources. If you impeach one minor source or piece of data, that does not invalidate the rest of the supporting data. True, there are some pieces of data that, if ever found, would cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution, but that is never the sort of data that ID creationists present.
...
Finally, when scientists find inconsistencies in the data supporting a hypothesis or theory, they do not reject the entire theory out of hand in this manner, as cranks do. Rather, they use such anomalous pieces of data or experimental results as a chance to improve our understanding of a phenomenon. They see if the theory can be modified to account for the observation. They make hypotheses about potential explanations of the anomalous observations and then test them experimentally. If they see if a new theory with better predictive power and utility than the old can be developed that takes account fo the new observations.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/ ... alsu_1.php

Even the courts seem to disfavour the principle nowadays: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

[MSimon]

I applied the principle:

falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

FIUFIO is a legal principle, not a scientific or investigative principle. It is primarily used (and makes sense) in the courtroom. That's why lawyers are so aggressive at trying to impeach the credibility of a witness (and lawyers on the other side labor so hard to prevent that from happening). If a witness can be shown to have been mistaken or to have lied about one thing, then by the principle of FIUFIO, it is reasonable to question everything else in that witness' testimony. In a criminal case such questions could easily be enough to cast "reasonable doubt" on the testimony. The problem is, this principle doesn't work in science. Why? The scientific literature literature is littered with papers whose results were later shown to be either incorrect or only partially correct. In most cases, being incorrect doesn't mean the scientists were lying, and it is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed. Moreover, it is not valid to treat all of science as a single source. Science is not a single witness that can be interrogated. Well-accepted scientific theories (like evolution, for example) are supported by many interweaving lines of evidence from many different sources. If you impeach one minor source or piece of data, that does not invalidate the rest of the supporting data. True, there are some pieces of data that, if ever found, would cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution, but that is never the sort of data that ID creationists present.
...
Finally, when scientists find inconsistencies in the data supporting a hypothesis or theory, they do not reject the entire theory out of hand in this manner, as cranks do. Rather, they use such anomalous pieces of data or experimental results as a chance to improve our understanding of a phenomenon. They see if the theory can be modified to account for the observation. They make hypotheses about potential explanations of the anomalous observations and then test them experimentally. If they see if a new theory with better predictive power and utility than the old can be developed that takes account fo the new observations.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/ ... alsu_1.php

Even the courts seem to disfavour the principle nowadays: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Uh. I think you are misreading the case. It is not the doctrine that is being argued. It is a failure to state that doctrine as agreed on. In fact the court stated that the defense implicitly made that argument and it is a fair argument.

You know Alex. It is looking more and more like you can't be trusted to be honest about your claims.

It has been my experience in life that honest progressives do not remain progressives.

Funny thing Josh. I question your honesty and you do something dishonest to try to make your point. And so you wind up making mine.

Dishonesty is a habit of thinking. Which is why the rule. The point is not that every thing you say is a lie. The point is that none of it can be trusted. Every thing you say has to be double checked. i.e. you are in the quaint British vernacular a time waster. Performance does not match promise.

Normally folks like you (on the internet) do hit and run jobs, because once you are found out your effectiveness declines. Sort of the way Real Climate's reputation is in the crapper.

[MSimon]

BTW I separate honest mistakes from intentional misrepresentation.

I make mistakes all the time. And when pointed out (and I'm convinced) I own up to my error and endeavor never to repeat it.

That is not the pattern I have observed in your behavior here.

[Josh Cryer]

"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not scientific, it's political and it clouds your judgment. Lindzen and Choi (2009) ("On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data") was recently shown to be broken in the peer review.

Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation: http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL042314-pip.pdf

Roy Spencer actually debunked it months ago on his blog, but blogs are not the peer review: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/som ... ack-study/

Roy notes, "But I predict that Lindzen and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the authors’ conclusions."

RealClimate, unlike denialist websites, did not jump down Lindzen and Choi's throat and call "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." Indeed, the assumption is always that mistakes made in the peer review are honest, not manipulative and deceiving. This is why scientific misconduct (a charge that you guys use regularly, not always explicitly) is a very big deal.

Models are certainly better than simple mathematical constructs. And this particular mathematical construct will be falsified within 5-10 years. Unfortunately I will have to hear about it until that time.