Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

The horrible fact that Poland has been at -30°C year round for decades, while being crushed by a kilometer-thick glacier that surprisingly stops at the political borders... it makes my drives to Belarus quite interesting

That explains why the Germans haven't invaded Poland recently . I knew there had to be some explanation.

 

[DC]

That post replied to my contention that honest scientists make their data available. Lomiller said that climate scientists do this. They do not. That's what the Mcintyre cites discuss. I wanted to link another Climate Audit post that makes the basic issue starkly, but couldn't find it earlier. He illustrates the problem thus: suppose a drug company administers an experimental drug to 100 people and reports a comparison of 20 of those people to a control group. Wouldn't people naturally ask: "What happened to the other 80 people in the treatment group?"

generally they make their data avaible, there might be cases where it didn't happen, i am not aware of such a case, but even if you find a few such cases it would not be enough to make such a general claim.
but i see such dishonesty very often with science deniers. Because they believe Mann faked a graph they often just assume all other climatologists are also faking their stuff. Like the creatards that bring up Haeckel to show all evolution scientists are faking theyr stuff etc etc.

 

[DC]

That's lomiller's contention, not mine or McIntyre's. I observe that lomiller, McIntyre, and I agree that CRU (and Mann) DO NOT comply with requests for raw data. Lomiller has a different explanation.

do you really think you are convincing when you are so dishonest?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Imagining for a moment that there is data being withheld, just what do you imagine is hidden in it?

There's an old line about how someone asks a sculptor how he manages to carve such faithful likenesses from solid marble and he replies: "I chip away everything that doesn't look lihe a hockey stick my model". All sorts of shapes inhabit two-dimensional time/temperature space. Throw out enoughh points and you can get any shape you like.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

do you really think you are convincing when you are so dishonest?

Perhaps yoou could have an entertaining argument with this guy:...

...why do you keep insisting the CRU should give away other peoples data?

 

[aleCcowaN]

There's an old line about how someone asks a sculptor how he manages to carve such faithful likenesses from solid marble and he replies: "I chip away everything that doesn't look lihe a hockey stick my model". All sorts of shapes inhabit two-dimensional time/temperature space. Throw out enoughh points and you can get any shape you like.

Perhaps yoou could have an entertaining argument with this guy:...

Good morning for you. So, no arguments? For instance a reconstruction of the "hockey stick" with the data given. Don't even try to argue that there are "hidden" data, as you know better, even with your public performance here on sight.

You have an increasing lot of questions yet to answer surrounding your physic problems and problems with physics.

 

[lomiller]

And McIntyre demands everyone should use "R" to do their stats, because that's what he uses.

I remember that

 

[lomiller]

Perhaps yoou could have an entertaining argument with this guy:...

No his question was clearly for you, and to repeat mine, but you did remind me you still hjaven't answered the question.

Once again, why do you think the CRU should give away others peoples data?

 

[CapelDodger]

There's an old line about how someone asks a sculptor how he manages to carve such faithful likenesses from solid marble and he replies: "I chip away everything that doesn't look lihe a hockey stick my model". All sorts of shapes inhabit two-dimensional time/temperature space. Throw out enoughh points and you can get any shape you like.

To get back to my question, what do you expect to find in the "hidden data"?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No his question was clearly for you, and to repeat mine, but you did remind me you still hjaven't answered the question.

Once again, why do you think the CRU should give away others peoples data?

1. Because Jones wrote for publications that (officially) require making raw data available.
2. Because politicians contemplate changes to environmental policy that
will have significant impact on energy costs.

 

[aleCcowaN]

1. Because Jones wrote for publications that (officially) require making raw data available.
2. Because politicians contemplate changes to environmental policy that
will have significant impact on energy costs.

You overlooked the "other's" part in the question. Please, answer again.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

To get back to my question, what do you expect to find in the "hidden data"?

Proxy temperature/time sequences that do not display the hockey stick. Proxy temperature/time records that indicate temperature changes as rapid as those observed with instruments, before humans started burning fossil fuels. Proxy temperature/CO₂ records that do not fit the model assumptions of the relation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm sure the "big" crowd of GW deniers in the "selfless" spirit that characterizes them perfectly can raise money in the order of millions of bucks to pay for both some forensic science experts to study a sample of old weather station registries looking for fakes and taking a sample of ice cores and tree rings to discover foul play.

That would be OK, unless the "there must necessary be hidden data" is something used just to hide there are no "selflessness" nor data missing or wrong in other way but scattered honest mistakes.

 

[Acleron]

Proxy temperature/time sequences that do not display the hockey stick. Proxy temperature/time records that indicate temperature changes as rapid as those observed with instruments, before humans started burning fossil fuels. Proxy temperature/CO₂ records that do not fit the model assumptions of the relation.

If you take any series of measurements with noise present, ie all measurements. If you select out the bits you want you can describe pretty much anything.

The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want. Therefore the scientist produces results and conclusions which are solidly based and the denialist is merely cherry picking.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually, they fit really well.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you take any series of measurements with noise present, ie all measurements. If you select out the bits you want you can describe pretty much anything.

The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want. Therefore the scientist produces results and conclusions which are solidly based and the denialist is merely cherry picking.

We agree completely, except for the "climate denier" term. No one objects to the abstraction "climate" or to the assertion that climate changes over time. Here: "The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want" we agree completely. We just differ as to which people these words describe.

 

[a_unique_person]

We agree completely, except for the "climate denier" term. No one objects to the abstraction "climate" or to the assertion that climate changes over time. Here: "The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want" we agree completely. We just differ as to which people these words describe.

Since you clearly have no idea how the basic physics even works, I am just wondering how you hope to arrive at an informed opinion.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

To get back to my question, what do you expect to find in the "hidden data"?

Proxy temperature/time sequences that do not display the hockey stick. Proxy temperature/time records that indicate temperature changes as rapid as those observed with instruments, before humans started burning fossil fuels. Proxy temperature/CO₂ records that do not fit the model assumptions of the relation.

If you take any series of measurements with noise present, ie all measurements. If you select out the bits you want you can describe pretty much anything.
The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want. Therefore the scientist produces results and conclusions which are solidly based and the denialist is merely cherry picking.

We agree completely, except for the "climate denier" term. No one objects to the abstraction "climate" or to the assertion that climate changes over time. Here: "The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want" we agree completely. We just differ as to which people these words describe.

Since you clearly have no idea how the basic physics even works, I am just wondering how you hope to arrive at an informed opinion.

There was no ad hominem in what I wrote. Since you clearly have no idea how to argue without insults, I am just wondering how you hope to arrive at an informed opinion.

 

[a_unique_person]

That was not an insult, it is just an observation of your questions on how the radiation physics works. I have done what I can do understand as much as I can. It is a long way short of what the scientists understand. I do understand how the basic Tyndall effect works, that is,

* radiation arrives at a short wavelength into the atmosphere
* the atmosphere is largely transparent to this radiation, so it mostly hits the surface
* the energy is then re-transmitted at longer wavelengths
* the atmosphere is not transparent to these longer wavelengths, due to the 'greenhouse' gases such as CO2.
* having absorbed this energy, and retransmitted it, the net effect is that the atmosphere warm up.
* eventually the longer wave radiation makes it to the top of atmosphere, where it is finally released to space.

Not a scientist or physicist level explanation, but it is how I understand it to work. Reading some science oriented blogs, such as realclimate or science of doom, I get the idea the whole effect is much more complex and subtle than that.

For example, the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect, a 'saturated gassy argument'.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

It would be able to understand it all, and do all the physics calculations myself, that's not going to happen. I will defer to their expertise, the backing of all the peak science bodies around the planet, and ignore an argumentive and ignorant serial pest like McIntyre.

 

[CapelDodger]

Proxy temperature/time sequences that do not display the hockey stick. Proxy temperature/time records that indicate temperature changes as rapid as those observed with instruments, before humans started burning fossil fuels. Proxy temperature/CO₂ records that do not fit the model assumptions of the relation.

The many proxy sequences that are available all show much the same thing over the last few thousand years, the simple explanation for this being that they all reflect what actually happened. If any should turn up which are different they're likely to be either wrong or they reflect peculiar local conditions.

Up to now all of the data released which you previously hoped would contradict the already available evidence has disappointed you. That's not going to change.

If you think about it, it's simply not credible that global climate changed this quickly in historical times without anybody remarking on it at the time. Even you must have registered the change with your own senses, and would have even without climate scientists having explained that it would happen and why. In the past even the well-off literate classes lived closer to the weather than most of us do and the record they've left us fits perfectly well with the proxy reconstructions we have. You're not going to find one which fits as well and yet is wildly different.

I'm afraid all this obsessing on fragments of data which may still be unpublished is pure displacement activity. Better, I think, to confront the horror that is reality and think about ways in which it's not so bad and might even turn out to be a good thing. Soon. And how clouds might start in with their negative feedback to stop it. Soon. And how natural cycles are about to usher in a lon-term cooling phase, like they did in 2007, remember that? Make that your safe place if reality ever gets a bit overwhelming (as it so often can). Come out of your shell and greet the Brave New Dawn.