The North Pole:- we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I see Mann's work being touted as the prime evidence of CO2 forced GW - in that sense, yes, it's held as 'gospel'.

That would be an incorrect observation. He may be given credit for reaching the conclusion first, but that's different from being the prime evidence.

Yes, obviously minor... which is why the IPCC didn't include it in their Third Assessment Report, and the Goreacle® didn't use it in his film, right? Oh, wait...

Quote

Quote

I still find it telling that Mann doesn't release his full data - that and the 'modified' PCs from the original work leads me to believe that he tweaked the data to fit the theory and not the reverse. First impressions and all that.

He has made his full data set available to other researchers. Considering that the results have been reproduced in numerous ways, it is unlikely that any of the data were "tweaked."

Really? I suppose that's why he didn't have that separate folder with edited PC data... oh, wait...

I suppose that's why Mann didn't have to post supplemental data correcting mistakes...oh, wait...

I suppose that's why Mann released the program and ALL the data used so that others could reproduce his research for verification...oh, wait...

I suppose that's why Mann's calculations DON'T produce 'hockey stick' results with trendless 'red noise'.... oh, wait...

I suppose that's why Dr. Wegman's testimony before Congress showed that Mann's centering of the proxy data was correct....oh, wait...

I suppose that's why NOAA didn't have to correct the climatological data showing 1998 as the warmest year of the century, as shown in Mann's data... oh, wait...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Really? I suppose that's why he didn't have that separate folder with edited PC data... oh, wait...

What do you mean by "PC"?

(The issue was the variance not the principal component, if that's to what you are referring.)

Quote

I suppose that's why Mann didn't have to post supplemental data correcting mistakes...oh, wait...

As part of the Nature Corrigendum (1 July 2004, v430, p.105), Mann submitted >80 additional supplementary files (PM me if you want a pdf) to the 1998 original paper.

Quote

I suppose that's why Mann released the program and ALL the data used so that others could reproduce his research for verification...oh, wait...

Yes, that was part of the 2005-06 National Academy of Sciences report on "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years", which was requested by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY).

Quote

I suppose that's why Mann's calculations DON'T produce 'hockey stick' results with trendless 'red noise'.... oh, wait...

Please explain.

Quote

I suppose that's why NOAA didn't have to correct the climatological data showing 1998 as the warmest year of the century, as shown in Mann's data... oh, wait...

As M&M's criticism is related to statistical derivations based on tree ring data from bristlecone pine trees (e.g., proxy data for ~300-2000 years ago), that’s not surprising.

How do explain/disregard M&M selectively eliminating data when they re-did their calculation? If one eliminates data ("indicators" in the technical parlance), one will get a different result. (If one didn't that would be likely more problematic.)


VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

There is, I think, NOTHING about your post in which I disagree. (Your intellectual firepower is astounding).

Quote

the purported article on volcanism under the Arctic was published in Nature ... still not validated how that challenges the original post.

Indeedy! But I am speakign aside from that. The arguments of "consensus" and those not in the consensus being "deniers" are seen often in the political realm. This isn't called "Science Corner." Regardless, there should be some understanding of the science by the commentators.

I do not claim to understand the science and methodology. But I won't buy a scientific explanation for why farts smell pleasant. I'll use my own nose and go against a consensus, for consensus has, throughout history, been demonstrated as inaccurate quite often. Galileo learned what happens when consensus is violated.

And sure, volcanoes can melt ice. Can a volcano melt and icecap? I've got a harder time buying that - It'd be like using my barbecue to melt an iceberg.

Quote

challenging & (more frequently) puzzlingly science is published.

Exactly. Which is why, in the late 1980's, cold fusion was a reality. Then it wasn't.

Quote

As was discussed previously, the M&M paper was problematic from the start and the RUMINT version of their interaction with the Nature editors does not reflect even what M&M describe on their own site from their own view, much less what Mann or other third-part observers relate.

Indeed. Which is why I equate science to litigation. It is up to another side to find reasons why one side's story doesn't add up.

Quote

Scientists are very antagonistic; it's the culture. You are expected to be able to defend your assertions. It makes Speakers Corner appear diffident and timorous by comparison.

And Speaker's Corner makes court appear diffident and altruistic by comparison - despite people's notions of a "court fight." Attorneys generally get along. There has been, in my career, only one exception - and everybody hates her.

Quote

The reason you see 1850 data mentioned frequently is because that's when folks in London and Washington started directly recording temperature.

Absolutely! But it is RARELY pointed out that 1850 was in an Ice Age. We HAVE to put this data into context. For example, the high temperature in Fresno was 45 degrees higher yesterday than seven months ago. (I started keeping track on Jan. 1). This is showing that warming is occuring at a pretty alarming rate. IT is not shocking between January and June, though. It WOULD be shocking if it had that kind of difference between April and October because context is pretty important.

It's the context behind so much data out there. It's the Hillary Clinton Campaign - McAuliffe on the Daily show hours before Clinton conceded claiming that Clinton would be the candidate. It's a, "Come on, dude! What the hell? Yes, we are warmer now than in 1850. We are not abnormally cold now, and we were then."

An CO2 measurement? Yeah. It's when the data became pretty reliable - 1958. Does that cast doubt upon the reliability of cores? If so, how much doubt? Can the models be trusted? If not, we cannot say whether we were at a history low point of CO2 concentrations, right? If the prior data is reliable, then let us not draw the line at 1958.

Admittedly, this leaves somewhat of a double bind situation. As I said, I am a skeptic. I know some of the data. I know a bit about the climate history.

I know it has been plenty warmer than today in the past, and that human activity was not blamed. I know it has been plenty colder than this, and human activity was not blamed. I recognize that human activity now is much more extenive than ever before.

That's where I look to "correlation" and "causation." I naturally presume correlation over causation. THat's just my way.

I'm not saying it is riht or wrong. It just is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What do you mean by "PC"?

(The issue was the variance not the principal component, if that's to what you are referring.)

Yes, the primary component. Dr. Wegman's report showed that MBH incorrectly centered the data:

Quote

9. Your analysis seems to show that, at least in some instances, when you use
the same methodology and the same data, a graph of the results will look like
a hockey stick when the data is decentered, but not when the data is properly
centered.
a. Is that a correct statement?
Ans: Yes. We explicitly looked at the first principal component of the
North American Tree Ring series and demonstrated that the hockey stick
shows up when the data are decentered, but not when properly centered.
We also demonstrated the same effect with the digitized version of the
1990 IPCC curve.

Quote

As M&M's criticism is related to statistical derivations based on tree ring data from bristlecone pine trees (e.g., proxy data for ~300-2000 years ago), that’s not surprising.

Yes, I believe that is one of their arguments, over the suitability of the bristlecone records as a record of temperature changes.

Quote

How do explain/disregard M&M selectively eliminating data when they re-did their calculation? If one eliminates data ("indicators" in the technical parlance), one will get a different result. (If one didn't that would be likely more problematic.)

If you have ONE variable that produces a hockey-stick result OVER the influence of all the other inputs, is that single input valid data?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Exactly. Which is why, in the late 1980's, cold fusion was a reality. Then it wasn't.

It was only "reality" in the popular media. I don't believe it was ever more than a "claim" in the scientific literature. The fact that the claim was quickly laid to rest shows that the system works.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Exactly. Which is why, in the late 1980's, cold fusion was a reality. Then it wasn't.

It was only "reality" in the popular media. I don't believe it was ever more than a "claim" in the scientific literature. The fact that the claim was quickly laid to rest shows that the system works.

Very well put!

Now that you've taken the bait, why don't we examiner a topic that is NOT solely objective - like whether the earth is warming beyond its normal variance. To answer that you must answer the question, "what temperature is the earth supposed to be?".

We can answer the question, "what is the temperature now?" Or even, "what has the temperature been?". But no objective answer exists, nor can an objective answer EVER be given to the question, "what temperature should the earth be?"

It comes down to "What temperature do I want the earth to be.". I've got my answers - I like it chilly. But, that is me.

The whole global warming issue comes down to human comfort. This fucking planet wants to make a land bridge to siberia from alaska? Have they any idea of the suffering that will cause?

Or, "The planet is warming. If it continues, the road from siberia to Alaska will be under water due to melting ice. Not to mention my property on the isthmus to Catalina. We are causing this warming, and it is up to us to stop it.". (Skip forward a few thousand years)

Or even, "the Merced glacier is melting at an alarming rate. Research suggests that it is thousands of feet deep. Leaving a barren valley where a majestoc glacier once stoof will cause ha oc to the environment, and a prime tourist attraction would be lost.". (And BASE jumpers and naturalists feast themselves on the end-game of global warming in the Yosemite Valley eons later)

So, tell me, how is climate change Is new. How badly it fucked us up. And how curing it in the past to satisfy our own human desires to prevent catastrophe in the past would have been viewed today?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Oh, that is going to leave a mark.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Check out the Bohr-Einstein debates. Both had plenty of scientific evience on their sides.

I think you will find, upon closer examination, that Einstein overlooked some critical considerations in his thought experiments that he used in an attempt to find flaws in the Copenhagen model.

Quote

So we saw two of the pre-eminent scientists of all time persuaing other scientists to believe their claims.

It's an example of science actively trying to disprove hypotheses however they can conceive might be possible. That is how science is supposed to work, and one of the things that makes it great.

Quote

And yet, one side of the debate over climate is shut out, right?

Incorrect. No one is "shutting out" any side of global warming research. But, as Einstein and Bohr showed us, being uncomfortable with scientific evidence is not enough to comprise alternative conclusions. That requires evidence. The fact of the matter is that the evidence on the topic is overwhelmingly supportive of increasing global temperatures with an anthropogenic element. No one is trying to keep anyone else from doing research to find evidence supporting an alternate conclusion. However, there is a reasonable expectation that that research be subject to the same level of scrutiny as the research it attempts to disprove.

Quote

Lawyers could learn a lot from the climate debate.

Actually, I think the deniers have taken a page from the legal playbook.

I'm thinking of the Tobacco Institute, for which "scientists" performed studies designed solely to cast doubt upon the validity of accepted scientific data regarding the health risks of smoking. It was all about persuading jurors and had nothing to do with reaching logical conclusions based on sound evidence.

The same thing occurs today with global warming. There's a consensus among those who know what their talking about, but energy companies such as Exxon sponsor the same tricks as the Tobacco Institute to cast doubt on sound science to create public debate on something that is not debatable outside of valid scientific research. NY Times op eds cannot change the scientific conclusions, but they can cast doubt on science in public opinion.

Do lawyers ever use logic to arrive at facts? Sure, if that is what will work to convince jurors that their argument is the believable one. They will also abandon logic in their argument, if that is what best serves their client. Heck, I can "prove" that 1 = 0, and most people would be unable to find the flaw in the logic. It's unlikely any mathematicians would be fooled, though. Of course if only laymen sit on the jury …

Attorneys' obligations are to their clients, not the truth. Scientists' obligation is to the truth. While their interests may sometimes coincide, they often don't.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes, obviously minor... which is why the IPCC didn't include it in their Third Assessment Report, and the Goreacle® didn't use it in his film, right? Oh, wait...

Please, list all of the scientists that have confirmed Rutherford's conclusions regarding the structure of the atom. While your at it, list all the scientists that have confirmed the conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Or, perhaps we tend to give credit to those who first make discoveries? You should also be aware that Mann's research has revisited the topic multiple times, so just because you see his name does not imply that his initial study is the one which is being cited as evidence.

Quote

Really?

Really. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Quote

I suppose that's why Mann's calculations DON'T produce 'hockey stick' results with trendless 'red noise'.... oh, wait...

You've been reading that thoroughly debunked M&M report again, haven't you?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,073]

>That seems like prima facie proof that CO2 is *not* the prime driver,
>then, does it not?

?? No one ever claimed that CO2 is the biggest driver of our climate. The Sun, of course, is. If the Sun went out, our climate would see the biggest change it ever saw.

The issue is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are increasing its concentration. As a result, the average temperature of the planet is rising. If the Sun stopped its 11 year cycle, and got stuck on "high output" then that would cause warming. That didn't happen.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, obviously minor... which is why the IPCC didn't include it in their Third Assessment Report, and the Goreacle® didn't use it in his film, right? Oh, wait...

Please, list all of the scientists that have confirmed Rutherford's conclusions regarding the structure of the atom. While your at it, list all the scientists that have confirmed the conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Or, perhaps we tend to give credit to those who first make discoveries? You should also be aware that Mann's research has revisited the topic multiple times, so just because you see his name does not imply that his initial study is the one which is being cited as evidence.

Quote

Really?

Really. Sorry to burst your bubble.

When you're right, you're right... I guess this and this (please note the 'lead authors') are figments of my imagination, then.

Quote

I suppose that's why Mann's calculations DON'T produce 'hockey stick' results with trendless 'red noise'.... oh, wait...

You've been reading that thoroughly debunked M&M report again, haven't you?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>That seems like prima facie proof that CO2 is *not* the prime driver,
>then, does it not?

?? No one ever claimed that CO2 is the biggest driver of our climate. The Sun, of course, is. If the Sun went out, our climate would see the biggest change it ever saw.

The issue is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are increasing its concentration. As a result, the average temperature of the planet is rising. If the Sun stopped its 11 year cycle, and got stuck on "high output" then that would cause warming. That didn't happen.

C'mon, Bill.... you say yourself that the CO2 level rising is causing warming. Of course, that's contradictory to ALL the evidence in the historical record, but what do THEY know?

I guess the CO2 from the Mars Rover and Voyager 2 caused the temperature increases on Mars and Neptune, as well....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,073]

> I wonder if the tempatures near the equator are rising as well.

Yes. They are rising just about everywhere with the exception of central Antarctica. (The peninsula is warming, but the center of Antarctica isn't warming much at all.)

Attached is a map showing warming worldwide. Note that it is warming fastet to the North, moderately at the equator, and barely over Antarctica. (Gray areas don't have good temp data.)

>I mean if the equator takes the blunt of the sun's rays, wouldn't
>the tempatures in this region be higher than lets say 10 years ago??

If the sun was the primary cause of climate change, then yes, the equator would be heating fastest. However, it's not. CO2 affects re-radiation of infrared everywhere on the planet, so it occurs worldwide.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

When you're right, you're right... I guess this and this (please note the 'lead authors') are figments of my imagination, then.

Have you considered examining up to date reports?

Quote

I've been reading the report that shows that point proven out by statistical analysis, yes.. what have YOU been reading?

Which peer reviewed study was that, and in which scientific journal was it published? Or was it just something you read in the blogosphere?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,073]

>To answer that you must answer the question, "what temperature is the
>earth supposed to be?".

How heavy is your son supposed to be? He once weighed nothing. Doesn't mean that if he starts losing weight rapidly that everything is just fine, or that you shouldn't see if you can stop that trend.

Likewise, the earth was once 4500 degrees C while it was forming; basically a ball of incandescent rock. It's averaged far lower and higher than it has today. The advent of chlorophyll-based life has had a moderating impact on the planet's climate, and nowadays we slew around a small amount (about ten degrees C) although those few degrees are enough to cause ice ages and whatnot.

>nor can an objective answer EVER be given to the question,
>"what temperature should the earth be?"

Correct.

>The whole global warming issue comes down to human comfort.

Also correct.

>So, tell me, how is climate change Is new.

It's not. It's just happening a lot faster than it has historically, due to our emissions.

>How badly it fucked us up.

In the past? It fucked the planet over a LOT; it was likely the cause of most mass extinctions. It also drove evolution much more rapidly than it otherwise would have.

>And how curing it in the past to satisfy our own human desires
>to prevent catastrophe in the past would have been viewed today?

?? Why would we want to "cure it" in the past?

If your argument is that "maybe global warming will be good, maybe it will be bad" then that's true. It will be good for some people (Canadians) bad for others (Africans.) It will cause some people to get richer and kill other people. This is already happening to a degree.

The question is - do we want that to happen? Given that we now have some control over our climate, should we try to make it change as fast as possible, and accept all the bad (and good) that comes from our change, or should we make an effort to change it less rapidly, to prevent some of the harm that might come to people?

You're a lawyer. Imagine someone came to you and complained that their neighbor diverted a river, and the river was now washing over their property and slowly destroying their house. What would your advice be?

a) Rivers change their course, and it's perfectly natural. Buy a fishing pole and live with it. Who knows - you might clean up on salmon!

b) You have some legal remedies to use against the neighbor, since through his actions you have been harmed.

[billvon 3,073]

>C'mon, Bill.... you say yourself that the CO2 level rising is
>causing warming. Of course, that's contradictory to ALL the evidence in the
>historical record . . .

No, it's not.

>I guess the CO2 from the Mars Rover and Voyager 2 caused the
>temperature increases on Mars and Neptune, as well....

I guess a different sun shines on Saturn, then?

I find it hilarious that the same people who claim that we don't understand the Earth's climate claim that _they_ understand the Martian climate 100%.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

When you're right, you're right... I guess this and this (please note the 'lead authors') are figments of my imagination, then.

Have you considered examining up to date reports?

Ah, so it was THIS year's report that started the worldwide global warming craze... my apologies.

Quote

Quote

I've been reading the report that shows that point proven out by statistical analysis, yes.. what have YOU been reading?

Which peer reviewed study was that, and in which scientific journal was it published? Or was it just something you read in the blogosphere?

That was a report to Congress by a statistician with 40 years experience in the field.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

That was a report to Congress by a statistician with 40 years experience in the field.

I see. He must have been testifying about his own peer reviewed research on the topic, though, right? In that peer reviewed research, did he address all the other studies that have reached similar conclusions as Mann with different methodologies?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>C'mon, Bill.... you say yourself that the CO2 level rising is
>causing warming. Of course, that's contradictory to ALL the evidence in the
>historical record . . .

No, it's not.

Oh really?

>> The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

Quote

>I guess the CO2 from the Mars Rover and Voyager 2 caused the
>temperature increases on Mars and Neptune, as well....

I guess a different sun shines on Saturn, then?

I find it hilarious that the same people who claim that we don't understand the Earth's climate claim that _they_ understand the Martian climate 100%.

Hmm... so, we don't understand the climate well enough to predict weather beyond general trends more than a few days out, but at the same time, we understand it well enough to say that CO2 is *the* cause of the man-made global warming? The same people that say that the insolation is NOT causing the global warming (shall I look up your quotes on that?) ridicule those who say that the evidence on Mars / Neptune can't POSSIBLY have anything to do with Earth - I suppose it must be since we're not there pumping CO2 into their atmospheres, right?

Whatever you say, Bill...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That was a report to Congress by a statistician with 40 years experience in the field.

I see. He must have been testifying about his own peer reviewed research on the topic, though, right? In that peer reviewed research, did he address all the other studies that have reached similar conclusions as Mann with different methodologies?

Look up the Wegman report... then read the parts talking about the climatology community and the re-use of data and commingling authors on papers (and review committees).

Then take your "peer review" and stuff it up your ass, unless you can refute the claims.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Then take your "peer review" and stuff it up your ass, unless you can refute the claims.

You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. If you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, then your understanding whether or not a critique of a peer reviewed study is credible or not is open to doubt.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Then take your "peer review" and stuff it up your ass, unless you can refute the claims.

You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. .

Ummm, you're a little late coming to that conclusion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then take your "peer review" and stuff it up your ass, unless you can refute the claims.

You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. If you don't understand the importance of the peer review process, then your understanding whether or not a critique of a peer reviewed study is credible or not is open to doubt.

Sorry - the constant whine of "Is that peer reviewed?" got to me... like the mosquito buzzing around your ears.

If you think that ONLY peer review can produce a valid output (as your posts imply), then don't both responding anymore.... ESPECIALLY if you haven't read the report, and you obviously haven't.

Read the report and come back with something to actually REFUTE..

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If you think that ONLY peer review can produce a valid output (as your posts imply) …

My posts imply no such thing. However, if an output cannot withstand subsequent peer review, then its validity should be questioned.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You lost all credibility regarding having the ability to make a reasonable point right there. .

Ummm, you're a little late coming to that conclusion.

You're right - maybe the global warming is due to the Earth not having a Senator - I bet *THAT'S* the reason!!! Or, maybe it's due to the number of government officials and lawyers living on it - that's a strong possibility too, I suppose.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706