thatsmrshem Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gaps-in-data-on-arctic-temperatures-account-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-8945597.html Thoughts?
Freedomain Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 And this just came out today... http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
TheRobin Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 well the pro man-made-global-warming position certainly hasn't been off to a good start in terms of clear and open communication, though from what I gathered the last few times where I searched the web for pro and contra arguments, they seem to have the facts on their side, so this doesn't come as that big a surprise for me at least (whatever that's worth). Though to really get a clear picture at this point one would need to spend probably days or months chewing through all the back and forth that happened over the last decade, so I'd say unless it's really important to you, you might have better things to do
fractional slacker Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Global Warming is just another ex post facto excuse for rulers to exist (AKA socialism, in this case of the watermelon variety). Why do I say that? No matter what the weather is/was in the past, present, or future, it will be considered an effect of global warming (if you are a believer). Global warming and weather are in a loop of infinite support. Global warming is absent of definition and absent of form; there is nothing that can disprove it. Hmm, where have we heard that line before?
TheRobin Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Fractional Slacker: out of courisoity: How many hours have you spent figuriing out the pro-global-warming position and it's rebuttals to common skeptic claims?
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Global warming is absent of definition and absent of form; there is nothing that can disprove it. Hmm, where have we heard that line before? This is a thing that constantly gets me when reading articles on "either side". Just what the hell exactly is it that we're talking about? There is so much inane emotional spouting going around it's almost impossible to see what the source of the issue is. Each "side" is always able to pull up graphs proving this that or the other thing, and do it in such a way that the evidence looks final. Thankfully, Stefan found an article that I felt at least gets near the source of the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc I also listened to this on the Corbett Report recently that was a pretty good attempt to get at the/a source of the issue: http://www.corbettreport.com/the-ipcc-exposed-video/
TheRobin Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 Dylan, yeah, can agree to that, even with the internet it can take quite a while to find articles of substance. though the article that Stef once read, has been adressed here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html). I'm just a guy without any knowledge or background in climate science of course, but it looks like quite a solid rebuttal from that point of view at least.
Freeman Stephen Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 If you really want to research climate change, you could do worse than have a gander at the Lake Vostok Climate Data. Ice cores are drilled into the deepest known lake in antartica. The cores are then sliced and sampled for bubbles of air. The bubbles are measured for co2 and methane. During warm periods one of these gases are more prevalent and during cold periods the other. The average air temperature over the earth at the time the bubble was trapped is said to be estimable from the sample in the arctic. Anyway, engineers drilled up half a million years worth of ice cores and scientists discovered a 100,000 year repeating cycle thats been going on for as far back as ... well half a million years. Thats the good news, theres a natural cycle that does not appear to be manmade but heres the bad news .... guess what point on this cycle we are at today? We are at the end of a relatively warm 10-15,000 year "interglacial period" and on the brink of an ice age which will occur suddenly any day now and last around a hundred thousand years before the next interglacial period which will begin with an even more sudden flood.
AccuTron Posted December 6, 2013 Posted December 6, 2013 I used to fall for the CO2/human/hockeystick thing, actually believed it since it was everywhere. Bored one night I looked at "climate deniers" (I now realize that this is a smokescreen slander term) and was shocked at what I found just on the first search page. I have a BS Physics, cum laude, and immediately spent over sixty intense research hours on it. Hundreds of web pages, including all reader comments, a rich source. Two Congressional Reports, various original research papers, the entire Copenhagen Diagnosis, much more. I put up a google.doc link which will get you started. Some people can't open it, let me know, but here's the try: CRIMATE.pdf - Google Drive You can also get started with these nuggets, but PLEASE understand that the corruption on this is probably the biggest scam in all human history. It is a giant vote machine for Democrat/Green, etc. (Vote for those anti-science Republicans and you hate the planet.) Huge public money grab for climate action taxes or project construction. Many editors, for years now, are replaced if they do not succumb to publishing fraud articles, so you will see it everywhere. Science News just went down the tubes, having recently installed a young editor, not a research scientist herself, but a science display artist (Eva Emerson | Science News). She got to redo I think the entire website and magazine and "may" have had her head in the clouds a bit, pardon the pun, with an article claiming CO2 is beyond questioning. I scanned, and yup, Met was a source, see below for a list of fraud sources. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth graph: Which leads, CO2 or temperature? I counted using a blank text file as a vertical straightedge, and the results: CO2=8 times, Temperature=5 times, tied=12. Thus CO2 does NOT lead ~60% of the time. There are also other gasses which track the same, and all interglacial periods show a CO2 rise, but Gore didn't mention that (pQ9kswB.jpg). Gore reportedly now works with Ken Lay (Gore “can’t remember” if he worked with Ken Lay on the Carbon Tax Credits Plan in 1997? | American Everyman) , world class scam artist of Enron fame, and they get broker fees for carbon trading. Question: How uncorrupted was the Nobel committee that gave him that award for nonsense? "CO2 And Climate Change, 1981 Hansen." Hansen is recently retired from NASA (James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Honestly, he looks like a nice guy. You can read right away that he's absolutely "a hockeysticker." Where I first learned of him was by looking honestly at an alarmist site and picking a name from the contributors, then searching for more about the person. At an alarmist site, I was suspicious yet value the honest look. I found this right off: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf which is a live link at the moment (the hockeystickers remove revealing materials and constantly improve the deception). You only need to look at page one and ignore the rest, which is just fluff. He mangles the mathematical necessity of "significant digits" (one term, A for albedo, has only one digit and even that's approximate, using "~", and the equation result, 255, has three digits, utterly illegal math) and mangles physics by referring to the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (look it up) which is ONLY for ideal black bodies (meaning gives off ZERO self-generated radiation), which the Earth, with it's nuclear-heated molten metal core, sure ain't. Yet with NASA credentials, he is the voice of authority to the populace. Look at the Copenhagen Diagnosis' graph of Solar activity: http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf page 14, showing only the 11-yr solar cycle and ignoring the existence of cycles lasting decades or centuries, which are shown properly in summation here: File:Carbon14 with activity labels.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Notice how Copenhagen's "human" well matches the actual Solar. If you know the story going in, it's clear that the entire C.D. is lies. They reference research papers in supposed support, thinking no one will check. I checked. They are two types: one, known frauds; two, genuine scientists which UNDERCUT the C.D. One good example is here: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years by the National Research Councils. 160 pages and I read them all. If you know the story going in, you can see that it's soft pedaled but agrees completely with the so-called "deniers." The link should be to page 4, where you can get a good idea of how they feel by reading the first paragraph on the page (assuming it opens properly to that page on your browser). It doesn't deny the general warming of the twentieth century, which other studies show to be natural, but questions the other claims -- "substantial uncertainties...prior to about A.D.1600; "Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”" That's the Copenhagen Diagnosis definition of support! Knowing what you know about Mann (see below), you may read between the lines on their recommendation "Improving access to data used in publications would also increase confidence in the results of large-scale surface temperature reconstructions both inside and outside the scientific community." (It has been reported elsewhere by a government scientist whistle blower that the 1998 claim used data where higher latitude and higher altitude thermometers...thus the cooler readings...were simply eliminated. I'm searching for that link; it was on Fox news if anyone feels like helping. Found something similar here: Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling - Climate Change Dispatch I found it tricky to follow, but interesting points are made and also in the reader comments.) The Wegman Report 2006 US Congress: The actual originating smoking gun is that Dr. Mann of CRU made a bogus algorithm for temperature analysis, came up with an "alarming" rise of 0.5C. (Funny how he was the "discoverer" yet thermometers are everywhere; including ones which were installed in open fields in the fifties, yet are now surrounded by hot shopping mall parking lots.) Which brought about the IPCC, and it's panicking pronouncements. One heroic Canadian, McIntyre, back about 2003 believed it, and simply asked Mann to see the data. Mann stonewalled to tremendous proportions, all viewable in a McIntyre mega-blog, and four years and two FOIA requests revealed that he altered original data by 0.6C, discarded the original data, because he wrote a bogus algorithm now shown clearly to make hockey stick shapes out of pure noise test signals, and which implied a 0.5C rise. Couldn't admit his mistake. Just scanning the graphs in the report will do. (M is for bad guy Mann and M is for good guy McIntyre, making notes a bit confusing to the uninitiated.) Yet Mann still has a devoted following as the alarmist top spokesman. The hockey stickers obviously cannot deny the evidence, so they attack Wegman because he did some minor plagiarism on a website he was doing about color perception. No connection to Mann's algorithm at all, pure mudslinging. This is endless and growing. A partial list of sources to NEVER believe: Trenberth, Mann at Climatic Research Unit (where the fraud originated!!!), Al Gore, upper levels of the IPCC (if you see my link, IPCC headman Pielke lies to Congress about man causing climate disasters, while the IPCC's OWN MATERIAL from lower employee levels says no link can be found), Met, Hadley, Meehl, on and on and on. Check those names against the links starting this thread. This is just a bare bones outline, so don't be easily swayed by alarmist claims. On an entertaining note, view this: Lieutenant Kizhe - YouTube. Two reasons. One, it's a really charming and very well done 1934 Russian comedy, easy subtitles, and a real cinema gem. Based upon a Russian folk tale, the year is 1800 at the crazy Tsar's palace. (Music by Prokofiev ▶ Prokofiev: Suite from Lieutenant Kijé) Two, a non-spoiler since it occurs early on -- the plot. A clerk makes a typo, is about to correct it, but the document is grabbed from him and taken to the Tsar. The typo implies the existence of a Lt. Kije, the Tsar wants to meet him, but there never was such a person. So Russian officers keep making up stories about where Lt. Kije is. ("His" Russian Orthodox wedding scene is a delight with the bride looking at the empty space she is marrying.) Mann's hockey stick is a Lt. Kije. See all reports in this light. Where is the missing heat? Made up stories abound, one of them being that it's in the ocean but hasn't made it out yet. (You may have also seen an IPCC claim a few years back that ~10,000 sq miles of Himalayan glaciers are missing. You probably didn't see the retraction two weeks later, that it had been an "error." Nope, pure fraud and someone caught them. But the lie is still around that the glaciers are all going. Insofar as it's generally accepted that Earth, at least in the northern half, has been warming on it's own for about 160 years, one would expect SOME melting. According to clam shell analysis, Greenland has been SEVERAL DEGREES warmer SEVERAL times in the last 100,000 years. (Can't find original link but here's a good one: Greenland's shrunken ice sheet: We've been here before) Yet the IPCC has us all freaking because of a supposed SEVERAL DEGREES that we are supposedly causing sometime in the future.) Again, these are but a handful of nuggets compared to the vast expanse of the crime. (Stefan fans will appreciate this: The Philippines are suing the US because they had a typhoon! Blamed on CO2. How will the US defend itself? By admitting the administration won votes and power by fraud? UN Climate Summit Rejects Its Own Science – Links Typhoon Haiyan to Global Warming – UN Summit Degenerates Into Unscientific Claims to Advance Political Agenda – Climate Depot Special Report | Climate Depot ) As to that supposedly unanimous army of "climate scientists" -- many are simply not real scientists, easy to dupe, ignorant of real criteria, etc. I know one, and he hadn't even heard of the Wegman Report, which is like a doctor of internal medicine who never heard of a liver. Unwittingly but irresponsibly, they teach this fraud to each other then say "Look at how many of us there are!" The mainstream press, surprise surprise, doesn't really check and is owned by vested interests anyway. Can't say it enough: this is a mere sliver of the truth. EVERY EVERY EVERY time you see human-CO2 alarmism, liar or dupe, it's merely another tendril of the same originating power monger beast.
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Holy crap, AccuTron, that was a serious data dump. Most appreciated! Just to add at the end there about a "unanimous army of climate scientists". I think the real gold in putting the nail in the "alarmist" coffin are quotes like "the science is settled" and "there's a consensus among scientists". With quotes like that I don't even need to look up the subject to know that the guy who said it is full of shit, because he hasn't got the slightest clue what science is.
Lians Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Holy crap, AccuTron, that was a serious data dump. Most appreciated! Just to add at the end there about a "unanimous army of climate scientists". I think the real gold in putting the nail in the "alarmist" coffin are quotes like "the science is settled" and "there's a consensus among scientists". With quotes like that I don't even need to look up the subject to know that the guy who said it is full of shit, because he hasn't got the slightest clue what science is. In addition to your comment, I'd like to point out that global warming/climate science is one of the few "scientific" disciplines where data is "gathered" in order to "validate" the theoretical model and not the other way around. You don't validate your models against the empirical data any more. If there's a discrepancy, you look for "new" data instead of making the necessary adjustments. The future fattening of a lot of bank accounts depends on the validity of the model after all. The alarmists always talk about "oil money interests," but never mention "government money incentives."
TheRobin Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Yeah thanks Accutron, that's a lot of data you wrote down here. Helped me alot in clarifying some things, so thanks for taking the time
AccuTron Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 In addition to your comment, I'd like to point out that global warming/climate science is one of the few "scientific" disciplines where data is "gathered" in order to "validate" the theoretical model and not the other way around. You don't validate your models against the empirical data any more. If there's a discrepancy, you look for "new" data instead of making the necessary adjustments. The future fattening of a lot of bank accounts depends on the validity of the model after all. The alarmists always talk about "oil money interests," but never mention "government money incentives." Thanks to all of you for your encouragement; it gets depressing at times. A couple more debunking moments: 1--Mann has a Facebook page showing an endless list of supporting universities and organizations. Many of those references are surely trivial attaboys from "climate non-scientists" who are completely clueless but they feel good wearing the hockeystick team jersey. The rest I suspect can be traced back to knowing fraud or incurious dupes. 2--Mann had a student named Briffa. Briffa did tree-ring analysis by >>>first eliminating any raw data that didn't agree with Mann's hockeystick<<<<. Which speaks bulls-eye to Lians' comment above. So be wary of claims involving "tree-ring analysis."
TheRobin Posted December 11, 2013 Posted December 11, 2013 2--Mann had a student named Briffa. Briffa did tree-ring analysis by >>>first eliminating any raw data that didn't agree with Mann's hockeystick<<<<. Which speaks bulls-eye to Lians' comment above. So be wary of claims involving "tree-ring analysis." How do you now that? (Not saying it's not true, just where do you get this kind of information from?)
AccuTron Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 How do you now that? (Not saying it's not true, just where do you get this kind of information from?) Always good to ask. I don't remember. I'd have to search a list of 116 bookmarked URL's, and it may not even be there since I only bookmarked a small fraction (~10-20%) and didn't bother to label them. At first, I didn't realize how deep this was and how far in I'd get, so I didn't bookmark as much early on. I vaguely recall that it was supplied by a reader comment, probably to another link. I provide links when I know them, and much of the rest is from a huge pile of resultant info in my head. Thus, references are lacking in places, but I write only what I believe to be true, so it had what I considered a solid source to begin with. I am a picky person when it comes to not repeating unreliable reports or half-truths, since it corrupts reporting of valid reports, which are in abundance and self-consistent. I'll do a quick search and see what I find. There's so much info, it really is like a needle in a haystack. Still searching, but here's a random link: The Reference Frame: Craig Loehle: trouble with tree-ring reconstructions It's short. Even if you don't follow the math, see the cautionary note--if a researcher doesn't really really really understand the topic, it's easy to be thrown off by data. The main article cautions that there may be an upper limit to tree ring growth which varies by species, and not knowing that, a researcher might assume that the environment had stopped changing. In the short comments section, someone cautions that a process (not involved with the climate topic) of measuring electrolytes might max out on it's own, and a person without full understanding of that might assume something else had maxed out. Beware of quick claims, since a poor quality researcher will often not have a clue about different layers of subtlety. They may also be referencing a source which is clearly debunked, like Mann's hockeystick, but they don't know it and it totally messes up any subsequent math. (I'll start another thread topic in the Current Events forum, related to that bad-original-source process, about scary Radon. Found out last night--it's hokum! Saddened but not surprised. Don't worry about radon in your home. - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board ) Were you or anyone else able to open my google.doc link? Briffa is mentioned again on page 10, in a Climategate email. Gotta give him credit there, since he admitted that a medieval warm period was probably like today's weather.
AccuTron Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Still searching those URL's...here's an example of how data is manipulated at top levels. A bit thick to read, but the writer has several examples of how original data has serious collection issues, and then may be manipulated later: PJ Media » Climategate: Something’s Rotten in Denmark … and East Anglia, Asheville, and New York City (PJM Exclusive) Here's another. A thick read, but that's how detective work is. It's all about manipulations in publishing bogus research papers. - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper (Called Jesus Paper because the frauds keep trying to resurrect it.) About the IPCC claim regarding disappearing Himalayan glaciers: No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian And here's a real sweetheart if ya' know how to look: Climate Reconstruction | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) It's from NOAA. What are those little -- unlinked -- graphs at the top? I recognize the left one. I have it's link!: fig613.png 692×756 pixels The gray areas represent "Overlap of reconstructed temperatures." Darker gray means more agreement. You'd think that recent years would be almost black. But they're not, in fact they're as poor as from a thousand years ago! And what span is the worst? -- the 20th century, what the alarmists are claiming as the main problem. And you can just look at the colored lines -- for the 20th century, they're spread wider than any other period. If everyone is doing good honest science, how is that possible? The closest I got to Briffa and the tree rings: Examining the validity of the published RCS Yamal tree-ring chronology Briffa makes a defense here, and seems to make some points, and most of us will give up before reading very much. But the essence to note is seen in his graph about midway down. The upper portion shows the results of NOT using some tree ring data, as seen by the smaller gray zone, which shows how much total data was used; it shows the hockeystick. The lower graph, using more data, shown by the much larger gray zone, Ta-Da!, no hockeystick! Just a gradual rise since about 1850, which was already generally known. So Briffa, in his own defense, ends up completely validating the skepticism of his results. But if you don't really work your brain, you'll not see this. On this page is a link to Canadian hero McIntyre's original criticism (Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem « Climate Audit). Graphs 2 and 3 show the before/after of adding data back in. You guessed it, the hockeystick disappears. (As I sort through this stuff, I'm adding links to my earlier posts. I also have made clarifications or corrections. I also discovered this link, about an hour, which really shows the mechanics of how the upper levels of the IPCC twist the truth: The Corbett Report | The IPCC Exposed (video) )
Recommended Posts