ClimateGate and the Climatati

[wyly]

The continual increase in solar activity has nothing to do with the climate of the planet? Really? I'm sorry but I burst out laughing when I read that.

your quote in all it's ignorance

mine which is backed by science,

View Postwyly, on 27 November 2009 - 10:39 AM, said:

that's absolutely false...research has ruled out any connection between the suns activity and recent warming, it's just the opposite...don't believe it go find a reputable link proving otherwise...

solar activity has not been linked with this warming since the mid 70's...

now show us the evidence solar activity is still rising, I keep asking and I get nothing...

Luv it when I get to laugh last :lol: :lol:

Edited November 28, 2009 by wyly

[bush_cheney2004]

oh please tell us when has modern man adapted to an average global temp 5-7c than he has ever experienced??? we're not talking a million hunter gathers scattered around the globe at the time of the last ice age but 6.5 billion or soon to be 9 billion be 2050...how is that going to work, explain it to us...

Same way it worked in the Middle Ages....Duh!

[August1991]

I am struggling through this thread. (I'm at page 12... )

Riverwind is a credit to this forum, and this forum is a credit to Canadian political discussion.

Canadian newspapers do not have such discussion forums. On my French forum, this is not on the radar screen.

To follow....

[waldo]

The only denier is you. The emails revealed that climate science is a corrupt enterprise that needs a thorough house cleaning. You can look up what happened to Saiers who attracted the ire of the cabal for insisting on following GRL's policies when it came to dealing the responses to the McIntyre and McKitrick paper. He was replaced with an editor who was a true believer and did not let things like rules or ethics discourage him from the conspiracy to cover up the problems with the hockey stick papers.

you generally have no problem providing links - put one up for the hacked email that represents this latest concern of yours... so it's the GRL journal, and not "JGL" as you previously mentioned.

There is more than enough evidence to require a full public inquiry to find out how far the rot extends beyond the group captured in the emails.

all rightee... the hacked email in question, in all it's Riverwind 'blackmail, intimidation, conspiracy, corruption' glory...

(emphasis added)

This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.

I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then,

if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Even this would be difficult.

How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.

editors are not supposed to appear biased - they may hold bias (as to be expected), but it should not be outwardly perceived in their decisions/management. Now... if there is a perceived problem... if an editor is viewed as having bias in decisions to publish, the system is designed to allow those concerned to raise their concerns within the AGU... by design and intent... that's the system. So... you read a hacked email where someone suggests that if they can find documentary evidence of the bias, they could go through official AGU channels - as designed, as available - to raise their concerns with an intent to have the biased editor ousted. Now... anything beyond that is up to the AGU on how the raised concerns over documented evidence of bias should be handled. Of course, a review would commence, the evidence would be evaluated and a decision would follow. All normal, all regular happenstance... the process as designed - as intended. No conspiracy, no blackmail, no intimidation and no corruption... no matter how hard you try to spin it. However, if you care to attach your ludicrous claims of conspiracy, blackmail, intimidation and corruption to the AGU, then we have a complete new ball game. Are you prepared to (now) project your claim towards the AGU itself?

[waldo]

Making shit up is a perfectly acceptable way to do science. In fact, it is often the only way to do science. The only problem is when people fail to distinguish between scientific facts which can be verified in repeatable experiments and scientific opinions which cannot be verified. The the IPCC view on AGW is a scientific opinion - not a fact. It may be the view of the majority of climate scientists and that would mean something if those views were known to be objective free of conflict of interest. However, the emails reveal that climate scientists are neither objective no free of conflict of interest. This casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the consensus opinion.

Perhaps the scientists you align with make shit up... ethical, reputable scientists don't.

Those ethical, reputable scientists may believe and propose their findings/work add or complement existing views held... or perhaps challenge existing views held... or perhaps add something new to the mix. However, their findings, their work, is fundamentally interpreted as being verifiable. That veracity is a testament to their reputation, to their ethics, to their knowledge, to their interpretations and ultimately... to the weight they themselves attach to their findings, to their work.

Scientists will, of course, attach caveats if required... they invariably assign weightings of confidence that project any attached risk/uncertainty. And then their findings and work are put up for review within the scientific community... that community weighs in and evaluates the newly offered findings/work. It is the scientific community, at large, that collectively evaluates and determines the worth, the value of the newly offered findings/work... does it add or complement the existing held understandings... does it challenge existing held understandings. That is exactly the case, the situation today with regards to climate science - the overwhelming community subscribes to the understanding that AGW is real, is happening, is impacting. The IPCC is simply a body that projects that overwhelming view... and, of course, you and others in this thread have challenged it's practice of attaching weightings, degrees of certainty, to aspects presented within it's reports. However, that's the science... and in regards the certainty of AGW, the IPCC provides the weightings that reflect the views held by the overwhelming community. Are there dissenters? Of course - that's to be expected... that's the nature of science. By the way... where are the "facts" from the dissenters... the "facts" you challenge the IPCC for... the facts that can shift the overwhelming views held by the community today?

[Argus]

I am struggling through this thread. (I'm at page 12... )

Riverwind is a credit to this forum, and this forum is a credit to Canadian political discussion.

Canadian newspapers do not have such discussion forums. On my French forum, this is not on the radar screen.

To follow....

What I take from this topic is the interesting way the two sides behave. The "doubters" tend to use citations, but also logic and common sense. They are more thoughtful and skeptical. The pro-global warming crowd evidence no sign of or ability to think at all. There is no doubt in their minds, no postulating, no speculation. There is nothing but rote parroting of kant from the IPCC web sites. Nothing challenges them to think. Nothing causes them to doubt. They also tend to be far less polite, more contemptuous, indignant, angry and self-righteous about anyone doubting The Truth. Because of this they make a very poor case and are entirely unconvincing.

[Argus]

Perhaps the scientists you align with make shit up... ethical, reputable scientists don't.

Maybe you'd like to address the question of hurricanes. It seems you Global Warming types averted your eyes on that particular post.

[waldo]

The dogmatism expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning.

The delusional blind faith expressed is unparalleled. Just stunning.

Yes, every time I read one of your idiotic posts I say the same.

why Argus, how about a little morning ditty to reflect this, your latest post

trollin, trollin, trollin,

Move 'em out, head 'em up, get 'em up

Move 'em out, head 'em up, get 'em up

Rawhide!

[waldo]

Maybe you'd like to address the question of hurricanes. It seems you Global Warming types averted your eyes on that particular post.

global warming types

hey Argus, what type are you? What would you like to offer, particularly, about that particular post you speak of... you know, actually offer something of substance, other than simply pointing to it.

[Michael Hardner]

I am struggling through this thread. (I'm at page 12... )

Riverwind is a credit to this forum, and this forum is a credit to Canadian political discussion.

Canadian newspapers do not have such discussion forums. On my French forum, this is not on the radar screen.

To follow....

I agree, Auguste. I'm learning more from this conversation than I have before on this topic, as long as it moves forward.

Goat Boy seems to have summarized the point where opinions diverge: scientists concur that there is global warming, but not why it happens.

Other points that I have been convinced of:

There has been, and will be no 'proof' that AGW is happening.

There needs to be an inquiry into the East Anglia emails.

Finally, the global warming problem is, to me, primarily a problem in sharing important, and difficult knowledge across the globe when it needs to be. However, as this very thread shows, one way forward is for a few individuals with divergent opinions to discuss it, and for the rest of us to learn from that.

[Michael Hardner]

What I take from this topic is the interesting way the two sides behave. The "doubters" tend to use citations, but also logic and common sense. They are more thoughtful and skeptical. The pro-global warming crowd evidence no sign of or ability to think at all. There is no doubt in their minds, no postulating, no speculation. There is nothing but rote parroting of kant from the IPCC web sites. Nothing challenges them to think. Nothing causes them to doubt. They also tend to be far less polite, more contemptuous, indignant, angry and self-righteous about anyone doubting The Truth. Because of this they make a very poor case and are entirely unconvincing.

Let see - the "doubters" use citations and the pro-global warming crowd (Argus, at this level of the debate you should be careful to call it AGW, as no-one is really doubting that warming is happening on this thread) is "parroting" websites. What's the difference ?

The doubters also learn on the idea that people are inherently evil and dishonest, that scientists can't be trusted across the board and ultimately that wide global conspiracies are not only possible but likely.

You're right about the rudeness, it's unnecessary and may cause the debate to end early. ( By "end", the best we can hope for is that the debaters hone in on points that are either unprovable, reflective of personal values, or need to be proven in the future - such as the results of an inquiry. )

[Riverwind]

Perhaps the scientists you align with make shit up... ethical, reputable scientists don't.

Then you are saying that there are no ethical, reputable scientists doing climate science because whether you are willing to admit it or not most of climate science depends on made up data.

If you disagree please point me to the data that tells the exact mix of cooling vs. heating aerosols in the air during the 60s and 70s? How about the data showing the average cloud albedo during the ice ages? You won't find anything cause the data does not exist. Yet it is impossible to produce a climate model without such data so scientists are forced to make it up. In fact, when it comes to the net effect of human aerosols many climate models use the 'inverse' method to determine aerosols. i.e. they simply calculate the amount of aerosols based on what it takes to get the models to produce the temperature record. In other words, they "make shit up" and hope it has some connection to reality.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Maybe you'd like to address the question of hurricanes. It seems you Global Warming types averted your eyes on that particular post.

global warming types

hey Argus, what type are you? What would you like to offer, particularly, about that particular post you speak of... you know, actually offer something of substance, other than simply pointing to it.

ok, ok... I actually went back looking for a post referencing hurricanes. FWIW, I ignored it as the originator of the post provided a link to the CBC website and then a quote reference (re: hurricanes) that has no relation to the provided link... it is simply a dropped quote without any supporting context... either an attached commentary or a proper linked reference. Since that post apparently caught your eye, perhaps you could pick it up and offer comment - perhaps provide indication where that quote came from... you know... offer relative context. That way, perhaps, one might be inclined to give it more substance, more credence.

[Riverwind]

The doubters also learn on the idea that people are inherently evil and dishonest, that scientists can't be trusted across the board and ultimately that wide global conspiracies are not only possible but likely.

Human beings have an incredible capacity to convince themselves of the truth of what they want to believe. That is why I do not believe that many climate scientists are knowingly dishonest or fraudulant. However, climate science is a discipline where almost nothing can be proven experimentally and climate scientists constantly have to judgement calls into to estimate missing data. The judgement calls are very much affected by what the scientist expects to see. Therefore, the IPCC view of climate science is largely a matter of opinion - not fact.

Here is an example of how the temperature record in New Zealand was manipulated to show warming when no warming exists in the raw data. This paragraph explains that there is some pseudo scientific rational for the adjustments but, in the end, the adjustments were just made up.

Except, it all hinges on the quality of the reasoning that goes into making that adjustment. If it were me, I would have slung up a temperature station in the disused location again and worked out over a year the average offset between Thorndon and Kelburn. It’s not perfect, after all we are talking about a switch in 1928, but it would be something. But NIWA didn’t do that.

Instead, as their news release records, they simply guessed that the readings taken at Wellington Airport would be similar to Thorndon, simply because both sites are only a few metres above sea level.

Airport records temps about 0.79C above Kelburn on average, so NIWA simply said to themselves, “that’ll do” and made the Airport/Kelburn offset the official offset for Thorndon/Kelburn as well, even though no comparison study of the latter scenario has ever been done

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind

[Goat Boy©]

your quote in all it's ignorance

mine which is backed by science,

solar activity has not been linked with this warming since the mid 70's...

now show us the evidence solar activity is still rising, I keep asking and I get nothing...

Luv it when I get to laugh last :lol: :lol:

I've been holding this back for courtesies sake.....you're an idiot.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif

You're graph proves me correct. Solar Iradiance, as I stated, is always trending on the rise. If you expand that many thousands of years you'll see a graph of something on the order of Y=(.00001)X, it's estimated to be an increase of about .05% per decade with variance as is evidenced.

Factoring the 11 year cycle, expand that graph to today and you will see quite an increase above the 1970 level, but regardless, measured intensity remains above 1970 levels anyways.

But hell, here's a claim for you:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nationalscience/093097sci-sun.html

Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, said a study published on Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of data from satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

The increase is only a small fraction of the Sun's total heat, but over a century, it would be enough to seriously aggravate problems of global warming, said Dr. Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

Dr. Willson said most researchers expected greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees, he said.

Enjoy you last laugh, I'm shaking my head.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Michael Hardner]

Human beings have an incredible capacity to convince themselves of the truth of what they want to believe. That is why I do not believe that many climate scientists are knowingly dishonest or fraudulant. However, climate science is a discipline where almost nothing can be proven experimentally and climate scientists constantly have to judgement calls into to estimate missing data. The judgement calls are very much affected by what the scientist expects to see. Therefore, the IPCC view of climate science is largely a matter of opinion - not fact.

That's a lot more clear, thanks.

Here is an example of how the temperature record in New Zealand was manipulated to show warming when no data exists in the raw data. This paragraph explains that there is some pseudo scientific rational for the adjustments but, in the end, the adjustments were just made up.

There are certainly scientists out there who would manipulate the data, especially if they knew it wouldn't be detected. However, I believe this is more likely the case of someone trying to "clean up" the data - which is a term you'll see a lot.

The "cleaning up" though, is a gray area. A key point that came out in this thread, though, is the concept of making the raw data available. I'm surprised that that hasn't been done, frankly. This is math - so peer review is absolutely required to confirm calculations as well as opinions and reasonable conjecture.

[Goat Boy©]

ok, ok... I actually went back looking for a post referencing hurricanes. FWIW, I ignored it as the originator of the post provided a link to the CBC website and then a quote reference (re: hurricanes) that has no relation to the provided link... it is simply a dropped quote without any supporting context... either an attached commentary or a proper linked reference. Since that post apparently caught your eye, perhaps you could pick it up and offer comment - perhaps provide indication where that quote came from... you know... offer relative context. That way, perhaps, one might be inclined to give it more substance, more credence.

That was my post, the link was a C & P typo. The text holds true.

Since edited to the correct link.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15419&view=findpost&p=486337

Edited November 28, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[waldo]

Then you are saying that there are no ethical, reputable scientists doing climate science because whether you are willing to admit it or not most of climate science depends on made up data.

If you disagree please point me to the data that tells the exact mix of cooling vs. heating aerosols in the air during the 60s and 70s? How about the data showing the average cloud albedo during the ice ages? You won't find anything cause the data does not exist. Yet it is impossible to produce a climate model without such data so scientists are forced to make it up. In fact, when it comes to the net effect of human aerosols many climate models use the 'inverse' method to determine aerosols. i.e. they simply calculate the amount of aerosols based on what it takes to get the models to produce the temperature record. In other words, the "make shit up" and hope it has some connection to reality.

very timely... given the "to do" emanating from the deniersphere, and related scurrilous accusations and falsehoods, particularly about not making data available, RealClimate has just put up a comprehensive page with links to all the actual data(raw), data(processed), paleo-data, paleo reconstructions (including code), large-scale model (Reanalysis) output, large-scale model (GCM) output, model codes (GCMs), model codes (other), data visualisation and analysis and master repositories of climate and other Earth Science data. Note: this is simply a concise point of reference and access to data, reconstructions, output, codes, etc., that has always been available... despite what the deniers would claim. Open feedback is solicited to add additional references.

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc. We have made a start on this on a new Data Sources page, but if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the comments and we’ll update accordingly.

The climate science community fully understands how important it is that data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate to contact them if you want to see improvements.

[Michael Hardner]

I've been holding this back for courtesies sake.....you're an idiot.

Enjoy you last laugh, I'm shaking my head.

I believe your disagreement comes from Wyly saying:

"solar activity has not been linked with this warming since the mid 70's..."

Which relates to the Wiki page explanation:

"Observations show that temperatures in the stratosphere have been steady or cooling since 1979"

So you seemed to misunderstand each other here - it's not that solar activity hasn't been proposed as a link since the 70s, it's that the effect of the sun on the earth hasn't appeared to have a warming effect since the 70s.

Again - you're both idiots for insulting each other, and ergo I'm an idiot for insulting the both of you just now.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

I've been holding this back for courtesies sake.....you're an idiot.

Enjoy you last laugh, I'm shaking my head.

I believe your disagreement comes from Wyly saying:

"solar activity has not been linked with this warming since the mid 70's..."

Which relates to the Wiki page explanation - Wikipedia - Global Warming Page

"Observations show that temperatures in the stratosphere have been steady or cooling since 1979"

So you seemed to misunderstand each other here - it's not that solar activity hasn't been proposed as a link since the 70s, it's that the effect of the sun on the earth hasn't appeared to have a warming effect since the 70s.

Again - you're both idiots for insulting each other, and ergo I'm an idiot for insulting the both of you just now.

[Goat Boy©]

I believe your disagreement comes from Wyly saying:

"solar activity has not been linked with this warming since the mid 70's..."

Which relates to the Wiki page explanation:

"Observations show that temperatures in the stratosphere have been steady or cooling since 1979"

So you seemed to misunderstand each other here - it's not that solar activity hasn't been proposed as a link since the 70s, it's that the effect of the sun on the earth hasn't appeared to have a warming effect since the 70s.

Again - you're both idiots for insulting each other, and ergo I'm an idiot for insulting the both of you just now.

Let there be no misunderstanding, the disputed point is this:

because the sun's energy output has been low and temps rose regardless so the sun has not been causing the warming... and neither is the Milankovitch cycle to blame because the warming is happening far to quickly...that only leaves CO2...

The Sun increases in both size and intensity every year.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980218c.html

And this alone. Excuse me for trying to shake the common sense tree, I've mentioned my wish to take this back on topic several times.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Michael Hardner]

Let there be no misunderstanding, the disputed point is this:

And this alone. Excuse me for trying to shake the common sense tree, I've mentioned my wish to take this back on topic several times.

Your quotes appear to be nested incorrectly there. The comment on the sun increasing in size and intensity are yours, I think, not Wyly's.

In any case - the sun increasing in intensity hasn't shown to be a cause of heating other parts of the atmosphere so what isn't "common sense" here ? I'm just trying to break the logjam in my own mind on what the point of disagreement is.

[waldo]

And this alone. Excuse me for trying to shake the common sense tree, I've mentioned my wish to take this back on topic several times.

geezaz! Is it any more basic than to state - and agree that - solar radiative forcing is a factor, of course, but relatively speaking, it is not as a significant (positive) contributor, particularly in relation to the other positive contributors, most specifically CO2. Do I really need to provide this link... again!

(fwiw - I do believe that is exactly what wyly was stating - the significant linkages to the recent decades warming have not come from the sun)

re: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15419&st=240&p=486391entry486391

[Goat Boy©]

Your quotes appear to be nested incorrectly there. The comment on the sun increasing in size and intensity are yours, I think, not Wyly's.

In any case - the sun increasing in intensity hasn't shown to be a cause of heating other parts of the atmosphere so what isn't "common sense" here ? I'm just trying to break the logjam in my own mind on what the point of disagreement is.

Agreed, quotes are nestled backward.

And the quote has nothing to do with the suns effect on earth, it simply refutes the statement that "The suns output has been very low," as incorrect.

That is all.

Anyways, once again, enough. I don't wish to derail this topic any further with rubbish.

[Riverwind]

RealClimate has just put up a comprehensive page with links to all the actual data(raw), data(processed), paleo-data, paleo reconstructions (including code), large-scale model (Reanalysis) output, large-scale model (GCM) output, model codes (GCMs), model codes (other), data visualisation and analysis and master repositories of climate and other Earth Science data.

To be fair a lot of data has been online for a quite awhile (but only because sceptics demanded it) and sceptics have used to demonstrate that the 'consensus' opinion is based on on arbitrary choices which happen to produce results that they like. They have shown that making different scientifically justifiable choices can result in a different picture of the data.

However, you forget that these emails we released because the scientists refused to release data key to some important analyses so RC is quite disingenuous to imply that ALL of the data has been made public.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Riverwind