CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[wyly]

I think all of you folks are out to lunch! Why would we not simply hand the entire mess over to the government. We do have a guy on the peoples dime with the responsibility of the "Environment". This person gets paid by the people to handle matters specific to his Ministry. This comes under that category, and is therefore that persons responsibility, it is this person who is supposed to get to the bottom of the issue and provide recommendations to the Prime Minister.

So why is this not happening? The government employs one hell of a lot of scientists and commissions numerous reports from private sources on a regular basis. Why have they not given a solution to the problem? Why have they not been held accountable for the problems? We need to forget all the media garbage and start to place our concerns where thy belong! Why do we have a government?

you mean that same Prime Minister who has claimed Climate Change is a socialist plot to steal our money? ...I can imagine his list of scientific advisors, Riverwind, Noahbody, Keepitsimple...

[waldo]

If you would like to make a wager that I didn't know of Christy before you mentioned his name, I'd gladly take your money. I looked into it because I knew some clown would try to dismiss the data because it was was on a 'denier's site.'

You offered no referencing comment to the blind link you dropped to a deniers blog showing a graphic that the blogger himself offers no comment on... other than to say, "there is either very little or no warming at all (see Figure 1)". That's it - that's the extent of both of your contributions... blog-science rules! Neither you or the denier blogger mentions Christy... neither you or the denier blogger actually say anything about the graphic - all either of you do is point to a graphic - that's it. I suggested to you that graphic was from Christy... are you sure you're not being punked?

C'mon... can you offer Christy's comment/statements in regards that (supposedly) Christy graphic? Can you offer reference to the supporting data behind that graphic? Can you point to a paper, published or not, that Christy wrote in regards that graphic? Can you link to anything that actually offers specific detailed comment in regards that graphic? Again, can you link to anything that Christy himself actually stated in regards that (supposedly) Christy graphic? Anything... anything, at all?

It says that there is a great deal of uncertainty in regard to modeling climate.

Any actual reference to what Christy might presume to suggest it says. Anything? Anything, at all?

Oh my! Sorry, you'll need to present your own case for the graphic you presume to showcase as an indication that model projections aren't comparable to observations of global warming. Perhaps you're a noob - that's really the way this plays out on any discussion board/forum... the onus is on the originator to offer substantiation/citation to support claims made (that's you). The onus is not on others to make the case for the originator. If you actually want/expect comment on that graphic you'll need to present the aforementioned detail to support your case/position - otherwise, what is it you're actually asking for comment on... other than a blind link to a graphic of unknown origination. Bloody hell - anyone can put up any ole graphic to say any ole thing!

I've never disputed that the models adhered to projections before 2006. It's after that that I dispute.

Setting aside the actual projections, the very fact you hone in on the period after 2006 shows your complete and absolute ignorance in regards models (climate, or otherwise) and short-term trending. You state you accept that models adhere to projections before 2006... you've just stated it. Yet, for some reason you want to challenge the state of model projections based on 2-3 years of data... while making your asinine statement about "the IPCC wanting to hide the decline". You're a miserably failed parrot since you can't even properly relate that fallacious "hide the decline" Hackergate claim to what it actually reflects upon... an event that predates significantly the post 2006 period you challenge and an event/circumstance that has absolutely nothing to do with climate model projections.

(hint: read up on dendroclimatology, tree-ring proxies and the "divergence problem").

As for how well the 1988 Hansen projections stand up... one of the first ever done... they stand up very well, thank you very much:

Hansen’s 1988 projections --- original 1988 study (note: the article also offers a link to the 2006 paper that Hansen et al presented - as a revisit to those original 1988 simulations showing a relative close match between more recently observed data and the original model projections.)

[noahbody]

you mean that same Prime Minister who has claimed Climate Change is a socialist plot to steal our money? ...

He said that about kyoto, not climate change. What should make you roll your eyes is that people thought kyoto was a solution - even when the problem countries weren't involved.

I can imagine his list of scientific advisors, Riverwind, Noahbody, Keepitsimple...

Sure. How about adding a clause that states "if global temperatures begin to decline, all environmentalists have to start driving inefficient SUVs." ?

Edited December 13, 2009 by noahbody

[noahbody]

I suggested to you that graphic was from Christy... are you sure you're not being punked?

Yes you did. And I'd already looked into it. Are you slow? Here's the site that cited Christy as the author of the chart: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZhOGM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE= Anything else?

C'mon... can you offer Christy's comment/statements in regards that (supposedly) Christy graphic? Can you offer reference to the supporting data behind that graphic? Can you point to a paper, published or not, that Christy wrote in regards that graphic? Can you link to anything that actually offers specific detailed comment in regards that graphic? Again, can you link to anything that Christy himself actually stated in regards that (supposedly) Christy graphic? Anything... anything, at all?

I guess you didn't click on that link and read the bolded question did you? Maybe try that.

Oh my! Sorry, you'll need to present your own case for the graphic you presume to showcase as an indication that model projections aren't comparable to observations of global warming. Perhaps you're a noob - that's really the way this plays out on any discussion board/forum... the onus is on the originator to offer substantiation/citation to support claims made (that's you). The onus is not on others to make the case for the originator. If you actually want/expect comment on that graphic you'll need to present the aforementioned detail to support your case/position - otherwise, what is it you're actually asking for comment on... other than a blind link to a graphic of unknown origination. Bloody hell - anyone can put up any ole graphic to say any ole thing!

I can't help you if you can't understand a graph so simple or click on a link.

Setting aside the actual projections, the very fact you hone in on the period after 2006 shows your complete and absolute ignorance in regards models (climate, or otherwise) and short-term trending. You state you accept that models adhere to projections before 2006... you've just stated it. Yet, for some reason you want to challenge the state of model projections based on 2-3 years of data... while making your asinine statement about "the IPCC wanting to hide the decline". You're a miserably failed parrot since you can't even properly relate that fallacious "hide the decline" Hackergate claim to what it actually reflects upon... an event that predates significantly the post 2006 period you challenge and an event/circumstance that has absolutely nothing to do with climate model projections.

(hint: read up on dendroclimatology, tree-ring proxies and the "divergence problem").

Yes I've read about that too. They actually have the reviewer's comment who objected to them excluding the tree ring data as well as the other two objections and the reasons given for dismissing the comments.

As for how well the 1988 Hansen projections stand up... one of the first ever done... they stand up very well, thank you very much:

That was before the data correction wasn't it?

[wyly]

He said that about kyoto, not climate change. What should make you roll your eyes is that people thought kyoto was a solution - even when the problem countries weren't involved.

from the harper letter..." — It’s based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.— It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants." he's a fraud and a denier he no more understands the science of climate change than you and riverwind...

[waldo]

Yes you did. And I'd already looked into it. Are you slow? Here's the site that cited Christy as the author of the chart: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZhOGM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE= Anything else?

Yes - since someone with the supposed credentials of Christy would only, presumably, add "some degree" of credence to anything you might presume to state... why not mention him in your original post in reference to a link to a denier blogger's site. Instead you say nothing (offer no comment whatsoever), offer a blind link to a site that itself doesn't even acknowledge Christy... yet... it's a graphic, his (Christy's) graphic, that you would presume to showcase. That is, if you call "showcasing", the effort of blindly linking without offering actual comment.

In any case, all you've done now with this your latest reply is to shift to another blog site, and this time an article that originates from a "Marlo Lewis"... a 'senior fellow' in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Enough said - the CEI has been highlighted previously (several times now) in MLW - it's agenda is well recognized... is it really any surprise you would latch onto something as insignificantly trivial and lacking in substantive detail? Again... do you not have anything directly linked to/quoted from Christy in regards that graphic? Do you have anything referenced from/attributed directly to actual scientists that can speak to your concerns of model projection comparisons to observations after 2006... since you, yourself, claim you accept those model comparisons to observations prior to 2006. Do you have anything other than your 2 blog sites that, in themselves, offer no substantive detail or qualifying scientific study that can support your assertion. (Of course, again, you obviously know diddly if you're questioning models (climate based, or otherwise) and making a challenge on trending results based on 2-3 years of data)... but don't let that stop your crusade to discover the real reason, as you moronically state, "they're hiding the decline".

I dropped you a hint when I initially stated that graph originated from Christy... a hint where you might try to find it. He has a long established portfolio of presentations that he uses on his various 'dog&pony shows'. The core of the presentations remains essentially the same over the years... however, you may want to ask Christy why he doesn't include that particular graphic in his latest versions of his presentations? That particular graphic that you, your go-to denier blogger and the CEI hack all seem to feel is relevant in your challenge to the results of models... or, at least in your case, the challenge to the model results post-2006! Of course, since you never actually quote directly from Christy, anywhere, anytime, anyhow...

Setting aside the actual projections, the very fact you hone in on the period after 2006 shows your complete and absolute ignorance in regards models (climate, or otherwise) and short-term trending. You state you accept that models adhere to projections before 2006... you've just stated it. Yet, for some reason you want to challenge the state of model projections based on 2-3 years of data... while making your asinine statement about "the IPCC wanting to hide the decline". You're a miserably failed parrot since you can't even properly relate that fallacious "hide the decline" Hackergate claim to what it actually reflects upon... an event that predates significantly the post 2006 period you challenge and an event/circumstance that has absolutely nothing to do with climate model projections.

(hint: read up on dendroclimatology, tree-ring proxies and the "divergence problem").

Yes I've read about that too.

you've "read about that too"! Bloody hell... then what relevance does it (paleo reconstructions) have to anything you might presume to say about the comparative results of model projections to observations? What was the basis for your "hide the decline" statement/inference?

As for how well the 1988 Hansen projections stand up... one of the first ever done... they stand up very well, thank you very much:

Hansen’s 1988 projections --- original 1988 study (note: the article also offers a link to the 2006 paper that Hansen et al presented - as a revisit to those original 1988 simulations showing a relative close match between more recently observed data and the original model projections.)

That was before the data correction wasn't it?

If you have something to say, specifically say, why not do so? Yes, the original 1988 Hansen study predated the 2000 adjustments made to the U.S. specific USHGN data record... and, of course, Hansen's 2001 update to his original 1988 study incorporated those USHGN adjustments... and his 2006 study makes direct reference to his 2001 update (re: Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Imhoff M, Lawrence W, Easterling D, Peterson T, Karl T (2001) J Geophys Res 106:23947–23963)

[Riverwind]

A less self-serving analysis of Hansen's 1998 predictions can be found here.

It clear that the actual temperatures are lower than Scenario C which assumed that emissions were capped in 2000.

[jbg]

you mean that same Prime Minister who has claimed Climate Change is a socialist plot to steal our money? ...I can imagine his list of scientific advisors, Riverwind, Noahbody, Keepitsimple...

It is such a plot.

Do you really think that Kyoto or what's proposed in Copenhagen will reduce a single temperature in a single city on a single day? What a hoot.

[noahbody]

from the harper letter..." — It’s based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.— It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants." he's a fraud and a denier he no more understands the science of climate change than you and riverwind...

Anyone who supported Kyoto without the participation of the US, China and India doesn't understand basic problem solving. Kyoto was about reaching an objective and not solving a problem.

I would hope Harper is still skeptical of the magnitude/consequences of AGW. And you did misquote him.

[noahbody]

That is, if you call "showcasing", the effort of blindly linking without offering actual comment.

I did make a comment. I've also asked for a link to an updated graph in AR5 because I couldn't find it. If you could provide me a link I would be happy to look at it.

In any case, all you've done now with this your latest reply is to shift to another blog site, and this time an article that originates from a "Marlo Lewis"... a 'senior fellow' in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Enough said

I have better things to do with my time than to lead you through every article I read. That was the first one that cited Christy as the author. After that I googled his name and looked at several articles.

do you not have anything directly linked to/quoted from Christy in regards that graphic?

Yeah, I provided it the first time you asked for it. Then I told you to click on the link and read the bloody question.

Do you have anything referenced from/attributed directly to actual scientists that can speak to your concerns of model projection comparisons to observations after 2006... since you, yourself, claim you accept those model comparisons to observations prior to 2006. Do you have anything other than your 2 blog sites that, in themselves, offer no substantive detail or qualifying scientific study that can support your assertion. (Of course, again, you obviously know diddly if you're questioning models (climate based, or otherwise) and making a challenge on trending results based on 2-3 years of data)... but don't let that stop your crusade to discover the real reason, as you moronically state, "they're hiding the decline".

I have no reason to discount his temperature readings. Do you?

For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

, you may want to ask Christy why he doesn't include that particular graphic in his latest versions of his presentations?

Maybe because he's given that presentation before? Has his temperature readings been proven false? Is his satellite data not accurate?

That particular graphic that you, your go-to denier blogger and the CEI hack all seem to feel is relevant in your challenge to the results of models... or, at least in your case, the challenge to the model results post-2006! Of course, since you never actually quote directly from Christy, anywhere, anytime, anyhow...

Or you can't click a link.

you've "read about that too"! Bloody hell... then what relevance does it (paleo reconstructions) have to anything you might presume to say about the comparative results of model projections to observations? What was the basis for your "hide the decline" statement/inference?

Ignoring satellite data or not including up to date readings that make predictions look less impressive is similar, IMO, to them omitting tree ring data for temperature readings. This is only my opinion. I wouldn't buy a used car from the IPCC.

If you have something to say, specifically say, why not do so?

Maybe you're just not listening. Did you get that part about clicking the link?

P.S. Click the link.

[waldo]

Maybe you're just not listening. Did you get that part about clicking the link?

P.S. Click the link.

so... you have nothing that can be directly attributed to Christy... no direct quotations - nothing whatsoever. You have a graph that your CEI hack purports to originate from Christy. If the graph originates from Christy, surely you can offer it in that context, with Christy comment/statement clarifying what "his update" intends to state... and how "he" arrived at it. Or...

or... you, yourself, could take a stab at presenting that updated graph of questionable origination... and make a case for what it presents (show a basis/foundation for what it presents - since none has been shown so far, with anything you've stated/offered), particularly targeted towards your post-2006 concern.

you, yourself, could state how you might presume to utilize that minimal 2-3 years of post-2006 data as a refutation of climate models... and... how you might presume to measure that data in terms of 'continued warming - or less warming - or cooling'... and... what methodology was used to smooth the graphs endpoint data for the 2 additional (presumed) datasets added to the updated graph... and... what methodology was used to update the graph to align it with the particular model functions used to create the original graph, particularly in regards "whatever" the chosen smoothing methodology for the endpoints was. You, yourself, could also advise what statistical analysis was applied to the updated graph to estimate for uncertainties in the data... what the uncertainty estimate ranges are, which, of course, presumes you would/could advise what those actual uncertainties are.

since you've offered no supporting foundation for that updated graph - none whatsoever... just what is it... that you... really intend to present with that updated graph?

in asking for, as you state, "an upgraded graph in AR5 because you couldn't find it", you clearly have some confusion about the IPCC, it's reports, it's ongoing mandate between the release of successive reports, etc. According to this link, the AR5 release schedule has the AR5 report released in June, 2013... but take heart... the beginning of output from model runs is said to begin to be offered in Jan, 2010. I'm sure you'll be right on top of it - right?

[BrassTax]

Just like the intrawebs

you must be joking

if not...how so? are they watching?

puts on tinfoil hat, crouches in a dark corner

[waldo]

A less self-serving analysis of Hansen's 1998 predictions can be found here.

It clear that the actual temperatures are lower than Scenario C which assumed that emissions were capped in 2000.

self-serving? Really? It's always heartening to see your boy McIntyre actually agreeing with RealClimate as to which of Hansen's scenarios is the appropriate one for comparison to observations... Scenario B. Which, of course, aligns with Hansen's original statements... way back... in 1988!

These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns ... Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined ... Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases.

your observed assessment doesn't align with what either RC or your boy state... notwithstanding it is quite telling that skeptic deniers need to go back 2 decades, looking at one of the very first definitive model projection papers, to presume to even challenge the state of climate model projections. But... perhaps... we could be a bit more current. Perhaps we could look at actual global temperature data records to see how they align with what were the expectations of climate scientists... note: for noahbody's edification, UAH TLT data is (also) graphed!

Respective data trends from 2000 - all positive (notwithstanding uncertainties with short-term trending:

)

# For GISS data, the trend from 2000 to the present is +0.0115 +/- 0.018 deg.C/yr.

# For RSS data, the trend from 2000 to the present is +0.0017 +/- 0.030 deg.C/yr.

# For UAH data, the trend from 2000 to the present is +0.0052 +/- 0.043 deg.C/yr.

.

.

1990s and 2000s decadal averages:

# Using GISS data the decadal average for the 1990s was its highest yet at 0.3176. For the 2000s it warmed considerably, averaging 0.5108.

# Using RSS data the decadal average for the 1990s was its highest yet at 0.0833. For the 2000s it warmed considerably, averaging 0.2384.

# Using UAH data the decadal average for the 1990s was its highest yet at 0.0587. For the 2000s it warmed considerably, averaging 0.2219.

...

consistent with the AR4 statement/projected estimate of "about" 0.2C per decade, which given only 1 significant digit means somewhere between 0.15 and 0.25.

[Argus]

you must be joking

if not...how so? are they watching?

puts on tinfoil hat, crouches in a dark corner

Actually,I suspected from your first post that tinfoil caps were one of your favorite accessories.

Same with whiny and wally.

[Riverwind]

Scenario B. Which, of course, aligns with Hansen's original statements... way back... in 1988

You really need to try reading stuff instead of being a cut&paste jocky. While SteveMc analysis shows that Scenario B matches the actual emissions therefore Scenario B is the most appropriate scenario to compare against actual temperatures. The analysis does NOT show that Scenario B correctly predicted the future temperature trends. If you look at those graphs again you will see that the actual temperatures are way below where they should be if Hansen's models had any connection to reality.

[myata]

Who would defend though ?

I see no takers at this time, so the question appears to be pointless. I'm prepared to wait a (short) while longer, before having to to submit to the only logical possibility that "sceptics" interest here lies somewhere else but in establishing the true situation to the best of our present knowledge.

[Riverwind]

I see no takers at this time, so the question appears to be pointless. I'm prepared to wait a (short) while longer, before having to to submit to the only logical possibility that "sceptics" interest here lies somewhere else but in establishing the true situation to the best of our present knowledge.

No reasonable discussion of the issues can take place without considering the analyses presented on science focused skeptical blogs like ClimateAudit. Your proposal sought to exclude these sources from discussion so you should not be surprised to find that no one was interested in your terms of debate. Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

self-serving? Really? It's always heartening to see your boy McIntyre actually agreeing with RealClimate as to which of Hansen's scenarios is the appropriate one for comparison to observations... Scenario B. Which, of course, aligns with Hansen's original statements... way back... in 1988!

your observed assessment doesn't align with what either RC or your boy state... notwithstanding it is quite telling that skeptic deniers need to go back 2 decades, looking at one of the very first definitive model projection papers, to presume to even challenge the state of climate model projections. But... perhaps... we could be a bit more current. Perhaps we could look at actual global temperature data records to see how they align with what were the expectations of climate scientists... note: for noahbody's edification, UAH TLT data is (also) graphed!

You really need to try reading stuff instead of being a cut&paste jocky. While SteveMc analysis shows that Scenario B matches the actual emissions therefore Scenario B is the most appropriate scenario to compare against actual temperatures. The analysis does NOT show that Scenario B correctly predicted the future temperature trends. If you look at those graphs again you will see that the actual temperatures are way below where they should be if Hansen's models had any connection to reality.

for what little value McIntyre's opinion has on anything... he categorically states (from the link you provided), in his, uhhh... "analysis", the data does not refute Hansen. Would you like that quote bold highlighted for you? But what are you going to do now? You're out on a limb without your self-styled life-preserver, McIntyre! And, of course, your (now) personal assessment doesn't align with what RC suggest when comparing Scenario B to observations. As I said, it is quite illuminating when the skeptic deniers need to revert back 2 decades to a study that predated the 'proving' of global warming and offered representative projections in spite of the heightened uncertainties that existed... 2 decades ago!

but you should take heart... at least your boy McIntyre is no longer attempting to claim Scenario A as Hansen's preferred scenario... nor is McIntyre further continuing his defense of the absolute fraud attempted at the U.S. Congressional hearings - apparently... McIntyre can actually learn from real scientists - go figure!

[waldo]

No reasonable discussion of the issues can take place without considering the analyses presented on science focused skeptical blogs like ClimateAudit. Your proposal sought to exclude these sources from discussion so you should not be surprised to find that no one was interested in your terms of debate.

(skeptical bold emphasis added )

[Riverwind]

skeptical bold emphasis added

There is one metric that I use to seperate the true scientists from the political ideologues. True scientists recognize the merit of SteveMc's analyses even if they fully support the IPCC consensus. Political ideologues think that he must be ignored because he does not play by the old boys club rules.

[waldo]

There is one metric that I use to seperate the true scientists from the political ideologues. True scientists recognize the merit of SteveMc's analyses even if they fully support the IPCC consensus. Political ideologues think that he must be ignored because he does not play by the old boys club rules.

yabut... who's auditing the "auditor" and the many, many mistakes he's made - notwithstanding the enabling he does, explicit or otherwise, for all the absolute knuckle-draggers who flock to his site? Of course, you referred to one of those mistakes pointed out to you as indicative of (I paraphrase), "how human he is... that mistakes are made... that shit happens". Apparently, when your boy does it, it's not called "data manipulation".

[Riverwind]

who's auditing the "auditor" and the many, many mistakes he's made

The big difference between SteveMc and the RC gang is when SteveMc makes a mistake he corrects it. That said, many of the "mistakes" that the RC gang accuses him of making are not mistakes at all - they are simply points of disagreement.

[myata]

No reasonable discussion of the issues can take place without considering the analyses presented on science focused skeptical blogs like ClimateAudit.

No reasonable discussion is possible without basic common sense discipline which includes correctness and provability.

Your proposal sought to exclude these sources from discussion

Not at all, as long as their findings were also published in peer reviewed professional media. Without such qualification validity of statements simply cannot be assured and the discussion looses all practical meaning.

so you should not be surprised to find that no one was interested in your terms of debate.

I'm not at all surprised that some "skeptics" wouldn't be thrilled to present their claims to a responsible and rigorous critical analysis, preferring free of any standards and/or responsibility "about sciense" blogosphere instead.

However I'll keep my mind open and am leaving my offer open for a while longer.

Edited December 14, 2009 by myata

[Riverwind]

No reasonable discussion is possible without basic common sense discipline which includes correctness and provability.

And there are plenty of those kinds of discussions on sceptical blogs.

Not at all, as long as their findings were also published in peer reviewed professional media. Without such qualification validity of statements simply cannot be assured and the discussion looses all practical meaning.

Peer review means nothing because a lot of junk passes peer review. There can be no discussion unless the focus is on the substance of the arguments and not the forum where they are presented.

I'm not at all surprised that some "skeptics" wouldn't be thrilled to present their claims to a responsible and rigorous critical analysis, preferring free of any standards and/or responsibility "about sciense" blogosphere instead.

Believe what you want but it worth noting that professional journalists once dismissed bloggers as unworthy. They were forced to change their mind. The same will happen to science and scientific chauvinists such as yourself. Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Riverwind & Waldo,

I'm confused by something:

This LINK seems to indicate that Steve Mc has presented to the IPCC ?

Edited December 14, 2009 by Michael Hardner