Global Warming - Science's Double-Standard ?

[Shady]

struggling with C° to F° conversions will certainly help your American wannabe fantasies.

NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

USA Today

[TimG]

Yes, of course you're right; in fact, it's an odd claim indeed to which you felt compelled to respond. What we are or are not going to do about the situation has no bearing on what are or are not the pre-existing facts.

In science there are facts and theory. Facts are measurable. If I drop a ball I can measure its speed when it hits the ground. The speed is a fact. Gravity is the theory that explains why the ball falls. There is no debate about facts if we have reasonable confidence in the measurement techniques.

Theories seek to explain the facts and make future predictions. Theories are debated if they don't explain all facts. The willingness to accept a theory as valid depends on how much weight one puts on facts that support the theory vs. facts that do not support it. The relative weighting is a subjective judgement call - it is not something that can be determined objectively.

Edited July 19, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Shady, buddy... given the nature of your particular front page status message (Accurate, non-partisan NASA satellite data = 0.43 degrees higher than average. Alarmist fudge factory data = 1.22 degrees higher than average), I just had to open-up my ignore on you and read your post I'm replying to...

struggling with C° to F° conversions will certainly help your American wannabe fantasies.

note: it only gets better!!! ... new updated Shady status message clarifies (Accurate, non-partisan NASA satellite data = 0.43 degrees F higher than average. Alarmist fudge factory data = 1.22 F degrees higher than average.)... but still fails to recognize that one of those two quoted numbers is not like the other

responding to Shady nothingness - oh my!

aside from this being nothing more than the continued, without foundation, D'Aleo/Watts distraction, fabrication, distortion of the surface temperature record, I've bold highlighted a clue for ya, lil' buddy. Would D'Aleo purposely mix temperature scales for effect... na, say it ain't so!

[waldo]

I recognize that Bayesian analysis is useful in some problems but its results are *always* subjective and depend on the biases of the person doing the calculation.

which, again, has you totally dismissing the 'school' of objectivist Bayesian.

The efforts to create objective techniques for detemining priors only work for some problems and (ironically) being forced to choose one of many competing objective techniques turns the analysis into a subjective one no matter what word games are used.

although you argued there were no objective techniques... you now suggest that even though there are multiple objective techniques, choosing one would actually be a competition - ergo, in your view, a subjective competition. Word games? Yeesh!

[TimG]

which, again, has you totally dismissing the 'school' of objectivist Bayesian.

Yep. Its existence does not mean it is significant or relevant to the anaylses done by the IPCC. The only thing that makes it interesting is it shows that people have tried and largely failed to find a way to make baysian analysis less subject to the biases of the person doing the analyses. Edited July 19, 2010 by TimG

[Pliny]

In science there are facts and theory. Facts are measurable. If I drop a ball I can measure its speed when it hits the ground. The speed is a fact. Gravity is the theory that explains why the ball falls. There is no debate about facts if we have reasonable confidence in the measurement techniques.

Theories seek to explain the facts and make future predictions. Theories are debated if they don't explain all facts. The willingness to accept a theory as valid depends on how much weight one puts on facts that support the theory vs. facts that do not support it. The relative weighting is a subjective judgement call - it is not something that can be determined objectively.

Except in Waldo's case - things can only be determined objectively. "Subjective judgment" is a concept foreign to him as a "true believer". Only the scriptures shall make the determination of truth and the infallible Pope Gore shall proclaim our course of action and the necessity of it's immediate implementation.

Of course, as you mentioned earlier, economics has a role, at least in people who can form a subjective opinion, in the acceptance of AGW and the course of action governments should take.

Cap and trade and global agreements to punish the most productive is the stock in trade of government - well...where else could it get it's revenues - out of thin air?

Those that believe the cost of this redistribution of wealth is going to mean little to them really have no understanding of how the gap between rich and poor is widening.

In our city, the Mayor and City Councillors have decided that bike lanes are necessary and any restriction or penalty to people driving their automobiles is a valid policy. Parking restrictions have increased along the cost and the fines for violations. Transit seems to be the only consideration and receives much funding that is always never enough and those it was designed for, the poor, are facing higher costs for riding the buses and sky trains.

All these costs are marginalizing more and more people. I don't go downtown because of costs that are prohibitive, not only for my car but for public transportation. Of course the rich, who benefit from less traffic on the highways and roads and can absorb the increased costs of transportation will still just drive and park downtown. Isn't the widening gap between rich and poor the concern of those who demand social justice? Well, it seems that the bureaucrat who will allot himself a free parking space downtown and has a necessity to drive to work can grant himself the benefit of subsidized fuel costs is elbowing his way in with the rich.

The reduced traffic on the roads and increased availability of parking space by those who are increasingly marginalized by such policies is greatly enjoyed at a cost that means little to the rich and the bureaucrat who can exempt himself from costs.

Now I don't mind if someone competes for scarce resources as long as he "competes" fairly. I do resent being marginalized by government policies that will eventually force me to buy a bike. I would understand if resources were scarce and the market dictated my necessity to buy a bike - we would at least all be in the same boat in the latter instance but to give the rich and the bureaucrat the advantage sticks in my craw.

Providing the poor with "buses" for transportation is a noble thing but to not realize that you will soon be on the bus is to be lacking in any understanding of how governments work. Resources will always be for them and those above the marginalization their policies create.

[waldo]

Except in Waldo's case - things can only be determined objectively. "Subjective judgment" is a concept foreign to him as a "true believer". Only the scriptures shall make the determination of truth and the infallible Pope Gore shall proclaim our course of action and the necessity of it's immediate implementation.

Pliny, good to see you haven't forsaken the 'pope' after all... that's twice today that you've showcased your one-track minded fixation.

as for the rest concerning the guesswork vs. subjectivity vs. objectivity discussions, well, when you outright state a lie, as you've now done... you're simply being a complete ass-hole - how's that?

[Keepitsimple]

Except in Waldo's case - things can only be determined objectively. "Subjective judgment" is a concept foreign to him as a "true believer". Only the scriptures shall make the determination of truth and the infallible Pope Gore shall proclaim our course of action and the necessity of it's immediate implementation.

I came to the conclusion some time ago that Waldo is simply an intentional contrarian......gaining egotisticle satisfaction with the "attention" he gains (Hubris) from arguing his intractable IPCC/RealClimate position. Only a fool would have such a closed mind and as repugnant as his manner often is, I do not believe he is a complete fool.....but he's working at it! It's sad because there is so much room for constructive debate. Did I mention I have Waldo on IGNORE?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Shady, buddy... given the nature of your particular front page status message (Accurate, non-partisan NASA satellite data = 0.43 degrees higher than average. Alarmist fudge factory data = 1.22 degrees higher than average), I just had to open-up my ignore on you and read your post I'm replying to...

struggling with C° to F° conversions will certainly help your American wannabe fantasies.

note: it only gets better!!! ... new updated Shady status message clarifies (Accurate, non-partisan NASA satellite data = 0.43 degrees F higher than average. Alarmist fudge factory data = 1.22 F degrees higher than average.)... but still fails to recognize that one of those two quoted numbers is not like the other

responding to Shady nothingness - oh my!

aside from this being nothing more than the continued, without foundation, D'Aleo/Watts distraction, fabrication, distortion of the surface temperature record, I've bold highlighted a clue for ya, lil' buddy. Would D'Aleo purposely mix temperature scales for effect... na, say it ain't so!

Shady, oh intrepid climate denier... let's continue playing - hey?

it appears you still haven't quite figured out D'Aleo mixes temperature scale numbers... but really, should we be surprised? Notwithstanding, of course, satellite "temperatures" have never, literally, corresponded to surface temperature anomalies. And, of course, other than those purposefully intent on distortion/fabrication (like Joe D'Aleo), who actually compares satellite-to-surface measurements in this manner?

by the by... I understand RSS reported a June 2010 global temperature anomaly at +.535. Hey lil' buddy... guess which temperature scale that value is in?

[bloodyminded]

In science there are facts and theory. Facts are measurable. If I drop a ball I can measure its speed when it hits the ground. The speed is a fact. Gravity is the theory that explains why the ball falls. There is no debate about facts if we have reasonable confidence in the measurement techniques.

Theories seek to explain the facts and make future predictions. Theories are debated if they don't explain all facts. The willingness to accept a theory as valid depends on how much weight one puts on facts that support the theory vs. facts that do not support it. The relative weighting is a subjective judgement call - it is not something that can be determined objectively.

I appreciate the interesting remarks, but I'm not sure why you posted them as an ostensible response to my post.

[TimG]

I appreciate the interesting remarks, but I'm not sure why you posted them as an ostensible response to my post.

Because you agreed with Michael's assertion that scientific evidence for AGW is be evaulated indepedently of the possible policy implications.

[waldo]

I came to the conclusion some time ago that Waldo is simply an intentional contrarian......gaining egotisticle satisfaction with the "attention" he gains (Hubris) from arguing his intractable IPCC/RealClimate position. Only a fool would have such a closed mind and as repugnant as his manner often is, I do not believe he is a complete fool.....but he's working at it! It's sad because there is so much room for constructive debate. Did I mention I have Waldo on IGNORE?

yes Simple, you've mentioned being on ignore... pretty much every other day now! But I prefer it... I know you actually read my posts - you proved it when you felt a burning need to update one... but really, who cares - I much prefer it like this. Your official ignore declaration simply allows me a direct shot at your posts without, typically, a need to deal with your nonsensical responses. But let's give credit where credit is due - the actual ignore you invoked stems from my cornering you on your incessant desire to open the abortion debate while at the same time trumpeting your desires for related morality legislation.

you seem to have a RealClimate hangup... get over it buddy - it's a site I'll refer to; it's not typically one I follow regularly. As for constructive debate, we've gone down this path now several times... at one point, there was a modicum of constructive debate... a sense of decorum. It quickly flew by the way in the face of yours (and others) incessant denial and the manner in which you project that denial which has never been "constructive". You can't even be true to your own position... you proclaim skepticism while flaunting your outright denial. Simple, accept your DD status - be proud of your Denying your Denial self.

[Shady]

Shady, oh intrepid climate denier... let's continue playing - hey?

How about you do the calculations and then get back to me? Because your assertions don't match reality, or in this case, basic math.

[bloodyminded]

Because you agreed with Michael's assertion that scientific evidence for AGW is be evaulated indepedently of the possible policy implications.

I'm saying that policy implications (which are obviously of absolutely crucial importance, no matter where one stands on this issue) are no more important to the existence (or non-existence) of specific factual information than the fact of rain is determined by whether or not I choose to proscribe a policy of getting out of that rain. The rain is there...whatever I choose to do about it.

[TimG]

The rain is there...whatever I choose to do about it.

Let's back up a bit. AGW is not a fact - it is a theory. The temperature rise over the last 100 years is a fact. When Micheal said be 'believes in AGW' he is declaring a belief in a theory - a belief that is based on his assessment of the available evidence. The trouble is other people look at the same evidence and come to a different opinion on the worth of the AGW theory. It that assessment which is subjective - not the facts available which are used to make the assessment.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's back up a bit. AGW is not a fact - it is a theory. The temperature rise over the last 100 years is a fact. When Micheal said be 'believes in AGW' he is declaring a belief in a theory - a belief that is based on his assessment of the available evidence. The trouble is other people look at the same evidence and come to a different opinion on the worth of the AGW theory. It that assessment which is subjective - not the facts available which are used to make the assessment.

But by saying I "believe in it", makes it seem that evidence has nothing to do with it. I concur with that.

[bloodyminded]

Let's back up a bit. AGW is not a fact - it is a theory. The temperature rise over the last 100 years is a fact. When Micheal said be 'believes in AGW' he is declaring a belief in a theory - a belief that is based on his assessment of the available evidence. The trouble is other people look at the same evidence and come to a different opinion on the worth of the AGW theory. It that assessment which is subjective - not the facts available which are used to make the assessment.

You're misreading me....strange, since I was perfectly clear:

"...the existence (or non-existence)...." This was the same either/or I used in another way, on the same subject.

So, again: policy prescriptions do not change the objective truth--whatever that truth is (I emphasize it in the hope, perhaps a vain hope, that you will not wilfully misconstrue plain English again)--of natural phenomena.

[TimG]

You're misreading me....strange, since I was perfectly clear:

You were perfectly clear when your comments are taken in isolation. However, you jumped into an ongoing conversation where additional context matters.

[waldo]

Shady, oh intrepid climate denier... let's continue playing - hey?

it appears you still haven't quite figured out D'Aleo mixes temperature scale numbers... but really, should we be surprised? Notwithstanding, of course, satellite "temperatures" have never, literally, corresponded to surface temperature anomalies. And, of course, other than those purposefully intent on distortion/fabrication (like Joe D'Aleo), who actually compares satellite-to-surface measurements in this manner?

by the by... I understand RSS reported a June 2010 global temperature anomaly at +.535. Hey lil' buddy... guess which temperature scale that value is in?

How about you do the calculations and then get back to me? Because your assertions don't match reality, or in this case, basic math.

all you did is find some denier talking point and parrot it - per your usual self. Notwithstanding, of course, the D'Aleo quote you so fixated on, includes two distinctly different values, one Centigrade and the other Fahrenheit... without properly qualifying either. The reality you speak to is one that has you with no idea how satellite measurements are arrived at, that has you with no idea how satellite measurements become 'temperature', and that has you with no idea how satellite measurements historically compare, rather, are properly compared to surface temperature recordings. You fail to understand that there is no direct correlation of anomalies, surface vs. satellite... there is no legitimacy in a direct comparison of anomalies - the numbers do not match - they have never matched. There is no literal direct comparison - what is compared, is the relative trends and in that regard the comparison is legitimate and sound. Of course, that doesn't stop D'Aleo from not only mixing temperature scales (for effect) but also passing off a comparison he makes as a legitimate one. He certainly knows it is not - but that's never stopped D'Aleo/Watts in their relentless, yet unfounded, attack against the integrity of the surface temperature record. We've spoken on this many, many times over, through various threads... usually the thread posting references originated by Simple as he parroted his favourite TV weathermen!

you pompously declare 'unbiased NASA satellite measurements', while your historic past has been to cast NASA, repeatedly, as a biased outlet manufacturing your oft mentioned 'cooked data'. Of course, you also fail to recognize just who (what group) has presented that D'Aleo quoted satellite number - hint: yes, they're NASA satellites, but they're anything but NASA employees presenting that number. More to the point, there's been a mix of NOAA satellites into that NASA satellite grouping... so, effectively, you're challenging the veracity of mixed NASA/NOAA satellite measurements versus NOAA processed surface temperature data. Notwithstanding, of course, your illegitimate comparison method (surface-to-satellite) in the first place. But really, c'mon... none of this makes any sense to you anyway - parrots don't actually need to understand the basic fundamentals - hey?

but really... nothing new here - simply another of the long tired history of Shady practices.

[eyeball]

Yes, in the meantime...

Non-partisan satellite data shows real temps. Such as the 0,43 degrees, However, after data is cooked throught the alarmist fudge factory, you get 1.22 degrees. That's a huge difference. Gee, I wonder why?

NOAA must be partisan I guess.

In the meantime where do you think the extra energy our atmosphere is collecting is going if not into the weather? You figure it's making the oceans cooler instead? If so where is the heat that the ocean is losing going?

Edited July 20, 2010 by eyeball

[TimG]

In the meantime where do you think the extra energy our atmosphere is collecting is going if not into the weather? You figure it's making the oceans cooler instead? If so where is the heat that the ocean is losing going?

Actually, there is a bit of mystery because climate scientists cannot find all of that energy which was supposedly trapped by CO2. They can't find it in the atmosphere or the oceans and now they are speculating that it somehow made it into the deep ocean without anyone noticing. The missing energy can only be going to space. The most likely explaination is cloud cover changes increased the amount of the sun's energy being reflected back to space.

[waldo]

Actually, there is a bit of mystery because climate scientists cannot find all of that energy which was supposedly trapped by CO2. They can't find it in the atmosphere or the oceans and now they are speculating that it somehow made it into the deep ocean without anyone noticing. The missing energy can only be going to space. The most likely explaination is cloud cover changes increased the amount of the sun's energy being reflected back to space.

that's a bit cavalier... with a spicy addition of assured most likelihood (btw, what's the probability you're attaching to that most likely... and how subjective is your explanation? - sorry, couldn't help myself )

in any case, NASA points to evidence that the 'missing sink' is in the land surface:. Now, of course, NASA was right on track in 2009 to get to the bottom of this with it's OCO satellite; however, it unfortunately didn't reach orbit and crashed... you know... as in the satellite that wingnut Monckton claims that NASA purposely crashed! In any case, the OCO-2 satellite looks to be on schedule for a Feb2013 launch.

[TimG]

'missing sink' is in the land surface

An interesting factoid but nothing to do with my comment. See:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-released-cru-emails-ncar-climate.html

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

[WIP]

Why is it ok, during a heatwave to say:

in the USA Today but when skeptics bring up cold winter weather, they are told "that is weather, not climate"?

Isn't this a double standard ?

No, it isn't! Especially not when there is definite trend line heading in one direction. Here's another reason why you should worry more about record highs than record lows: US Record High Temperatures Double Record Lows Over Past Decade

And as for the reporting of these stories -- what about all of the conservative media mouthpieces like FauxNews and Drudge, that were asking the question: "is global warming a myth?" every time there was a big snowstorm somewhere, last winter. Fox's "journalists" don't seem to want to go into much detail on the record high temperatures that are occurring all over the world. So far, this year has been the warmest on record: World simmers in hottest year so far even hotter than 1998, when the skeptics were saying it was because the Sun was at the peak of an active sunspot cycle....btw, how come we don't hear about the Sun causing global warming anymore? Perhaps because we should be heading into a mini ice age since the Sun has settled into a prolonged state of dormancy with little sunspot activity. It should be snowing now according to the believers in the solar cycle theory.

[TimG]

World simmers in hottest year so far even hotter than 1998, when the skeptics were saying it was because the Sun was at the peak of an active sunspot cycle

In order for the climate models to be correct the temperature needs to at least 0.2 degG higher that it actually it is today. That is why Trembeth is complaining about the "missing heat".