Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[Michael Hardner]

s.

From the perspective of people who actually want to understand the issues waldo is a buffoon that does not understand the skeptical arguments being made ...

He sure is able to bring pertinent facts to the argument, for somebody who doesn't understand the issues. And, for that matter, you seem to discuss things with him often enough.

[TimG]

He sure is able to bring pertinent facts to the argument, for somebody who doesn't understand the issues. And, for that matter, you seem to discuss things with him often enough.

Throwing scientific references at the wall and hoping something sticks does not an argument make - especially when one is unable or unwilling to to discuss the underlying assumptions that those references are built on.

For example, the temperature records are constantly "adjusted" because the available historical data is pretty spotty and often garbage. When I see a historical record get adjusted my confidence in the data goes down - the more times the data is adjusted the the less meaningful it is because the data is not data anymore - it becomes speculative opinion because the bias of the scientist does affect how "errors" are corrected.

I stopped engaging waldo when it became clear that he would respond with completely irrelevant nonsense when faced with an argument that he could not refute directly. My complaints almost exactly mirror -1=e^ipi complaints even though I don't agree with everything that -1=e^ipi says.

Edited December 3, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

For example, the temperature records are constantly "adjusted" because the available historical data is pretty spotty and often garbage. When I see a historical record get adjusted my confidence in the data goes down - the more times the data is adjusted the the less meaningful it is because the data is not data anymore - it becomes speculative opinion because the bias of the scientist does affect how "errors" are corrected.

This aligns with your idea that proxy data must not be used because of recent divergence between proxies and actual temperatures. The fact is that we're dealing with physical data, so adjustment of the data is going to happen.

[TimG]

This aligns with your idea that proxy data must not be used because of recent divergence between proxies and actual temperatures. The fact is that we're dealing with physical data, so adjustment of the data is going to happen.

That example is pure incompetence and is not justified under any circumstances.

In general, adjustments often happen because scientists who need to publish for their careers don't think they have the option of saying 'we have no useful data so we can draw no conclusions'.

But the we are not talking about managing a scientist's career - we are talking about making policy decisions which affect everyone which means admitting "we don't know" is a better answer than creating false certainty by "adjusting" bad data.

Edited December 3, 2013 by TimG

[jbg]

I stopped engaging waldo when it became clear that he would respond with completely irrelevant nonsense when faced with an argument that he could not refute directly. My complaints almost exactly mirror -1=e^ipi complaints even though I don't agree with everything that -1=e^ipi says.

I have the same problem but haven't yet stopped responding to him entirely. He refuses to acknowledge temperature records from as early as the 1800's from American cities that show little or no temperature change to modern times.

In rural areas those records seem astonishingly good since the farmers depended on weather as a life or death matter. I thus trust their records over "adjusted" records.

[BubberMiley]

He refuses to acknowledge temperature records from as early as the 1800's from American cities that show little or no temperature change to modern times.

I can understand why someone would give up after losing arguments over and over again.

But why do you refuse to acknowledge ocean temperatures?

[TimG]

But why do you refuse to acknowledge ocean temperatures?

Ocean temperatures are just as bad. There is a huge jump around 2003 because they need to splice two different data sets together. The process of splicing data requires subjective adjustments which means the long term trends are opinion not data. Edited December 3, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

But then this is happening too..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25186871

Lots of plastics in the environment and affecting animals growth cycles.

[cybercoma]

He sure is able to bring pertinent facts to the argument, for somebody who doesn't understand the issues. And, for that matter, you seem to discuss things with him often enough.

It's pretty obvious to anyone that reads these threads who is well read on the issues and understands the scientific data and who does not.

[cybercoma]

This aligns with your idea that proxy data must not be used because of recent divergence between proxies and actual temperatures. The fact is that we're dealing with physical data, so adjustment of the data is going to happen.

The other issues is that steps have been taken to reduce the impact we have on the climate as the new numbers are rolling out. So if anything the fact that the temperature is not rising as quickly is testament to the treaties and agreements actually having an effect.

[TimG]

So if anything the fact that the temperature is not rising as quickly is testament to the treaties and agreements actually having an effect.

Are really serious? I assume you are joking because it is so absurd that only someone completely disconnected from reality could possibly believe it given the massive increase in emissions from China that has swamped any slow down in emissions from developed countries. I don't know of any alarmist scientist who has even attempted to make such an argument.

Temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted because the models are most likely *wrong* and the climate sensitivity is likely at the low end of prior estimates. This means the future problems are likely to be less that what was previously claimed. The only issue at this point is how many more years it will take for the alarmist diehards to accept this reality.

Edited December 3, 2013 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

The other issues is that steps have been taken to reduce the impact we have on the climate as the new numbers are rolling out. So if anything the fact that the temperature is not rising as quickly is testament to the treaties and agreements actually having an effect.

Surely you have your tongue in your cheek? Tell me you were trying to be funny.

[cybercoma]

Are really serious? I assume you are joking because it is so absurd that only someone completely disconnected from reality could possibly believe it given the massive increase in emissions from China that has swamped any slow down in emissions from developed countries. I don't know of any alarmist scientist who has even attempted to make such an argument.

Temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted because the models are most likely *wrong* and the climate sensitivity is likely at the low end of prior estimates. This means the future problems are likely to be less that what was previously claimed. The only issue at this point is how many more years it will take for the alarmist diehards to accept this reality.

Someone who thinks we should completely ignore the problem would say that.

[jbg]

So if anything the fact that the temperature is not rising as quickly is testament to the treaties and agreements actually having an effect.

Are really serious? *****Temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted because the models are most likely *wrong* and the climate sensitivity is likely at the low end of prior estimates. This means the future problems are likely to be less that what was previously claimed. The only issue at this point is how many more years it will take for the alarmist diehards to accept this reality.

Temperature trends are probably cyclical.

I often have said, sarcastically, that Parliament's phony ratification of Kyoto (in a Chretien majority government) woudl solve the problem by itself. Trust me, I was kidding. If anything politicians' hot air adds to the warming problem.

[TimG]

Temperature trends are probably cyclical.

A sine wave for natural variations imposed on a linear ramp for CO2 variations would explain the temperature trends in the last century. The trouble is that estimates of climate sensitivity are from the period 1980-2000 where natural variations were amplifying the CO2 induced trend so if one accepts this model the estimates of sensitivity must be lowered. But there is a huge resistance to lowering this number because it means the problem is less "alarming" (i.e. adaptation becomes an even more compelling course of action). Edited December 4, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

But there is a huge resistance to lowering this number because it means the problem is less "alarming"

Resistance from whom ? If the acclaimed 'pause' in warming came from the MET itself then we can surely stop saying that climate science has a conspiracy to overplay warming ?

You can't simultaneously critique the science for adjusting temperature coefficients and say there is resistance to do so, or even a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Also - I liked that you called JBG on his egregious error re: cyclical temperatures. We need more of that on here.

[TimG]

Resistance from whom ? If the acclaimed 'pause' in warming came from the MET itself then we can surely stop saying that climate science has a conspiracy to overplay warming ?

Acknowledging the pause is the first step - the second step - which many alarmists refuse to take - is to acknowledge the pause means that climate sensitivity is likely lower than previously thought. The IPCC AR5 begrudgingly acknowledged the issue by decreasing the lower bound for climate sensitivity and now refuses to give a "best estimate" (likely because a lower "best estimate" would be a huge vindication for people that think the IPCC has been exaggerating).

You can't simultaneously critique the science for adjusting temperature coefficients and say there is resistance to do so, or even a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Apples and oranges. Sensitivity is a derived value - it is not raw data. New raw data requires that this value be recalculated. I am complaining about raw data measurements being adjusted in order to better match the the desired values. I am not complaining about derived values being recalculated as new data comes in since this is what should be done. Edited December 4, 2013 by TimG

[jbg]

Also - I liked that you called JBG on his egregious error re: cyclical temperatures. We need more of that on here.

I don't see where he said I was wrong on cyclicality.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see where he said I was wrong on cyclicality.

Well, then he should have worded it more strongly. He said something like "it's a cycle attached to an incline" which actually negates what you said entirely...

[Michael Hardner]

Acknowledging the pause is the first step - the second step - which many alarmists refuse to take - is to acknowledge the pause means that climate sensitivity is likely lower than previously thought.

"Many"... so your beef is with people outside of climate science then... noted.

I am complaining about raw data measurements being adjusted in order to better match the the desired values.

So you're complaining about fraud then... noted.

[TimG]

"Many"... so your beef is with people outside of climate science then...

No because many alarmists are influential scientists.

So you're complaining about fraud then... noted.

Your Manichean world view is not a useful way to look at the problem since there are many ways to manipulate data with subjective adjustments that do not rise to the level of fraud. Adjustments that are consistently applied in only one direction will eventually result in a dataset that has no connection to reality. That is what happens in climate science.

[waldo]

For example, the temperature records are constantly "adjusted" because the available historical data is pretty spotty and often garbage. When I see a historical record get adjusted my confidence in the data goes down - the more times the data is adjusted the the less meaningful it is because the data is not data anymore - it becomes speculative opinion because the bias of the scientist does affect how "errors" are corrected.

nice broad sweeping statement! Which temperature records and what adjustments are you concerned about? Specifically, state the record(s) and accompanying adjustment(s). Define "constantly adjusted".

adjustments made (eg. UHI, so-called 'station dropout', station quality, etc.) typically, as I've encountered, have published papers accompany the adjustments made. Again, name them... the record & particular adjustment:

[waldo]

In general, adjustments often happen because scientists who need to publish for their careers don't think they have the option of saying 'we have no useful data so we can draw no conclusions'.

citation request... "in general"!

[waldo]

He refuses to acknowledge temperature records from as early as the 1800's from American cities that show little or no temperature change to modern times.

In rural areas those records seem astonishingly good since the farmers depended on weather as a life or death matter. I thus trust their records over "adjusted" records.

no - if you insist I will re-quote the pertinent past posts that showed you did nothing but post the raw data... yes... the raw data from a select couple of stations... and from that... you "eyeballed" up a claim based on your doing nothing other than looking at and attempting to interpret... the raw data... the raw numbers. Of course, what you did is take single localized station data and apply your "eyeball analysis" across broader large-scale regional and/or global temperature records/trends.

since you persisted to no end, I took that raw data and provided you a linear trend plot of one of those stations raw data... showing the result as a ~2.5°F annual average mean temperature rise. Now, even after all that, you still persist!

[jbg]

no - if you insist I will re-quote the pertinent past posts that showed you did nothing but post the raw data... yes... the raw data from a select couple of stations... and from that... you "eyeballed" up a claim based on your doing nothing other than looking at and attempting to interpret... the raw data... the raw numbers. Of course, what you did is take single localized station data and apply your "eyeball analysis" across broader large-scale regional and/or global temperature records/trends.

since you persisted to no end, I took that raw data and provided you a linear trend plot of one of those stations raw data... showing the result as a ~2.5°F annual average mean temperature rise. Now, even after all that, you still persist!

The use of real temperatures at real stations is a reality check. What's so hard about that to understand?