|
Post by trbixler on Feb 23, 2012 15:18:55 GMT
Interesting long debunked by whom? No recitation only assertion by ?? Maybe they think that Dr. Soon is a crank. Likewise Svensmark. Maybe they want Peter the admitted liar to lead the K-12 "cause" agenda. "Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax? " "Heartland Institute had already developed a video along these lines — titled “Unstoppable Solar Cycles,” which laid out the long-debunked theory that the sun is driving recent warming — and shipped it off to teachers. (These earlier efforts, according to one Heartland document, met with “only limited success.”)" www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-your-kid-be-taught-that-climate-change-is-a-hoax/2012/02/22/gIQAp6fFVR_blog.html
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 24, 2012 14:37:38 GMT
I read these boards daily not because I agree with everyone but because I don't agree with everyone and I wan't food for thought and contrary viewpoints. ............. I checked out the "SCi guy" site you recommended and I was surprised that you viewed him as a "middle of the roader". His statement "The problem with this deal is that the Heartland Institute isn’t interested in science. They’re interested in advocacy. If they were interested in science they would be doing research, or funding research into climate science and seeing that work published in peer-reviewed journals." Do you agree that if you don't sponsor science you therefore have no interest in it? And that the scientific work that is done by corporations and governments is not science because it hasn't gone through a peer-review process? He also puts Gleck's label of anti-science on Heartland but is unable to come up with any evidence. My main question though is whether you have found anything on the selected sites you visit that predicted the current flat global temperatures as seen in the Hadcrut3 numbers?
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Feb 24, 2012 15:05:36 GMT
My recent post on the What if they are wrong thread is pertinent here. I think the background reality is important. Here is a repost from the other thread. "There is currently a difference in approach to climate science between the sceptical Baconian - empirical appraoch solidly based on data and the Platonic IPCC approach - based on theoretical assumptions built into climate models.The question arises from the recent Muller - BEST furore -What is the best metric for a global measure of and for discussion of global warming or cooling. For some years I have suggested in various web comments and on my blog that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for the following reasons . (Anyone can check this data for themselves - Google Hadley Cru -- scroll down to SST GL and check the annual numbers.) 1. Oceans cover about 70% of the surface. 2. Because of the thermal inertia of water – short term noise is smoothed out. 3. All the questions re UHI, changes in land use local topographic effects etc are simply sidestepped. 4. Perhaps most importantly – what we really need to measure is the enthalpy of the system – the land measurements do not capture this aspect because the relative humidity at the time of temperature measurement is ignored. In water the temperature changes are a good measure of relative enthalpy changes. 5. It is very clear that the most direct means to short term and decadal length predictions is through the study of the interactions of the atmospheric sytems ,ocean currents and temperature regimes – PDO ,ENSO. SOI AMO AO etc etc. and the SST is a major measure of these systems.Certainly the SST data has its own problems but these are much less than those of the land data. What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 - 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with CO2 up 7.9% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend. It is clear that the IPCC models , on which AL Gore based his entire anti CO2 scare campaign ,have been wrongly framed. and their predictions have failed completely.This paradigm was never well founded ,but ,in recent years, the entire basis for the Climate and Temperature trends and predictions of dangerous warming in the 2007 IPCC Ar4 Summary for Policy Makers has been destroyed. First - this Summary is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored.. I give one egregious example - there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes: "Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed" What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given "with high confidence." in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. A key part of the AGW paradigm is that recent warming is unprecedented and can only be explained by anthropogenic CO2. This is the basic message of the iconic "hockey stick " However hundreds of published papers show that the Medieval warming period and the Roman climatic optimum were warmer than the present. The infamous "hide the decline " quote from the Climategate Emails is so important. not so much because of its effect on one graph but because it shows that the entire basis if dendrothermometry is highly suspect. A complete referenced discussion of the issues involved can be found in "The Hockey Stick Illusion - Climategate and the Corruption of science " by AW Montford. Temperature reconstructions based on tree ring proxies are a total waste of time and money and cannot be relied on. There is no evident empirical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, In all cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes not vice versa.It has always been clear that the sun is the main climate driver. One new paper " Empirical Evidence for a Celestial origin of the Climate Oscillations and its implications "by Scafetta from Duke University casts new light on this. www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Recent experiments at CERN have shown the possible powerful influence of cosmic rays on clouds and climate. Solar Cycle 24 will peak in a year or two thus masking the cooling to some extent, but from 2014 on, the cooling trend will become so obvious that the IPCC will be unable to continue ignoring the real world - even now Hansen and Trenberth are desperately seeking ad hoc fixes to locate the missing heat." As the world obstinately refuses to warm up the Alarmists are becoming increasingly irrational in their arguments and actions!!
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 24, 2012 15:34:25 GMT
Kind of like an inconvenient dialogue with big Al you are not allowed to speak. "Debra Saunders: Global warming and earthly lies" "This is how the global-warming community operates. Activists accuse skeptics of being anti-science and dishonest under the apparent belief that they are honest and analytical. They're filled with their integrity until they get frustrated. They say that they only want to debate, except the debate is over. Then they wonder why skeptics don't believe them." www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20120224/OPINION/202240307/Debra-Saunders-Global-warming-earthly-lies
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 24, 2012 15:51:32 GMT
Interesting to see if Mr. Green's FBI decides if this is an EPA non issue or if wire fraud is important. "FBI called in over climate change mole" "Heartland officials tell Washington Secrets that they have been in talks with the FBI over the case against prominent global warming proponent Peter Gleick, co-founder of the respected Pacific Institute. Heartland is getting ready to reveal their probe of the affair, which they hope the FBI will act on." washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/fbi-called-over-climate-change-mole/305161
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 25, 2012 13:04:03 GMT
Mr. Green's largesse searchable. The government pays fraudsters a lot of money. Total $1,947,350. use 860029271 at www.usaspending.gov/the one I was impressed with is... "Transaction Number # 1 Federal Award ID: AID497A1100004 (Grants) Recipient: PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT 654 13TH ST STE A , OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA Reason for Modification: Program Source: 72-1021:Development Assistance Program Agency: United States Agency for International Development : U.S. Agency for International Development CFDA Program : 98.001 : USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas Description: DGP WATSAN: WATER SMS: IMPROVING WATER SERVICES IN INDONESIA THROUGH ... (View More) Date Signed: November 25 , 2010 Obligation Amount: $1,300,000"
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 25, 2012 13:09:45 GMT
More stuff. Mr. Green's tax paid hatchet men. "Where do we draw the line?" "In continuation of my investigation of the actions of the tax exempt 501c corporation the “PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT, AND SECURITY”, I have dug deeper into the tax reporting and operations of Peter Gleick. It appears that this organization operates completely above IRS law, employing what appears to be 95% government taxpayer money for the purpose of actively campaigning against conservative politicians and organizations. It is by no means the only group to do so but we have to start somewhere. First, here is an article by President Peter Gleick on PIS letterhead specifically critiquing policies of conservative presidential candidates. " noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/where-do-we-draw-the-line/
|
|
|
Post by norpag on Feb 25, 2012 15:19:40 GMT
trbixler -- you really should repost the last two items to the Watts and Climate Audit sites - good work Norpag
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 25, 2012 15:39:12 GMT
trbixler -- you really should repost the last two items to the Watts and Climate Audit sites - good work Norpag I think I got them from chasing links there. Consolidation here makes for better review.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 25, 2012 17:32:38 GMT
duwayne wrote: " My main question though is whether you have found anything on the selected sites you visit that predicted the current flat global temperatures as seen in the Hadcrut3 numbers? "
Duwayne, I consider Eric Berger's "sci-guy" blog a middle of the roader because of his fairness. He has interviewed both skeptical scientists and those who agree with the mainstream view. If you browse through the archive on his blog you will find interviews with Singer, Spencer and Monkton to name a few skeptics and Dessler, Neilsen Gammon among others with a more mainstream view. Everyone has a bias, it is almost impossible not to. However if you look back at Bergers blog he clearly states that he concurs with the mainstream view but has a duty as a journalist to present both sides of the story.
Now to answer your question. Yes, included in the sites I visit are Dr. Roy Spencer's who has been forecasting flat or even declining temps since the 97' El Nino. If you browse through the "Sci-Guy" archives you will find a very interesting article about the flat temps over the last decade or so. He was also very critical of Gleick for stealing the Heartland Institutes documents.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 25, 2012 21:30:37 GMT
duwayne wrote: " My main question though is whether you have found anything on the selected sites you visit that predicted the current flat global temperatures as seen in the Hadcrut3 numbers? " Duwayne, I consider Eric Berger's "sci-guy" blog a middle of the roader because of his fairness. He has interviewed both skeptical scientists and those who agree with the mainstream view. If you browse through the archive on his blog you will find interviews with Singer, Spencer and Monkton to name a few skeptics and Dessler, Neilsen Gammon among others with a more mainstream view. Everyone has a bias, it is almost impossible not to. However if you look back at Bergers blog he clearly states that he concurs with the mainstream view but has a duty as a journalist to present both sides of the story. Now to answer your question. Yes, included in the sites I visit are Dr. Roy Spencer's who has been forecasting flat or even declining temps since the 97' El Nino. If you browse through the "Sci-Guy" archives you will find a very interesting article about the flat temps over the last decade or so. He was also very critical of Gleick for stealing the Heartland Institutes documents. Spencer has never that I recall forecast anything. He has stated he fears science will be very damaged by AGW science polluted by agenda driven scientists. Dessler on the other hand has said rapidly rising temperatures even outside of the "mainstream" predictions are virtually guaranteed.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 25, 2012 22:01:30 GMT
magellan, in "On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011 one of Spencer's claims was that the earth was "losing" heat faster than the models were claiming and the result would most likely be a plateau in warming if not a cooling. I think he has also made "gentlemen's wagers" with other climate scientists that other years would not match the warmth seen in 97' and won.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 26, 2012 15:22:06 GMT
duwayne wrote: " My main question though is whether you have found anything on the selected sites you visit that predicted the current flat global temperatures as seen in the Hadcrut3 numbers? " Duwayne, I consider Eric Berger's "sci-guy" blog a middle of the roader because of his fairness. He has interviewed both skeptical scientists and those who agree with the mainstream view. If you browse through the archive on his blog you will find interviews with Singer, Spencer and Monkton to name a few skeptics and Dessler, Neilsen Gammon among others with a more mainstream view. Everyone has a bias, it is almost impossible not to. However if you look back at Bergers blog he clearly states that he concurs with the mainstream view but has a duty as a journalist to present both sides of the story. Now to answer your question. Yes, included in the sites I visit are Dr. Roy Spencer's who has been forecasting flat or even declining temps since the 97' El Nino. If you browse through the "Sci-Guy" archives you will find a very interesting article about the flat temps over the last decade or so. He was also very critical of Gleick for stealing the Heartland Institutes documents. Glennkoks, your response raises some additional questions. Would Fox News fit your above definition of middle-of-the-road? And how do you define "mainstream view" of global warming? Almost all scientists agree that CO2 traps heat and without feedbacks would raise the global temperature about 1.1C per doubling of CO2. Estimates for temperatures rises with feedback range from a high of about 3 x 1.1 down to about 0.6 x 1.1. Would I be wrong in guessing that you believe 3 x 1.1 is the mainstream? If not, what is the mainstream view as you define it? And thirdly, do you believe temperatures have risen in line with the mainstream views as you define them other than during a short period in the late 20th century when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was positive? And lastly, do you believe it is important that everyone stick with the "mainstream" views and that no Heartland Institute types are allowed into the discussion with their publishing of 0.6 feedback views and do you, like Eric Berger, wish to label the purveyors of these views as being anti-science without being able to provide any specific examples? (Note that I've asked Eric to provide examples of Heartland's anti-science views and he hasn't come up with any. Maybe he wrongly believes that anyone who doesn't agree with his view is anti-science.)
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 26, 2012 15:45:30 GMT
duwayne, No Fox does not fit my defintion of middle of the road. No more middle of the road than MSNBC. They are in my opinion one and the same. One from the right one from the left. I get most of my news from online sources.
"Mainstream view" is a pretty big catchall phrase. I define it as those who basically agree that man through land use and our burning of fossil fuels is having an effect on the climate. In the IPCC statement it is claimed that we have warmed by about 1.2 C over the last 100 years and most of that warming can be attributed to man.
I have made my case many times on these boards that I do not agree with the "alarmists" as the climate models have performed poorly and there are clearly factors and feedbacks who's impact is not clearly understood. Speaking for myself I am waiting for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to change from it's current positive phase to a negative one to see the effects on NH temps.
And for your last question, I think skepticism is healthy but what the Heartland institute does it not what I consider promoting "healthy" debate. If you browse a few pages back you will find a list of whom I consider to be very legitimate skeptical scientists who views are not mainstream. One man's opinion.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 26, 2012 15:47:45 GMT
|
|