|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 15, 2012 2:09:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 5:42:54 GMT
The Daily Mail are lying liars. The newer HadCRUT4 dataset was released in the normal way and shows that there has been more, not less, global warming recently than HadCRUT3.  Now that 2005 and 2010 were as warm as 1998, it's just taken the Daily Mail 6 months to think of an alternative to "global warming stopped in 1998". |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 6:02:59 GMT
Judith Curry says the Daily Mail are liars:
Curry: "I have no idea where the ‘deeply flawed’ came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted"
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 6:08:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2012 6:30:27 GMT
Steve:
Judith was talking about the climate models. She didn't say it, but I will. She is more diplomatic than I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 6:49:14 GMT
Steve: Judith was talking about the climate models. She didn't say it, but I will. She is more diplomatic than I am. Judith Curry diplomatic???! I don't think so. Have you read her blog? I'm not claiming she loves models. But her business spends a fortune on seasonal prediction data from the ECMWF, and she has a number of papers to her name based on models. The point really was to demonstrate that the writer of the article has written his article then fished for quotes, if necessary, twisting the quotes to fit his demands. I've read the Daily Mail on and off for nearly 40 years - they've always been lying liars, and always will be. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2012 7:00:23 GMT
Steve:
I know she uses ECMWF because the US misplaced.......the money that was suppose to have been spent upgrading our own weather models.
I use models all the time. But I also know the parameters of those models and the reliability of said parameters.
When it comes to GCMs tho........I have found them to be so very inaccurate that I don't pay much attention to them anymore.
My hope is that within 10 years they get re-written with the now known parameters so that they have a chance at being accurate.
As far as the Daily Mail, part of what they wrote is true. The 16 year trend is flat. That much I will give them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 7:00:58 GMT
Judith Curry says the Daily Mail are liars: Curry: "I have no idea where the ‘deeply flawed’ came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted" Steve you sound like you are being economical with the truth. You presumably know what the next words used by Curry were and chose to misrepresent her response? Ie: "(perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?)" Fairly clearly she feels like she could have said those words. Curry says on her blog: Overall,I would say that this is a very good article; I think the exchange between me and Jones, mediated by Rose, is an important one. She describes correspondance with Rose after the article was written "The flawed assumption behind the orthodoxy was that natural variability is merely ‘noise’ superimposed on the long term trend. The natural variability has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming signal. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance. I sincerely hope that the AR5 provides an assessment of what we know and what we don’t know and areas of disagreement, rather than trying to manufacture a consensus.
.
Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. In that context the problem is how people interpret the simulations from climate models in view of the uncertainties and imperfections. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 7:12:41 GMT
The Met Office is a department of the UK ministry of Defense. The UK ministry of defense are proven liars. Anything produced by the Met Office cannot be considered scientifically reliable. Look at the recent fiasco over Jimmy Saville, where the BBC which is a department of the UK government, has apparently cooperated with the police, who Saville appeared to have been bribing for over 60 years, to ensure lying is regarded as normal policy. At the end of the day, all of the propaganda about British fair play and decency and City of London 'my word is my bond' has been exposed for all it ever was. A big lie. The whole global warming situation just sounds like another big lie. Why did Phil Jones keep his job? Obviously he had connections. Did he corrupt the scientific process? Yes he did. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 7:22:16 GMT
Radiant,
So there are two possibilities. The journo asked for a response from Curry. He was unhappy with the response so looked through her blog for something more "juicy". Or he was already aware of a juicy quote from her blog, but failed to get a repetition of the quote when he asked her.
Either scenario suggests that he had a preconceived idea of what he wanted to say. And since we don't know the context of Curry's quote that may possibly be hidden somewhere on her unsearchable blog we cannot judge it. I can tell you lots of "deep flaws" in models, but if you quote me as saying "models are deeply flawed" you'd give the wrong impression of my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 7:24:37 GMT
No it isn't.
And Phil Jones works for a University. And his data has proven to be a scientifically validated representation of past climate observations - that's probably why he kept his job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 7:31:29 GMT
So it became a trading fund under the management of the UK government in 1996 For sure the UK government are known to be proven liars!  |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2012 7:38:43 GMT
Radiant, being accurate, but economical with the truth is better than making mistakes, telling lies and casting offensive aspersions about paedophilia, and even worse, making comparison with moral standards of bankers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 15, 2012 7:43:14 GMT
Radiant, being accurate, but economical with the truth is better than making mistakes, telling lies and casting offensive aspersions about paedophilia, and even worse, making comparison with moral standards of bankers. All I was implying was that the met office via its management is associated with a cess pit of behaviour unbecoming to a decent society. I was not implying people in Devon are paedophiles because they work for the Met  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2012 7:44:05 GMT
We are never going to get real accurate temp data. It is too massaged, and the grids are large. Hansen, his dept, doctors it all the time.
The main thing is the long term trends. Look at the error bars, and remember that the temp could have been anywhere within those error bars.
And again, let's examine the reason the warming trend started in the 1st place.
|
|
