|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2009 1:14:05 GMT
[Snip] The Sword has already skewered the sceptic case numerous times, but they're like zombies. Just when you think it is safe to point out that 9 of the 10 warmest years have happened this century... Ten warmest years? Over what period? I think he was talking this century...2001-2009. Otherwise, that statement is in total error and Steve is way smarter than to make that obvious of an error.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 31, 2009 1:40:23 GMT
Akasofu's projection is nothing more than curve fitting. He's just assumed the background trend must be linear and assumed that there is an exactly repetitive cycle over the top. Neither of those is necessarily the case. And as Steve points out Akasofu's graph contains too much warming in the early 20th century, without which the linear trend plus repetitive cycle wouldn't fit the data. To fit the actual surface temperature records Akasofu would require a linear trend plus a non-repetitive cycle. Swanson and Tsonis recently attempted to derive (not assume, like Akasofu) the contribution of natural variation on the temperature record and they found the background warming trend is not linear, but resembles an exponentially increasing curve. And that natural variation is not a repetitive cycle. I am certainly not assuming the Swanson and Tsonis result is correct, it might not be. But I think it is certainty more credible than the Akasofu graph. Also has the PDO contributed warming or cooling in the past 30 years? www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/trendTo get your graph you have to switch to the Jim Hansen enhanced version of history and his GISS "value added" temperature line. But even then the curve is not fit well with a big bump on the inside of the curve a little teensy bumps on the outside. We are aware of those manipulations. Akasofu's graph apparently uses a smoothed Hadcrut record it appears as you can plant it right on top of the smoothed data provided by Hadcrut and get almost a perfect fit. But you are right the trend may well not be linear but thats precisely Akasofu's point. We need to better understand natural variations. Just running around and offering quadratic equations for better fits does not provide us much more information over a linear fit. The LIA recovery may well have been an accelerating phenomena driven by the solar grand maximum which accelerated in the last half of the 20th century. . . .and so far both the Farmers Almanacs have been doing a better job of forecasting the seaons than either NOAA or the Met. We'll never know just how much pre-1980 near surface raw temperature data were massaged now will we? GISS has been doing it for years, no argument there. At least Jones can't suffer the same fate as Briffa Also has the PDO contributed warming or cooling in the past 30 years? www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/trend
What is gained by drawing a straight line from 1980? It does help to understand what PDO represents. First and foremost PDO lags and is driven by ENSO. Compare the raw data detrended; the rest should be self explanatory. Notice the phase changes?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 2:42:39 GMT
We'll never know just how much pre-1980 near surface raw temperature data were massaged now will we? GISS has been doing it for years, no argument there. At least Jones can't suffer the same fate as Briffa The only fate they share is that false accusations of fraud have been made about them on the Internet. Fortunately for the accusers noone takes the accusers seriously enough for the accusations to fall under the category of slander. It smashes the simplistic idea that the PDO contributed to warming in the past 30 years by virtue of us being in a positive PDO phase. In fact the line suggests you could more easily argue that PDO has dampened warming in the past 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 31, 2009 3:08:34 GMT
We'll never know just how much pre-1980 near surface raw temperature data were massaged now will we? GISS has been doing it for years, no argument there. At least Jones can't suffer the same fate as Briffa The only fate they share is that false accusations of fraud have been made about them on the Internet. Fortunately for the accusers noone takes the accusers seriously enough for the accusations to fall under the category of slander. Indeed the truth really puts the brakes on slander suits. The fraud may not be in the manipulation but its clearly in representing something non-documented and non-replicable as science. One has to ask why anybody would ever do that. Its certainly not a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 31, 2009 4:00:35 GMT
The only fate they share is that false accusations of fraud have been made about them on the Internet. Fortunately for the accusers noone takes the accusers seriously enough for the accusations to fall under the category of slander. Indeed the truth really puts the brakes on slander suits. The fraud may not be in the manipulation but its clearly in representing something non-documented and non-replicable as science. One has to ask why anybody would ever do that. Its certainly not a mistake. Fraud, incompetence - what's the difference when you put yourself out as the knower of all things?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 31, 2009 4:26:08 GMT
We'll never know just how much pre-1980 near surface raw temperature data were massaged now will we? GISS has been doing it for years, no argument there. At least Jones can't suffer the same fate as Briffa The only fate they share is that false accusations of fraud have been made about them on the Internet. Fortunately for the accusers noone takes the accusers seriously enough for the accusations to fall under the category of slander. It smashes the simplistic idea that the PDO contributed to warming in the past 30 years by virtue of us being in a positive PDO phase. In fact the line suggests you could more easily argue that PDO has dampened warming in the past 30 years. Again you are magnifying your ignorance. Please read up on PDO and how to read graphs.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 31, 2009 9:26:05 GMT
steve writes " Just when you think it is safe to point out that 9 of the 10 warmest years have happened this century...~
You are absolutely correct, but our interpretation of this differs. There is no question that global temperatures rose at the end of the 20th century. We are now at a peak of some sort. The question is whether this peak is the highest point of the mountain range, or whether we are merely in the foothills. The start of any cooling period will always be the peak of the previous maximum.
The claim is made that the trend for future world temperatures is unquestionably upward. I cannot find the scientific basis for this claim. You can never predict the future by just examining the past. You need some sort of model to predict the future, and I cannot find out the basis why people claim that world temperatures are going to go on rising into the indefinite future. Unless it is the claim that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise, and CO2 concentrations are rising. Which is, of course, a complete non sequiter.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 31, 2009 11:50:55 GMT
Ten warmest years? Over what period? I think he was talking this century...2001-2009. Otherwise, that statement is in total error and Steve is way smarter than to make that obvious of an error. If nine of the ten warmest years have occurred this century, which year was the tenth year? Is Steve saying that it has NEVER been warmer than in recent times?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 31, 2009 13:34:14 GMT
I think he was talking this century...2001-2009. Otherwise, that statement is in total error and Steve is way smarter than to make that obvious of an error. If nine of the ten warmest years have occurred this century, which year was the tenth year? Is Steve saying that it has NEVER been warmer than in recent times? Didn't somebody say 2010 was already a done deal?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 13:36:51 GMT
The only fate they share is that false accusations of fraud have been made about them on the Internet. Fortunately for the accusers noone takes the accusers seriously enough for the accusations to fall under the category of slander. Indeed the truth really puts the brakes on slander suits. The fraud may not be in the manipulation but its clearly in representing something non-documented and non-replicable as science. One has to ask why anybody would ever do that. Its certainly not a mistake. In short you are backpeddling as all skeptics do when challenged on this front. First they claim it is fraud. Then when challenged they backpeddle and say "no they just misrepresented the science". When they can't even provide evidence for that, they backpeddle again to "they have just made a mistake". Then finally we find out the skeptics are just basing this on their own opinion. So much for the accusations of "fraud". Case in point: Can you provide any evidence that Hansen has fudged any data? A lot of people regularly claim this, I tend to ignore it because when push comes to shove all they can provide is something like "he made 1998 warmer than 1934" and when you get down to the details they don't even understand that issue, let alone can provide any evidence for it. Or the GCM claims of "fraud", when it get down to the details of that it turns out the skeptics simply don't believe GCMs. They have no evidence whatsoever that Hansen has committed fraud in climate models, it is just something they repeat as a sound byte. We have a whole thread dedicated to trying to slander Hansen and yet not one piece of firm evidence in many pages has been produced. The accusations of fraud are a set of ignorable childish tabloid gossip, purely reactionary in a bid to "create a stir". It's probably because skeptics need there to be fraud and grand conspiracies because without that they can't explain why the scientific community disagrees with them.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 31, 2009 13:39:28 GMT
The only fate they share is that false accusations of fraud have been made about them on the Internet. Fortunately for the accusers noone takes the accusers seriously enough for the accusations to fall under the category of slander. Even your own graph shows PDO has been dropping over the past 30 years. It smashes the simplistic idea that the PDO contributed to warming in the past 30 years by virtue of us being in a positive PDO phase. In fact the line suggests you could more easily argue that PDO has dampened warming in the past 30 years. Again you are magnifying your ignorance. Please read up on PDO and how to read graphs. I suspect that single sentence is a bid to escape the discussion because you realize that the idea that the PDO has contributed to recent warming is not clear cut afterall.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 31, 2009 14:26:42 GMT
In short you are backpeddling as all skeptics do when challenged on this front. First they claim it is fraud. Then they backpeddle and say "no they just misrepresented the science". When they can't even provide evidence for that they backpeddle again to "they have just made a mistake". Then finally we find out the skeptics are just basing this on their own opinion. So much for the accusations of "fraud" Case in point: Can you provide any evidence that Hansen has fudged any data? A lot of people regularly claim this, I tend to ignore it because when push comes to shove all they can provide is something like "he made 1998 warmer than 1934" and when you get down to the details they don't even understand that issue, let alone can provide any evidence for it. The accusations of fraud are a set of ignorable childish tabloid gossip. Personally I think Hansen might be the last person to intentionally manipulate data. He has all the earmarks of a true believer. . . .right down to advocating civil disobedience. True believers don't tend to intentionally fraudulently manipulate data. . . .and advocating civil disobedience wouldn't exactly be a brainy thing for a conman to do. But such a person as a leader does encourage it from others and his lack of independence can cause him to unintentionally manipulate data. Mistake? I don't think so. Mistakes are random in nature. . . .these manipulations are never random. Now so far there is no evidence of fraud. Where errors, misjudgements, and unconscious bias is proven to be fraud is in efforts to cover up those things up. Its one thing to innocently come to the wrong conclusion, nothing fraudulent about that; but when you then take efforts to conceal the evidence of those facts while continuing to advocate weak or manipulated science thats the very definition of what fraud is. Its unfortunately rampant in our taxpayer supported institutions and what is needed is a huge vacuum cleaner. . . . prosecutions, jail time, and various other changes in policy to clean it all up.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 31, 2009 14:30:33 GMT
Indeed the truth really puts the brakes on slander suits. The fraud may not be in the manipulation but its clearly in representing something non-documented and non-replicable as science. One has to ask why anybody would ever do that. Its certainly not a mistake. In short you are backpeddling as all skeptics do when challenged on this front. First they claim it is fraud. Then when challenged they backpeddle and say "no they just misrepresented the science". When they can't even provide evidence for that, they backpeddle again to "they have just made a mistake". Then finally we find out the skeptics are just basing this on their own opinion. So much for the accusations of "fraud". Case in point: Can you provide any evidence that Hansen has fudged any data? A lot of people regularly claim this, I tend to ignore it because when push comes to shove all they can provide is something like "he made 1998 warmer than 1934" and when you get down to the details they don't even understand that issue, let alone can provide any evidence for it. Or the GCM claims of "fraud", when it get down to the details of that it turns out the skeptics simply don't believe GCMs. They have no evidence whatsoever that Hansen has committed fraud in climate models, it is just something they repeat as a sound byte. We have a whole thread dedicated to trying to slander Hansen and yet not one piece of firm evidence in many pages has been produced. The accusations of fraud are a set of ignorable childish tabloid gossip, purely reactionary in a bid to "create a stir". It's probably because skeptics need there to be fraud and grand conspiracies because without that they can't explain why the scientific community disagrees with them. OK SoCold here is an unvarnished not backing away set of statements The use of a statistical algorithm that always produces the desired result regardless of input data is either ignorance or fraud of which neither would be expected nor accepted in a senior academic The use of a statistically insignificant single outlier to drive the outcome of a report is either statistical ignorance or fraud of which neither would be expected nor accepted in a senior academic (not from even undergraduates!). The attempt to obscure input data on publication of a report is totally unprofessional and tends to support the conclusion that it is fraud not ignorance that we are witnessing. It also raises questions on the professionalism of the Journals involved - interestingly NOT the Royal Society who actually applied scientific rules (but only when prompted). (As you will ask again on motive) The reasons that someone may be tempted into fraud are simple - funding, tenure and fame - probably in that sequence. Unfortunately, the fame has also brought some level of external curiosity and the perpetrators have been exposed. This has led to severe cognitive dissonance amongst their supporters some of which continue to loudly defend them even in the face of obvious scientific shortcomings and others have accepted that they were misled and have changed their beliefs. In some similarly high-profile areas of research, such as stem cell research, leading researchers have been dismissed for fraud and manipulating results - we have yet to witness this level of scientific ethics and professionalism in climate science. Now why would an academic whose research results have been called into question as possible fraud not take action for slander? Simple, their results would not stand up to true scientific and legal scrutiny -and especially if they obfuscated their input data scrutiny would show either their abject ignorance or fraud - both of which should be grounds for dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2009 15:04:42 GMT
In short you are backpeddling as all skeptics do when challenged on this front. First they claim it is fraud. Then when challenged they backpeddle and say "no they just misrepresented the science". When they can't even provide evidence for that, they backpeddle again to "they have just made a mistake". Then finally we find out the skeptics are just basing this on their own opinion. So much for the accusations of "fraud". Case in point: Can you provide any evidence that Hansen has fudged any data? A lot of people regularly claim this, I tend to ignore it because when push comes to shove all they can provide is something like "he made 1998 warmer than 1934" and when you get down to the details they don't even understand that issue, let alone can provide any evidence for it. Or the GCM claims of "fraud", when it get down to the details of that it turns out the skeptics simply don't believe GCMs. They have no evidence whatsoever that Hansen has committed fraud in climate models, it is just something they repeat as a sound byte. We have a whole thread dedicated to trying to slander Hansen and yet not one piece of firm evidence in many pages has been produced. The accusations of fraud are a set of ignorable childish tabloid gossip, purely reactionary in a bid to "create a stir". It's probably because skeptics need there to be fraud and grand conspiracies because without that they can't explain why the scientific community disagrees with them. OK SoCold here is an unvarnished not backing away set of statements The use of a statistical algorithm that always produces the desired result regardless of input data is either ignorance or fraud of which neither would be expected nor accepted in a senior academic The use of a statistically insignificant single outlier to drive the outcome of a report is either statistical ignorance or fraud of which neither would be expected nor accepted in a senior academic (not from even undergraduates!). The attempt to obscure input data on publication of a report is totally unprofessional and tends to support the conclusion that it is fraud not ignorance that we are witnessing. It also raises questions on the professionalism of the Journals involved - interestingly NOT the Royal Society who actually applied scientific rules (but only when prompted). (As you will ask again on motive) The reasons that someone may be tempted into fraud are simple - funding, tenure and fame - probably in that sequence. Unfortunately, the fame has also brought some level of external curiosity and the perpetrators have been exposed. This has led to severe cognitive dissonance amongst their supporters some of which continue to loudly defend them even in the face of obvious scientific shortcomings and others have accepted that they were misled and have changed their beliefs. In some similarly high-profile areas of research, such as stem cell research, leading researchers have been dismissed for fraud and manipulating results - we have yet to witness this level of scientific ethics and professionalism in climate science. Now why would an academic whose research results have been called into question as possible fraud not take action for slander? Simple, their results would not stand up to true scientific and legal scrutiny -and especially if they obfuscated their input data scrutiny would show either their abject ignorance or fraud - both of which should be grounds for dismissal. Very precisely worded, and very accurate in every field.....except for climate science it seems.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 31, 2009 15:11:13 GMT
|
|