|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 2:46:21 GMT
Stupidity is NOT an excuse and altho I have to cringe when I type this.....Briffa/Jones/Mann etc reallllllllly look stupid. From their actions I wouldn't grant them a high school diploma, much less a PHD. I told you the tree ring proxies are garbage....and they are a basis of lots of dumb arguements. What will it take for you to realize that you have been totally duped?
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on Nov 22, 2009 2:55:37 GMT
As a retired scientist in a different field, this whole thing sickens me. I’ve seen academic squables a plenty, and I’ve made mistakes in programming and data analysis myself (which I was always grateful to catch or have corrected), but I’ve never seen anything as blatantly dishonest as this or these people.
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 22, 2009 3:03:50 GMT
Folks, can we please calm down?
These ad hominem attacks against one another do nothing to further our search to find out what the TRUTH (IE. verifiable fact) about AGW is. Take a breather folks.
For the pro-AGW camp to prove that there is AGW, and that the AGW forcing is the primary forcing divergence in the last century or so, there are several hurdles to cross, and in this case, the burden really is in their court.
1. Define what the actual baseline for the global mean temperature throughout recorded as well as paleoclimate history. (Probably already done, but just putting it here for completeness)
2. Determine what the normal variation above and below the GMT has been over the course of history. (Also, pretty sure that this has been done)
3. Determine the rate of change of previous oscillations in the variation in number 2. (This is critical)
4. Prove causation, not merely correlation for global warming due to rising GHG's in the paleoclimate history, and not the other way around. This is absolutely critical to the whole crux of the pro-AGW logic whether they acknowledge it or not.
5. Prove that the current rise in GHG's is well beyond the normal climate variation that we have seen in history. This most certainly has not been done.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 3:11:47 GMT
Folks, can we please calm down? These ad hominem attacks against one another do nothing to further our search to find out what the TRUTH (IE. verifiable fact) about AGW is. Take a breather folks. For the pro-AGW camp to prove that there is AGW, and that the AGW forcing is the primary forcing divergence in the last century or so, there are several hurdles to cross, and in this case, the burden really is in their court. 1. Define what the actual baseline for the global mean temperature throughout recorded as well as paleoclimate history. (Probably already done, but just putting it here for completeness) 2. Determine what the normal variation above and below the GMT has been over the course of history. (Also, pretty sure that this has been done) 3. Determine the rate of change of previous oscillations in the variation in number 2. (This is critical) 4. Prove causation, not merely correlation for global warming due to rising GHG's in the paleoclimate history, and not the other way around. This is absolutely critical to the whole crux of the pro-AGW logic whether they acknowledge it or not. 5. Prove that the current rise in GHG's is well beyond the normal climate variation that we have seen in history. This most certainly has not been done. Tim 1. We are under the baseline temp for the Halocene period. The long term trend since 8,000BP has been down. It was broken by the Roman Warm Period and the MWP, but trend wise, we are down. 2. Long term we are way above the paleo etc trend as the earth has been cold much longer than warm. 3. Alley shows us through his studies that the temp flucuation of present is nothing out of the ordinary. There have been swings of 5-10C in as short as 30 years. The cause of those swings is not known. 4. Co2 is a lagging indicator of temps. There has not been a paper published yet that shows actual causeation, only correlation. 5. The rise in GHG is minute compared to other periods. The level is actually near starvation for plant growth. No hysteria here, just realist. Doesn't change the fact that major players in AGW are not practicing science. Very very disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 3:31:22 GMT
1) The Yamal raw data. The FOI request was turned down in my opinion justifiably because Briffa didn't own the data to give away. The communication between Briffa and McIntyre but by that point relations had well and truly broken down.
You have no idea what you're talking about socold. First, although it started before July 2008, FOI had nothing to do with SM's getting the data. I didn't say it did. In fact I specifically explained why the FOI request failed to get the data - it wasn't Briffas to give. I think you might be confusing the russians in this case with the russians in some of the emails. There doesn't need to be a contractual agreement for non-disclosure. Briffa didn't own the data and if the authors of the data give it out with a condition not to pass it on, then he shouldn't release it. See "reasonable request". The request was not reasonable because Briffa did not own the data. McIntyre needed to get it from the russian owners. And he did. They are not the same russians that owned the data McIntyre requested. I don't see your point at all. From CA: "In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004. What I didn't know until a couple of weeks ago was that this was the actual version that Briffa had used." I don't trust pat micheals reporting of it Here's my reference for my quote: davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-phil-jones-supressing-data.htmlJones is obstructing ClimateAudit, not science. "there are many thousands more emails the team have deleted" How could you possibly know "many thousands" have been deleted if they have been...deleted?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 3:40:44 GMT
Here's something following on from what I have already said:
"First, there was no intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over 20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely independently. They made different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results."
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 22, 2009 3:42:45 GMT
I agree with you, I was just posting what would have to be scientifically proven for the pro-AGW theories to be proven true.
I hope no one reads what I wrote as an attack against them, it is just that the tenor of posts in the last few pages has gotten a bit heated.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 3:53:20 GMT
AGW doesn't require recent warming to be unprecedented. Logically so - the past 30 years warming can be human caused irrespective of how temperature has changed in the past.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 3:53:52 GMT
I agree with you, I was just posting what would have to be scientifically proven for the pro-AGW theories to be proven true. I hope no one reads what I wrote as an attack against them, it is just that the tenor of posts in the last few pages has gotten a bit heated. I think that it has gotten heated because people feel decieved. An old adage per se: A woman scorned. Even tho a lot of people had an idea that some of the science was not up to par, there was no proof per se of such available to a layman. The e-mails show, if nothing else, a disrespect for inquiry. The old strawman adage of "what will they do with it" doesn't cut it. IF one's arguement is strong....one bellows from the highest peaks and shares the echo over and over. IT would appear that there was a lot of bellowing.......but no echos. I hope the community as a whole takes note of this. Not only climat study. The saying by Mr. Einstein rings so very true.....Character is what makes a great scientist. The only good thing about all of this is that we won't have to worry about crap and trade for prob 10 years or more. I am sure that some ranking Senators are going to call for an investigation into this mess as they should.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 3:55:27 GMT
AGW doesn't require recent warming to be unprecedented. Logically so - the past 30 years warming can be human caused irrespective of how temperature has changed in the past. Yes it could be SoCold, and it could be caused by lots of other things as well. We really don't know, and that is a true fact.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 4:03:35 GMT
From one of Phil Jones emails: "So other groups around the world have also entered into agreements. I know this doesn't make it right, but it is the way of the world with both instrumental and paleo data. I frequently try and get data from other people without success, sometimes from people who send me the pdf of their paper then tell me they can't send me the series in their plots."
So now you know, data really does get refused due to ownership issues, even sometimes to Phil Jones.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 4:05:18 GMT
Some other quotes:
"The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review, the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones."
"McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC won't be able to assess any of it unless he does."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 4:11:32 GMT
Some other quotes: "The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review, the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones." "McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC won't be able to assess any of it unless he does." SoCold: McIntyre publishes his results every day it seems. Fully assessable to anyone. I would wager that he would have no problem letting the IPCC use his results.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 22, 2009 4:13:50 GMT
Some other quotes: "The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review, the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones." "McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC won't be able to assess any of it unless he does." SoCold: McIntyre publishes his results every day it seems. Fully assessable to anyone. I would wager that he would have no problem letting the IPCC use his results. In fact, thinking about it, he has made errors and the normal postings have set him straight. There seems to be one statistician who helps him that is very very sharp. This is all done very transparantly.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 22, 2009 4:17:14 GMT
Some other quotes: "The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review, the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones." "McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC won't be able to assess any of it unless he does." SoCold: McIntyre publishes his results every day it seems. Fully assessable to anyone. I would wager that he would have no problem letting the IPCC use his results. you can't be serious
|
|