Originally posted by DeepThoughtGood points. Here are some more.
I read the original blog post, available here [1]. The difficulty is that while the result may be correct the method has relatively little credibility, or so Bates claims. Although Bates does not go so far as to accuse them of actually faking data because the data hasn't been archived properly it could have been. Science is all about method, knowledge ...[text shortened]... e that or not.
[1] https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Here are some excerpts from the link below:
Proxy data of various types, assembled by Fredrik Ljungqvist in Sweden, and independently by NOAA scientist David Anderson, generally show no warming; Michael Mann never released his post-1979 proxy data, and has even denied their existence (in a personal 1990 email); one suspects that the reason is they show no warming."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/the_climate_warming_pause_goes_awol.html
"But hold on.NCDC may turn out to be quite wrong.Not surprisingly, they used the surface temperature record, with its well-known problems. Not only that, but a look at the detailed NCDC evidence shows that much depends on polar temperatures -- which are mostly guessed at, for lack of good observations.If one uses the (truly global) satellite data, analyzed either by UAH or by RSS, the pause is still there, starting around 2003 [see Figure; it shows a sudden step increase around 2001, not caused by GH gases].
Not only that, but the same satellite data show no warming trend from 1979 to 2000 – ignoring, of course, the exceptional super-El-Nino year of 1998.This finding is confirmed by other, independent instrumental data -- and also by (non-instrumental) proxy records (from tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments). This leads to important far-reaching consequences that are more fully discussed and referenced in the reports of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) [search NIPCCreport.org, esp. the CCR-II report of 2013]."
Below is a link showing how GW Alarmists cherry pick unreliable data to put spin on the results.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/20/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-on-hottest-year-claim-why-lend-credibility-to-this-dishonesty/
Funny how surface temp records are still being used even though they are not reliable. Humy and Wildgrass are usually drawn to this common fraud because they look for what they like.
Originally posted by Metal BrainYour two sources are somewhat biased, American Thinker is a conservative online news magazine, which might be expected to take an editorial position 'skeptical' of the theory of anthropogenic climate forcing and Marc Morano published the emails of climate scientists to encourage hate mail against them. I'm really not going to take what they say with any seriousness at all.
Good points. Here are some more.
Here are some excerpts from the link below:
Proxy data of various types, assembled by Fredrik Ljungqvist in Sweden, and independently by NOAA scientist David Anderson, generally show no warming; Michael Mann never released his post-1979 proxy data, and has even denied their existence (in a personal 1990 email); one su ...[text shortened]... Humy and Wildgrass are usually drawn to this common fraud because they look for what they like.
The first paragraph, concerning Fredrik Ljungqvist et al. and their proxy data goes from a single, probably verifiable, fact to speculation as to their motive concerning that fact. In other words it is building a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories all start with a motive, which may be plausible, and fill in gaps in a narrative with speculation in the light of that supposed motive.
The problems that I referred to involve a social tendency towards conformity. I do not think that there is some grand conspiracy of climate scientists and I do not think it is remotely plausible that there should be. Further, the problem I refer to above is one of method, apparently not the results.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt wasn't too bad, maybe a few months to establish new cell lines but it seems like an apt analogy. Since the cell line used to perform the experiments no longer exist, some conspiracy theorists could claim that we "conveniently" lost the cells which means the data must have been false. And it is a problem that the exact experiment can never be repeated. But, still, the underlying conclusions were sound.
How far back did she set the research?
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainI am anxiously awaiting a proper hypothesis from you explaining the recent acceleration of global glacial melt.
... Funny how surface temp records are still being used even though they are not reliable. Humy and Wildgrass are usually drawn to this common fraud because they look for what they like.
Or you can continue down your rabbit hole full of conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by wildgrassWhat recent acceleration of global glacial melt?
I am anxiously awaiting a proper hypothesis from you explaining the recent acceleration of global glacial melt.
Or you can continue down your rabbit hole full of conspiracy theories.
First you have to show it exists and you have not done that. Show me the data, not just some climate model estimates that are likely wrong. Much of that data does not exist and you have the nerve to assert you know what it is.
The problem with global warming and glacial records is that only the more recent data is reliable. Satellites have made things much more accurate, but anything before that is mostly junk data depending on the type of data. As I said before, not all data is equal. You ignore this as if I am making it up or something. I assure you I am not.
Your allegation of conspiracy theories is a deplorable tactic meant more for slander than anything else. Try using the data you previously claimed was so important and I will show you the relevance of that data. You can do that, right?
Originally posted by DeepThought"Your two sources are somewhat biased, American Thinker is a conservative online news magazine, which might be expected to take an editorial position 'skeptical' of the theory of anthropogenic climate forcing and Marc Morano published the emails of climate scientists to encourage hate mail against them. I'm really not going to take what they say with any seriousness at all."
Your two sources are somewhat biased, American Thinker is a conservative online news magazine, which might be expected to take an editorial position 'skeptical' of the theory of anthropogenic climate forcing and Marc Morano published the emails of climate scientists to encourage hate mail against them. I'm really not going to take what they say with any ...[text shortened]... should be. Further, the problem I refer to above is one of method, apparently not the results.
It is irrelevant which link I found it on. American Thinker has the article written by Fred Singer. Unless you are claiming American Thinker altered the original article or made it up you have no right to dismiss it unless you are claiming Fred Singer is lying. I doubt that since his climate scientist peers would be as eager to point it out as humy.
"The first paragraph, concerning Fredrik Ljungqvist et al. and their proxy data goes from a single, probably verifiable, fact to speculation as to their motive concerning that fact. In other words it is building a conspiracy theory. "
Omitting something that would otherwise make them look foolish and ruin their reputation is not a conspiracy theory. You are being reckless for making that baseless assertion. People have different motives for all kinds of things. I do think it is possible that a carbon tax involves so very much wealth that it could be motive for a coverup though. To imply it is not is foolish with disregard of history.
If you would like to challenge Fred Singer's writing with facts I welcome it. Don't poo poo on it just because you don't agree with his conclusion though. That is a clear indication of bias right there. Try sticking to the facts and challenging assertions you don't accept as fact. You owe that much to science.
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo does Singer. He has been, is, and will always be biased in this regard. That will inevitably color his reports.
"Your two sources are somewhat biased, American Thinker is a conservative online news magazine, which might be expected to take an editorial position 'skeptical' of the theory of anthropogenic climate forcing and Marc Morano published the emails of climate scientists to encourage hate mail against them. I'm really not going to take what they say with any ...[text shortened]... to the facts and challenging assertions you don't accept as fact. You owe that much to science.
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou did not read the article I posted 6 different times in the other thread. Not only did you not read it, but you also falsely claimed that the data didn't exist (which it does), the models were wrong (even though they aligned with observed measurements), the data was improperly collected, and that the scientists were making it up for grant money (which is ludicrous, fraudulent slander without evidence). There were some statistical problems with the article, highlighed by Deep Thought, but instead of thinking about it you just rattle off all the climate skeptic talking points used to discredit legit science.
What recent acceleration of global glacial melt?
First you have to show it exists and you have not done that. Show me the data, not just some climate model estimates that are likely wrong. Much of that data does not exist and you have the nerve to assert you know what it is.
The problem with global warming and glacial records is that only the more ...[text shortened]... claimed was so important and I will show you the relevance of that data. You can do that, right?
Climate models serve an explicit purpose for many of the high-impact studies on the causes of climate change. True, many scientists use them to predict the future, but obviously much more difficulty and variability. But if you took any time to read the science and not Forbes, you could digest the problem that climate scientists are trying to solve. The climate models are essential for breaking down the forcing variables that contribute to climate change. Without them, you wouldn't be able to say anything about underlying causes.
When did I ignore that all data was equal? What are you saying, specifically? What data should be used to determine the extent and root cause of anthropogenic global warming? What evidence would be convincing enough to reconsider your position? What anthropogenic fraction would be sufficiently actionable?
Originally posted by wildgrassAs I pointed out in another thread predicting the past is nothing like a real prediction of the future. If you think they are comparable you are fooling yourself. You should admit this. If you don't I will create a thread called "predicting the past" about climate models. It even sounds contradictory.
You did not read the article I posted 6 different times in the other thread. Not only did you not read it, but you also falsely claimed that the data didn't exist (which it does), the models were wrong (even though they aligned with observed measurements), the data was improperly collected, and that the scientists were making it up for grant money (which i ...[text shortened]... nough to reconsider your position? What anthropogenic fraction would be sufficiently actionable?
Originally posted by sonhouseNope. He actually understands what you do not. That makes him smart.
So does Singer. He has been, is, and will always be biased in this regard. That will inevitably color his reports.
Unlike you, he understands that climate models are unreliable and have a poor rate of predicting the future.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainI didn't say that. Don't put things in quotes that aren't quotes. Read before posting. You're expecting a mathematical model to be a modern Nostradamus, and even he was wrong most of the time.
As I pointed out in another thread predicting the past is nothing like a real prediction of the future. If you think they are comparable you are fooling yourself. You should admit this. If you don't I will create a thread called "predicting the past" about climate models. It even sounds contradictory.
Originally posted by wildgrassSo you admit climate models are wrong at predictions most of the time.
I didn't say that. Don't put things in quotes that aren't quotes. Read before posting. You're expecting a mathematical model to be a modern Nostradamus, and even he was wrong most of the time.
That admission is all I wanted. You were wrong. I am satisfied. 😏
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell that settles it, Wildgrass is wrong, therefore the entire planet should know climate change and the upcoming crisis, is all BS. Whew, we can go back to making babies by the millions and throw away all our cans into the ocean and keep pumping oil out of the ground now that that is settled.
So you admit climate models are wrong at predictions most of the time.
That admission is all I wanted. You were wrong. I am satisfied. 😏
Originally posted by sonhouseExactly!
Well that settles it, Wildgrass is wrong, therefore the entire planet should know climate change and the upcoming crisis, is all BS. Whew, we can go back to making babies by the millions and throw away all our cans into the ocean and keep pumping oil out of the ground now that that is settled.
Your home is still above water and crops are not failing enough for you to go hungry. Just enjoy life. It is too short to worry over nothing.
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt seems though, we probably have only about another 30 odd years before it is irreversable, the coming really bad part of climate change.
Exactly!
Your home is still above water and crops are not failing enough for you to go hungry. Just enjoy life. It is too short to worry over nothing.