The current decade is the warmest on record

[TastesLikeChicken]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In a previous ATPN thread, the climate deniers accused NISS of falsifying climate data because NISS did NOT identify and delete from their data set duplicated data that was erroneously sent to them by an external group

Now, the same circle-jerkers are accusing CRU of falsifying data because CRU DID exclude from their data set post-1960 tree-ring proxy data that prior research has shown to to be erroneous.

The climate-denial crowd wants to have it both ways.

In fact, there's not a shred of evidence demonstrating that there's any falsifying going on at all. But the deniers think if they yell loudly enough they can get someone to listen to them.

Someone else in here already pointed out the difference between deniers and skeptics. Until you stop lumping everyone that doesn't subscribe to your worldview into the denier category you'll appear to be another gulper of the Al Gore communion potion.

You're no better than the deniers you resent. You're just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[fskimospy]

It's amazing all the peer reviewers for science journals we have right here. Who would have thought?

Experts in the field check things out and consider these methodological errors compensated for, but ATPN is on the case! Go get em guys!

 

[CycloWizard]

The problem with the tree-ring data is they used it pre-1960 when it agreed with what they wanted to say, then when 1960 came around and the tree-ring data showed a decline in temperature while the thermometers showed a rise, they stopped displaying the tree-ring data.

The issue then becomes this: If the tree-ring data is crap post-1960, why can they call it good pre-1960? Full disclosure would prompt them to show the tree-ring data on the same graph as the air data so as to show possible errors.

This. The idea that one can use tree ring data is predicated on the idea that some causal relationship between tree growth and temperature (e.g. increased CO2 could cause increased tree growth and increased temperature). If this relationship breaks down, then there are two possibilities:
1. the causal relationship does not consider all important variables, so it cannot be used to predict trends unless these other variables are of known quantities at the time/place where the prediction should apply, or
2. the apparent "causal" relationship was simply a correlation which was again predicated on other conditions, which has the same result as #1 on the ability of the correlation to predict outside the specific conditions under which it applies.

 

[StageLeft]

It's amazing all the peer reviewers for science journals we have right here. Who would have thought?

Experts in the field check things out and consider these methodological errors compensated for, but ATPN is on the case! Go get em guys!

Couldn't this attitude be applied to almost all AT threads? Most of us are not experts in the fields we discuss. If that was a pre-req there would be very few threads.

 

[spidey07]

It's amazing all the peer reviewers for science journals we have right here. Who would have thought?

Experts in the field check things out and consider these methodological errors compensated for, but ATPN is on the case! Go get em guys!

This forum is way late on news and lacks experts in the field. But its nice shine some light every now and then.

Arfcom

 

[0marTheZealot]

Every thread ends up the same. Ideologues on one end, people who understand the facts on the other.

 

[umbrella39]

So basically it boils down to smart vs. stupid again OTZ

 

[silverpig]

Every thread ends up the same. Ideologues on one end, people who understand the facts on the other.

Says 0marTheZealot

 

[fskimospy]

Couldn't this attitude be applied to almost all AT threads? Most of us are not experts in the fields we discuss. If that was a pre-req there would be very few threads.

It's a sad comment on P&N that this attitude could be applied to almost all ATPN threads, but particularly the hard science ones. With many political threads personal ideology has a place, because not everyone agrees on the role of government, etc. Not so much here.

When people aren't experts in a field, usually the best way to formulate your opinion is to seek out what actual experts think on the subject. Unfortunately people here are content to just babble away on topics they don't know anything about, and even worse they feel like they can critique peer reviewed scientific studies by pulling shit out of their ass.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's a sad comment on P&N that this attitude could be applied to almost all ATPN threads, but particularly the hard science ones. With many political threads personal ideology has a place, because not everyone agrees on the role of government, etc. Not so much here.

When people aren't experts in a field, usually the best way to formulate your opinion is to seek out what actual experts think on the subject. Unfortunately people here are content to just babble away on topics they don't know anything about, and even worse they feel like they can critique peer reviewed scientific studies by pulling shit out of their ass.

Is that what you're doing here? You don't seem to have any expertise on these issues, yet you beat the drum for your side simply because it aligns with your political agenda.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Says 0marTheZealot

StarCraft's a hell of a drug....

 

[fskimospy]

Is that what you're doing here? You don't seem to have any expertise on these issues, yet you beat the drum for your side simply because it aligns with your political agenda.

How does it 'align with my political agenda'? What political agenda do you think I have?

Either way it's not what I'm doing here in any way, shape, or form. In case you haven't noticed, when I talk about global warming I talk about the overwhelming majority of science on the matter that strongly points to it. Ie: I'm not trying to be an amateur climatologist and critique scientific papers, I point to scientific, peer reviewed papers and say 'hey, these guys who actually know what they are talking about think this.'

All these people attempting to argue about the means by which scientists in the field should analyze their data are on a fool's errand.

 

[Jaskalas]

How does it 'align with my political agenda'? What political agenda do you think I have?

It's cute to feign neutrality when pushing an agenda, particularly when you say the science is settled. Of course it's only settled when you silence the opposition which includes many scientists.

 

[Robor]

How does it 'align with my political agenda'? What political agenda do you think I have?

Either way it's not what I'm doing here in any way, shape, or form. In case you haven't noticed, when I talk about global warming I talk about the overwhelming majority of science on the matter that strongly points to it. Ie: I'm not trying to be an amateur climatologist and critique scientific papers, I point to scientific, peer reviewed papers and say 'hey, these guys who actually know what they are talking about think this.'

All these people attempting to argue about the means by which scientists in the field should analyze their data are on a fool's errand.

But they flew in planes and took limos. If they really cared about their cause they would have swam and walked! :biggrin:

 

[Robor]

It's cute to feign neutrality when pushing an agenda, particularly when you say the science is settled. Of course it's only settled when you silence the opposition which includes many scientists.

What is the ratio of scientists who are for/against?

 

[dainthomas]

Every thread ends up the same. Ideologues on one end, more ideologues on the other.

fixed

 

[CycloWizard]

How does it 'align with my political agenda'? What political agenda do you think I have?

Either way it's not what I'm doing here in any way, shape, or form. In case you haven't noticed, when I talk about global warming I talk about the overwhelming majority of science on the matter that strongly points to it. Ie: I'm not trying to be an amateur climatologist and critique scientific papers, I point to scientific, peer reviewed papers and say 'hey, these guys who actually know what they are talking about think this.'

All these people attempting to argue about the means by which scientists in the field should analyze their data are on a fool's errand.

You never stopped to consider that some of us actually might be qualified to peer review these papers, did you? :hmm: Simply because something has been peer reviewed does not imply that it is correct. I'm not saying it's not correct, either, but the simple observation that two conflicting papers both exist in the peer reviewed literature is evidence enough to prove my point. I can point to numerous examples, if you'd like.

 

[gsellis]

It's a sad comment on P&N that this attitude could be applied to almost all ATPN threads, but particularly the hard science ones. With many political threads personal ideology has a place, because not everyone agrees on the role of government, etc. Not so much here.

When people aren't experts in a field, usually the best way to formulate your opinion is to seek out what actual experts think on the subject. Unfortunately people here are content to just babble away on topics they don't know anything about, and even worse they feel like they can critique peer reviewed scientific studies by pulling shit out of their ass.

The problem is that you are dismissing the experts in the field that disagree with your agenda. When this 'science' is using statistics and modelling, and the experts in those fields say you are doing it wrong, you hypothesis fails. Maybe you should read the analysis on the check against the raw data for Australian reporting stations (cooling since 1880) vs the CRU version (warming with a discrete stepwise changes). It is stickied at Anthony Watt's page right now.

Let's summerize - you are stating that the earth is warming solely because of man-released CO2.

We are stating that the earth has been warming from a local minimum. While there might be a man-made component, it cannot be statistically identified or considered significant outside of any natural variance. We also recognize that the MWP did exist and that the temperature then is degrees higher than the current period. We also recognize that the reported ground station temperatures appear to have been adjusted through the improper use of weighting on poor data or incorrectly applying adjustments to good data (failure to recognize UHI and then adjusting CRN 1 and 2 stations as GISS appears to do - or committing academic fraud in station data creation for Asia). We have also seen the code to "hide the decline".

 

[werepossum]

I think you're rather confused.

Try reading the lucid explanation on the following website:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php




Tree rings aren't being used for current temperature measurement, because in modern times we have direct measurements and we don't need tree-rings as proxies. Contemporary warming trends being reported are based on ACTUAL measurements, not proxies. Warming from 1850 to about 1960 is based on proxies THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE ACCURATE. EVERYONE who has a decent understanding of climatology knows there's no fraud here. ANYONE who takes the time to read and understand the science will come to the same conclusion.

Now, take a deep breath and start educating yourself.

Dude, the concept that proxy data show poor correlation where they can be verified but are good where they cannot be verified is asinine. No one, even "EVERYONE who has a decent understanding of climatology" and is writing a textbook, is ever going to convince me otherwise. It isn't a question of "educating myself", it's a fundamental issue of common sense.

Proxy data are always a gamble and an unknown source of error simply because no two sets of data ever track exactly. In this case climatologists are taking proxy data that track well over 110 years and track poorly over 49 years and projecting them back thousands of years, assuming that they are accurate even though we all know that over more than 30% of the verifiable record they do not track temperature. Stop and THINK!

This is the core of my problem with the fledgling science of climatology. Advocates of CAGW make these wild leaps that things that are shown to be inaccurate where they can be checked are accurate where they cannot be checked. Can you show me any other field that behaves in like manner? Then they hide the known inaccuracies by plotting measured temperatures on the same graph as their massaged measured proxy data (because tree rings don't measure temperature, but rather measure growth, some mathematical transformation must always be done) without pointing this out to give the idea that the proxy data correlate well with actual measured data rather than the truth, that they do not track over more than 30% of the range that can be verified. Then they conspire among themselves to ensure that only like-minded "scientists" can review their work - even though the underlying data and equations are not made available, so any peer review is a joke - and to discredit any scientists who disagree with them. And when necessary to preserve the fraud, they destroy the actual gathered data. And you think there is no fraud here?

Man, if you think these people are credible scientists then phrenologists must seem like omniscient gods to you.

 

[Robor]

The problem is that you are dismissing the experts in the field that disagree with your agenda. When this 'science' is using statistics and modelling, and the experts in those fields say you are doing it wrong, you hypothesis fails. Maybe you should read the analysis on the check against the raw data for Australian reporting stations (cooling since 1880) vs the CRU version (warming with a discrete stepwise changes). It is stickied at Anthony Watt's page right now.

Are you not dismissing more experts in the same field? What do Australia's stations have to do with glaciers around the world shrinking?

Let's summerize - you are stating that the earth is warming solely because of man-released CO2.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

We are stating that the earth has been warming from a local minimum. While there might be a man-made component, it cannot be statistically identified or considered significant outside of any natural variance. We also recognize that the MWP did exist and that the temperature then is degrees higher than the current period. We also recognize that the reported ground station temperatures appear to have been adjusted through the improper use of weighting on poor data or incorrectly applying adjustments to good data (failure to recognize UHI and then adjusting CRN 1 and 2 stations as GISS appears to do - or committing academic fraud in station data creation for Asia). We have also seen the code to "hide the decline".

How can you dismiss the man-made component factor with no statistics to back it up?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Only the United States and Canada experienced cooler conditions than average

I thought we were the worst offenders.

Global, global! A downpour in your backyard dont mean it isn't sunny across the street.

 

[PJABBER]

Man, if you think these people are credible scientists then phrenologists must seem like omniscient gods to you.

Not to distract the debate, but that line really did have me ROTFLMAO!

 

[shira]

HUGE logic fail here. Either your proxies are accurate or they're not. If anything, they should be MORE accurate post-1960 as you have better thermometer data to check against. You can't just wave your hand and say "global warming did it" when your calibration goes tits up.

You must want to NOT understand: Tree-ring data has been found to be highly accurate when compared with available temperature measurement from the 1850 to 1960 period. But from 1960 onward, the tree-ring data diverges from temperature data and understates actual, measured temperatures.

The REASONS for this divergence aren't known (but as stated in my previous post, it may well be due to the fact that as the climate change itself is causing the divergence: as temperatures and CO2 levels continues to rise, it may well be that the growth-rate of trees cannot continually rise in lockstep.

The fact that this divergence between tree-ring data and actual temperatures exists for the post-1960 period is extremely well documented. And recognizing this, the use of tree-ring data is de-emphasized for this period.

Understand also that tree ring data is just ONE proxy. All proxies have limitations. Even when tree ring data is used, it's just one piece of the analysis. Thus, even if tree-ring data used as a proxy in the pre-1960 period, it's not slavishly treated as infallible.

A common criticism for tree-ring data, in light of the divergence problem is: How can climatologists use tree-ring data as a proxy for the pre-1850 period (where there's essentially no direct temperature measurement) if it's known that there are periods (namely, post-1960) where tree-ring data is considered inaccurate. The answer is that there are other proxies, and ALL available data is used and cross-correlated to reconstruct the historical temperature record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/proxydata.html

Historical Data:
Historical documents contain a wealth of information about past climates. Observations of weather and climatic conditions can be found in farmers' logs, travellers' diaries, newspaper accounts, and other written records. When properly evaluated, historical data can yield both qualitative and quantitative information about past climate.

Corals:
Corals build their hard skeletons from calcium carbonate, a mineral extracted from sea water. The carbonate contains oxygen and the isotopes of oxygen, as well as trace metals, that can be used to determine the temperature of the water in which the coral grew. These temperature recordings can then be used to reconstruct climate during that period of time that the coral lived.

Fossil Pollen:
Each species and genus of plants produces pollen grains which have a distinct shape. These shapes can be used to identify the type of plant from which they came. Since pollen grains are well preserved in the sediment layers that form in the bottom of a pond, lake or ocean, an analysis of the pollen grains in each layer tell us what kinds of plants were growing at the time the sediment was deposited. Inferences can then be made about the climate based on the types of plants found in each layer.

Tree Rings:
Since tree growth is influenced by climatic conditions, patterns in tree-ring widths, density, and isotopic composition reflect variations in climate. In temperate regions where there is a distinct growing season, trees generally produce one ring a year, and thus record the climatic conditions of each year. Trees can grow to be hundreds to thousands of years old and can contain annually-resolved records of climate for centuries to millennia.

Ice Cores:
Located high in mountains and deep in polar ice caps, ice has accumulated from snowfall over many centuries. Scientists drill through the deep ice to collect ice cores. These cores contain dust, air bubbles, or isotopes of oxygen, that can be used to interpret the past climate of that area.

Ocean & Lake Sediments:
Between 6 and 11 billion metric tons of sediment accumulate in the ocean and lake basins each year. Scientists drill cores of sediment from the basin floors. Ocean and lake sediments consist of materials that were produced in the lake/ocean or that washed in from nearby land. These materials (preserved tiny fossils and chemicals in the sediments) can be used to interpret past climate.

None of the proxies is perfect - all have limitations. But not all proxies have the same limitations. Thus, when the information available from multiple proxies is combined, and more accurate picture of the historical record can be obtained.

 

[werepossum]

Every thread ends up the same. Ideologues on one end, people who understand the facts on the other.

Luckily you're always on the side of the people who understand the facts, right? LOL

 

[PJABBER]

Shira, you still don't get it.

You Can't Cherry Pick Data, a short poem by PJABBER

Ahem!

If the tree rings don't correlate, you must not manipulate!

Divergence may be a hindrance, it is not an excuse for reverence.

Why not bid good riddance?

Thank you!