The current decade is the warmest on record

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually they are modeled and specific studies have been done on solar variation and cosmic rays, finding that they cannot account for the degree of warming we have seen. In fact this very same discussion has been had on here in previous years. None of this is even remotely new information.

I know that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, you have once again misinterpreted what I wrote. That part of my post was about your Einstein reference about a single fact destroying a theory. Those were examples of such facts that could destroy this theory. (facts that do not exist)

GCR theory could potentially blow MMGW theory out of the water. Please cite your 'proof' that GCR cannot account for the degree of warming we have seen. Preliminary indications from the CLOUD experiment show that GCR forcing is real and significant...research currently underway to determine just how significant.

 

[fskimospy]

GCR theory could potentially blow MMGW theory out of the water. Please cite your 'proof' that GCR cannot account for the degree of warming we have seen. Preliminary indications from the CLOUD experiment show that GCR forcing is real and significant...research currently underway to determine just how significant.

We already had this conversation before about GCR's specifically. You didn't like studies contrary to it then, you won't like them any more now.

Also, did you forget our conversation from the other day?

 

[fskimospy]

And the same models are saying we should be warmer than we are right now. So maybe they were WRONG in the first place.

They very well could be, but science has taken into account solar forcing and cosmic rays for quite awhile now, contrary to what he said. Regardless, the scientific consensus on global warming is not based on the output of a model.

 

[PJABBER]

For clarification, there are only 5 global temperature data sets used in most climate models: 3 earth based and 2 satellite based.

The three earth based sets are controlled by CRU, NASA and the NOAA - all key participants in the Climategate scandal and all refuse to provide data.

The satellite data sets are calibrated against the earth data sets.

Isn't it all coming down to a very small "controllable" sample of data?

 

[bfdd]

We already had this conversation before about GCR's specifically. You didn't like studies contrary to it then, you won't like them any more now.

Also, did you forget our conversation from the other day?

Well if the models created are not correct in their current assessment of warming, then obviously they are 1. wrong period or 2. they aren't weighing things correctly. Either certain aspects actually contribute MORE and they aren't accounting for it properly OR it is just bunk science. Either way you look at it, they aren't doing something right and with the recent scandals which you seem to think don't really matter, something is obviously up and we SHOULD be skeptical right now and be trying to review EVERYTHING and they should WANT to share every piece of data and step they took along the way to come to their conclusions. Since they refuse for the most part to do that, they cannot be trusted.

 

[fskimospy]

For clarification, there are only 5 global temperature data sets used in most climate models: 3 earth based and 2 satellite based.

The three earth based sets are controlled by CRU, NASA and the NOAA - all key participants in the Climategate scandal and all refuse to provide data.

The satellite data sets are calibrated against the earth data sets.

Isn't it all coming down to a very small "controllable" sample of data?

No, and your post is as usual an extreme right wing distortion. Do you really believe this crap you write? You've taken vague smears and are now trying to use them to smear an entire area of science.

People give an inch and the crazies take a mile.

 

[fskimospy]

Well if the models created are not correct in their current assessment of warming, then obviously they are 1. wrong period or 2. they aren't weighing things correctly. Either certain aspects actually contribute MORE and they aren't accounting for it properly OR it is just bunk science. Either way you look at it, they aren't doing something right and with the recent scandals which you seem to think don't really matter, something is obviously up and we SHOULD be skeptical right now and be trying to review EVERYTHING and they should WANT to share every piece of data and step they took along the way to come to their conclusions. Since they refuse for the most part to do that, they cannot be trusted.

Of course people should want to review the models, that's why people review the models each and every day. You (like so many others) are once again putting words in my mouth. I guess today is straw man day.

These scandals are important for the reputation of the scientists, not for the veracity of global warming theory. The evidence is so overwhelmingly broad and deep that even if everything the CRU ever created were false, it wouldn't change the conclusion one iota.

 

[bfdd]

eskimospy, Hansen from NASA has been suspect for quite the while. He has been found to be fudging data in the past. By that account anyone using his data most likely have skewed data to further Hansens possible agenda. That isn't any distortion, that's the truth.

 

[bfdd]

Of course people should want to review the models, that's why people review the models each and every day. You (like so many others) are once again putting words in my mouth. I guess today is straw man day.

These scandals are important for the reputation of the scientists, not for the veracity of global warming theory. The evidence is so overwhelmingly broad and deep that even if everything the CRU ever created were false, it wouldn't change the conclusion one iota.

It absolutely has to do with the veracity of the AGW theory. If the people pushing it are fudging data to show what they wish to result then we should be questioning everyone and everything involved. These scientists aren't on islands, they are constantly sharing data and practices. It only takes one time for the CRU or Hansen(of NASA) to say "oh your data doesn't look right, here use ours" to screw everything up.

 

[PJABBER]

No, and your post is as usual an extreme right wing distortion. Do you really believe this crap you write? You've taken vague smears and are now trying to use them to smear an entire area of science.

People give an inch and the crazies take a mile.

Why are you so defensive? So much of the discussion in this thread, which I have been trying to follow, is informative. In order for me to understand the direction, I just asked for confirmation and clarification. Thinking someone might know.

Keep it rational. If you can't answer the question just say so.

For clarification, there are only 5 global temperature data sets used in most climate models: 3 earth based and 2 satellite based.

The three earth based sets are controlled by CRU, NASA and the NOAA - all key participants in the Climategate scandal and all refuse to provide data.

The satellite data sets are calibrated against the earth data sets.

Isn't it all coming down to a very small "controllable" sample of data?

 

[rudder]

Let's see. Accurate and reliable weather data for maybe the last 100 years. The earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. If the lifespan of the earth was represented as a year... that 100 years would represent a mere fraction of a second (thanks to Carl Sagan for the idea). How can anyone determine from that what is natural and what is man-made?

One big solar flare could probably do more to the earth than 100 years of spewing greenhouse gases.

 

[shira]

Let's see. Accurate and reliable weather data for maybe the last 100 years. The earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. If the lifespan of the earth was represented as a year... that 100 years would represent a mere fraction of a second (thanks to Carl Sagan for the idea). How can anyone determine from that what is natural and what is man-made?

One big solar flare could probably do more to the earth than 100 years of spewing greenhouse gases.

Could it possibly be the case that you are totally baffled by the bolded question you posed because you're not a working climatologist?

 

[shira]

eskimospy, Hansen from NASA has been suspect for quite the while. He has been found to be fudging data in the past. By that account anyone using his data most likely have skewed data to further Hansens possible agenda. That isn't any distortion, that's the truth.

The bolded statement is baseless.

The REAL story: Some of the raw NISS data from October, 2008 was found to contain duplicates that originated from external data-collecting sources. The effect of the duplicates was to raise the mean global temperature for the period reported by about .18 degrees (I'm writing this temperature delta from memory, and could be off ). The error wasn't corrected until a few weeks after the inital report, after an outside climatologist notified NISS of the problem.

What I just stated is rigorously factual (subject to my leaky memory).

I find it very interesting that rather than engaging in factual statements, you instead drew a totally unsubstantiated personal conclusion from the facts, failed to state the actual facts, and reported your personal conclusion as factual in place of the actual facts.

Someone might conclude you're engaging in propaganda.

 

[shira]

Keep it rational.

This, coming from you, is hilarious.

 

[shira]

Let's see here...

gsellis provides facts and data to back up his stance in the argument, and you provide...personal attacks and insults.

:hmm:...yep, par for the course! Just shout down and insult the opposition. Saul Alinsky tactics at its finest.

So far, gsellis has provided a detailed analysis as to why he believes what he believes, and you had to resort to insults and name-calling out of desperation because you realize you're outmatched.

It's like yllus VS Craig234 all over again... /popcorn

This will be my sole response to YOUR post, because it looks like you're of the same frame of mind as gsellis.

Gsellis didn't provide "facts." He provide non-sequiturs. Compare what I wrote, and then his responses. He just misses the point time after time after time. Maybe his misses were accidental; maybe they were just a way of avoiding dealing with accurate information. But in either case, I'm not going to waste any more of my time constructing clear, accurate posts attempting to educate him on the finder points of climate science when he either won't or can't understand what's being written.

But all this discussion of scientific details is bullshit anyway. Because what it comes down to is this: Either you have faith in the scientific method, and those who engage it it, or you don't. You either believe in strong scientific consensuses, or you don't.

I believe in strong scientific consensuses right down the line. I don't pick and choose which strong scientific consensuses to agree with, because I'm not qualified to do so. To do otherwise - to disbelieve a strong consensus - is to engage in religion rather than science.

It is laughable to read the naysayers asserting that the scientists are doing it wrong. It's laughable not because I know anything more about the science than the naysayers do (though I probably do, but that's irrelevant), but because it's absurd on its surface.

Gsellis knows the difference between correlation and causation. Clearly, thousands of climatologists don't. So Gsellis has identified a major flaw in the methods of climatologists.

Gsellis actually believes what I wrote in that previous paragraph. Gsellis thinks it's credible that thousands of climatologists - all of them with doctorates in the field - have overlooked what is obvious to him. Either that, or thousands of climatologists are all cooking the data.

Call me idealistic, but I don't believe that Gsellis is seeing what thousands of climatologists are missing. And I don't believe that thousands of climatologists are engaged in a huge fraud, simply because it's never before happened in the history of science. I have faith in science and those who practice it.

Yep, that's where MY faith comes in: I put my intellectual dollar on large groups of scientists with PhDs, not on unqualified bloggers making unsubstantiated accusations, and certainly not on posters on ATPN.

 

[rudder]

Could it possibly be the case that you are totally baffled by the bolded question you posed because you're not a working climatologist?

Okay then I expect a report on what climate changes are a result of solar activity, what changes cames as a result of man-made green house gases, then cross reference it with historical data going back more than a century...

Look, I am all for a cleaner environment. But I don't think my tax money should be used to pay some third world nation to not cut down their trees.

 

[CycloWizard]

Okay then I expect a report on what climate changes are a result of solar activity, what changes cames as a result of man-made green house gases, then cross reference it with historical data going back more than a century...

If you want this kind of data, read a review article on the subject - they are geared towards exactly this type of issue. I'm sure Scientific American has put something out in the last couple years which is equivalent, written by a leading scientist in the field, and is more or less in layman's terms.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The bolded statement is baseless.

The REAL story: Some of the raw NISS data from October, 2008 was found to contain duplicates that originated from external data-collecting sources. The effect of the duplicates was to raise the mean global temperature for the period reported by about .18 degrees (I'm writing this temperature delta from memory, and could be off ). The error wasn't corrected until a few weeks after the inital report, after an outside climatologist notified NISS of the problem.

What I just stated is rigorously factual (subject to my leaky memory).

I find it very interesting that rather than engaging in factual statements, you instead drew a totally unsubstantiated personal conclusion from the facts, failed to state the actual facts, and reported your personal conclusion as factual in place of the actual facts.

Someone might conclude you're engaging in propaganda.

Shira, in another thread I went into great detail on this subject and gave you many examples of Hansen's many 'data adjustment errors' in the past (all of which 'coincidently' reflected exaggerated warming). I also mentioned the fact that his political activities clearly reveal a strong personal agenda. Now we have his data adjustments significantly diverging upward from the satellite data since 2003. Hansen continues to stonewall all efforts being made under the Freedom of Information Act for release of his 'data adjustment' methodology.

You've seen first hand how lack of transparency in this field has corrupted CRU in many ways....especially their intentional and fraudulent manipulation of data to exaggerate warming in recent years. There are similar concerns about the GISS data which are long standing concerns...well before this CRU debacle.

The subject of AGW is incredibly important to mankind...especially in light of all the dire predictions and mind boggling costs associated with 'correcting' the problem. Is requiring transparency from Hansen asking too much?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They very well could be, but science has taken into account solar forcing and cosmic rays for quite awhile now, contrary to what he said. Regardless, the scientific consensus on global warming is not based on the output of a model.

FYI...the IPCC does NOT take into account GCR forcing contribution.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I learned long ago on P&N that facts and data are the kryptonite of those with a...leftward agenda. When they realize they're losing the argument, they bring out the arrogant insults and the condescending name-calling. It is textbook.

/start algore impersonation

"OH, you are one of those AGW DENIERS. OBVIOUSLY, you must be a SIMPLETON, because EVERYONE agrees that THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED."

/end algore impersonation

Ya know if you are trying to be taken seriously stop bringing up straw men to bolster your argument.

What Al Gore Believes (tm) is irrelevant.

Global warming isn't about a debate, this is science. Either it is or it isn't based on the weight of evidence.

The overwhelming concensus by scientists with studies not funded by energy companies (or right wing think tanks with funding by energy companies) is pretty conclusive.

But for your enjoyment DSF, Cosmic Rays Don't Die So Easily.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

The overwhelming concensus by scientists with studies not funded by energy companies (or right wing think tanks with funding by energy companies) is pretty conclusive.

Aha...there it is. The catch phrase. "The overwhelming consensus", "the science is settled".

I love how you like to prattle on about the "weight of evidence", when it has been proven that a ton of evidence and data was either manipulated or tossed out altogether in order to reach this "overwhelming consensus" that AGW is real.

Of course, it's only the "energy companies" and "right-wing think tanks" who are ideologues, right?

/snicker

Too rich.

 

[shira]

Shira, in another thread I went into great detail on this subject and gave you many examples of Hansen's many 'data adjustment errors' in the past (all of which 'coincidently' reflected exaggerated warming). I also mentioned the fact that his political activities clearly reveal a strong personal agenda. Now we have his data adjustments significantly diverging upward from the satellite data since 2003. Hansen continues to stonewall all efforts being made under the Freedom of Information Act for release of his 'data adjustment' methodology.

You've seen first hand how lack of transparency in this field has corrupted CRU in many ways....especially their intentional and fraudulent manipulation of data to exaggerate warming in recent years. There are similar concerns about the GISS data which are long standing concerns...well before this CRU debacle.

The subject of AGW is incredibly important to mankind...especially in light of all the dire predictions and mind boggling costs associated with 'correcting' the problem. Is requiring transparency from Hansen asking too much?

You and I have already exchanged emails about Hansen, so it's pointless to continue that here. We simply disagree.

I've bolded a portion of your post because you - like so many other "skeptics" - make an assertion that there's been "fraudulent manipulation" of data.

I have yet to see an OBJECTIVE, QUALIFIED, NEUTRAL analysis of CRU's actions that states what you're asserting. I've read extensively on the CRU incident, including spending probably twenty hours going through the hacked emails. I have yet to see any evidence of fraudulent data manipulation.

Is the raw data that CRU used available from CRU along with their processed data? No. Does that prove that CRU engaged in fraud? Of course not.

Strangely absent whenever skeptics rant about "missing raw data" is the fact that the raw data is easily accessible from sources outside CRU. For example, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php And, yes, this really is the data that CRU uses.

As I've said to other "skeptical" posters: I hold you to the same burden of proof that you demand of climatologists. Lacking such proof, I insist that you stop posting as factual what amounts to personal conclusions based on exactly 0 objective evidence.

I understand that you BELIEVE that CRU engaged in fraud, just as you BELIEVE that Hansen fraudulently manipulates data. But I've probably read most of what you have (and I'd bet much, much more), yet somehow I don't come to the same conclusions. Why do you suppose that is? Am I missing the proof? Do you really think I'm that stupid? Or could it be that the "proof" simply doesn't exist?

 

[gsellis]

Do you really think I'm that stupid?

Oh, this is too easy. We believe you have an agenda and refuse to weight any thing told to you with a critical eye. And your conclusions are unsupportable.

 

[fskimospy]

FYI...the IPCC does NOT take into account GCR forcing contribution.

Never said they did, other research has blown apart GCR as I have shown you before.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I could sure use some global warming right now. Freaking ten degrees below average. Time to leave the fridge door open and spray some aerosol cans into the air!