http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png

not sure what there is to argue about

puts up hand... I was just reading through this, mostly because I was surprised to see climate models on the politics board. But yeah, I 'minored' in climatology in my undergrad. Major was periglacial environments.

I'm gonna go back and finish reading the thread....

If you read the entire set of emails and documents (I have the entire leak), you would be disgusted at what is going on... falsification of data, outlines on how to discredit critics without discussing their criticisms, plans to ostracize scientists with opposing views and the journals that will publish their results. This is NOT the scientific method, it's nothing but money & publicity grubbing combined with character assassination.

The fact that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 has been a sore spot for the global warming community. The fact that this leak reveals there's actually been a slight (barely significant) cooling that has been hidden from the public and other scientists is appalling.

While I think global warming is happening, whether it is human-mediated is open to discussion... except these assholes don't want it discussed, they just want it accepted. "Believe us, if we could measure thing properly, the data would support us, so we've just changed the data to show that!"

Interestingly, in the last 10 years, the 2 closest planets with dense atmospheres (Venus and Jupiter) have both shown significant, multi-degree celsius, growth in their average temperature. Why hasn't the earth?

according to the graph that i posted (and you quoted), the temperature HAS gone up in the past 11 years

That's one of the sore points with the pro-warmers... the graph is wrong, & is based on falsified data. The warmest year on record was 1998, and the correct data for the last 10 years shows a VERY slight cooling (barely statistically significant). The Hadley/CRU data was part of the "extrapolated" data to show continuing warming that is now suspected not only to be wrong, but completely made up just to show what they wanted.

so because the last 10 years worth of data may be false you throw out the previous 90?

No... but the previous 90 is not a seamless data stream either. There are changes in methodology, estimates of missing data, etc. But if you go back to my original statement, I said I believe that global warming is happening. It's just that the last 10 years (data for 2008 isn't ready yet) haven't shown any warming. The usual explanations of solar output reduction don't hold water in light of the effects elsewhere in the solar system (the temperature gains on Venus & Jupiter are not related to orbital positions). Other reasons for the lack of warming are also flimsy at best.

Does it mean global warming isn't happening? No. Does it confound the climatologists who say it is? Yes. BTW... as a general statement, more environmentalists see human-mediated global warming than do climatologists. It is the human-mediation that is, IMO, the real issue.

One of the best (from a predictive POV) climate models is by a Russian climatologist who can't get his research/predictions published anymore. The reason? His model is showing global cooling, an extension of the 1970's predictions. His model predicts up to 3 periods of global warming like we've seen from 1980 - 2000 over the next 200 years, but with a general cooling trend overall. I've been trying to re-find the link to his site, but haven't had any luck.

One of the great issues the nay-sayers point to is the incorrect use of the correlation of C02 & temperature in the past. There is a correlation, a strong one... but it is reversed. There is an 800-year lag between increases in global temperature and increases in C02 levels. This is true, but it doesn't invalidate the issue. What most likely happens is that the oceans absorb incredible amounts of C02. The additional greenhouse impact of relatively small changes in the atmospheric content of CO2 causes minor changes in temperature over time, which causes the dissolved C02 to "boil" out of the ocean, exacerbating the effect, until it becomes a major increase in atmospheric CO2 800 years later. By that time, other mechanisms have begun to counteract the temperature rise, and levels start to drop.

The polar ice caps are melting, and causing a great deal of concern, and seem to confirm global warming. What's never mentioned is, that from a geologic POV, the current icecaps are unusually large. Historically, the icecaps have tended to be much smaller.

All this is just some of the data/information that the collusive work at Hadley/CRU and other groups want suppressed. THAT is what is so disturbing about the leak. It is the deliberate suppression or falsification of data to prove a particular point of view. Whether the warming is really happening (I believe it is), or the Russian is right & we're slowly approaching another ice age (recent data says he's wrong), and whether it's a natural cycle or human-mediated are all issues that HAVEN'T been properly debated, largely for financial/publicity reasons. And that's just wrong.

And then there's this:
Canada in 2020 (Trade): From Russia with love | Managing | Strategy | Canadian Business Online

With the discussion of global warming, and whether or not it exists, I find it interesting to read about those who stand to benefit from it. If global warming is really happening, Canada and Russia will stand to benefit in many ways.

Look at all the sets of data you want, the Arctic passage is opening and it will bring trade between Canada and Russia to an unprecedented level.

I found this interesting, is all.

http://www.arcticbridge.com/arctic%20bridge.gif

Honestly, I'm less worried about global warming than I am about running out of the natural resources for energy. China and the Middle East are rapidly moving towards a western, urban lifestyle right now, and within 30 years, the planet won't be able to keep up with the energy demands. Did you know that there are nearly 50 (FIFTY!!!!) urban centers in China with over 1 million residents right now? Have you seen the cities they are building in Qatar, UAE, etc.? For every hybrid car and compact flourescent bulb we buy in the U.S., these new population centers are adding 10 gas guzzlers and inefficient electrical systems.

There have been several ways of measuring global temperatures, and in ONE of them the warmest year on record was 1998. It is not so much the "correct" data as it is one of several different methodologies. So to claim that one set of data is falsified is, well, false.

In a similar vein, I would love to know the name of said famous climatologist who has had his research rejected because people don't like the results, as well as the rejection letters for said research. It is very easy to claim that one's research was rejected for political reasons, as opposed to simply being shoddy research.

The bit about 1998 being the warmest year on record is indeed an artefact of the measurement scheme chosen. However, NONE of the other schemes of which I'm aware show a later year than 1998 being warmer (excluding local environmental models, which by definition aren't global in scope and are inherently unreliable). Choosing the data stream that shows 1998 to be the warmest on record may be somewhat artificial, but it is probably the best data available, and is widely accepted as the basis for global warming forecasts.

Please note I believe in global warming. I'm on the fence about human-mediation of it is all. But the logical upshot of my position is that we HAVE to act as though it's happening, and that humans are causing it. It's a simple 2 x 2 matrix... It's Happening or Not by Do Nothing or Do Something.

If it's not happening and we do nothing... big deal.

If it's not happening and we do something... we waste a little effort and improve efficiences & develop technologies sooner than otherwise.

If it's happening and we do something, then we avert a crisis (possibly, but it's our only hope).

If it's happening and we do nothing... catastrophe on a biblical scale. So this is not an option.

The problem with the Hadley/CRU leak is that scientists colluded to insert made-up data that fit their needs, to the exclusion of data that didn't, but was the actual measurement. They also colluded to boycott journals that would publish contrary findings and discussed how to discredit scientists with contrary opinions without addressing the contrary findings/theories.

As for the Russian model, I've been trying to find a link to his site/model. I read his findings about 4 years ago when I was much more involved in the effects of global warming, and stupidly didn't keep it (I've gone through several computers since then). I don't say I believe him (I don't)... it is just that at that time, his computer model was providing the best forecasts of world temperatures (global scale).

Here is where I begin to have a problem - "If it is not happening and we do something..." - I think this could prove to more costly in many to be dismissive of those costs and consequences. I think history has clearly shown that there are many instances when man tries, with good intention, to manage the environment the unexpected consequences are often greater than the benefit. And, I find the level of arrogance disturbing to think that human activity will have a meaningful and lasting impact on this planet, given the known history of the planet. To think that about 50 to 100 years of human activity will permanently damage the planet almost makes me laugh. When people like Gore and others use the word "irreversible" does anyone take them seriously? This planet has the ability to "self-regulate" or compensate for internal and some external calamities. I don't doubt that man can have localized impact and short-term impact just as a forest fire or volcanic eruption can have that kind of an impact - but there is far too much that we don't know to come to the conclusions reached by many on this issue.

I agree that we may waste far more than a little effort... but I do believe that there will be some good from that "wasted" effort... new technologies and knowledge. Perhaps at a much greater cost than if we hadn't pursued them NOW, but had instead waited until they were the natural result of technological growth and basic research.

BUT (probably largely because I DO believe global warming is happening), I cannot get past the logical conclusion that if we DON'T try to mitigate the impact, we, and more particularly our children, are facing a major disaster.

What if we assume that the average global temperature goes up 2 degrees.

At some point given diminishing returns (or impact) further increases in temperature will require bigger and bigger inputs.

Sea levels rise, but the impact will have a cooling affect.

Sea levels rise, land areas decrease, human population moves to higher ground.

Changes occur in land animal population, but changes occure in sea animal population. Perhaps we have less reliance on beef and more reliance on Tuna, negating further pollutants from raising cattle.

Some land area changes and can not be farmed, but other land areas change and can be farmed.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

I don't see disaster as we would expect from sudden changes, but I see changes as in subtle change that the globe and humans will adapt to. And, again, I don't suggest we ignore environmental issues, I just don't want us to get carried away with it.

The data source that puts 1998 as the warmest year is UAH MSU:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/uahncdc.lt

Many other reputable data sources put it later than that:

Nasa's GISS puts it as 2005
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

NCDC's data also put it as 2005
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ano...1-2000mean.dat


Oh, and all the hacked emails talk about is making the graphs look more convincing or more alarming. At no point they talk about data falsification or manipulation.

I stand by my original statements. I'm not an expert on this and I suspect very few on TFP are (aside from Leto, of course). I'm not qualified to tell someone if he or she has a tumor even if I do have a CAT scan right in front of me, so why would I be qualified to make a determination based on climate data?

Politics seems to be poisoning science and it bothers me a great deal. Punditry has no place in the laboratories or the peer-reviewed medical journals.

Bullshit. Sorry, no other way to call it. Straight-up, unadulterated bullshit. Those emails discuss (in very plain language) destruction of data (which is illegal when dealing with data subject to a Freedom Of Information request), manipulation of data (unless "hide the decline" has a different meaning in your world), falsification and substitution of data (all with the intent of producing a desired, predetermined result), redefining what "peer reviewed" means in order to exclude conflicting views from debate, and the systematic suppression of dissenting viewpoints within academia.

Looking at the earth's temperature variations over a hundred year period or so would be the equivalent of a person looking at their temperature variation over some immeasurably small fraction of a second and then trying to come to some conclusion about having a fever or not. This planet has gone through more than we even know and talking about fractions of degrees when we think there have be average temperature fluctuations of over 10*c is an interesting approach, but I can not throw perspective out the window.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...s/image277.gif

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

The bullshit is making assumptions based on hacked e-mails with no context.

But, I would like to see both extremes, the alarmists and the deniers, get out of the way....both are counter-productive.

Few, if any beyond the most extreme, deny that belching billions of tons of anthropogenic C02 into the atmosphere every year has an adverse impact on the natural balance.

IMO, the focus of the discussion among policy makers should be on how to address that in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner...in much the same way we did in the 70s with the comprehensive environmental laws.

Raise your hand if you have an education in climatology. Anyone? If you didn't raise your hand, you're what's called a layman, "a person without professional or specialized knowledge". If you did, you're probably not involved in this discussion.

Will... that would be me.

I do not have a formal education in climatology, but my 15 years as a computer forecaster/modeler put me in the situation of having to forecast (among other things) the effect of climate on electricity consumption. I have worked with climatologists, meteorologists, environmentalists, statisticians, and computer scientists working on, not climatological models, but electrical system models. Along the way, I gained more than a passing familiarity with the various climatological models used, the generic techniques used, and the strengths and weaknesses of various models. I was offered a research position at Purdue University to pursue that and other effects on the electrical system.

The one thing I will say about forecasting ANYTHING is that it is best described as driving a car blindfolded, taking directions from a guy in the back seat who's looking out the rear window. The only thing you know for sure is that you will be wrong.

Please, show me where any manipulation of data is stated or implied.

The email about the "trick" to "hide the decline" talks about a graph, not a data set. There is no talk of data being destroyed, only emails about that data. And the line about "peer review" is an off the cuff comment, and not an actual discussion of changing it.

Are these honorable things? Certainly not. But they fall way short of anything they are being accused of doing. And distortion and misleading statements about what those hacked emails contain are certainly at least as dishonorable.

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

Working as a forecaster is hardly akin to being a climatologist. And as a forecaster you should be able to know that knowledge of generic techniques mean nothing, given how specific details in any modeling can lead to completely different outcomes.


And I am not saying this to claim that I, myself, am any sort of expert. Just that, so far, I have seen nothing to suggest the prevailing consensus among real climatologists is a part of some vast conspiracy.

The idea that a handful of paragraphs pulled from over 1000 emails proves that "conspiracy" is ludicrous.

Are we setting a new standard for participation in a discussion?

Are you making an assumption that only those with "formal" training can have an informed view on this or any subject?

At the very beginning of all of this the "deniers" simply asked questions based on the assumptions and methodology used to come to the conclusions that this is a settled issue, those with confidence in the view point don't fear questions or challenges.

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

I re-read this thread and I am not clear on what the point of the above statement is in the context of what has been posted in this thread. Can you elaborate?

The manipulation of the data to "hide the decline" was done in the base data set. The graph is irrelevant. The explanation later given for the use of the word "trick" smacks of post hoc rationalisation. The entire base data set has been manipulated, and almost certainly appropriately so, in order to try and establish a best-guess homogenous data set. So, the further discussion of replacing selected post-sanitization data points with the express intention of hiding a decline smacks of unethical behaviour. The director of the CRU has stepped aside while an investigation of the whole matter is on-going.

What is more troubling, is that the raw data set (pre-sanitization) is missing... thrown out. This alone makes any review of the current base data set difficult. Again, the rationalisation that it was for space considerations is shaky... microfiche is quite inexpensive, and digitized data can be stored anywhere.

I am not a climatologist, although I have perhaps a slightly more than layman's understanding of the subject. I AM an expert on computer time-series modeling. And climatologists need a modeler to be able to put the data into a format to produce a reasonable forecast. The form of the model significantly affects its predictive qualities and reliability. Univariate, multivariate, regressive, decompositive, dynamic regressive, event models... they all have their strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncracies.

Deciding which model works best on a given data set is as much the realm of the modeler as it is the subject specialist. I stand by my assertion that I am qualified to comment on the possible effects of the disclosed data manipulation on the predictive quality of the model.

But... that's not been the point of my comments all along. I'm more concerned about the socio/political implications for science research. Scientific research must be about openness and peer review. This reveals systematic violation of that openness, and a predispositon to silence or discredit dissenting views. Healthy debate is good for science. Rejecting criticisms without addressing them, simply because they do not fit your world view, is anathema to proper research.

And I think Ace has hit the nail on the head. If anyone is asking questions that can't be answered, or cause discomfort, then something is wrong. And it's not the people asking the questions.

The fact that you can't even keep straight what is in the emails speaks volumes about your willingness to consider the issue. The email about the "trick" to "hide the decline" is very explicit about this:

He talks about creating a graph from mixing data from two different series, not altering the series themselves.

And the raw dataset was thrown out in the 80s, but ALL the raw data they had is still available. They threw out their own compilation, but the data that went into that compilation is available from the original agencies.

And a forecaster, you should know enough about parameter sensitivity and linearity to know how models differ widely from one another.

Discuss whatever you want, but don't be under any illusions that you're qualified to tell the scientists they're wrong.

This plurium interrogationum is frustrating, I doubt you can point to a statement written by me to support the claim.

By the way, when did you stop beating your wife? Please don't be under any illusions that anyone finds it acceptable even if you have stopped. :rolleyes:

I'm speaking more broadly on the issue. Climate science has been forced into the public discourse despite the fact that the public aren't in a position to interpret the available data. As I say, discuss anything and everything to your heart's content, but the number of people in the world qualified to interpret the mountains of data now floating around is quite small and those people are feeling immense pressure right now from two sides of a massive political throw-down. I'm seeing that same throw-down in this thread.

In a broad sense given what we know this is either subterfuge or some kind of pretense that "laypeople" can not read and understand scientific study. In either case it is disturbing given the potential consequences. I interpret your position as - since "we" are not "scientists" we should not challenge what scientists tell us because we can not understand what they are telling us or if they share honest raw data with us that we can not formulate an informed interpretation of the data. As we begin to make decisions that can materially alter our life-styles and re-direct resources measured billions if not trillions of dollars I think we have an obligation to understand.

Personally, I can read scientific studies and understand them or ask questions to get to a competent level of understanding.

P.S. - You are not the only one I have interacted with who has had the point of view you have shared with us here and my comments are not specifically directed to you as an individual.

Since we are not scientists, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly interpret data.

Folly.

Since we are not football players, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly interpret football plays.

Since we are not electrical engineers, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand an electric circuit.

Since we are not computer programmers, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand a computer program.

Since we are not lawyers, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand the law.

Since we are not airplane pilots, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly understand how to fly a plane.

You can make those assumptions, I don't. Just like Neo in the Matrix, just plug me in babe, and I am good to go:thumbsup:

Do you really think the most advanced climate science known to man is as simple as the rules to football? I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to this question.
Your posts are full of assumptions and generalizations, just like most current discussions between laymen on the issue. If I were involved in the discussions, I'm guessing my posts would be full of assumptions, generalizations, and outright falsehoods, though I wouldn't intentionally be trying to lie or deceive.

Do you know why C02 has risen since 1998 but global temperatures have cooled over the same period? The intuitive response would be that CO2 may not correlate to warming in the same way that global climate change proponents suggest, but when you apply even a most basic understanding of climate science to the question, you understand that data suggests that there's about a 30-year lag time between greenhouse levels and the effects. Why would that be? Simple! Oceans absorb temperature and CO2, creating a lagging effect. I've read up on climate science a great deal in the past few years, but I would be naive for me to assume that reading up on climate science made me a climate scientist. I've barely scratched the surface of the science and judging by what's being posted online and talked about in the media, I guess I'm a few steps ahead of the general public (not that I'm gloating, I'm really not. I honestly don't know shit about shit when it comes to climate science). I also don't know much about particle physics or organic chemistry, so you won't catch me dead trying to hold my own in a debate on those subjects.

you ever watch the news, waiting for the weather report/prediction? or on the radio? internet? I follow it everyday so I know whether I can ride the motorcycle in to work and save gas. More often than not, these guys are changing their predictions after 2 days. I would think that after years of reporting, observing, studying, etc. they would have an advantage at reporting/predicting than the average factory worker, yet 7 times out of 10 it seems I can predict weather more accurately for my own purposes. So I don't see the difference between that and the supposedly 'most advanced climate science' is when all one needs to do is look at the trends of the earths climate and weather.

I doubt there are world-class climatologists working at my local NBC affiliate. In my experience, military meteorologists are best at basic predictions, but that's a whole different area of climate science than what we're talking about when it comes to global climate instability and the human effect on said instability. It would be like comparing your local veterinarian with a ivy-league educated, experienced and published evolutionary biologist. No offense to vets, of course, one of them saved my dog.

There is really no comparison between forecasting temperature during specific days of the week and forecasting long term weather patterns. The first is basically an estimation of day to day shocks, while the latter presents a much more stable pattern as these shocks are averaged out. As an example, it is not uncommon for day to day forecasters to get max and min temperatures wrong by as much as 10 to 20 degrees, while global monthly temperature forecasts are generally off by a matter of tenths of a degree.

As an analogy, it is very difficult to predict if a specific cancer patient will die of cancer, but it is a lot easier to know what share of the population will die of that cancer.

Yes.

In order to create climate models one has to make certain assumptions - that is the basis of this whole issue - knowing and understanding the assumptions. A climate model can show significant different results with minor tweaks to the assumptions used. When assumptions are disclosed there is no intent to deceive. When the assumptions used are disclosed along with methodology and raw data everyone should be able to recreate the same result.

You present many different issues in this paragraph and I am not sure what you want a response to, but I agree that reviewing what a climate scientist does will not make one a climate scientist. But, I don't take the position that a layman can not understand climate science. I am still not clear on your point.

I am curious. In your view what makes a person an expert in something? What makes a person a scientist? What makes a person a climate scientist?

I am going to guess that you think having "accredited" letters after your name is the key. am I right? In my view, my response would be based on real knowledge, real work, real experience. So, yes a Phd., would qualify, but so could the person who has spent a life time of study, observation, experimentation, research,etc., who does not have a Phd.

I don't see where Will said "scientists with Phds." He said an "education." A lifetime of study, observation, research and so on would certainly qualify as an education. It certainly beats googling something over the weekend.

Shakespeare would put it this way: "what is past is prologue". The only thing that makes forecasting long-term patterns appear "easier" than short-term patterns is the assumption that the broader patterns of the past will continue into the future. The real challenge is figuring out when or what can cause long-term patterns to change. Looking at a, 24 minute, 24 hour period, 24 day period, 24 year period, or 24 million year period the challenge is the same, the only change is in how quickly you find out if your assumptions are wrong.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

So, what is your point? What makes study or understanding the climate so difficult? Measuring temperature is easy. Understanding the variables that affect temperature is easy. What gets difficult is understand how those variables inter-play with each other. Given the variables a scientist can not do controlled "global" experiments, so the basis of what they do is grounded in assumptions. We have a right to know and to be able to challenge and test these assumptions, I don't understand what all the mystical type, we can't possible understand stuff comes from.

I'm afraid you've lost your objectivity.

First, you set me up asking for a yes or no answer to your question, then you make your assumption without seeking clarification. So, you think I have lost my objectivity.

First, let's understand that the basis of your question requires a subjective response but that aside for now let's explore the basis of my response.

In football there are the expressed "rules" of the game. Simple enough and not complicated.

Then we have things like the:

bio-mechanics of football.
physics of football.
social science of football.
business of football.
biology involved in football.
strategy of football.
physical science of football.
psychology of football.
language of football.

Oh, and we have the science of the weather, or the climate, and it's impact on football.

Then we have things like the engineering in football venues, have you seen the new Cowboy's stadium?


So, to all the folks who know me, pretty much knew I would have a response. To those who assumed I am an idiot, look in a mirror.:thumbsup: