[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

?

“gets a bit foggy really” NO it does not hainy you actually selectively quote and misuse Proff Latif the man who keeps complaining to the media about climate sceptics misquoting and mispresenting his work.

You also managed to omit some relevant text from your post
“Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.”

?

I understand Junykards view point. He is saying that there is more CO2 now than there ever has been, ergo temperatures will keep rising and we will break the natural cycle

Well that's not really a fair reading. The nuts and bolts of it is thus:

CO2 has a big effect on global climate amongst many other factors. Humans have released tons of CO2 into the atmosphere which threatens to warm the planet on average and throw the climate we've grown up with into a cocked hat. Wiping out crops in areas where living is marginal and so on.

Now it's true that this has surely happened before, but now a lot more is at stake, and also we might also be able to stop it happening, or limit its effects, by not being so disgracefully wasteful.

These theories have been arrived at after years of intensive study. So it's not really fair to say 'well I don't think so' and that's that.

Yes, it's all foggy, of course it is. Science is foggy most of the time. But that doesn't mean that it's invalid or all rubbish. Scientists investigate, learn, create theories (or models in this case) and then test them. And in the process, develop understanding. What's more, they all understand this scientific process. The problem is that the media just blurt out condensed soundbites that often give out the wrong idea.

Most climate scientists are very worried that anthropogenic CO2 could have a drastic effect on climate because all their research tells them so. So surely, we must all be concerned too? I mean what if they are right? I for one surely don't know enough about the subject to disagree with them, and my feeling is really that you don't either.

After all, an intelligent many knows what he doesn't know.

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is why it is such a heavily debated topic and why there are so many scientists on both sides of the fence arguing the science. I for one hope they can stop climate change (notice i didn't say man made).

Yeah but it's more than just opinion mate. I think some on this thread have taken offence to someone holding an opinion that doesn't seem to them to be based on science. Plus you were telling them they were wrong a bit 🙂

Also, even if you suspect CC not to be man-made I hope you are still taking steps to reduce your energy consupmtion anyway, just in case!

everyone is entitled to their opinion

Some people's opinions are worth more than others. (That's not elitism, by the way).

so many scientists on both sides of the fence

Nearly all of them are on the same side, actually.

It is based on science though, but some choose to ignore that or essentially try to rip apart anything that anyone posts which contradicts there belief.

Nevermind. As i have said before, i have taken many steps to reduce my usage of natural resources both at home and at my work.

Nearly all of them are on the same side, actually.

In your opinion, but I disagree, and unfortunately for Science a lot of them are now distancing themselves from the IPCC disillusioned.

Hainey said:

I for one hope they can stop climate change

Just to move the debate on a bit, do you have any ideas as to how "they" might do this?

It is based on science though

We really couldn't see the science behind your arguments.. perhaps you didn't articulate it well enough? As for ripping stuff apart, shouldn't we be unable to rip sound arguments apart? 🙂

As for ripping stuff apart, shouldn't we be unable to rip sound arguments apart?

When i say ripped apart, i really meant dismissed without any real reason.

But anyway, people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels, the complex interaction of CO2, Water Vapour and Methane, our over-reliance on beef and what should be done about that so if people won't engage then fair enough.

I'm sure everyone is bored so lets just agree to disagree and hope that Scientists are clever than we think and can stop the next ice age.

Just to move the debate on a bit, do you have any ideas as to how "they" might do this?

Absolutly no idea - I for one think its impossible.

people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels, the complex interaction of CO2, Water Vapour and Methane

I think you'll find climate scientists have been addressing those issues for decades.

And I trust their opinions on the matter far more than yours. (Sorry, but there you go).

molgrips

"I think some on this thread have taken offence to someone holding an opinion that doesn't seem to them to be based on science. Plus you were telling them they were wrong a bit."

That's called freedom! Freedom to question, freedom to be wrong, to be right, freedom to say what you believe. Would you change that?

I note that you put a smiley face at the end there but remember that the thought police will smile the first time they tell you to change your view.

But anyway, people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels, the complex interaction of CO2, Water Vapour and Methane

That's what climate scientists do all day! I've read loads on those things. We've debated it lots on this thread for starters.

our over-reliance on beef and what should be done about that

Again, widely discussed. I've read many times that to feed a person on beef requires something like 7 times more grain than to feed a person on grain.. Some politician was telling us just a few weeks back that we should be vegetarian, and I think someone has a guideline out that suggests we give meat a miss one day a week. The effect of cow farts on climate is major issue as is the deforestation that comes with large scale beef farming in the developing world.. lots and lots of stuff.

It is based on science though, but some choose to ignore that or essentially try to rip apart anything that anyone posts which contradicts there belief.

Actually Hainey - I think the biggest problem is that AGW theory is based on faith, with science used to back up the argument.

The "faith" is that we, as a race, are damaging the planet, the "green lobby" have been banging the drum calling for changes for years, and have discovered that AGW is a very effective rallying cry - I don't really think that as a race we've come that far from the days of thinking that we have angered the gods who are punishing us with a storm.

I haven't actually seen anyone here take issue with the facts that data [b]has[/b] been manipulated, that there are proven differences in sets of data that can only be explained through recording/processing bias, that there is contradictory data that is being ignored - quite simply, thats not good science - QA the data, and see whether the data still fits the theory, if it does, great, if it doesn't, then you have to revisit the theory - thats simply not happening.

I'm not saying that there isn't a very fair argument for cutting back on consumption, pollution and damage - however the science being performed in the name of AGW is really pretty poor, its a classic case of making the evidence match the theory rather than the other way round.

I think the biggest problem is that AGW theory is based on faith

That's just silly. Why on earth would green types care about something that wasn't a problem enough to try and make it one?

There could be SOME poor science in the name of AGW, not sure I know where though, but does that discredit it all?

I understand what you are trying to say Z-11 but I don't like the word faith.

I'm not saying that there isn't a very fair argument for cutting back on consumption, pollution and damage - however the science being performed in the name of AGW is really pretty poor, its a classic case of making the evidence match the theory rather than the other way round.

Agreed.

If there was some kind of super effective green lobby that was able to persuade governments what to do (HAHAHAHAHA!!!) then surely they would think of a more effective tool of persuasion than some nebulous future concept that really won't affect much the people who are most able to affect it at some unspecified point in the near or far future.

Something like save the rainforest, tigers, elephants, bears etc would have been far more effective don't you think?

I personally think that the likes of Michael Moore and to a lesser extent Al Gore have done a major disservice to the cause by trying to sensationalise AGW.

Can someone post or re-post a cication for poor science, I haven't time to read the whole thread.

That's just silly. Why on earth would green types care about something that wasn't a problem enough to try and make it one?

I don't like the word faith

I think its a psychological issue thats built deep in human society!

It's been demonstrated in a huge variety of differing cultures since time immemorial, that where there is chaos we seek order and control, and where there is an event which we cannot explain we seek a reason why - human sacrifices to appease the angry volcano gods, kings seeking to control the tides, and the very source of a whole variety of religions from paganism to christianity!

Is it really so different, have we really come on so far as a race that we now think that we can control our destiny?

[img] [/img]

Hainey said:

But anyway, people have chosen not to debate the historical CO2 and temperature levels

Hainey, that is so not true that I'd have to call it a bare-faced lie.

Sorry to bore everyone else again but here is a very good explanation for the cyclical nature of historical CO2 and temperature levels:

The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.

Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.

Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

Think of heart disease – one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient’s condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?

There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2’s warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC’s projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

It's an extract form an earlier posting. Have you read it?

RPRT - rather than just cutting and pasting from realclimate, can YOU debate it?

edited to add: I mean, this is half the problem - rather than looking at the data and facts and actually thinking about it themselves with a critical mind, most of the people on here are simply parroting someone else's opinion and telling us that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

It's been demonstrated in a huge variety of differing cultures since time immemorial

Er, directly likening modern science to supersitions of mediaeval times is a barefaced insult to the last 300 years of scientific development mate. That's an absolutely ridiculous allegation, you must surely appreciate this. As you sit there typing on a computer connected to the internet...

Sometimes, people's lack of understanding of science and consequent antipathy makes me really angry.

Z11,

Not as well. The author is after all a Professor of Geosciences.

I can follow it though, and it seems to make sense.

z-11

I haven't actually seen anyone here take issue with the facts that data has been manipulated,

How much more data do you want have you seen how much is in the IPCC report? Why is it bad to reference to other people - have you ever read a science paper it is an essential part of any research.

Hainey said

I don't like the word faith.

Hainey said

Its a very religious / chuch of scientology viewpoint to go round rubbishing people.

Will the real hainey please stand up.

You see junkyard - this is another part of the problem, you don't understand that I didn't do ANYTHING to alter the data, just express it in a less sympathetic way than your own graph - was your own graph right, or was that manipulated by someone to prove a point on skepticalscience where you cut and pasted it from?

Have you actually looked at the data yourself?

most of the people on here are simply parroting someone else's opinion and telling us that the "consensus" must be right, simply because its the consensus!

That's a rather patronising attitude. I don't hold my view because its the consensus, I hold it because I'm persuaded by the argument. Its reassuring to find myself in the company of so many eminent scientists though.

read my edit - z-11
No you dod not manipulate the data you used a rathe odd choice of scale. The data was unaltered the presentation was - you call it less sympathetic everyone else asked why you use the same scale for C02 and ppm you did not answer iirc - care to explain now?
reread they consensus on that.
Did anyone on here actually defend that graph other than you?
Did everyone who commented it criticise it for the same reason [scale]?
Did you repeatedly mistake it for a correlation?

Everyone was scathing of that graph are we all wrong and you are the lone voice of reason?

Ok data - specifcally what are you saying other than it is all wrong?

Yeah, you're persuaded by the argument, but not by actually questioning it critically and looking behind the argument.

It was fairly clear that the argument that Saddam had WMD persuaded a huge proportion of our politicians that it was true, and that action was necessary, the arguments were really strong with lots of facts to back them up, there was a consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field...

look where that got us!

Edited to add - I'm afraid you might want to look at what I [b]actually[/b]said Junkyard.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/search.php?q=correlation&x=0&y=0

Was your graph from Skepticalscience any more reliable or a better use of the same data - was it any more accurate, seeing as they had to factor the data to form the curve - it was a simple exercise in how you can present data to prove or disprove your point!

Could you stick to the subject some politicians lied really
So graphs and correlations and your understanding of them.
Can you give an example with the entire worlds scientists, governments and the UN lying about science? Can you even think of an entire scientific community lying? I dont mean switching paridgm I mean actually lying?
Hell even the oil companies accept global warming and they have their own scientists to fight the "IPCC lies".

"It was fairly clear that the argument that Saddam had WMD persuaded a huge proportion of our politicians that it was true, and that action was necessary, the arguments were really strong with lots of facts to back them up, there was a consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field..."
That's a really bad annalogy the consensus in the inteligence community appears to have been there was no significant evidence of current WMD that's why the particular politicians who wanted to go to war needed a dodgy dosier based on a google search. The argument that pursuaded the MP's appears to have been an assurance from the sitting PM that he had seen the secret evidence and they should take his word for it .

Could you stick to the subject some politicians lied really

Did they, or did they just present data in a misleading fashion to prove their point?

Can you even think of an entire scientific community lying

I've never suggested anyones lying - I've said that they've mislead themselves, and there's plenty of examples of the scientific community doing just that - Phrenology, Eugenics, the raisin theory (ie. what preceded the theory of plate tectonics)

Being wrong is not the same as misleading is it?

[i]try to rip apart anything that anyone posts which contradicts there belief.[/i]

Exactly what you've been doing for 21 pages hainey.

The historical time periods being evoked over the last few pages are far to short if we are looking for the conditions we can expect as we rise beyond atmospheric carbon levels of 380ppm. 500ppm is a realistic estimate of what we will reach in the not too distant future so shouldn't we be looking at conditions that correspond to those levels?

Z11

Well a couple of points there, so firstly,

You said:

Yeah, you're persuaded by the argument, but not by actually questioning it critically and looking behind the argument.

You mean I disagree with you?

Then you said:

It was fairly clear that the argument that Saddam had WMD persuaded a huge proportion of our politicians that it was true, and that action was necessary, the arguments were really strong with lots of facts to back them up, there was a consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field...

Firstly, what the hell do you think this proves? You're the one telling us to look at the data for ourselves, don't accept anything that isn't utterly objective and verifiable, and yet you think that comparing the controversy over Iraq with the controversy over climate change somehow strengthens your case?

But secondly (as you mentioned it) what an incredibly poor choice of metaphor.

Actually before the Iraq invasion the UN weapons inspectors - in your analogy, lets think of them like the climate scientists - said that there were no weapons.

But the armchair experts, (neocons hardliners G W Bush etc, Dick Cheney etc), in your analogy - lets think of them as the climate deniers (oh hang on, THEY ACTUALLY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE!) - said that there were obviously weapons.

In other words, the "analysts" back home were wrong and the "scientists" on the ground were right.

So how is that a good metaphor for the climate change argument again?

Didn't anyone hear Hans Blix when he said he had visited all the sites he had requested access to and found nothing. Just the information Blair need to go in knowing he had nothing to worry about. That his troops wouldn't be poisoned and Israel wouldn't be nuked.

(Apologies for sidelining the discussion)

You see RPRT - you do it again, jump to conclusions and misquote people - I didn't say anything about the UN weapons inspectors, I said there was "consensus among the intelligence community who were all experts in the field"

Actually, Hans Blix said nothing of the sort at the time - He said more research needed to be done, he quite categorically did not say there were not any weapons

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

In fact, if anything, its more accurate to put Hans Blix in the "skeptic" position - his position was that the evidence was inconclusive, that a lot of the evidence being used was unreliable, and he went away to encourage actually inspecting, rather than relying on "consensus" arguments and probabilities based on historical data!

Hans Blix said what I quoted in an interview that was shown on both French and German TV but not on British channels.

When did he say in Edukator? before or after?

I've linked to what he said in March 2003, before the invasion!

That report predates the invasion by 8 days, the final Blix interview in the desert made it clear he had visited al the sites as requested. Even a month earlier he had expresssed his doubts WMDs would be found to Blair.

[url= http://www.****/news/article-1245243/Iraq-inquiry-Hans-Blix-told-Blair-month-invasion-Saddam-WMDs.html ]From your favourite paper[/url]

The difference in News content between the BBC, Eins Extra and TF1 made it clear to me the BBC was exaggerating the threat and withholding information such as Blix' interviews when he visited sites and found nothing.

ACtually Edukator, you'll be surprised to hear I don't read the mail - still, not to let stereotyping and jumping to conclusions get in the way of facts eh?

He expressed doubts?

I note that my point stands, Blix "quite categorically did not say there were not any weapons"

edukator use his own link it said this
All my bold
he did say this though

As I noted on 14 February, [b]intelligence authorities have claimed [/b]that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. [b]No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found[/b]......

I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 – including information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information. Nevertheless, [b]intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period
[/b]

Of course he did not say there were no weapons you cannot prove a negative can you he could only ever say he had not found any ...not this point again on a different subject. Again no eviodence was found ...seems clear to me he say he has found nothing but the intelligence agencies are making claims.
Vaguely back OT
you said re correlation that i should look at what you said so I did

Edited to add - I'm afraid you might want to look at what I actuallysaid Junkyard.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/search.php?q=correlation&x=0&y=0
all I see is that you said that my graph was a correlation as well and then repeated this error /mistake when you posted yours - do you have another interpretation of the data? You do accepot they are not correlations now?

I said that he said he had visited all the sites he had requested access to and found nothing.

Blix did categorically say he had found nothing more than a few old shells from the Iran/Irak war despite having had access to all the suspect sites. Blix as an intelligent, honest and rigous man could say no more. You cannot state "categorically" that any nation doesn't have WMDs. You are asking the impossible of Blix, as did Blair, who then manipulated that lack of certainty there weren't any into absolute certainty there were for the consumption of the British public.

Why do you think the french and Germans were so outraged by Blair's claim but the British public were not? Because we were better informed.

all I see is that you said that my graph was a correlation as well

No, I said that the graph did not [i]show[/i] a correlation, not that it [i]was[/i] one - below the graph I said "look at the correlation" referring to the data [i]shown[/i] in the graph.

Are you denying that it is accepted practice to visually express the correlation between two sets of variables by drawing a diagram in which each result is plotted on a standard X-Y graph?

Well Z11, I'm glad you've moved back to the topic of the thread. If you want to start a WMD thread go ahead, but for the sake of all our sanity lets just stick to the one contentious topic at once here eh?

Anyway, I note also that you said this a while back:

Actually Hainey - I think the biggest problem is that AGW theory is based on faith, with science used to back up the argument.

Just as a matter of interest, who do you think started advancing an AGW theory before there was ANY science to back it up?

This is a serious question BTW - one of the main objections of skeptics seems to be that there is some sort of conspiracy going on, so it would be interesting to get to the root of that.

I dont think its a deliberate conspiracy - I think its mass delusion/hysteria - a bunch of people truly and honestly being convinced that what they're doing is the right thing and finding patterns and proof where there is only chaos.

I dont think its helped by Greenpeace et al using it as a to push their agenda, which of course had its origins in the anti nuclear movement of the 1960's

Another parallel would be that of satanic/ritual abuse

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&article=99&issue=1244

You're doing it again.

How do you think that bringing yet another highly emotive topic into the discussion will help foster rational debate?

You are priceless. You say 'only the facts' then you try to draw a parallel between climate science and ritual child abuse.

Don't you see the irony?

Best example of recent mass hysteria by a group of supposedly experienced professionals I could think of RPRT!

I said that the graph did not show a correlation, not that it was one

the correlation only applies if the NASA GISS global anomaly data is correct

Are you denying that it is accepted practice to visually express the correlation between two sets of variables by drawing a diagram in which each result is plotted on a standard X-Y graph?

Of course I am not denying that a correlation can be represented graphically. However it has some obvious differences that would enable any observer with a rudimentary grasp of statistics to notice
1.If it was a correlation between temperature and C02 there would be only one line on the graph
2. X-Y would be labelled as per the variable correlated - temp on one C02 on the other.
[url= http://www.schoolworkout.co.uk/documents/s1/PMCC.doc ]gcse stats[/url]

Now you apparently want a debate about poor data sets whilst claiming the reason for global warming is mass hysteria. Am I really expected to conclude the scenario with the most evidence is that we are all, unintentionally, experiencing mass hysteria rather than global warming?

Junkyard - further up the page, [b]before[/b] you posted the graph from skepticalscience - I had already used the "C" word.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/its-global-cooling-not-warming/page/17#post-1040918

Quite clearly talking about the data, before a graph was used - but you jumped on your little high horse thinking I'd said something I hadn't!

Mass Hysteria and psychology: Junkyard, I suggest you go and learn about clustering illusions and the Representativeness heuristic

-zulu - your arguments make about as much sense as flat earthers or creationists.

so I think you are right - there is a illusion - but its the sceptics not the people who actually understand the science that are under the illusion.

You are so obviously selecting facts and twisting them to fit your ideas.

quite honestly you never had much credibility and now you have non.

I do hope you have your tin foil hat on.

Nicely said TJ.

Thanks for that link it is an even better reference. I like the bit where you are arguing about a correlation as cause and effect - that is not even a schoolboy error - thanks for highlighting it.

But the whole point is that the rate of loss is supposed to correlate with, and has been used as evidence of an unprecedented rate of temperature increase, which is itself correlated with an unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 - cause and effect.

Now you are confusing me again what have I got then mass hysteria or your latest notion of the clustering illusions MY BOLD

The clustering illusion refers to the tendency to erroneously perceive small samples from random distributions as having significant "streaks" or "clusters", [b]caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or semi-random data due to chance.[/b][

correlation does not mean causality

Halle ****ing Lulleah!

[b]Now[/b] we're getting somewhere Junkyard!

So, why did you post a graph of CO2 matching Temperature rise?

What evidence do you have that CO2 drives temperature change, given the fact that you yourself concede that correlation does [b]not[/b] mean causality!

I am fairly confident that the vast array of equations - data analysis we perform on the raw data - data manipulation you call it iirc

data analysis is not manipulation, manipulation is the process of adjusting [b]raw[/b] data:

[img] [/img]

What evidence do you have that CO2 drives temperature change, given the fact that you yourself concede that correlation does not mean causality!

You're doing it again. Muddying the waters. Correlation does not mean causality, but neither does it NOT mean causality. That statement by itself means nothing.

As you well know, lots of us do think there is causality, and have been bombarding you with evidence. At the moment the experiment is still running and so we have to make a judgement as to the outcome, but in my opinion the trouble with your argument is that you give too much weight to (inevitable) idiosyncrasies in the data over the mass of coherent data.

too much weight to (inevitable) idiosyncrasies in the data over the mass of coherent data.

But thats my exact point about clustering Illusions and representativeness - that you're giving huge weight to the inevitable coherences that occur in a huge mass of otherwise incoherent data, and attaching no weight to the flaws in the data that cannot be explained by the theory. You choose to ignore the data thats been adjusted, you choose to ignore the cloud cover correlation data and all the evidence in respect of internal forcing to justify the CO2 causation

As you well know, lots of us do think there is causality, and have been bombarding you with evidence

Seriously, other than the fact that there is a (limited) correlation between temperature rise data and CO2 data in the past few decades, what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world environment with all its complex feedback systems and external inputs - your own petard is the phrase that "correlation does not mean causality"

attaching no weight to the flaws in the data that cannot be explained by the theory

What flaws in the data have been adjusted [b]with no good reason[/b]?

But on your other point:

Seriously, other than the fact that there is a (limited) correlation between temperature rise data and CO2 data in the past few decades, what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world environment

Seriously, it's a measurable effect. More CO2 = more longwave radiation at the surface, less infrared radiation out into space. (We did this about 2 months ago). There you go - no historical data required.

your own petard is the phrase that "correlation does not mean causality"

what evidence has anyone offered that CO2 levels drive temperature in a real world

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored

I am going for b and 2 - is anyone atually disputing this anywhere? ANy credible scientist claiming C02 is NOT a grenhouse gas or arguing with this acount?

Now the only way this simple account can be wrong is if you have a begating factor from

all its complex feedback systems and external inputs

i await the great negating system we have all forgotten about

Can I wager that you ignore the question and argue about the data or hysteria again?

it is the big fiery ball in the sky that we orbit that is the primary driver of temperature iirc.

Well, thats a fairly significant variable that you've just thrown into your simple common sense equation Junkyard

Can I wager that you ignore the question and argue about the data or hysteria again?

Could you answer the question ?
The real question we need to ask is what does C02 do to the energy when it arrives
a. Nothing
b. Trap some of it
c.Trap it all
If we have more C02 does it

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored
your answers are?

But thats really not the point is it? the earth is not a test tube - its the real world effects that we're discussing.

If it [i]were[/i] that simple, then we would have seen an increase in temperature over the past decade, since at the same time there has been a significant increase in CO2 levels - that has demonstrably not happened, ergo [i]something[/i] must be happening that is not factored into your nice simple equation.

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:

I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.

fascinating you really have learnt well from Hainey ......ignore questions debate something different. Answer the question please I am happy to reciprocate and have answered yours.

The real question we need to ask is what does C02 do to the energy when it arrives
a. Nothing
b. Trap some of it
c.Trap it all
If we have more C02 does it

1.Make no difference
2.Increase the amount of energy stored
3.Decrease the amount of energy stored
your answers are?
Once you answer that I look fwd to you elaborating on your scientifically defined and evidenced "something" - it should be fascinating

ergo something must be happening that is not factored into your nice simple equation.

[i]I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.[/i]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

I'd suggest nobody post again until they've read it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

??

Junkyard - ok, answers to yours

in a test tube environment with a constant input and no other variables - B and 2

So why, [b]please explain to me[/b], have we not seen the same outcome in the real world over the past few years?

[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/scale:10/from:2004/trend/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-370/from:2004/trend [/img]

If it were that simple, then we would have seen an increase in temperature over the past decade

You're letting yourself down Z11.

At one point in this discussion I thought you were actually making reasonable points, but now you're getting silly.

I think everyone on my side of the argument agrees that there are many factors forcing climate change and that there are natural cycles at work. Maybe temperatures might fall for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term upward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

CaptJon said

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:

You couldn't be arsed to read all of our witty repartee, but you could be bothered to read that?

Sorry, I didn't do more than skim it. Once I got to the words

most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma.

I could see which way the wind was blowing and stopped reading.

"fascinating analysis" - are you related to the author?

rightplacerighttime - Member
CaptJon said

It may have been posted already, i can't be arsed to read what i only assume is pub science, but this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:
You couldn't be arsed to read all of our witty repartee, but you could be bothered to read that?

Sorry, I didn't do more than skim it. Once I got to the words

most disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases, and dogma.
I could see which way the wind was blowing and stopped reading.

"fascinating analysis" - are you related to the author?

Touche - i've had a brief skim and there does appear to be some proper science. I'm sure you can forgive my shortsightedness given the forum and the topic.

Do you believe science isn't, if not controlled, but influenced by fashions? Monies from funding councils/agencies is heavily politicised.

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science. If you are you might like to return to the above document and read the stuff about peer review on pages 28-80. It is quite scary the attitude some of those involved in the emails appear to take.

Oh BTW CaptJon re' your "??" - the link from Dave is to a page about the publishers of the report you linked to.

It casts doubt on their veracity.

I think everyone on my side of the argument agrees that there are many factors forcing climate change and that there are...

Wait for it!

[b]

...natural cycles at work.

[/b]

Wahey, now we're pulling it in, bang on the money Junkyard! 😈

Maybe temperatures might fall for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term upward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

That is JUST as much a valid statement as

Maybe temperatures might rise for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term downward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

or, even more prosaically

Maybe temperatures might rise for 30 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that without forming any discernible longer term trend,

Junkyard - Would you admit that that is also a [b]possibility?[/b] 🙂

[b]Now[/b] do you understand my comments regarding the psychology of looking for patterns where there is, in actual fact, chaos? now do you understand my comments regarding the clustering illusion?

I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.

Artually, I'm more interested in my future well-being.

I'm sure you're right that there are some scientists out there with less than perfect moral codes. But most of them are in it because they are genuinely interested in finding stuff out. Sorry, but I'm not reading that paper - it looks like a bad A-level project in textual analysis.

Maybe temperatures might rise for 10 years (although I don't believe they have) but still do that within a longer term downward trend. Would you admit that that is a possibility?

Yep. I would admit that that is a possibility. I just don't happen to think that that is what is happening now.

Now then, are you going to admit that temperatures might fall for 10 years but still do that within a longer term upward trend?

Of course its possible, but its a logical illusion to think that you can draw any form of conclusion [b]either[/b] way - otherwise you're like fleas on a dogs arse arguing over when the next mysterious smell might appear!

rightplacerighttime - Member
Oh BTW CaptJon re' your "??" - the link from Dave is to a page about the publishers of the report you linked to.

It casts doubt on their veracity.

Interesting, that is an approach Mann, Jones et al take, i.e. forming an opinion based on assumed bias than challenging the argument being made aka strawman. An extract (formatting isn't great, you might want to read it in its original form (p.28):

March 11, 2003: email 1047388489

A paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published by Climate Research, which concluded that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” Phil Jones writes a number of emails to his colleagues. In the first:

[i]Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by (skeptics) Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.[/i]

His conclusions are remarkable, given that he admits that he hasn’t even looked at the paper as yet. His next email is sent after having read a small amount:

[i]I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling … I’ll have time to read more at the weekend …
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does.[/i]

In other words, because these astrophysicists don’t use the mathematically and statistically incorrect method of “averaging” the various temperature proxies to hide the variability of temperature in the past, they’re not a member of the club!

He continues:

[i]Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something …
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.[/i]

Recall, this action is being taken before he has even read the whole paper even a single time.
Mike Mann replies:

[i]The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Freitas; unfortunately, I think this group also includes a member of my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite “purpose”).[/i]

In other words, the publication of a single paper critical of their work—which is how any healthy discipline of science is supposed to work—is, automatically, evidence of a “hijacking” of an entire peer-reviewed journal.

Mann urges his colleagues to start a witch-hunt:

[i]Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
link to a page on Climate Research’s website listing the editors
Despite the paper having barely been looked at, Mann immediately starts to plan their retribution:
I told Mike MacCracken that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted—the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want todo is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole…

It is pretty clear that the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and with Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon and Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal![/i]

We now see what Mann and colleagues are so upset about: they believed that their cosy club was safe from intruders, as the only way to challenge them was to be published in a “peer-reviewed” journal—which they themselves controlled. But now that the fortifications were breached, the entire house of cards was in danger of falling down.

Mann immediately suggests black-balling the journal that dared to challenge their authority:

[i]So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…[/i]

So it’s OK for their gang to control the “peer review” process, but not OK for sceptics to have any say?

rightplacerighttime - Member
I'd hazard a guess that as you're on this thread you're interested in and/or involved in science.
Artually, I'm more interested in my future well-being.

I'm sure you're right that there are [b]some scientists[/b] out there with less than perfect moral codes. But most of them are in it because they are genuinely interested in finding stuff out. Sorry, but I'm not reading that paper - it looks like a bad A-level project in textual analysis.

What if those 'some scientists' are the leading proponents of global warming andhave gained positions of power which means they can reinforce their positions based, not on scientific method, but politics, pressuring people, excluding findings they don't like and fiddling their data?

There is stuff wrong with the report i posted, but in my opinion (as an academic interested, but not directly involved in the science of climate) it is worthy of note. Open your mind and give it a chance.

FFS slow down people attack his stats they are as cr@p as usual

Well if it was true you would have a point but I do not accept you assertion that it is cooling. In fact I think that you have actually picked a date on order to distort the atual data to show what you wish and it is another clear and deliberate attempt to cherry pick your dates to show what you want – yet you claim everyone else is delusional odd, very odd. Here is the exact same data as you used but for a longer time frame as it shows there is a clear upward trend [img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/plot/uah/trend [/img]

Here is your data time frame with the long term trend attached
[img] http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:2004/plot/uah/trend:2004 [/img]
I am not arguing with the data just your selective use of it. The first decade of this century was still the warmest on record. despite your downward trend. i was correct eh lies, damn lies, statistics and Z-11 statistics. Very, very poor. You have no credibility left with me.

natural cycles at work.
Wahey, now we're pulling it in, bang on the money Junkyard!

I have repeated ad nauseum tha clrearly there are natural cycles at work but no natural cycle includesman made C02 release stherefore they would not be a valid explantion of the current situation due to the NEW variable - radical science eh new variable changes things. My other clearly radicl aview is that climate has changed naturally - without the influence of man - we did all this sh1t with Hainey new variable changes natuaral account etc.

Junkyard - what makes 1978, 1978, 2002, 2003 or 2004 into a "more valid" date to start your own analysis from?

You can draw any pattern you like in the data - this is my exact point! this is the ridiculousness of the entire concept - you're choosing the data that suits your own ends, just the same as I was - this is the very essence of the clustering illusion!

I could choose the year 1934, 35BC or one million years BC as my start point, it would be just as valid!