CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

posidonia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Maybe you didn't bother reading this, but again:

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/


Why WOULDNT you question made up or adjusted data after these emails straight from the horses mouth?

Your welcome :-)

All my recent post have been about asking questions...I've been urging two posters to ask questions...



Look, if people think cherry picked, out of context, bits of conversations are evidence that's one thing but when it's used to find people guilty (as two poster are doing) of dishonesty without the slightest intention of testing if the evidence is valid (let alone letting the scientist defend themselves) then I ask....questions!



Doesn't it alarm you in the slightest that people here condemn scientists as guilty of dishonesty without even bothering to question them? It bothers me!

Nabber

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by models here?

What do you think of the statistical interpolation methods used to fill in gaps? Kind of odd that they all produce similar results with different methods though, eh?

I likely misinterpreted what you meant by 'they all'.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

We do have global data, it's not perfect, scientists need to calibrate different datasets based on the data that we have high confidence in.
Satellite measurements are not perfect, but they're not useless either, and when we're not measuring absolute temperature values, but temperature anomalies, we can take imperfect data and make it work as long as we know about the inadequacies of that data.

"Not measuring absolute temperature but anomalies". Anomalies relative to what? To measure an anomaly you first need to know what the reference is and then have a way to measure the real temperature relative to that. Satellites weren't around to measure and set the reference value, and they sure as hell can't accurately measure temperatures relative to it now. You're just obsessed with the 1.5-degree anomaly talk without stopping to critically analyse where we are with our datasets.

But then you kind of know where we are as you go on to talk about "making the imperfect data with its inadequacies work".

MiNdGaM3

Nabber wrote: »

I likely misinterpreted what you meant by 'they all'.

Ah, ok. By "they all" I meant the global temperature series. Such as GISTEMP, HADCRUT4, Berkely Earth, JMA etc

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Maybe you didn't bother reading this,.....

Hey SeaBreezes, remember those weather balloons, are you still convinced that Ronan Connolly is someone worth listening to on Climate change?

I’ll keep asking until you answer. I think this is the5th or 6th time now

Longing

posidonia wrote: »

All my recent post have been about asking questions...I've been urging two posters to ask questions...



Look, if people think cherry picked, out of context, bits of conversations are evidence that's one thing but when it's used to find people guilty (as two poster are doing) of dishonesty without the slightest intention of testing if the evidence is valid (let alone letting the scientist defend themselves) then I ask....questions!



Doesn't it alarm you in the slightest that people here condemn scientists as guilty of dishonesty without even bothering to question them? It bothers me!

Stop putting words in to people mouths. Nobody needs to contact a particular scientist so to speak when the have mis-information on there web page already.

Lets see! Something Simple.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Has you can see NASA has a fancy Global Temperature video running from 1884 to present day showing global temperature colouring for every year.

You know and everybody here knows there has been very little data from centuries ago except (US,Europe) to show there vast colouring of the globe. I could see into it has temperature sites were introduced the colouring would factor the same.

Honesty/Integrity gone out the window just from one video. So you can understand Posidonia why there is skeptics when you see false content for million and millions of viewers.

Gaoth Laidir

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Ah, ok. By "they all" I meant the global temperature series. Such as GISTEMP, HADCRUT4, Berkely Earth, JMA etc

I just took the first one in your list there and plotted 4 views of the global coverage. They're some gaps to fill in there....

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

So because we do not have 100% coverage of the entire globe with perfectly sited and professionally serviced temperature stations, we should just pretend it's not happening then?

Then that fact alone removes the "science" bit from climate science.

Akrasia wrote: »

We do have global data, it's not perfect, scientists need to calibrate different datasets based on the data that we have high confidence in.

You're asking for the people to fundamentally change their lives based upon predictions (the vast majority of which so far have proved to be untrue) on "not perfect" data. Again, "high confidence" is not science, not within an asses roar of it.

Akrasia wrote: »

Satellite measurements are not perfect, but they're not useless either, and when we're not measuring absolute temperature values, but temperature anomalies, we can take imperfect data and make it work as long as we know about the inadequacies of that data.

Like a cowboy car dealership, if we cut the good front off this car and weld the good back off this car we can make it work... :rolleyes:

Akrasia wrote: »

Every revision of the temperature data makes it more accurate,

Just like Microsoft, every new version of Windows is just a little less $hit than our previous version!

Akrasia wrote: »

but the 'skeptics' love going back in time to older less reliable less accurate records wherever they think the results suit their agenda

God forbid anyone questions the dodgy data - what is this, the re-incarnation of the church? Thou shalt not question.

Akrasia wrote: »

I will accept the findings of expert scientists on the topic of climate change. 'Sceptics' think that scientists are all corrupt or incompetent (compared to their own genius and the bloggers they choose to believe)

You continue to accept that they "can take imperfect data and make it work" cause as I said before, the end justifies the means for you. Sceptics will continue to punch holes in it all because it's easy when you are using said "imperfect data". Your words.

Gaoth Laidir

Just clicking through the different stations on that GISS map I linked to above. Where the hell is this "Connaught" station? It's on the coordinates of Connaught Airport, but where did those data in the 1930s come from, and where are the data from when it opened in 1986 to around 1997? But these datasets are reliable...

Danno

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just clicking through the different stations on that GISS map I linked to above. Where the hell is this "Connaught" station? It's on the coordinates of Connaught Airport, but where did those data in the 1930s come from, and where are the data from when it opened in 1986 to around 1997? But these datasets are reliable..

How convenient it is that the unadjusted data is ~2.5c higher than the homogenised (adjusted) data.

If this was a court of law, that would be fraud.

posidonia

Longing wrote: »

Stop putting words in to people mouths. Nobody needs to contact a particular scientist so to speak when the have mis-information on there web page already.

I'm asking questions. It's clear you are not prepared to ask questions - your mind is made up.

Lets see! Something Simple.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Has you can see NASA has a fancy Global Temperature video running from 1884 to present day showing global temperature colouring for every year.

You know and everybody here knows there has been very little data from centuries ago except (US,Europe) to show there vast colouring of the globe. I could see into it has temperature sites were introduced the colouring would factor the same.

Honesty/Integrity gone out the window just from one video. So you can understand Posidonia why there is skeptics when you see false content for million and millions of viewers.

Again, it's clear your mind is made up - and you've made you mind up because someone (Heller?) has told you something and you've just, unquestioningly, lapped that up. But, this is The Church of Scepticism where no one doubts the bad things they're told about climate scientists...


I'm sure you've not read anything the NASA scientists you condemn have written about their methods - you just know better I guess?

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I just took the first one in your list there and plotted 4 views of the global coverage. They're some gaps to fill in there....

Interesting that regions of the world we are told are warming at the greatest rate (tropical landmasses, high Arctic etc) are also the regions with the least amount of historical coverage in those maps.

posidonia

Danno wrote: »

How convenient it is that the unadjusted data is ~2.5c higher than the homogenised (adjusted) data.

If this was a court of law, that would be fraud.

If this was in a court you'd be libeling someone...



You're right about something though. This isn't a court of law - clue its got kangaroo in it...

Nabber

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

Ah, ok. By "they all" I meant the global temperature series. Such as GISTEMP, HADCRUT4, Berkely Earth, JMA etc

To add to GL comments above, these are all BIASED. The GISTEMP for example uses data taken from ships, where the elevation and methods used vary greatly. Some of which data is taken from ships using buckets, or in take gauges from engine rooms. It also allows for 250KM interpolation of data sets or 1200km where no data exists.

GISTEMP processes spatial variations in surface temperature anomalies that are derived from historical weather station data and ocean data from ships, buoys and other sensors. Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty, changes in spatial coverage of the station record, and systematic biases due to technology shifts and land cover changes.

I love data mining, the data the GISTEMP has on offer is fantastic, it's a real achievement of man kind to have gathered and retained that much information on weather. At the same time, the fluctuations and variables within the data corrupt it's value, GISTEMP provides a best guess a past temps, very speculative with considering the inconsistent data. Satellites are less biased and their data is not inline with the biased weather stations.

How BIASED is reading satellite, why does the data not correlate with the models?

Unfortunately, these bands tend to overlap a bit. For example, TMT estimates will include part of the lower stratosphere, while TLT estimates will include some surface temperature. These overlaps matter because different parts of the atmosphere are expected to react very differently to climate change.

When greenhouse gases trap incoming solar radiation, they tend to increase the temperature of the surface and lower atmosphere, and decrease the temperature of the upper atmosphere as less solar radiation is escaping. We see this in satellite observations and data from weather balloons, where the lower stratosphere is cooling while the underlying troposphere and surface are warming.

So where the narrative doesn't fit ie. the UAH not showing the hockey stick graph.



The reason for this is that our measurements are inaccurate. But the inaccurate measurements and the variations in location of weather stations, ships, technology evolution and interpolations of data are to be accepted at face value?

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

Oneiric 3

Looking at some of those charts on that GISS website, and here is the Valentia one:



'Unadjusted date (yellow line) vs 'homogenized' data (black)

Explanation of what the homogenized data is below the graph:

"GHCN-adj-homogenized: adjusted, cleaned data, homogenized by GISS to account for urban effects".

Since when did Valentia become a sprawling metropolis?
And why is the difference between the unadjusted and homogenized data greater in the far past than near present?

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Looking at some of those charts on that GISS website, and here is the Valentia one:



'Unadjusted date (yellow line) vs 'homogenized' data (black)

Explanation of what the homogenized data is below the graph:

"GHCN-adj-homogenized: adjusted, cleaned data, homogenized by GISS to account for urban effects".

Since when did Valentia become a sprawling metropolis?
And why is the difference between the unadjusted and homogenized data greater in the far past than near present?

Ask them...

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

Ask them...

I'll ask you...

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

I will accept the findings of expert scientists on the topic of climate change. 'Sceptics' think that scientists are all corrupt or incompetent (compared to their own genius and the bloggers they choose to believe)

Here you go: Dr. Rex Fleming. PhD Atmospheric Science, ex NOAA employee, ex-believer and NOAA whistle blower:

SeaBreezes

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I just took the first one in your list there and plotted 4 views of the global coverage. They're some gaps to fill in there....

Funny how the warmest regions are in the areas the temps are being guesstimated.

SeaBreezes

What timing, another comparison video from Tony Heller comparing historic data with 'adjusted'

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Here you go: Dr. Rex Fleming. PhD Atmospheric Science, ex NOAA employee, ex-believer and NOAA whistle blower:

No thanks, you see I wasted a half an hour listening to Ronan Connolly lying about weather balloons and when I asked you if you checked his facts and showed you a graph contradicting everything he said you just ignored it

Oneiric 3

SeaBreezes wrote: »

What timing, another comparison video from Tony Heller comparing historic data with 'adjusted'

If this is as boring as the last two vids I dutifully watched the other night, I think I'll skip, thanks.

Longing

posidonia wrote: »

I'm asking questions. It's clear you are not prepared to ask questions - your mind is made up.





Again, it's clear your mind is made up - and you've made you mind up because someone (Heller?) has told you something and you've just, unquestioningly, lapped that up. But, this is The Church of Scepticism where no one doubts the bad things they're told about climate scientists...


I'm sure you've not read anything the NASA scientists you condemn have written about their methods - you just know better I guess?

Assuming and Presuming is all you bring.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

What timing, another comparison video from Tony Heller comparing historic data with 'adjusted'

Half the time skeptics say we cannot trust weather stations because of the urban heat island effect. The other half of the time they complain about scientists adjusting data to account for known biases

It’s all a conspiracy

Now, about those weather balloons...

Oneiric 3

I have noted that a number of questions I have posed on here since the opening of this tread have gone unanswered or duly detracted from.

And the answer to my latest one was?
'ask them'.
I recall about a year ago I wrote to NOAA asking them if I could obtain from them some historic daily data regarding the 'AO' and 'NAO' as per this dataset:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/daily.index.ascii


As of yet, I am still awaiting a reply... Really helpful people.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Half the time skeptics say we cannot trust weather stations because of the urban heat island effect. The other half of the time they complain about scientists adjusting data to account for known biases

Maybe you could answer the question I asked above, which was why Valentia data was 'adjusted' in the past to allow for the 'urban heating effect' on a scale that seems just a little bit more than extraordinary for the region.

SeaBreezes

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Here you go: Dr. Rex Fleming. PhD Atmospheric Science, ex NOAA employee, ex-believer and NOAA whistle blower:

You know when this thread started I actually didn't realise the level of adjusting or creating data there was

.
I just assumed science was slow in catching up to Zharakova and solar effects. Now I'm more than slightly horrified....

Oneiric 3

SeaBreezes wrote: »

You know when this thread started I actually didn't realise the level of adjusting or creating data there was
.
I just assumed science was slow in catching up to Zharakova and solar effects. Now I'm more than slightly horrified....

This thread has been an eye opener for me, in more ways than one.

On the climate change issue, I like to keep an open mind, and I do try to be balanced.. not that I have to try too hard as that is my nature anyway.

But something isn't smacking quite right here. I am not a smart man, but nor am I stoopid.

When you see responses like this to genuine questions:

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s all a conspiracy

it becomes obvious that this is a automated response tactic used to belittle the questioner than that address the question itself. I'm afraid that this tactic no longer washes with people at this stage.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Maybe you could answer the question I asked above, which was why Valentia data was 'adjusted' in the past to allow for the 'urban heating effect' on a scale that seems just a little bit more than extraordinary for the region.

There are reasons for adjusting the record beyond just the UHI. Valentina, by all accounts, appears to be a very well run observatory staffed by professional and very well trained scientists. Either they’re a part of a conspiracy to fake the data, or there are sound scientific reasons for making those adjustments

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

There are reasons for adjusting the record beyond just the UHI. Valentina, by all accounts, appears to be a very well run observatory staffed by professional and very well trained scientists. Either they’re a part of a conspiracy to fake the data, or there are sound scientific reasons for making those adjustments

Sigh...