Climate data: what's hidden?
I started Monday's post with the words "it's beginning to look like a pattern"... and already, by Wednesday, the pattern is in evidence once more.
Another inquiry into allegations made against climate science has reported - and again, the conclusions are broadly along the lines that there have been issues with how the science has been practiced, but nothing that undermines the fundamental outline laid down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Certainly there have been differences between the various inquiries carried out so far - notably (as Fred Singer correctly reminded me during the week) that they've examined different areas of climate science.
So while the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency's report on Monday looked at the science of ascribing impacts from climatic trends, the Muir Russell inquiry released on Wednesday deals with the more fundamental issue of determing the trends themselves.
The focus on alleged errors with climate impacts is really a recent arrival, beginning in earnest at the end of last year, when questions began to be raised about the IPCC's projections for Himalayan glacier melt.
Bloggers jumped on "HimalayaGate" and soon many other alleged "-gates" were opened on climate impact projections, including the ones I wrote about on Monday.
The "sceptical" blogosphere had in fact been excercised for much longer by temperature records - the much-discussed hockey stick controversy, allegations that data and methods were being kept secret, the use of temperature proxies such as tree-rings, and so on.
The e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia - "ClimateGate" - takes us back into this territory; and this is one of the things that makes it the most interesting of the various reviews thus far.
It's also more detailed than most. Submissions to it are openly available on its website, and the ones I've read (not exhaustive) have all contained passages of interest.
It's taken the longest of the inquiries, and would appear to be the most thorough, although there are areas in which you could reasonably argue it could have been more thorough - indeed the team admitted as much, but pointed out that it actually had to finish and reach a conclusion sometime.
Perhaps most interesting, though, is that implicitly it investigates the accusers as well as the accused.
And while the accused come out of it generally rather well - honesty and rigour not in doubt, nothing to undermine the IPCC analyses - it's perhaps harsher on those firing the darts.
If I had a dollar for every e-mail and blog comment I've received down the years saying that CRU teams (and others) were hiding temperature station data away behind their firewalls and manipulating it to produce the temperature record they wanted, I would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
The Muir Russell team investigated this by just about the simplest method you could think of. They downloaded the data themselves from public databases, and wrote a computer program that would combine the datapoints into a temperature record for the instrumental period.
The entire process took less than two days. All the data they needed was freely available, writing the code was a cinch, and it produced a curve similar to the ones produced by CRU and its counterparts in the US and Japan.
Anyone competent in the field could do the same, the inquiry team elaborated. You can take out data points you don't like, you can apply whatever correction factors you want (such as the one that Nasa's GISTEMP series uses to compensate for the dearth of measuring stations across the Arctic), and you can therefore end up with a temperature curve that might look a little different: but don't say it can't be done, because it can.
And while the university should have responded much better to Freedom of Information requests - which the university admits - many of the FoI requests came, the Muir Russell panel said, from competent people who should have known that the data is freely available and can easily be processed.
The Muir Russell report won't satisfy everyone that everything is rosy in the bed of climate science - and of course, it hasn't investigated whether the overall IPCC picture of climate science is sound, because to do that you'd need a very different sort of panel.
It might be thought notable, however, that criticism from the most prominent "sceptical" commentators and bloggers has so far concentrated on issues such as openness and dealing with FoI (Global Warming Policy Foundation), whether IPCC rules on data submission were broken (Climate Audit) or the job of an IPCC author (Bishop Hill), rather than hidden data or the lack of an impact on the overall picture of global climate change.
I've been guilty of writing excessively long posts recently, so I'm going to end this one here - this issue won't go away, not least because the InterAcademy Council review of the IPCC is still outstanding - in the meantime, I look forward (as always) to your thoughts on this one.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~49~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Latest: University clears itself internal enquiry finds everything hunk-dory.
In other news: Bears still using informal bathroom arrangements
Complain about this comment
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/lord-russell-of-holyrood/
Exerpt: "They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh."
One wonders why anyone would think that their findings would be accepted as legitimate when the process was so obviously biased.
This will only increase scepticism, while answering nothing. Tsk, tsk.
Complain about this comment
Some detailed feedback on the Muir review can be found ...
July 7, 2010
Response to Independent Climate Change Email Review
Prof. Ross McKitrick
University of Guelph
Follow the link from:
http://sites.google.com/site/rossmckitrick/
Complain about this comment
To Richard Black:
Hello Richard!
For a guy who is trying to quit blogging, I seem to be pounding these same keys - again!
The whole idea behind these reports and inquiries, these double and triple checks, isn't it because of specialization?
I've been thinking a lot about this - too much for my own good.
Specialists are never questioned whilst delivering the goods - and the goods are those that benefit out plutocratic system.
Advise the airline industry on where to find the best jet stream - profits increase - and all is well.
As George Monbiot is fond of saying however, 'tell someone something they don't want to hear and they'll hate you for it'.
And that's the situation these days.
No one in the plutocracy wants to hear about the scarcity of food and resources, of peak oil or of peak anything. And they certainly don't want to be told by a bunch of specialists, whom they have no real respect for, that they, the plutocrats, are responsible for the great meltdown.
So - in effect - a specialist is often, perhaps almost always, the tool of the plutocrat. He, or she, may be an inadvertent tool, or an unwilling one, but this whole debate over science is farcical.
And the specialists are, in the main, beholden to the same system of business as usual which gave them birth.
A specialist comes out of a prolonged childhood in debt, both monetarily and intellectually - and in repaying those debts he becomes a part of the problem.
And no one can understand him - not technically, and I submit, not socially.
So we have this isolated community of specialists, who can converse only with a select few, in thrall to a system that they realize, too late, is beholden to no one save the rich.
As the specialist is only human, 'all too human' to quote a book title about Bill Clinton, he looks around at the world at large and says - I'll look out for myself first because the public just doesn't care anyway, half don't even vote.
And look at how ugly the public is unless they are getting their pound of flesh, be it a rich shareholder or an avid entertainment aficionado.
Look how afraid all our warmists are to actually speak their mind Richard. It's amazing - or something!
Do we think we can solve this world crisis with a few more technical baubles?
Are we that jaded?
Weren't there times when a well rounded education was deemed essential?
You know what I think?
I think we may have to all get over ourselves, and the important work we think we are doing, and become generalists again - right now. Generalists is a modern word which simply means being human again.
All the best,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
The deniers will continue to deny and the industry hacks will continue to challenge, it is what they do. the great delaying game, it happens with every issue of importance as the impacted industries will do anything but change. Pollution is profit. Governments are mostly irresponsible, and conspiracy folks see boogy men under every sheet. This is simple as all other issues, wealth influence politics and politics protects wealth....always has been. Still nothing will be done until governments have no other choice and then it will be placed at the taxpayers feet....governments got away with funding wealthy bankers with no real consequences and oil and coal with be next in line. This is about the wealthy and the poor oofs who work all day so that they can pay for the problems that the wealthy create. Modern serfdom.
Complain about this comment
Ghost #5: re "Modern serfdom."
Yes, exactly, and not just the low paid worker.
I am thinking back to my time in New Mexico and Arizona, in the land of the Apache. Pure democrats in the truest sense of the word. Not really understandable to the western mind - not sure about to the eastern mind?
And generalists all, close to the land and to the sky - and at times, to each other.
John Cremony, chronicler of their way of life ("Life among the Apache"), remarked in distaste that they would not allow their 'precious' children to be 'educated' by the white man.
Implicitly saying that children in white society were not so 'precious', as indeed they are not.
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
The most telling remark that I picked up on was that the certain way that the data was presented totally obscured and ignored the errors in the data and the uncertainties in the model. This alone demonstrates that these people are not scientists and further that the so called 'climate science' is not worthy of being called a science or to have its works and publications treated as a science. There is nothing more to be added they have condemned themselves.
What annoys me most is where were the peer reviewers when all this un-scientific claptrap was being published over the years? These people have a lot to answer for. It is reasonable to assume that these peer reviewers did not recognise the vital importance of proper handling of data and error - they are also not worthy of being called scientists.
'Climate Science' has done immense damage to both scientific studies of the climate and to the whole reputation of proper scientific method. Real scientists must fight back and disassociate themselves from these non-scientists that call themselves climate scientists.
Complain about this comment
To be a serf isn't all that bad once you get used to the idea (if that is what you are). An intelligent serf who understands his or her condition can either accept it or rise above it through positive action.
Complain about this comment
The old boys institution still applies, the stench of stale wine and expensive cigar smoke wafts along the corridors of power that echo the back splapping of old chums protecting each others back.
Frightfully well done old beans.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
You say "(as Fred Singer correctly reminded me during the week)".
With respect, why on earth are you speaking to a notorious extremist like Fred Singer for? Surely you know about his highly questionable background....
And why or why do you insist on entertaining the opinions of bloggers such as BishopHill and McIntyre in every post? This review has once again demonstrated them to be no more than attack dogs, with a very clear anti-science agenda. Recall how McIntyre and Steve Mosher bragged about orchestrating the vexatious FOIs...These are also the same folks who go around using terms like "fraud", "scam", "data fudging" and making baseless accusations, and make reference to dendrologists being drug addicts, or stating that "James Hansen and his disciples have a more jihadist approach". They lost whatever little credibility they may have had a long time ago, yet you seem to think that advertising them adds some sort of balance to your posts, well it does not. If you want to add balance, speak to reputable scientists skeptical of AGW or the ramifications, not ideological internet bloggers with a political agenda.
I would very much like to see you apply some real skepticism and do a thorough expose on McIntyre, McKitrick, Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill), Morano and Watts etc. That is the real story here and you repeatedly keep seeming to miss it.
On a lighter note, you would also be pretty wealthy if you had a dollar for every time a "skeptic" used the term "whitewash". In fact seems to be their new mantra. It seems like only a public flogging or tarring and feathering of climate scientists will appease them.
Up until now I have avoided using the term 'denier', but for goodness' sakes there is some major denial and conspiracy talk going on by skeptics nowadays, and they are making it increasingly difficult, neigh impossible, not to refer to them as "deniers/denialists".
Complain about this comment
Richard Black: "They downloaded the data themselves from public databases, and wrote a computer program that would combine the datapoints into a temperature record for the instrumental period. The entire process took less than two days. All the data they needed was freely available, writing the code was a cinch, and it produced a curve similar to the ones produced by CRU and its counterparts in the US and Japan."
I've looked on their website but I can't find the details of that work. Has anyone else found it?
I presume they made it available for inspection.... or?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
My #11: continued...
I found it.
You have to download the report, a pdf file, from their website, then their is an outline description of their data processing work in chapters 6.3 and 6.4 with some web links to where the data came from.
But the more complete description is later in...
APPENDIX 7: LAND STATION TEMPERATURE DATA
...which has all the details.
(That's as far as I've got).
/davblo
Complain about this comment
In related news...
An FOI Ruling More Significant than the Russell Review
"At the request of the University of East Anglia the Information Commissioner has this morning issued his Decision Notice, FER0238017, on my complaint that UEA did not deal with his 2008 requests for information in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs)...
the Notice make[s] clear beyond argument that information on climate change and its assessment by the IPCC is subject to the EIRs, and that UEA broke them...
all European public authorities... are bound by the Directive."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/07/an-foi-ruling-more-significant-than-the-russell-review/#more-21548
Transparency. Who could possibly complain about this?
Complain about this comment
And a challenge to all faux "skeptics" lurking here, I'm curious just how many conspiracy theories can you generate of this thread, or how many times you can say 'whitewash', 'scam', 'fraud', or 'biase/ed'. We'll do a tally soon.
Complain about this comment
It is all here: http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm
and here: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
and he is here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Scotese
All else here is uninformed chatter so perhaps you all should get with Mother Nature's plan: Global Cold!!
That is our Natural State.!!
GW is a Goretex farce on which he made 100 million bucks.
Lemmings and lemmings feeding the trough of the likes of Goretex - how very silly.
Complain about this comment
'How do you know who your daddy is? 'Cause your mama told you so.' Line from JFK but equally true for Climate Change, the Economy, the Iraq War, etc, as for the Warren Commision. Does your avearge person in the street really know? All they can go on is how much sweatier and for longer it seems to be these days and wonder if it's their imagination. They struggled to pay the bills 20 years ago, and they're still struggling. Tony said Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction but Saddam said he didn't. We have to rely on the people in power to tell us things, but they don't always do it openly or impartially, and often with the aid of the media, wittingly or unwittingly, blind us with science, dripfeed, or downright stonewall us to further the agendas of the profiteers. It's written somewhere 'Control information, you control the people.'
Complain about this comment
In related news... follow the money, as usual.
"And the main point, at least as far as British taxpayers are concerned is this: under the terms of the 2008 Climate Change Act we are the only country in the world legally committed to making swinging reductions in CO2...
How much is this lunacy going to cost us?...
The new figure our glorious Coalition intends to squander – every single year for the next 40 years – is £50 billion, all in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t actually exist."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046507/never-mind-the-climategate-whitewash-what-about-our-new-50-billion-annual-climate-bill/
No wonder the UK establishment is so determined to push this along.
Poor UK serfs indeed.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
You can post a triumphant blog about the latest "inquiry" every day of the week and twice on sunday if you like, it won't make any difference.
We know what to expect from these comedic wastes of time and money, we learned all too well in the wake of Iraq.
What the hell, let's build statues to all the heroes cleared by all these inquiries. One for Al Gore (still the darling of the green bunch?) and one of Tony Blair and George W Bush.
I suggest the Gore statue be of His Holiness, sorry, His Alness, mooning Greenpeace headquarters and the Blair/Bush statue be a magnificent one of them both standing hand in hand, hoisting their mid digits to the UN.
After all, the inquiries cleared them all...
Complain about this comment
14. Albatross wrote:
"And a challenge to all faux "skeptics" lurking here, I'm curious just how many conspiracy theories can you generate of this thread..."
Well, here's one:
10. Albatross wrote
"This review has once again demonstrated them to be no more than attack dogs, with a very clear anti-science agenda... ideological internet bloggers with a political agenda."
Yes. Best to consult only with young Dr. Simon L. Lewis, apparently.
However, I would hope that Richard would do an in-depth story on Steve McIntyre. He's a genuine Canadian hero with nothing to hide.
Complain about this comment
Another review of the latest "review"
Climategate report: 'Campaign to win hearts and minds' needed
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/muir_russell_climategate_report/
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Thank you Mr "Scientist" for your opinion. Thank you Mr "Politician" for your opinion yeah or nay. Now – be quiet, shut up, both of you & I’ll decide what I want. Who am I? Gee – I guess I’m just the guy that pays you through my tax deductions from my paycheque. Unless either of you run riot on your own dollar you will wait for my opinion before you dare to change my life. I don’t care who think you are. Get used to it. For both of you the world is changing. And that change means more people "know" what is (and has been) going on. Sucks, huh?
Complain about this comment
8. At 11:32pm on 07 Jul 2010, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"To be a serf isn't all that bad once you get used to the idea (if that is what you are). An intelligent serf who understands his or her condition can either accept it or rise above it through positive action."
============
My mother used to say that we couldn't all be Chiefs, and she didn't mind being an Indian. (no racism intended)
I think the problem is some of us can't even be serfs.
Mark Mardell's piece on America has a link which I followed:
"The Agony of Prolonged Unemployment"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/05/the-agony-of-prolonged-unemployment.html
Excerpts:
"The survey finds that eight in 10 people who lost jobs in the recession have yet to find new employment...
-Four in 10 have skipped medical care, as many have sold personal possessions to make ends meet, nearly a third are using food stamps and one in five reports using a food pantry. A fifth have had to move their home; as many are bunking with family or friends..."
============
It's worth reading the whole report. This seconds a depressing article in "The Atlantic", March 2010, by Don Peck, whose title says much:
How a Jobless Era will Transform America
This recession is looking to me like a depression, and it is sobering to realize that it has been 'manufactured' by our willingness to go along with the extraordinary excesses of the eighties, nineties and the new decade of the new millennium.
Globalization and corporate plutocracy may be the instrument of this, but who has been at the helm?
If this is a democracy, then that would be us.
But I think it's far more insidious than that.
Have we been manipulated?
Is denialism a form of manipulation - a symptom of a far greater problem, one which goes to the root of our civilization?
Or is it that we do not in fact have a civilization - just a lot of misled consumers?
Grannie, it's always good to see you show up here. It reminds me of days gone by.
I hope that this 'agony' and pain will at least initiate real change.
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Maybe there will be a positive outcome to these various 'gates' in the form a broadening of the debate to encompass the contributions of generalists (as an earlier commentator termed them) as well as specialist climate scientists.
Not all bloggers are climate sceptics.
To me the most notable aspect of the whole global-warming debate so far is the fact that my lifestyle has been barely affected by the various initiatives to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, improve energy efficiency etc.
That can't be right.
Complain about this comment
@manysummits
A breath of fresh air at #4, although I do dislike the word 'generalists'. Surely human is a much better description of us all, no matter which sides of the many fences we appear to be sitting at any given moment.
The problem with 'plans' involving lots of things and lasting more than a couple of seconds is they tend to go wrong. Perhaps it is the same with 'experiments' and 'data' and 'theories'.
I suspect that we have reached an era when the 'Empire Strikes Back' and scientists risk being labelled 'dark' or 'light'. Problem is, we don't seem to know whether 'dark' is evil or good, and so we have no chance of seeing the 'light'. Personally I prefer the indigenous 'Apache' wisdom except they seem to be AWOL.
But, this human thing, I do detect a flaw. When was the last time human pollution stopped aircraft from flying in the way a certain volcano in Iceland recently accomplished?
It seems to me humans are okay at most things but do not do 'scale', as comparative to our environment, at all well. We are the green and black-fly when it comes to gorging on a plant.
So is it human to disillusion ourselves?
Complain about this comment
Richard, of your post, your last 3 paragraphs are telling.
Whilst I still remain to be (scientifically) convinced that we (science) understand every single detail of how Earths systems behave and interact, both in isolation and in unison to every other aspect of this planet and its star, the Sun, I am pleased to note that Calcium Hydroxide still exists in abundance and more to the point, it absorbs Carbon Dioxide.
Perhaps we should be more careful where we 'splash' this substance around, a better use might be on our roofs, where it could serve a number of useful environmental purposes!
When we fully understand the whole planets interactions, from its core to its outer atmosphere, then is the time to make 'Moses or God-like' predictions for the future.
Complain about this comment
@CanadianRockies, #many
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
Complain about this comment
Interesting article, i do think it's slightly misleading to suggest that the only qualms of the 'skeptical' side is due to data being hidden at the cru- that's certainly not my main issue with them (the selective use of only parts of data, selective use of monitoring stations, undocumented splicing, (alleged) peer review perversion) and FOI avoidances etc etc.
I'll be very interested to see how the data submitted for the review is analysed- again though, a caveat- if you use the same data the CRU use, you will almost always come to the same conclusion (assuming you do the 'divergance trick'), the bigger concern is which data was used and WHY (the cherry picking point).
Finally, more at albatros than anyone- not every skeptic see's a massive conspiracy in this. It's entirely natural for the 'institution' to circle the wagons over an issue like this (do you really need any other recent examples???), but that doesn't mean it's a massive conspiracy.
(many) questions still remain.
One point- the report concluded that the team at the CRU broke the law wrt FOI requests. How can it only be classified as 'unfortunate' in the summaries??? they BROKE the LAW.
Complain about this comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists
a different perspective
Complain about this comment
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/you-cant-be-serious/
and
Complain about this comment
THE QUESTION THAT WAS NEVER ASKED
Sir Muir Russell to Phil Jones: "Did you delete any emails concerning IPCC AR4?"
Evidence:
Email form Phil Jones to Michael Mann
"Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Cheers
Phil"
The House of Commons Science and Technology committee were given the commitment by UEA that the Russell Review was to specifically investigate the Climategate emails. The Russell Review did not do this. Sir Muir Russell and his panel refused to use these emails as evidence.
This report was a WHITEWASH
Complain about this comment
Manysummits, from the things that you have posted recently it appears that you are terrified by the imminent danger and frustrated that those around you cannot see it. From their point of view there is no imminent danger and they see a frightened man with a placard that reads “Repent, the end of the world is nigh”.
I am sure that you are a good and sincere man, we give you a bit of a hard time here, perhaps we shouldn’t, you are after all a victim of the AGW scare mongering machine.
Don’t go, without your varied, sometimes odd, input there would be much less for the rest of us to talk about.
Complain about this comment
How many inquiries does it take to satisfy some anti-AGW people? Only one, but only if it confirms their wildest accusations of evil-doing irrespective of all the evidence to the contrary!
It's hard to take seriously people who complain on the one hand that the evidence is being ignored or manipulated, and on the other who refuse to accept any findings that go against their preconceived notions of what they have imagined might have happened.
Complain about this comment
Muir reported that a graph published by the CRU and used by the World Meteorological Organisation was misleading because the authors failed to make clear that they had made alterations to show a rise in global temperature!! The Unit's Director described this as a trick to hide the decline in temperature shown by the statistics!! This taken together with the paranoia in the CRU about the FOI surely must add to the scepticism many of us have for the exaggerated claims of the anthropomorphic global warning propagandists.
Complain about this comment
#28 LabMunkey wrote:
It's entirely natural for the 'institution' to circle the wagons over an issue like this (do you really need any other recent examples???), but that doesn't mean it's a massive conspiracy.
I don't think there's any conspiracy, but if there really is as much of a "consensus" as we are led to believe, then dissident opinions are likely to go unheard, or at least to be taken without due seriousness.
JS Mill: the general tendency of things throughout the world is to render mediocrity the ascendant power among mankind
Complain about this comment
#31 minuend wrote:
THE QUESTION THAT WAS NEVER ASKED
Sir Muir Russell to Phil Jones: "Did you delete any emails concerning IPCC AR4?"
One thing to bear in mind is that people tend to rationalize their neglect. It is quite likely that Sir Muir thought such a question would be "grossly impolite". -- Which means he is still guilty of neglect, but hardly guilty of conducting an out-and-out premeditated whitewash.
Complain about this comment
@ 33 simon- please see my post #28 and minuends #31.
we would accept the enquiries if they'd actually done what it was supposed to do on the tin.
there are still huge questions unanswered- after 3 enquiries. 3 enquiries and the major points of contention have not been addressed and you wonder why people are so exasperated?
Complain about this comment
#33 simon-swede wrote:
How many inquiries does it take to satisfy some anti-AGW people?
Surely you can see that some sceptics are complaining about the quality (bias, failure to ask searching questions, etc.) of the inquiries rather than the number of them?
By analogy, suppose someone is complaining about Stalin-era "show trials". Do you think having more trials (rather than a trial involving less "show") should persuade anyone that the trials are legitimate?
Complain about this comment
Looking at the various reviews (and the information that has come out from the reviews without being included in the reports) it seems like one would have to work very hard to try and take much of the IPCC and CRUs work seriously now. They've been cleared of deleberate malpractice, but always with the comments that there has been a lack of openness throughout.
Openness in this case is one of the things that is vital to being taken seriously. Science requires not only that you assemble data and provide theories, but also that you say what would prove you wrong. When a scientist says they won't show their work to someone "because they want to find something wrong with it" then frankly I don't think it's a stretch to beleve that there is something wrong with it which the author wants to hconceal.
One thing that I find particularly disturbing is this quote from Michael Kelly ( a member of the Oxbrough report group, although a lot of his stuff didn't make it into the report)
"I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head."
The fact that someone even had a cause to be concerned about this after interviewing members of the CRU is frankly scary.
All in all I've looked at a lot of information regarding the IPCC and CRU and while they may not have been technically guilty of any misconduct (although from what I have seen there are a number of academics and scientists who would disagree) they still seriously fail the "would you buy a used car from these people?" credibility test, at least for me.
One other thing I would like to mention is that pushing "consensus" is also a good way to lower your credibility too. My feelings on consensus science is that it looks more like someone has gone "This won't stand up to scrutiny, better make it look like everyone agrees and nobody will look too closely" and is even better summed up by Penn and Tellers "Ladies and Gentlemen, we shall now vote on the gender of this rabbit"
(If we are going the consensus route, does that mean that if I can get enough popular support we can get Luminiferous Aether back into the running?)
Complain about this comment
@34 lifegrumpy,
To say they made alterations to show a rise in global temperatures when none was there is outragegously inaccurate. The reconstructions use proxy data like tree rings for time periods that predate thermemometer records. The proxy data are calibrated with the thermometer record and are shown (importantly) to be a very close match between the 19th century and ~1975. Then SOME tree rings in certain parts of the world stopped responding to temperature - a very well documented phenomenon called the divergence problem. The temperature still went up though, but the problem is what do you use in your graphs? - it is not sensible to use the unresponsive trees because they are not a good proxy of temperature anymore. For more info, see the divergence problem in the literature.
For the record, the report just released came to this conclusion and it's what climate scientists working in the field have been trying to tell people all along. It's a known problem in the field, just as there are known problems in every other field in science. Because it is a known problem with potentially large consequences, it is a very popular topic in the specialist literature - not just swept under the carpet like a lot of sceptics would have you believe.
Complain about this comment
minuend #31: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? ..."
Don't you think, that asking someone to delete emails, and then leaving an email that tells what you've done (!!!) indicates that it maybe wasn't the most well thought out and determined effort to hide things?
If there had been a determined and concerted effort at a cover up then none of this would even have come out.
I've never heard of any rules that you have to keep emails anyway. Where do you get that idea from?
Most email servers are regulary telling people to sort out and delete stuff beause their 'inbox' is getting full.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey #37.
"there are still huge questions unanswered- after 3 enquiries."
bowmanthebard #38.
"..sceptics are complaining about the quality (bias, failure to ask searching questions, etc.) of the inquiries.."
why don't the sceptics organise, throw money in a hat, and finance their own inquiry?
it would allow them to set the remit of the inquiry, and it might stop all this carping on.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#42 jr4412
"why don't the sceptics organise, throw money in a hat, and finance their own inquiry?
it would allow them to set the remit of the inquiry, and it might stop all this carping on."
jeeeez, that's the last thing they want. much better this eternal paranoid conspiracy talking shop that gives them their daily fix.
Complain about this comment
The thing that gets me about the so-called 'Sceptics' on this blog and others dotted around the internet, is their total lack of scepticism. The 'Climategate' emails demonstrate this well.
20 years worth for emails are published from one of the leading organisations dealing with the temp record. The only bits of incriminating evidence that the sceptical community can provide to highlight their global conspiracy are;
Mike's Nature trick, to hide the decline – a section of an email taken out of context discussing a something freely available in Mann's paper from '98
The accusation of not dealing with freedom of information requests – most organisations had a tough time learning to deal with FOI and still do. I bet if any organisation had their emails printed they would have a tough time explaining some of their internal discussions. But as this blog points out the info is freely available.
The accusation of subverting the peer review process – this I believe relates to the problems at a journal which lead to the sacking of its editor. But any one can look on the internet a find sceptics do publish in journals I believe 2-5% of scientists publishing in the field are sceptics.
But when it comes to someone like Anthony Watt's at WUWT the sceptics swallow whatever he says without question.
Despite displaying ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice, despite cherrypicking data with regard to world temp etc. people still believe what he says because he says what they want to hear.
A great example to demonstrate this is when he and surfacestations.org ran a campaign to show that surface stations where badly sited and so the data couldn't be trusted. Pictures surfaced and the cries went out… Proof there is no warming. But when the analysis came back of these sites, what happened? It confirmed the temp record.
Shame it wasn't the result they were hoping for.
If sceptics really want to be taken seriously then they really need to get sceptical concering the information that people like Anthony Watts provide them with.
Complain about this comment
With regard to my post at 45. some further reading for those who are interested.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/SensitivitySensibility1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/SensitivitySensibility2.html
Complain about this comment
fellow sceptics of manmade CO2 induced global warming,
whilst we may disagree with the verdict, we're not going to change anything by moaning in the same way that AGWer's are not going to change the fact that, when taking into account negative and positive feedbacks, climate sensitivity, in all but the computer models, has been shown to be low
forget the report, did you really expect Russell to say CRU were cads and bounders?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#38 bowmanthebard
"By analogy, suppose someone is complaining about Stalin-era "show trials". Do you think having more trials (rather than a trial involving less "show") should persuade anyone that the trials are legitimate?"
here's another more relevant analogy. there's a group of psychiatrists discussing the treatment of a paranoid schizophrenic, but the guy doesn't trust them or want to accept their conclusions.
Complain about this comment
@ 42.
it's been suggested actually- 'may' be on the cards.
Complain about this comment
@jr4412 #42
why don't the sceptics organise, throw money in a hat, and finance their own inquiry?
because we're not funded by BIG OIL or BIG GOVERNMENT and do you really think climate scientists would willingly face sceptics? Wasn't it Schneider who offered to meet sceptics any time, any place, any where, but when the offer was accepted conveniently couldn't find a date in his diary?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#41 davblo wrote:
minuend #31: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? ..."
Don't you think, that asking someone to delete emails, and then leaving an email that tells what you've done (!!!) indicates that it maybe wasn't the most well thought out and determined effort to hide things?
I agree. And treating this as a well-thought out conspiracy as opposed to common-or-garden consensus-blindness detracts attention from the dangers of consensus-blindness.
(I rather like that term I just coined, so I used it twice!)
Complain about this comment
@ davblo #41.
"Most email servers are regulary telling people to sort out and delete stuff beause their 'inbox' is getting full"
That's actually a very interesting point. I suppose it depends on what 'system' your company/institution operates under. Certainly for me (in biotech) the company i work for owns all my emails (personal and proffessional) and they are backed up daily (with all other data/information mind... not just MY emails!) just in case something important pertaining to a client/company is mentioned/recorded.
I can think of at least 2 occasions when this has saved companies i've worked for in the past, significant moneys in contract/workload disagreements.
This rambling has lead me to another question.... were the CRU systems backed up? If so, where's the back ups and is the 'missing' data/emails there? If not... then that's a bit illegal. If not (backed up) then i'd question the credibility of that organisation even more.
Complain about this comment
@ 45.
your obvious distaste / hatred for skeptics aside, to address your points:
- the issues of with the emails were the conversations detailing the rephrasing of an IPCC summary paragraph to remove the possibility that any uncertainty could be interpreted from it (despite it being there).
-the deliberate FOI avoidance, which even the muir enquiry accepted was illegal.
-the peer review perversion- which if real, is exceptionally serious (just out of interest, has anyone done a correlative study on the cru papers and their reviewers??- would settle this one overnight)
-the emails saying, specifically, to delete data rather than share it. Say what you will, but i'd face criminal charges at work if i did that. How come they're immune?
Re- WUWT. some real hatred going on there. As i've said before, the vienna case study shows the adjustments for HIE are inaccurate and lead to a positive bias, and some of the issues with temperature monitoring station issues have been VALIDATED. i.e. proved to be true.
for sure, he doesn't get it all right- but the comments section sure show quickly if that's the case, and he has corrected errors in the past (though not all the time). When was the last time realclimate corrected anything?
"If sceptics really want to be taken seriously then they really need to get sceptical concering the information that people like Anthony Watts provide them with."
and they are- stop pigeon holing EVERY skeptic in the same 'post'. Shall we do the same with the warmists? do ALL of you believe mahatten will be under 7 m of water in a few years? Do all of you believe that humanity will be wiped out in 50 years?
thought not.
Complain about this comment
@ 51 and 41#
again i'll say i don't think there's a conspiracy- but it doesn't change the fact there's real evidence of subversive action.
Complain about this comment
It's a conspiracy...Oh noes!
Complain about this comment
jr4412 at #42 and Mango at #50
It is apparently already being commissioned.
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation told BBC News:
"We (the Global Warming Policy Foundation) have now commissioned our own inquiry into the way these three inquiries have been set up and run," he said. "I don't know anyone among the critics who has been swayed by the first two."
It should be quick and easy, they've already decided what the conclusions should be...
Complain about this comment
All these inquiries are not doing AGW theory any good at all in the minds of the public, Stalin once said “To deny is to confirm.”
Complain about this comment
#41 & #51
I have made a reply to your comments but is has yet to be passed by the moderator.
I have obviously hit a nerve, because all I have done is refer to what Sir Muir Russell had to say of this review and the promise he made to the House of Commons Science & Techonology committee prior to the review.
All of this is in the public domain.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits:
We are all oofs in this world.
When the skeptics say that no matter what is produced they will not accept, this is no longer a discussion but an argument. As the Chinese proverb says: Noisy outside, empty inside. You are arguing with the Church about the earth being the center of the universe. Beliefs are different from truths, beliefs need no proof. Human folly is the standard of every generation. Desire and emotion are the causes of human suffering. The best way to argue with fools is to not argue at all. Everyone sees the world the way they would like it to be but the world cannot be 6 billion different ways...it simply is what it is, an illusion.
Complain about this comment
'Low Carbon Innovation Centre', 'CRed' and 'CRed2' are trading names of Low Carbon Innovation Centre Limited, a company registered in England (no. 06525180) with its registered office at The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ
... Hardly independent.
Complain about this comment
The debate on this blog is very interesting and all but to me it seems to be missing one important question.
What effect have all these revelations had on the temp record?
Given that the info is freely available, did Phil Jones make claims about the temp record that where false. If not, all this talk of FOIs and deleting emails is pointless as it is the temp record that matters.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits, don’t go, there is little point switching to somewhere more friendly only to preach to the converted. Remember why you post here, it is not to argue with those who will not listen, it is to reach out to a wider audience, these blogs are kept online for a long time and the BBC has got to be near the top of any researcher’s list of places to trawl for ideas.
Complain about this comment
@54
"again i'll say i don't think there's a conspiracy- but it doesn't change the fact there's real evidence of subversive action."
I don't think anybody has denied this, but it's most likely a normal human reaction, siege mentality to a torrent of attacks from an aggresive sceptic community. Unfortunately, this is all that's needed for some to unfairly conclude that the whole of AGW is fatally flawed. It's irresponsible, we need to pull together on this because most of the world live in a democratic society.
Others are illogically concluding that because some consensuses are later proved to false, then this consensus will also be later proven to be false. This is wishful, selective thinking. Parts of the science will change but it would take something quite remarkable to shift a reasonable, competent conclusion away from 'very likely' to '50-50' chance. Probability is the language of the problem and just as in many, many other aspects of life, we must act based on our best guess.
Complain about this comment
Labmunkey - please can you describe for all what is supposed to have happened in terms of the supposed distortion of the peer review process!
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #56: "Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation"
Sorry; was that the..
Sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation
...or the...
Global Warming Policy Sceptic's Foundation
...or the...
Warming Policy Global Sceptics Foundation
...or the...
Policy Foundation of Global Warming Sceptics
...or the...
Foundation for Sceptical Global Warming Policy
...I get a bit confused sometimes.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#59 ghostofsichuan wrote:
When the skeptics say that no matter what is produced they will not accept, this is no longer a discussion but an argument
----------------------------------------
I know of no sceptic who has said that. Just because we don't buy snake oil doesn't mean we won't buy the real thing.
Complain about this comment
#54 LabMunkey wrote:
"i don't think there's a conspiracy- but it doesn't change the fact there's real evidence of subversive action."
The Times of London gives the impression that the report noted some good things and some bad things. One of the bad things, apparently, is that the climategate scandal "undermined public trust in climate science".
That is a singularly inappropriate thing to note in a report that is ostensibly aimed at judging whether or not public trust in climate science is warranted.
So at least one part of its supposed "conclusion" was something that it had already taken as a "given".
That is a fallacy called petitio principii -- in other words, "arguing in a circle". (It is also the proper meaning of the phrase 'begging the question', but BBC journalists don't know that yet.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#65 davblo
people's front of judea?
Complain about this comment
Davblo at #65
I think you will see it is a small "s".
In any case, as we all should know, they are all individuals. You know, those lucky few who not affected by this common-or-garden consensus-blindness group think thingy that is so pervasive amongst anyone holding a divergent view from one's own.
Complain about this comment
Hotashes @61,
The CRU global temperature record is robust. Not only did the Muir Russell panel manage to successfully replicate it in just two days using data freely available on the web (see Mr. McIntyre). The CRU and NASA GISS records have been independently validated and reproduced by independent groups such as Clear Climate Code and even some skeptics (who interestingly enough found a greater rate of warming in their CRU reconstruction that in the official CRU data). Regardless, they all get the same answer, marked and robust long-term warming. Additionally, records calculated using different techniques by the NCDC (NOAA) and the Japanese Met. Agency, are also consistent with the CRU record. If anything, the CRU record has the slowest rate of long-term warming. So those wanting to toss it, be careful what you wish for.
Lastly, satellite estimates of temperatures in the mid- and- lower atmosphere are consistent with the surface temperatures, long term warming. As are temperatures from the global weather balloon network. Additionally, the top 2000 m of the oceans have been accumulating huge amounts of heat as evidence by a recent paper.
Hope that answers your questions.
Complain about this comment
@#64
well- the emails showed that they were willing to go to some lengths to block dissenting viewpoints, that they considered publication of rivals work in 'core' journals to be something they should actively prevent and that they would do what they could to prevent these viewpoints reaching the IPCC document.
do you need the emails, the lines and the exact quotes or are you at least capable of doing a tiny bit of research?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
63. At 3:10pm on 08 Jul 2010, SR wrote:
Parts of the science will change but it would take something quite remarkable to shift a reasonable, competent conclusion away from 'very likely' to '50-50' chance.
--------------------------------
We've already seen a shift from 'The Debate Is Over' (no fanfare? That statement used to come with a fanfare whenever it was spoken or written...) to an insincere 'We Welcome Debate' (I think the fanfare guys walked off in disgust when the official dogma was changed).
Once the errors in AR5 start coming to light, and they will (bet you a quid?), then who knows, there might actually begin a debate with some actual sincerity from the AGW camp.
Once they stop calling us denialists (blasphemers), shills of Big Oil (heretics) and contrarians (witches). Then ther might actualy be a meaningful dialogue.
Stop telling us the science is settled. It isn't.
Stop telling us those involved in 'climategate' are clean. They aren't. They broke the law in order to further their agenda.
Stop telling us these inquiries mean anything. They don't. An Inquiry where those investigating agree with those being investigated is never going to be even CLOSE to impartial.
And most importantly, everytime your side is shown to be wrong, please, for the love everything holy, stop telling us that it's a minor error that changes nothing. When emotive arguments are made about the action that must be taken to save polar bears, Tuvalu etc and then shown to be so much hot air, pretending it wasn't a big deal anyway is, to say the least, insincere.
Complain about this comment
rossglory #69: "people's front of judea?"
Naah.. Judean People's Front!
Complain about this comment
38. At 10:33am on 08 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
By analogy, suppose someone is complaining about Stalin-era "show trials". Do you think having more trials (rather than a trial involving less "show") should persuade anyone that the trials are legitimate?
Aptly neat reply if, considering much that is transpiring (mods are rocking across the blog firmament, as one heads for 'watertight oversight' soon), rather presciently rhetorical for some in certain quarters, whose eager reply would seem to be an irony-free 'yes'.
Complain about this comment
@71.
Hi Albatross, thanks for the response. So what you're saying is that despite all the cries of foul play the actual science hasn't changed and is infact very robust, and people if the so choose can actually download the raw data and see themselves.
I mean surely that is the most important message to come out from this whole episode? The Science was found to be robust.
"Additionally, the top 2000 m of the oceans have been accumulating huge amounts of heat as evidence by a recent paper."
I hadn't heard of this - any chance you could provide me with a title and author?
Have you any insights in to the supposed distortion of the peer review process? Who where the authors and what where the papers they tried to block?
Complain about this comment
@72 LabMunkey
'the emails showed that they were willing to go to some lengths to block dissenting viewpoints, that they considered publication of rivals work in 'core' journals to be something they should actively prevent and that they would do what they could to prevent these viewpoints reaching the IPCC document.'
Wow...that seems like they were really out of order!
Have their 'rivals' managed to have their work published since the climategate affair broke? It must have been pretty damaging to their work for them to want to block it after all?
Is the work of their 'rivals' worthy inclusion in the IPCC document? Surely since all this has happened there is now pressure for the IPCC to include this research?
Complain about this comment
#74. Brunnen_G wrote:
"Stop telling us the science is settled. It isn't.
Stop telling us those involved in 'climategate' are clean. They aren't. They broke the law in order to further their agenda.
Stop telling us these inquiries mean anything. They don't. An Inquiry where those investigating agree with those being investigated is never going to be even CLOSE to impartial."
Well stated!
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G:
Because you bought snake oil, you try and discredit the real thing.
Complain about this comment
59. ghostofsichuan wrote:
"As the Chinese proverb says: Noisy outside, empty inside."
Well that certainly would explain the loud screaming that 'the debate is over' and the constant barrage of very scary 'news' reports from the media until recently. Until about six months ago the BBC had at least one 'catastrophic' AGW story per day... and who can forget the introductory film they used at Copenhagen, which made even Gore's thriller seem rather tame by comparison.
I guess the Chinese, who just continue to build coal-fired power plants full tilt and don't buy the AGW hype - except to profit from it - understood that proverb all along.
Complain about this comment
Re #19,
Third time lucky, it seems that the BBC moderators do not like some of the inflammatory stuff that a certain self-proclaimed "auditor" has said in the past.
CA's agenda has been exposed by the "auditor's" own actions and by the diligent sleuthing of several independent people and groups-- no conspiracy, just the inconvenient truth and facts over the span of 7 years or so. Believe it or not, in the beginning I used to follow CA, I thought that the "auditor" was honestly attempting to engage in citizen science. However, with time his actions and rhetoric betrayed his true agenda.
History is not going to look favorably on the obstructionist antics of certain self-proclimaed "auditors" and other contrarian bloggers. Said "auditor" is most certainly not a Canadian hero. It is sad that most "skeptics" fail to recognize that or concede that the auditor has not acted in good faith, despite his claims to the contrary.
And yes, it is best to consult with the experts such as Dr. Lewis and other scientists who have much experience in their fields of expertise, not bloggers who are not qualified to speak to the science and who oftentimes have less than honorable intentions.
Complain about this comment
#74 'And most importantly, everytime your side is shown to be wrong, please, for the love everything holy, stop telling us that it's a minor error that changes nothing.'
I'd be happy to, when we get to an error that does in fact change the fundamental thrust of climate science. Of course, for the 'skeptic' persuasion, every error is a huge scandal, a -gate, when of course it is nothing but. How about, 'please, for the love everything holy' you guys admit that 'skeptics' have got anything wrong, trivial or otherwise? The number of times I've read on this blog any such admission is about the same number of times I've eaten a hedgehog.You could start with the well-documented deliberate errors of Plimer and Monckton, and maybe take out an apology subscription for the weekly howlers coming out of Catsupwiththat.
Oh, and I don't think we can just let your throwaway line about polar bears go unchallenged. Yes, we know that some populations have increased. Some are steady, some are declined and a considerable proportion are not measured. Record ice loss again, on top of a steady 30 year decline in line with climate change predictions, and positive feedback kicking in - they are in big trouble, as the evidence of malnutrition starts to show. Just because they get used as examples in schools and adverts doesn't mean they they aren't really in trouble.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Here we see the VANITY OF THE SKEPTICS
totally unable to accept that their magnificent intellect could not have spotted the BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS
that burning 20 billion barrels of oil per annum + billions of tons of coal and all that natural gas + 800million cigarettes per day and all our other dirty little habits could not possibly have any consequences whatsoever. You've got to be kidding me.
As the scruffy poet said " You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows" But check out the weather around the world because lots of extreme events are happening one after the other.
And the beauty is that it all boils down to just a few hundred parts per million... face it you could not make it up because no one would believe you.
Complain about this comment
So much for a "whitewash". They are actually quite critical of the CRU on some accounts.
"1.3 Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.
1.3.1 Land Station Temperatures
16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.
17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various independent organisations which we consider highly improbable.
18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU‟s responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive.
19. The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU‟s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.
1.3.2 Temperature Reconstructions from Tree Ring Analysis
21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).
22. On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence” may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.
23. On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a “trick‟ and to “hide the decline‟” in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text.
24. On the allegations in relation to withholding data, in particular concerning the small sample size of the tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula, CRU did not withhold the underlying raw data (having correctly directed the single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and that this delay can rightly be criticized on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe that CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but on which their publications relied, was archived in a more timely way.
1.3.3 Peer Review and Editorial Policy
25. On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.
1.3.4 Misuse of IPCC Process
26. On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld. In addition to taking evidence from them and checking the relevant records of the IPCC process, we have consulted the relevant IPCC review Editors. Both the CRU scientists were part of large groups of scientists taking joint responsibility for the relevant IPCC Working Group texts, and were not in a position to determine individually the final wording and content.
1.3.5 Compliance with the Freedom of Information Act
(FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR)
7. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way
consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance.
1.3.6 Other Findings on Governance
28. Given the significance of the work of CRU, UEA management failed to recognise in their risk management the potential for damage to the University‟s reputation fuelled by the controversy over data access."
Complain about this comment
For those trying to claim that the panel did not speak to "skeptics', please go to page 123-125 of the report. There the names of 109 individuals and groups are listed you made the effort to provide evidence. Many of those who did are skeptical of AGW/ACC and the IPCC. Some 'skeptics' (e.g., McKitrick) made several submissions.
Yet, certain skeptics are claiming/lamenting in public that they were not allowed to present their views.....
Complain about this comment
Lorax @83,
I'll second what you wrote,
"How about, 'please, for the love everything holy' you guys admit that 'skeptics' have got anything wrong, trivial or otherwise? The number of times I've read on this blog any such admission is about the same number of times I've eaten a hedgehog.You could start with the well-documented deliberate errors of Plimer and Monckton, and maybe take out an apology subscription for the weekly howlers coming out of Catsupwiththat."
Add to that the litany of errors by other "skeptics" (it is a long list) which media ignore. Are you still following this thread Mr. Black?
Really, the 'skeptics' should not complain, they have it easy. No accountability, not scrutinizing by the media, and no consequences for their spin, distortion and errors.
Complain about this comment
Brunnen_G @74,
You claim,
"Stop telling us the science is settled. It isn't."
Some elements of the climate science are settled, others not. The science has convincingly demonstrated (and we have known this for quite some time now) that AGW is real and will very likely have serious consequences. Regardless, I agree, stating that climate science as a whole is 'settled' is incorrect and the vast majority of climate scientists concur. The science will advance much faster without the likes of CA harassing scientists with vexatious FOIA requests.
Stop telling us those involved in 'climategate' are clean. They aren't. They broke the law in order to further their agenda.
Well, the truth does hurt does it not. It seems those in denial about AGW are also in denial about the truth. Anyhow, what you state bout the scientists breaking the law is both unsubstantiated and simply not true, although I understand that you dearly wish it to be, any excuse to absolve us from changing our lifestyles.
Stop telling us these inquiries mean anything. They don't. An Inquiry where those investigating agree with those being investigated is never going to be even CLOSE to impartial.
Skeptics got the inquiry they demanded, they also got to submit evidence. They just did not get the tarring and feathering that they so dearly wanted. The constructive critique and recommendations will improve the transparency and communication of the science in the long run, is that not what you are demanding?
And if 'Brunnen' is your name, I see that you did not bother to submit evidence to the CCE.
Complain about this comment
Yes. Its all very "robust." LOL.
Complain about this comment
88. At 8:54pm on 08 Jul 2010, Albatross wrote:
"The science has convincingly demonstrated (and we have known this for quite some time now) that AGW is real and will very likely have serious consequences."
Are you wholly ignorant of the history of science, as well as ignorant of science itself?
"Serious consequences" are not the sort of thing that science can make claims about. That is politics. The seriousness of consequences depend on what we want or don't want.
As for "demonstrations", please be aware that the greatest theory of all time (Newton) turned out to be wrong. Some academic philosophers (such as Kant) argued that it "couldn't be wrong". How wrong they were. How foolish you sound saying the same sort of thing now.
Complain about this comment
Stop telling us those involved in 'climategate' are clean. They aren't. They broke the law in order to further their agenda.
But so did the person who stole the emails, right?
Complain about this comment
Hotashes @71,
You are welcome. Read Trenberth (2010, Nature), also see Lyman et al. (2010, Nature). Also consider Murphy et al. (2009, JGR).
You can download Trenberth's paper from his website.
As for LabMunkey's unsubstantiated claims. The paper in question (by McKitrick and Michaels) was published in the journal Climate Research and it was not kept out of the 2007 IPCC report-- it is there, do a search.
Skeptics like Lindzen, Spencer and Christy and others have continued to publish numerous papers in mainstream journals. Only problem is that many papers published by "skeptics" have simply not held up to closer and even more rigorous review by the scientific community once they have been published. For example even Spencer took issue with Lindzen and Choi (2009), and the paper by McKitrick and Michaels was questioned and refuted by a couple of independent sources.
The paper by "skeptics" McKitrick and Michaels was included in the 2007 IPCC report, even though it had been refuted. So I am not sure why the "skeptics" are complaining.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #70: 'little s'
Yes I took a little liberty their!
Complain about this comment
#84 ezeezee wrote:
Here we see the VANITY OF THE SKEPTICS
totally unable to accept that their magnificent intellect could not have spotted the BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS
I greatly respect the "BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS", and draw your attention to the fact that there has been negligible warming -- or maybe none at all for ten years.
Is that not even more "BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS" than your rather esoteric point?
Complain about this comment
Bowman @90,
You are making strawman arguments. Read Dr. Spencer Weart's book.
One does not have to be a policy maker to know that an increase in sea level of near 1.5 m by 2100 (and that is an arbitrary date, sea levels will continue to rise well beyond that) will have significant impacts. You ignore those warming at the peril of many people (about 160 million people currently live below 1m above sea level and that number is only going up).
Complain about this comment
#90 Oh dear Bowman, is that all you've got? Wrapped up in more of your impressive wrapping 'Some academic philosophers (such as Kant)...' - you are just being irascibly pedantic (see, I can use big words too).
Of course science can make statements about serious consequences. Because implicit (and explicit) in those statements are the contextual elements that you describe as 'what we want or don't want.' - as well as discussions of risk and probability. To deny this is ridiculous.
And you accuse Albatross of sounding foolish!
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Oh and Bowman,
What would be foolish would be to continue with business as usual in the naive hope that sometime down the road over 100 years of science might be shown to be completely wrong. That irresponsible philosophy is especially foolish given the marked response of the biosphere to less than 1 C warming which is occurring before your very eyes.
Complain about this comment
Bowman #90
You're harsh on Albatross, who knows why?
Its pretty obvious that science can make claims about serious consequences. Predictions about the regional effects of climate change are an important input to strategic planning by governments (local and national). Increased flooding (to take just one example) is a serious consequence of climate change. There are many others.
As for your point about Newton's theory turning out to be wrong, that is true only literally. For most practical purposes, Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate (ie you could use quantum mechanics or relativity to work out very precisely the impact velocity of a falling object but what would be the point?)
All you are saying by making a comparison between the current state of climate science and Newtonian physics is that current climate science is adequate, but that it could be improved marginally, made more accurate and precise. Well, I'd agree with you there!
Complain about this comment
@Albatross @95:
"One does not have to be a policy maker to know that an increase in sea level of near 1.5 m by 2100"
1.5 m? Wow! That's some acceleration over the current rate.
But we know it's going to happen - we've been told, even though there's currently no evidence.
Who knows though, perhaps pigs will one day grow wings.
Complain about this comment
@Albatross #82:
"CA's agenda has been exposed by the "auditor's" own actions and by the diligent sleuthing of several independent people and groups"
I'm sure you're just itching to tell us all about it. So please do. Give us all the gory details, so we can all see where we're going wrong.
Complain about this comment
@ezeezee #84:
What on earth do cigarettes have to do with the climate?
Complain about this comment
Round and round we go.
It seems we really are having a barbecue summer this year. Just a pity that the Met Office failed to predict it this year.
Their final prediction before they stopped doing them was for a mild winter in 2009/2010. Ho hum.
Can anyone list the predictions of "climate science" that have turned out? Any?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Bowmanthebard # 94
"negligible warming -- maybe none at all for ten years"
Don't give us that old defunked chestnut, we are not talking about those old frozen chicken legs in the bottom of your freezer.
Seriously there have been so many links on previous blogs to the last decades global temps that your statement appears puerile. Sorry to have to say it.
Complain about this comment
Jack @102,
The UK is a relatively small island. Anyone who has forecasting experience knows that the smaller the time and spatial scale the more difficult the forecast-- so forecasters in England are in an unenvious position. Also, you are confusing weather forecasts, seasonal forecast and climate forecasts. They are all achieved differently. Seasonal and decadal forecasting remains challenging, but the research continues.
How global temperatures arising from higher GHGs is largely dependent on something called equilibrium climate sensitivity. One can estimate climate sensitivity without the help of a model, indeed the first estimates of climate sensitivity were done long before computers were around. Much work has been done in that area, and multiple, independent analyses have point to an equilibrium sensitivity to doubling CO2 of +1.5-4.5 C, with a most likely value near +3 C.
Now the AOGCMs (coupled atmosphere-ocean models) suggest global surface temperatures to increase at a rate of about 1.5-2.0 C per century. Observations from satellites, weather balloons and surface networks all show a warming rate of about 1.6 C/century over the last 30 years. Note here we are talking about long-term increases.
This is not to say that CO2 is the only driver of global temperatures, climate scientists know very well that there are other drivers (solar activity, volcanoes, aerosols etc.).
So, the global climate forecasts are doing quite well given the complexity of the system, and will continue to improve with time.
The models have correctly predicted the loss of Arctic sea ice, increase in water vapour etc.
I recommend reading Spencer Weart's book "The Discovery of Global Warming".
Complain about this comment
@hotashes #45:
"20 years worth for emails are published from one of the leading organisations dealing with the temp record. The only bits of incriminating evidence that the sceptical community can provide to highlight their global conspiracy are;"
Approx. 1400 emails were published. If that's 20 years worth then it amounts to around 1.5 emails a week. I put it to you that those published emails constituted only a very tiny proportion of the total.
Complain about this comment
Peter @100,
Oh I have tried, but for some reason the moderators did not let thought the examples I have tried to provide. Don't be coy, you know very well what I'm talking about, apply your skepticism evenly and do some research.
When you say 'where we are going wrong', I take it then that you are a avid fan of McIntyre?
And you need to keep up to speed with the latest literature on sea level rise. Turns out that the IPCC were way too conservative in AR4 (so much for alarmism). And yes, the rate of increase has been accelerating, and is very likely to continue doing so as thermal expansion increases and yet more ice is lost from the WAIS, Greenland and even the EAIS (as determined by recent measurements from the GRACE satellite).
If you dispute the numbers, I'd recommend you publishing your own paper refuting the work of Rahmstorf et al. , for example. And it interesting/telling that you fail to the error bars of the predictions made by Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009).
Complain about this comment
@ezeezee #104:
"Seriously there have been so many links on previous blogs to the last decades global temps that your statement appears puerile."
Show me just one climate paper published prior to 2000 which predicted that 2010 temperatures wouldn't be far higher than they are.
Complain about this comment
Jack @102, read these papers and compare with what has actually transpired:
Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part II: Seasonal Response
S. Manabe, M. J. Spelman, R. J. Stouffer
Journal of Climate
Volume 5, Issue 2 (February 1992) pp. 105-126
Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part I. Annual Mean Response
S. Manabe, R. J. Stouffer, M. J. Spelman, K. Bryan
Journal of Climate
Volume 4, Issue 8 (August 1991) pp. 785-818
Complain about this comment
Bowman says, "there has been negligible warming -- or maybe none at all for ten years"
Why do 'skeptics' insist on rehashing the same old myths. And do scientists really need to keep reminding "skeptics" of the sample size required to calculate a statistically significant trend in global temperature data? One requires at the very least 15 years (preferably 20-30 years) worth of data to get a reliable long-term trend. Anyhow, for what it is worth, the GISS data show a warming trend equivalent to +1.24 C/century between 2000 and present (you said 10 years). That is somewhat lower than the 30 year trend of +1.62 C/century.
And climate scientists have warned us not to expect a monotonic increase in global temperature. Funny how the "skeptics" choose to ignore that fact and the points above.
Also, you forget to mention that according to NASA global temperatures the last 12-months have been the warmest in the instrumented record.
Complain about this comment
Peter @108,
And the goal posts shift. Funny how that happens when "skeptics" are shown to be distorting. The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest on record.
Complain about this comment
82. Albatross wrote:
"And yes, it is best to consult with the experts such as Dr. Lewis"
Ah, the fixation continues. Odd.
Perhaps one might agree if we were talking about tropical forest ecology, or some specific aspect of that.
You claim that "Said "auditor" [Steve McIntyre] is most certainly not a Canadian hero."
That is a matter of opinion. But I guess we know who your hero is.
Complain about this comment
Jack Hughes @102 -
Looks to me as though you're confusing 'climate' and 'weather.'
As you say: 'round and round we go.'
Complain about this comment
#96, Lorax wrote:
Of course science can make statements about serious consequences. Because implicit (and explicit) in those statements are the contextual elements that you describe as 'what we want or don't want.' - as well as discussions of risk and probability. To deny this is ridiculous.
I wonder what you think science says about buying a lottery ticket. Do you think science says it is wise or unwise?
Complain about this comment
An inconvenient truth.
Current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 3.6% of total CO2 emissions, with 96.4% from natural sources.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
Complain about this comment
#95 Albatross wrote:
"Read Dr. Spencer Weart's book."
Can you put the idea in your own words? -- Otherwise I might think you are a parrot!
Complain about this comment
Can Rockies @112,
Now the skeptics are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. No my friend, you are the one who is obsessed with Lewis. From your post at #19 (which is before my post #82):
"Yes. Best to consult only with young Dr. Simon L. Lewis, apparently."
"But I guess we know who your hero is."
Actually, for what it is worth, my hero is Sir Ernest Shackleton.
Complain about this comment
CanRockies @115,
"Current anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 3.6% of total CO2 emissions, with 96.4% from natural sources."
Really, bet scientists had no idea (please read with sarcasm). Yet, CO2 concentrations continue to rise at about 1.8 ppm per year, not to mention that CH4 and N20 are also on the rise.
Also ironic that when you tout your "inconvenient truth" you link to a story refuting the myth that "human emissions are too tiny to matter". Heck, if one uses that trace gas logic, why don't we just do away with the ozone layer.
Posts like the one at #115 only further undermine the credibility of the "sketics", and show that they are not true skeptics at all.
Complain about this comment
Bowman @116,
Ah, now the 'skeptics' start to show their true colours and demonstrate the vacuity of their "arguments". Keep it up guys.
Have a pleasant evening.
Complain about this comment
95 #Albatross wrote:
an increase in sea level of near 1.5 m by 2100 (and that is an arbitrary date, sea levels will continue to rise well beyond that) will have significant impacts. You ignore those warming at the peril of many people (about 160 million people currently live below 1m above sea level and that number is only going up).
You think they're too stupid to walk about four feet uphill? Over the course of a few generations?
Complain about this comment
Albatross #95.
"One does not have to be a policy maker to know that an increase in sea level of near 1.5 m by 2100 (and that is an arbitrary date, sea levels will continue to rise well beyond that) will have significant impacts. You ignore those warming at the peril of many people (about 160 million people currently live below 1m above sea level and that number is only going up)."
not sure about the "1.5 m by 2100" but it's clear -- except perhaps to those who choose to close their eyes and minds -- that on a planet covered by 70% oceans even relatively small amounts of warming must have an impact due to the water expanding.
if only global warming was our only problem, my concern is the compounding effects of all our other 'business as usual' attitude; here's a quick, semi-random selection of links that show where we're heading:
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/arsenic/arsenic_project_introduction.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/07/07/MNU41E4CR4.DTL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/13/pollution-waste
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/nsae-fdb021308.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sex-changed-salmon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/07/100707_shrimps_wup_sl.shtml
'Schaue Vertrauensvoll In Die Zukunft', eh?
Complain about this comment
#119 Albatross wrote:
Ah, now the 'skeptics' start to show their true colours and demonstrate the vacuity of their "arguments".
You think it is vacuous to ask for your opinions rather than opinions you got from someone else's book? Ideas you are unable to defend yourself?
I'm proud to show the true colours of a man who has his own ideas, and is able to express them in his own words.
Complain about this comment
#110 Albatross wrote:
"One requires at the very least 15 years (preferably 20-30 years) worth of data to get a reliable long-term trend."
But we already have 15 or 20-30 years data, from the 15 or 20-30 years that have just elapsed. Are these not the sort of "data" one would deem acceptable?
(By "acceptable", I mean "require", as one might put it.)
Complain about this comment
Bowman @120,
Please stop, you are going to make me cry with laughing so much!
Sigh, if only it were as simple as you claim.
Good night (for real this time).
Complain about this comment
#117. Albatross
Well that was the second time you mentioned him as a source on this topic, when in fact climate science per se is not his specialty. Odd.
Shackleton is a fine hero too.
What do you think of Galileo?
Re #118. That was just a handy link to the stats. Their particular take on this issue is irrelevant to me. If someone wants to believe that the human contribution to total CO2 emissions - 3.6% - is that critical to global climate, that is their choice.
Good night to you too. Hope your nocturnal CO2 emissions are not too audible.
Complain about this comment
123. bowmanthebard wrote:
"#110 Albatross wrote:
"One requires at the very least 15 years (preferably 20-30 years) worth of data to get a reliable long-term trend."
But we already have 15 or 20-30 years data, from the 15 or 20-30 years that have just elapsed. Are these not the sort of "data" one would deem acceptable?"
Actually 30 years of data is meaningless for global climate trends. Too short term. That is the approximate length of the last four short term trends, two warming, two cooling. That's why many people are expecting that we are now entering a cooling period.
But it is easy to see how, if one did look at just a short term warming period, that they could imagine doomsdayish future AGW... particularly if they were silly enough to make straight line projections from a short term trend - you know, something like a hockey stick. But the long term ice core data shows a roller coaster, and there really was a Medieval Warm Period.
Complain about this comment
22. At 05:46am on 08 Jul 2010, Ollathair is the most honest of the deniers. He doesn't really care about the science. He likes his life the way it is and doesn't want it changed. He doesn't like folks who might be better informed disturbing his equanimity come hell or high water. That is what it is really about, power. The power to do what you want no matter what the consequences.
It is surprising it took Mr. Black so long to determine one could down load the data for themselves if they really thought they had a better way to analyze it. I've pointed out data sources and other information online in numerous previous posts. I am not aware of any of the deniers providing an alternative analysis based on the data. Of course you have the spoilers who either claim warmer is better or conversely that the planet is becoming an ice ball.
Most humans prefer delusion to reality. It makes life more bearable. That is why the vast majority are religious.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard
Following on my comment to you (#126), just found this link at #158 of the 'dutch courage' blog, which is interesting re short term trends and other things.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/bbc_blog_bully/
Complain about this comment
Pursuing 'scale' as an attribute of climate change effects, how many gazillions of 'natural' cycles are there? How many cycles align at a particular time and how do the alignments affect the Earth and each other?
The current high pressure over the UK is not unusual and will always provide settled weather. Air temperature will depend on seasonal factors. So what components of the climate game do we positively know have changed or are changing rather than being influenced by other natural cycles, and over what term can we be certain these changes have occurred?
I'd have a stab at the answer to my questions. We don't know.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #114: "I wonder what you think science says about buying a lottery ticket. Do you think science says it is wise or unwise?"
Science doesn't 'know' what wise and unwise are.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#124 Albatross wrote:
"Sigh, if only it were as simple as you claim."
Exactly. So think: how do people die from rising sea levels? Thank like the wind!
Complain about this comment
#126 CanadianRockies wrote:
"Actually 30 years of data is meaningless for global climate trends. Too short term."
I agree, but would generalize a bit. It is foolish to extrapolate where there isn't clearly a trend. With the climate, even thousands of years do not reveal any clear trend, as the climate is roughly the same now as it was thousands of years ago.
Induction is only reliable when there is a lawlike connection between the property extrapolated and membership of the class to which the extrapolation extends. For example, if all of the emeralds you've seen so far have been green, you can reliably extrapolate and say that "all emeralds are green", because being green is an essential property of being an emerald. But you can't do the same with white swans, because being white is not an essential property of being a swan.
The AGW idea that we -- or rather, a machine we have made -- can reliably extrapolate from an up-and-down graph that looks completely random to the human eye is folly on a magnificent, biblical scale.
Complain about this comment
#130 davblo wrote:
"Science doesn't 'know' what wise and unwise are."
Exactly. Those terms apply or do not apply as a function of the desirability of our goals and how confidently we can believe that our actions will achieve them, neither of which science says anything about.
Complain about this comment
My hero is Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.
Nice weather innit.
Who do you fancy Spain or Holland?
Complain about this comment
17. At 01:10am on 08 Jul 2010, CanadianRockies quotes from somewhere:
".... and the main point, at least as far as British taxpayers are concerned is this: under the terms of the 2008 Climate Change Act we are the only country in the world legally committed to making swinging reductions in CO2..."
...............
Dear Rocky,
is a swinging reduction some sort of oscillation?
Or is it part of our 60's pop culture, and rather nice? ;-)
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
"I wonder what you think science says about buying a lottery ticket. Do you think science says it is wise or unwise?"
No, but this is irrelevant to the original point. Wise and unwise are subjective terms. If you formed the hypothesis 'buying a lottery ticket every day for the rest of my life is a financially good thing to do', or you were a psychologist and you hypothesised that 'buying a lottery ticket results in emotional well being', then yes, science can help there.
If you studied the problem long enough and exhausted all obvious lines of enquiry, then you could, as a human observer, directly infer certain things from the science. For instance, if buying lottery tickets is shown to increase heart disease dramatically, or if the financial consequences lead to hardship in old age, then straight away, science has shown the consequences.
At the end of the day, we are humans, not cold, lifeless logic machines and science is written in a language humans can understand and inteprete.
Complain about this comment
132. At 08:35am on 09 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
"The AGW idea that we -- or rather, a machine we have made -- can reliably extrapolate from an up-and-down graph that looks completely random to the human eye is folly on a magnificent, biblical scale."
............
and yet, Bowman, the scale of impact of global climatic change, to which we all contribute daily, is on the 'magnificent, biblical scale'.
We have the intellect to interpret 'change' in the world about us both in real-time and in historical time using a vast array of devices and examinations. The scale of these different modes of examination and their reliability varies - viz. an atomic clock used in global axial perturbations c.f. precise delimitation of permian boundaries.
But we have the right to induce, we have the intellect to string together the dissimilar, and we have the responsibility as 'guardians of the planet' to offer our best inductions to those given the responsibility to ensure that we, as a race, have a future that extend - if not over geological time - at least over thousands of years rather than the myopic period some would insist upon.
Extrapolation by inductive reasoning is not a precise science but it is damned well necessary.
.
Complain about this comment
#137 GeoffWard wrote:
the scale of impact of global climatic change, to which we all contribute daily, is on the 'magnificent, biblical scale'.
Really? -- I've noticed absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
Complain about this comment
"and yet, Bowman, the scale of impact of global climatic change, to which we all contribute daily, is on the 'magnificent, biblical scale'."
Please do tell, what is this global climatic change we are contributing to on such a massive scale. Be specific, what are the actual effects?
Arctic sea ice decline? Hmm, jury still out on that as we are comparing "decline" to a benchmark of 30 years ago when there is evidence that the arctic ice was historically quite high. Also, even if it all melted, it would hardly impact sea levels.
Glacier decline? Hmm, like the Alps perhaps, where they are finding the remains of hunters who are underneath the now melting ice, pointing to ling periods where the glacier did not exist just a few thousand years ago at mid altitudes.
How about the amazon rainforest? As we cut it down we are now finding massive evidence for large indiginous populations. The inescapable conclusion being that it was previously agricultural land and was never the "lungs of the planet" until it grew after the 14th century. The planet surviced alright when it was being farmed though didn't it?
Sea acidification. Lets be clear, the sea is highly alkaline and all the carbon we could burn would not be enough to turn it truly acidic.
C02? You mean that rising gas that has actually boosted crop and vegetation production, helping our population to boom?
Our population boom. The real issue, the inconvenient truth. I am a sceptic on our contribution to climatic change through C02, but I only have one child as I believe the only way to truly save the planet is a population decline so we do not hoover up all the resources.
How many of you greenie left wingers are happy to make that sort of commitment? Not many I guess, its far easier to pop a few bottles in the bank each week and then take your 2+ children out to hoover up some more resources.
The
Complain about this comment
Bowman #138
So you've 'noticed nothing out of the ordinary'
I think that's part of the point Geoff Ward was making
"We have the intellect to interpret 'change' in the world about us both in real-time and in historical time using a vast array of devices and examinations. The scale of these different modes of examination and their reliability varies"
That is, we have the instrumentation and models to detect changes even though individual human beings notice 'nothing out of the ordinary'. In fact, the policies aimed at mitigating global warming are designed precisely so that you continue to notice 'nothing out of the ordinary'.
Complain about this comment
@139
The remains found in the alpine were of a man who lived around 5200 years ago. This was a very special time climatologically. Most of the climate records show that there was a dramatic change around about then and the best guess is that it was caused by solar variability. It shows how sensitive the earth's climate is to 'small' perturbations. This is probably why this man was found to be 5200 years old - it coincided neatly with other evidence.
BTW, you say the glacier did not exist back then, but it probably did. The ancient hunter was remarkably preserved indicating that he was quickly compacted with ice, so the glacier was there. Now the ice has suddenly melted, revealing him. So a crude use of this evidence suggests that the melting glacier was at least 5200 years old, right? So the hockey stick is right! - if we had a medieval warm period, the thing would have melted earlier and the body would have decomposed.
Complain about this comment
Jason Skeptic #139
But you give no actual evidence for any of your suppositions. No links. No papers. No research.
It just looks is if you're making it up as you go along.
What's the evidence that Arctica sea ice was historically high thirty years ago? What timescales are you referring to?
The Alps? But its well known that temperatures were warmer in the early part of the Holocene than they are now. The question, is were the drivers of climate the same then?
Rainforests? Are you really saying they were all farmland before the 14th century? Have you got references for that? How big were the populations then? And the planet may have survived, but what actaully happened to all those extensive civilizations?
Acidification? The value of pH which separates acidity from alkanility is an arbitrary number. The point is, ecosystems have adapted to particular levels of pH. If pH changes faster than they can evolve, theyt'll suffer.
CO2 boosting crop production? Surely that's down to improved agricultural techniques rather than increasing CO2. Otherwise, why did people bother with the 'Green Revolution'?
And you choose to end this rollicking Gish Gallop with a fatuous tilt at what you imagine is the lifestyle of 'greenie left wingers' (them again!).
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
#140 Paul Butler wrote:
we have the instrumentation and models to detect changes even though individual human beings notice 'nothing out of the ordinary'
Your priests read their chicken entrails. Until I, personally, notice something out of the ordinary, a corrupt methodology and a frankly embarrassing alternative to scientific theory will not suffice.
Complain about this comment
The main hidden climate data has always been that everyone overlooks how our solutions will make the problem distinctly worse.
Our planning process simply doesn't look at how relieving limits to growth naturally causes worse growth conflicts than we had before. Removing roadblocks to economic growth naturally accelerates all uses of essential resources like our growing dependence on the cheapest energy we can find.
It's a complete disaster that is using efficiency to reduce resource impacts our social networks have picked a "win win win" solution that has the direct opposite effect on the physical world.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Wow. you go to a conference and you miss loads!
whoever was harping on about 1.5 m sea level rises doesn't have a clue (as per) what they're talking about. 441 years it wil take to get that rise, i'm sure people will manage somehow....
as for albatros' numerous ramblings- well i'm guessing they're also par for the course. 30 years and no AGW signature. No significant warming in ten years (as stated by jones himself). 3 inquiries all conducted by those with direct links to AGW, taking evidence from those only on the 'accused' side. makes the iraq inquiry look thorough. major questions over the data and models, a lying IPCC (remember they knew about the himalayan issue prior to copenhagen- non political my... derierre) and so on and so on.
Any other field they'd all have lost their jobs. Oh well
as for the sleptical submissions to the enquiry, i actually mentioned those- and explained why it was not any good- you know they were allowed to submit questions- half of which weren't asked and were not allowed to give evidence nor be anyway involved in the review... very balanced.
oh well- those who are desperate to believe the AGW theory will. Until i get evidence of high climate sensitvity wrt co2, i'm not even going to give it the time of day. enjoy the global warming everyone (while it lasts) SUPERB beer-garden weather, have a drink on me.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #143.
"Until I, personally, notice something out of the ordinary.."
rubbish, and you know it; the human sensory equipment is woefully inadequate.
example: carbon monoxide poisoning. you, "personally", would die without noticing, 'instrumentation' in form of a detector would save your life.
Complain about this comment
Bowman #143
Until I, personally, notice something out of the ordinary
By then it'll be too late. But I think you know that.
Complain about this comment
Key Quotes:
Phil Willis: "Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable"
Lord Oxburgh: "As I have pointed out the science was not the subject of our study."
Prof Edward Acton: "The CRU emails have been the subject of considerable comment both in the mainstream press, and on the internet. The contents of a small sub-set of the emails have been alleged to evidence a series of inappropriate actions attributable to Professor Phil Jones."
Sir Muir Russell: "We have not sought to explore what some of the widely quoted phrases mean (CRU emails), either in substance or intent."
Graham Stringer MP: "To make sense of whether there was a conspiracy, whether they (CRU scientists) really tried to subvert the peer review process, you would have had to look at these emails. It’s an inadequate report that doesn’t do the job. It’s not going to allay anybody’s fears. I certainly believe the matter should return to the House of Commons to be debated because this is the basis of spending billions of dollars worldwide."
Conclusions:
1. The quality of CRU science has not validated because it has not been investigated.
2. The substance and intent of the most controversial CRU emails have not been investigated.
Complain about this comment
#142 Paul Butler
I would hazard a guess that "improved agricultural methods" were actually nothing of the sort. Tools to make money in areas that are able to ADAPT to huge changes in methods are one thing, but how much damage has intensive farming done in the UK? How much 'lag' do we allow for before we become aware that what seemed appropriate, at the time, was in fact a disaster in the making?
What if 'nature' is already on the case of cooling the planet down, but we cannot measure it because insensitive humans with their sensitive instruments are looking in the wrong places for the evidence? Will we then be kidding ourselves that somehow the 'greens' have done the trick, until the next time?
Complain about this comment
#146 jr4412 wrote:
the human sensory equipment is woefully inadequate.
For recognition of patterns, I disagree. The human eye is the most effective pattern-recognizer we know of.
example: carbon monoxide poisoning. you, "personally", would die without noticing, 'instrumentation' in form of a detector would save your life.
But a CO detector is not looking for a pattern. It is looking for the presence of a substance, and there is a very strict lawlike connection between what it detects and future harm to humans. There is no such connection between various climatic variables and future climate.
In the absence of any good reason to think there is such a lawlike connection, computer climate models are doing pretty much the same as Roman augers "taking the auspices". Further similarities include the high social status of the Roman priesthood, and belief suspended by nothing better than respect for that social status -- and a generally unquestioning attitude on the part of the people who obediently lapped it up (and paid money to do so).
Complain about this comment
#147 Paul Butler wrote:
By then it'll be too late.
Too late for what? -- Nothing a reflective person would be frightened of. Most of the fantasists haven't thought about that -- they just have a vague, biologically misinformed ideas about the "biosphere".
Complain about this comment
Sigh, people using "The Register" as an alleged reputable and balanced source of "information", and on it goes.
LabMunkey @145, I was planning on signing off, but some of you more recent bloopers cannot go unchallenged (and you guys honestly wonder why "skeptics' have credibility issues?):
You say:
1) whoever was harping on about 1.5 m sea level rises doesn't have a clue (as per) what they're talking about. 441 years it wil take to get that rise, i'm sure people will manage somehow....
Please read Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), there are other recent papers out there by reputable scientists. The experts agree with you that sea levels will continue to rise beyond 100 years, 400 years even, however, they would take issue with your (unreferenced) claim that is will take precisely 441 years for it to increase by about 1.5 m. The projected sea level rise in AR4 did not account for the contribution to sea level rise from ice-sheets, that is why their estimates were so conservative.
2) as for albatros' numerous ramblings- well i'm guessing they're also par for the course. 30 years
Whatever you happen to think of my posts is irrelevant, and I can see why you would prefer to dismiss them as rambling, does that apply to the references cited therein too? Anyhow, you might want to get your facts straight. There are in fact a couple of AGW fingerprints. Isotope analyses demonstrate that CO2 is increasing primarily because of anthro emissions CO2 (e.g., Ghosh 2003). CO2 is a GHG, it causes warming (e.g., Arrhenius 1896, Lorius 1990). One fingerprint of an increased GHG effect is that observations show that the stratosphere has been cooling while the troposphere has been warming (e.g., Karl 2006). Another is that less IR radiation is reaching sensors on satellites in those wavelength bands for which GHGs absorb IR (e.g., Griggs, 2004, Chen 2007). Yet another is that surface-based sensors are recording more downwelling long-wave radiation because of an enhanced greenhouse effect (Wang et al. 2009). This increased GHG effect is leading to a net positive radiation imbalance (e.g., Murphy et al. 2009, JGR) which is causing the planet to warm (e.g., NASA-GISS, RSS, GUAN, JAMA, NCDC, CRU, increase in OHC (Trenberth 2010), loss of ice from glaciers and ice-sheets (e.g., Velicogna 2009, Jiang 2010, WGMS) et cetera).
3) and no AGW signature. No significant warming in ten years (as stated by jones himself).
Actually, Jones said that there has been no statistically significant warming at the 95% confidence level in the CRU data between 1995 and 2009 (not the last 10 years as you state). Turns out the positive trend (+0.12 C per decade versus the trend for 1979-2009 of +0.16) for that period is statistically significant at the 93% level of confidence level. Now how did the "skeptics" arrive at such a particular and convenient date? Well, they cherry picked, and it was Lindzen who is on the public record coaching Watts on how to cherry pick the data to avoid getting a statistically significant trend. Now that IS fudging the data. It should be noted that the CRU data do not take into account the significant warming over the high Arctic which is accounted for in the NASA-GISS product, hence the lower rate of warming in the CRU product.
Anyhow, the BBC Jones interview is a classic example of cherry picking and misinformation by even prominent "skeptics" and it being reproduced here and elsewhere is evidence that "skeptics" know all to well that "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on".
4) inquiries all conducted by those with direct links to AGW, taking evidence from those only on the 'accused' side.
As I mentioned before, see pages 123-125 about 110 people had the opportunity to submit evidence to CCE. The public could also submit evidence to the HoC inquiry and the PBL inquiry. And many 'skeptics' did submit evidence, some of them more than once to the same inquiry.
The only criminal investigation right now is into who illegally obtained the emails and how. Interesting how the people making money off this debacle are "skeptics" who have taken it upon themselves to write books.
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Hi Richard
Could you explain how the Muir Russell panel managed to interview Jones and others without actually attending examinations of Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn? (I'm not talking about the press conference now, i'm talking about the actual interviews). There doesn't appear to be anything in the minutes to suggest that any of the panel actually interviewed the most important players, which seems odd.
Thanks
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#145 Lab Munkey:
'No significant warming in ten years (as stated by jones himself).'
At times we've had half-decent scientific discussions - but then you can't help repeating a Catsupwiththat-esque piece of nonsense like this. You know perfectly well that the context of the question Jones was answering does not support the point you are making. What he was saying was that 10 years of data wasn't really enough to measure the statistical significance of global temperature changes.
Why not try arguing serious points - as you're capable of - rather than this debunked piece of last night's pizza?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Minuend @148,
Excellent bluster and quote mining. McIntyre would be proud.
Actually Oxburgh et al. did look at several papers which were published by CRU. The science has also been investigated by the Dutch PBL inquiry. The IPCC are under review now by an international panel. The "skeptics" have gotten a lot of mileage out of this manufactured scandal, and they know that they can get more, not by accepting the results (of six inquiries; NAS, PSU, HoC, Oxburgh, PBL, Russell) like most rational and reasonable people will, but by continuing to whine. If one actually bothered to read the reports there is actually some sobering critique in them. The Russell report was in fact very comprehensive at 160 pages.
I agree that the reports were in, some respects, inadequate-- I for one was disappointed in the Oxburgh report, it should have been more comprehensive. Another example, is that none of the reports have really taken the 'skeptics' to task for orchestrating a vexatious FOI request campaign, or certain "skeptics" claiming not having data when they did have it or when "skeptics" said that they could not get certain data when in fact they could, et cetera.
Complain about this comment
Mango @153,
Actually, I would love to see McIntyre get questioned/interrogated in public:) So yes, let us all push for that.
A quick search of the Russell report gets 31 hits for "McIntyre", 7 for "Montford" and 46 for "McKitrick". About 110 people submitted evidence to the CCE review, many of them 'skeptics'. Not to mention all the media attention they are wringing out of this. Yes, the "skeptics" are clearly being ignored (sarc).
Complain about this comment
From reading the posts above I've learned;
THE SCIENCE PRODUCED BY THE CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VARIFIED - so all claims of selective use of monitoring stations etc. are false.
The so-called distortions of the peer-review process are also unsubstantiated as the work in question DID get published. And they weren't exactly game changing papers anyway.
Hopefully this will draw a line under these arguements and the so-called sceptics will move on to being critcal of the science where it actually needs developing.
Complain about this comment
#156 Albatross wrote:
I would love to see McIntyre get questioned/interrogated in public:) So yes, let us all push for that.
I would love to see just about everyone involved in the entire debate questioned/interrogated in public -- as well as questioning/interrogating others.
I find it amazing how little discussion there is on TV of an issue that is supposed by one side to be the most pressing problem faced by humankind, by the other a religious joke in poor taste.
When I was a boy, there were all sorts of intellectual programmes on TV and radio (such as The Brains Trust) with figures such as Bertrand Russell, Frederick Copleston, AJ Ayer, Malcolm Muggeridge (who got into a spat with the Python team over The Life of Brian), Jonathan Miller, and others. There was argument about science and religion, and there was genuine enlightenment.
Nowadays it seems like an intellectual wasteland, with creeps and zeroes everywhere sucking up to the establishment and appealing to authority instead of arguing with each other. Recent Reith Lectures have been great big intellectually unchallenging finger-wags from nanny.
When was the last time anyone heard anyone on the TV ask: "What reason do we have to believe that?" About anything important or interesting ?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #150.
"For recognition of patterns, I disagree. The human eye is the most effective pattern-recognizer we know of."
my first thought on reading this was: no, humans excel at recognising patterns exactly because our sensory inputs are so limited, ie we have to work harder to make sense from incomplete 'readings'.
of all our senses, touch is probably developed best since it is the oldest; human eyesight isn't very good (read somewhere that an eagle can resolve newspaper headlines (72pt) at 400m+), and smell and hearing too are quite inferior when compared to other mammals.
"But a CO detector is not looking for a pattern. It is looking for the presence of a substance, and there is a very strict lawlike connection between what it detects and future harm to humans."
none of our measuring devices are looking for patterns; the recorded data may (or may not) show variations in which we perceive patterns and trends.
why not have a look through the links in #121? since we're pursuing 'business as usual' we can extrapolate from the information in those sources (ie no change in policy == more of the same), and "future harm to humans" is clearly indicated.
"..a generally unquestioning attitude on the part of the people who obediently lapped it up (and paid money to do so)."
yes, plus ça change.. ;)
Complain about this comment
#159 jr4412 wrote:
of all our senses, touch is probably developed best since it is the oldest;
You raise a very interesting issue here. I would argue that there is no "direction" or any long-term "development" in evolution. In general, when one sense or facility gets very astute, it also gets very metabolically "expensive", and does so at the expense of other senses or facilities.
You can see this sort of "economics" at work with the eyes of animals that live in darkness -- the ones that live in near-darkness have huge eyes, but the ones that live in total darkness have no eyes (i.e. vestigial eyes). At some point during their evolution, the "filter" of natural selection winnows out those whose eyes are more expensive than the food they help to catch.
One of the oldest facilities of all life is the ability to digest food, yet human digestion throws up -- often literally -- familiar problems for almost everyone.
human eyesight isn't very good (read somewhere that an eagle can resolve newspaper headlines (72pt) at 400m+), and smell and hearing too are quite inferior when compared to other mammals.
The resolution of human eyes is not at all bad compared to other primates, probably as a result of our ability to throw things much more accurately than other primates. Almost all human groups have the bow and arrow -- an amazing advance on simply throwing stuff.
But in any case, I was not rally talking about the resolution of the human eye, but rather the ability of the eye-plus-brain to see patterns.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #160: "But in any case, I was not rally talking about the resolution of the human eye, but rather the ability of the eye-plus-brain to see patterns."
That's all irrelevant. Whatever path evolution took us through, and whatever faculties we have now; it's a good bet that it never had to cope with the effects of burning enormous amounts of fossil fuel. So the chances are we are not naturally equipped to recognise the resulting effects; that is, without the aid of scientific instrumentation.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
143. At 1:44pm on 09 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard doesn't seem to appreciate the value of statistics and modeling in identifying/determining patterns in complex systems. Unfortunately his inability to either appreciate or understand these tools prompts him to deride science he doesn't want to accept. Multidimensional systems are difficult to understand without the aid of modern statistical, modeling and computer techniques. It is easy to demagogue against ideas that most people don't have the knowledge to understand.
Then we have those 'skeptics' who knowingly misrepresent the data as has been pointed out by others in earlier posts.
Complain about this comment
#162 HungeryWalleye wrote:
bowmanthebard doesn't seem to appreciate the value of statistics and modeling in identifying/determining patterns in complex systems.
Correct. Bowmanthebard regards it as fifth-rate garbage.
If you feel like engaging bowmanthebard's problems with induction and garbage science, he is ready!
Complain about this comment
#161 davblo wrote:
we are not naturally equipped to recognise the resulting effects; that is, without the aid of scientific instrumentation.
Have you forgotten that what you call "scientific instrumentation" is a product of human evolution?
Complain about this comment
#162 HungeryWalleye
"Multidimensional systems are difficult to understand without the aid of modern statistical, modeling and computer techniques."
Are you aware that the most powerful supercomputer cannot keep up with half a mouse brain running at half speed for even ten seconds! And, who do you think writes the software? God?
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey at #52
You wrote: "This rambling has lead me to another question.... were the CRU systems backed up? If so, where's the back ups and is the 'missing' data/emails there? If not... then that's a bit illegal. If not (backed up) then i'd question the credibility of that organisation even more."
Apparently the data/e-mails were taken from the university's back-up server, and were a fraction of the material stored there (ca 0.3%).
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #164: "Have you forgotten that what you call 'scientific instrumentation' is a product of human evolution?"
Exactly!
One thing evolution has produced in 'us' is the aptitude for creating and using 'tools'.
And since it is those 'tools' which have caused this potential predicament, it seems reasonable to assume that (if it really is a problem), we would have to use our 'scientific tools' to detect and analyse it.
Relying on our own senses places an unnecessary limitation on our capabilities; in the same way as not using 'tools' would.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained #165: "Are you aware that the most powerful supercomputer cannot keep up with half a mouse brain running at half speed for even ten seconds! And, who do you think writes the software? God?"
The most obvious response is...
Then I bet it could keep up with your brain without any difficulty!
But seriously, as usual, evidence is required, links to supporting information, reports, data, etc.
Thank you in advance; davblo
Complain about this comment
@Albatross #156
"Mango @153,
Actually, I would love to see McIntyre get questioned/interrogated in public:) So yes, let us all push for that.
A quick search of the Russell report gets 31 hits for "McIntyre", 7 for "Montford" and 46 for "McKitrick". About 110 people submitted evidence to the CCE review, many of them 'skeptics'. Not to mention all the media attention they are wringing out of this. Yes, the "skeptics" are clearly being ignored (sarc). "
what on earth has that got to do with my post? I didn't even mention McIntyre etc. Who said anything about sceptics being ignored?
Having said that, I think people who are sceptical of man made global wrming would welcomed the opportunity to give evidence in person
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Hi Richard
Any idea why the independent review panel took legal advise from UAE legal advisers (appendix 6):
In seeking to gain this access a number of legal issues arose, notably that:
• the server and its contents were evidence in the continuing police investigation; and
• in the opinion of UEA‘s legal advisers, unconstrained access to the contents of e-mails on the server by the Review would raise potential privacy and data protection issues.
Surely an independent enquiry should have been given access to the emails, which were the property of UEA not the individual scientist?
And why was the email server investigated by a trusted, independent, forensic analyst [Peter Sommer] engaged by the UEA?
I know curiosity killed the cat, but i'm curious what your thoughts are
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#167 davblo wrote:
Relying on our own senses places an unnecessary limitation on our capabilities; in the same way as not using 'tools' would.
Ever see a chimp looking through a telescope the wrong way?
Computer models can be useful, as long as we're clear about how to use them. Using a computer model to recognize a pattern that the human eye cannot see is like a chimp looking through a telescope the wrong way.
As I've tried to explain many times, the reason computer models cannot be relied on in the present context has to do with induction. But it seems that few AGW-believers want to have a discussion about that.
Complain about this comment
Quote Prof Acton, UEA, to HoC S&T committee, "Muir Russell's independent review is not looking at the science it is looking at allegations about malpractice. As for the science itself, I have not actually seen any evidence of any flaw in the science but I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong.
Oxburgh Review: The papers to be reviewed by Oxburgh were chosen UEA officials. Oxburgh thru his own admission did not review the actual quality or validity of the science.
Russell Review: The computer forensic scientist hired to analyse the CRU emails for Russell was actually employed by UEA. It was UEA who elected not to authorise that analysis. Russell admitted he did not seek to explore what some of the widely quoted phrases meant (CRU emails), either in substance or intent.
Conclusion: The Oxburgh and Russell reviews were not independent. Prof Acton has misled MPs and on this particular and crucial aspect.
Complain about this comment
#171
Bowman 'the reason computer models cannot be relied on in the present context has to do with induction. But it seems that few AGW-believers want to have a discussion about that.'
Having tried to have such a discussion I suggest that perhaps it's because of your peculiarly dogmatic 'I'm right - you're wrong' approach to such discussions. Maybe you could just be content with knowing that your rigid ideas on the subject mean that you are in tiny minority in science.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Richard makes a good point about the sceptics needing to be investigated. They are never held to account and yet produce the most specious arguments and peddle and recycle the most outrageous lies. They are there just to block progress, much as if they stopped work on a cap on the leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. For example, sceptics have made accusations and produced statistics which were exposed immediately, but never apologise to the wider public, hiding behind freedom of expression.
Conversely, all scientists' work is rigorously peer-reviewed and the evidence painstakingly built up from worldwide sources. Furthermore, they are prepared to be investigated as with climategate. Who has been spreading suspicion and superstition? Those with big oil vested interests.
On the cost issue, I note that the oil industry alone is subsidised to the tune of £250-400 billion A YEAR compared to the £12 billion for renewable energy. Perhaps the corrupt lackeys of the big oil would like to publicised this?
Complain about this comment
There is plenty of evidence available right now about climate chaos. Just look at the predictions made in 1989 by concerned climate scientist for the rise in global temperature by 2010. They extrapolated 3 lines: low at 0.06C/decade higher, which we could survive for a while, medium at 0.3C/decade which would cause serious problems we should hope to avoid, and high at 0.8C/decade which was their worst case scenario and had been described as science fiction. Already we are closer to the 0.8C/decade line than 0.3C/decade, which was never expected.
The significance of this is that the difference between the climate of 1800 and that of the ice age is THREE DEGREES. In 2 decades since 1989, we have increased average global temperatures by 1C. There is no reversing this and the impact will be felt more and more down the years, even discounting the future predictions of higher temperature rises.
Complain about this comment
Professor Acton: "a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong"
What a bizarre and scientifically illiterate concept. Professor Acton seems wholly ignorant of both the creativity required to come up with a good scientific theory, and the risk involved that any such theory might be wrong.
Complain about this comment
#173 Lorax wrote:
Having tried to have such a discussion I suggest that perhaps it's because of your peculiarly dogmatic 'I'm right - you're wrong' approach to such discussions.
Once again, an attack on my personal style combined with the total absence of any reasoning. You weren't trying to have a discussion before; you were trying to avoid one by asking for personal credentials instead.
Complain about this comment
"175. OilfiredGreen wrote:
There is plenty of evidence available right now about climate chaos. Just look at the predictions made in 1989 by concerned climate scientist for the rise in global temperature by 2010."
Have you got any links to this? Some people have suggested that Scientists have not managed to predict anything when it comes to climate science?
Has anyone else got any examples of predictions that climate scientists have made that have come true?
Complain about this comment
#177
Not an attack on your personal style at all, old chap - merely a description of it.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
Hi Richard
What do you think about Graham Stringers comments on this review? (Stringer is amember of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology has a PhD in Chemistry)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
in 105. Albatross wrote:
"How global temperatures arising from higher GHGs is largely dependent on something called equilibrium climate sensitivity. One can estimate climate sensitivity without the help of a model, indeed the first estimates of climate sensitivity were done long before computers were around. Much work has been done in that area, and multiple, independent analyses have point to an equilibrium sensitivity to doubling CO2 of +1.5-4.5 C, with a most likely value near +3 C."
and therein lies one of the main worrying points. Let us just look at the meaning of that last sentence. You are talking about a doubling of CO2 levels, which everyone agrees will lead to a radiative forcing of 3.4W/sqm. So those numbers mean that estimated climate sensitivity is 0.88C per W/sqm. However we know that is a nonsense value because the 'normal greenhouse warming' heat is 150W/sqm and with that sensitivity would give a resulting temperature of over 100C instead of the accepted 14.3C before AGW. Or to put it another way, such high values of climate sensitivity are incompatible with the observed world.
Complain about this comment
#173 Lorax wrote:
I suggest that perhaps it's because of your peculiarly dogmatic 'I'm right - you're wrong' approach to such discussions.
Do you prefer people to disguise the fact that they actually believe what they're saying?
Some people have a problem with Richard Dawkins, and say he is "too certain". In fact he simply believes what he says, and says it emphatically. That is clarity, not certainty.
Complain about this comment
#182 'Do you prefer people to disguise the fact that they actually believe what they're saying?'
No, of course not. But there is a difference between saying what you believe, and insisting that only your view can be correct. Such a discussion method is perhaps appropriate to arithmetic, but in the more complex real world I would tend to apply a sceptical approach to anyone who insists on arguing that way.
Anyway, I tried to give you my perspective on why you find few people willing to engage you in discussion over the role of induction in complex science questions. The fact that you immediately went into attack mode is perhaps part of the same perspective. Maybe a little more intellectual humility would help?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #171: "Using a computer model to recognize a pattern that the human eye cannot see is like a chimp looking through a telescope the wrong way."
What a sweeping rejection of computer based analytical instruments.
Can you back that up? Surely computers and computer based instrumentation are doing many things that humans cannot.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@davblo #184:
"Surely computers and computer based instrumentation are doing many things that humans cannot."
A computer is just a tool we use to speed up calculations. It can only do what a human can - only a lot faster. Including the mistakes we inadvertently program into it.
Complain about this comment
#184 davblo wrote:
Surely computers and computer based instrumentation are doing many things that humans cannot.
Yes, I strongly agree -- I don't mean to reject computer modeling entirely or statistics entirely. In all sorts of applications these are brilliant achievements that have transformed our world for the better.
Statistics really comes into its own when a theory predicts an observed result, and the actual test result is "nearly there", but not quite. Computer models really come into their own when they can say what a theory says should be observed, especially if there are lots of variables involved and things are very complicated.
But I do mean to reject the substitution of computer modeling and/or statistics as an alternative to testing.
To give you a rough idea of what I mean, suppose someone does some random sampling and finds a correlation -- such as between coffee and cancer, say. There are bound to be innumerable correlations of that sort in any sample, and they don't mean a thing until we find consistent correlations in repeated samples -- in effect testing the hypothesis that there is a linkage between them. A lot of people don't realize that testing against new samples is very different thing from simply starting off with a very large sample, equal in size to all the samples involved in the testing. So instead of testing, they think it's OK to extrapolate from a big sample.
There are one or two examples of extrapolation that really do work well, such as the increasing accuracy of pre-election popularity polls, and the even greater accuracy of exit polls during elections. But those work very well because of extremely careful sampling techniques, which are themselves in effect tested against real election results. Contrast those with the bone-headed test-free extrapolation involved in the Lancet articles of a few years ago, which tried to estimate excess war dead in Iraq.
Complain about this comment
#183 Lorax wrote:
I tried to give you my perspective on why you find few people willing to engage you in discussion over the role of induction in complex science questions.
I genuinely appreciate it, and I accept that I'm a difficult, annoying, unlikable sort of character. All the same, do you think scientists really think about the role of induction at all? I think a few philosophers and logicians (such as the late WV Quine) think about induction, and good scientists have a sort of "instinct" that makes them realize there's something terribly wrong with extrapolation as opposed to testing.
Complain about this comment
#168 davblo
My solitary brain cell has served me considerably better than the multiplicities encountered in many comments here; but that is me being argumentative, so I will restrain myself and simply correct my earlier comment. The supercomputer was running at one tenth the speed of the half mouse brain - so ten seconds of the super computer represented one second of a half witted mouse! Almost a match for me....
If you are too lazy to Google for better summaries of this event the BBC covered it here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6600965.stm
Of course I wouldn't bet on my brain cell doing quite so well as the mouse, who had a successful career in Hollywood before this happened, but I have had leading parts in quite a few tasteful films. But that's another story as they say in the trade. Needless to say it is daft to refer to computers as a Holy Grail.
Complain about this comment
Peter317 #185: "A computer is just a tool we use to speed up calculations. It can only do what a human can - only a lot faster. Including the mistakes we inadvertently program into it."
I almost accepted that. But no...
I am talking about computer based instrumentation, not just software.
When did you last go into space, collect x-ray emissions from far distant objects, do a spectral scan, store, process, analyse and finally present the data in a meaningful way which a human could understand?
Do you have x-ray vision by any chance?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@davblo #189:
At the risk of being pedantic, a computer-based x-ray machine is just an x-ray machine which is observed by a computer rather than a human.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard
"Computer models really come into their own when they can say what a theory says should be observed, especially if there are lots of variables involved and things are very complicated."
See the accuracy of the models in 'hindcasting'. They can explain past climate, at least in the time frame of about 1930 onwards, very well. I'll pre-empt the most obvious objection and state that they aren't simply fudging the models to 'fit' the past data. The models are in fact based on the laws of physics.
The probabilistic part of it comes from running the models multiple times with slightly different initial conditions. This gives a spread of possibilities. The past climate is modelled very well by modern models, the caveat being that they can only 'capture' medium term variability, however, over 15 years + this does not matter.
I disagree with you on your basic presumption that humans are adequate at seeing patterns with the naked eye. This is not the case. Patterns are hidden and can only be revealed by correlation. This is done with climate. El nino/La nina, natural GHG components and importantly, anthropogenic components can be revealed from the overall climate data by mathematics. This analysis is routinely carried out and it consistently points towards anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for most of the recent warming. If we just had the raw data ad performed no analyses, we would not be able to state this with any degree of confidence. Another point is that the mathematics isn't applied as stupidly as you think - the majority of these papers is devoted to proving that the statistics is valid, it's a bit arrogant to dismiss it without a specific example as to why it's suddenly wrong.
Complain about this comment
151. At 5:25pm on 09 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
#147 Paul Butler wrote: "By then it will be too late"
"Too late for what? -- Nothing a reflective person would be frightened of."
...........
I feel sure the 'boiled frog' croaked his last croak saying "sure its hot, but it's summer"
.
Thanks, guys, for the last few postings (140 ->) - lots of fun, and some pauses for thought.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
#191 SR
Well I enjoyed the gobbledegook even if no one else does. But the cruch comes down to one simple thing which, if repeated often enough, does get through, eventually. The computer is only as good as the software and unfortunately that not only requires a THOROUGH human understanding of what is going on (which we have NOT got), it then requires someone to convert that into a logical sequence of code that can replicate that understanding. In other words if our understanding is incorrect then so is the software.
And hardware doesn't help. The interesting thing about the 'mouse' problem (see #188) is that a brain is not sequential, throwing its 'electric' oscillations all over the place at the same time, a little like 'chaos' in nature. We are bedevilled by failure in hardware until someone perfects the replication of the chemical ability of synapses to go wherever they must do to 'compute' ideas, activities, impulses, carbohydrates, fats, proteins, amino acids, and so on, ALL at the same time.
Now I wouldn't like to even try to work out the infinite number of actions and reactions of the population of Luxembourg in a hundred years let alone something as complex as nature over several thousand years (with due apologies to the people of Luxembourg).
So if I consider your hindcasting programs as a little thin around the edges perhaps you will now understand, but, there again, perhaps you won't...
Complain about this comment
#187
OK. I think it is fair to say that 'induction' as an explicit problem isn't given much of a run in the various discussions around climate science - because most of us don't think so much with labels like induction or inductivism. Like it or not, scientific philosophy rarely impresses girls at parties. At least, not the kind of girl you might want to impress.
But that is not to say that anything goes. You will generally find concerns with the same roots in discussions about autocorrelation, or the strength of various components of climate science(or other varieties). I would thus typically expect and require to see much bigger error bars (or equivalent cautions about the outcomes) on claims that had elements of induction or correlation.
But where I disagree with your analysis as I read it is that climate science is somehow based on a crude induction process that provides a foundation to the whole thing that is somehow fatally flawed. There is simply too much solid evidence pointing in the same direction to discount it. You made a reference in #186 to 'consistent correlations in repeated samples' - presumably done in different ways to avoid auto-correlation issues. Well, I would agree, but also maintain that we have done enough 'repeated samples' to be pretty clear about the rough outline of what we are trying to describe. Much good work on the details, sure, and a whole separate field of study on ways to understand, analyse and prepare for the risks of action or inaction. But enough to be sure of the basics.
I'm too well brought-up to comment on your analysis of your character. But debating with you certainly requires thought, and I've learnt a few things myself in the process. So thanks for that.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#162. HungeryWalleye wrote:
"Then we have those 'skeptics' who knowingly misrepresent the data as has been pointed out by others in earlier posts."
I didn't know Michael Mann was a "skeptic."
Complain about this comment
193. At 9:46pm on 10 Jul 2010, Daisy Chained wrote with respect to #191 SR
"Well I enjoyed the gobbledegook even if no one else does ....."
........
Sorry, Daisy, this posting by SR is understandable and coherent in almost all respects. Give it another try.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained
Coding is the easy bit. The interesting part is developing ways to simulate the well known laws of physics over large areas. This is done by humans - we decide what the models use as the laws of physics and we decide the value of the parameters. Computers just speed up the process of implementing these models on large climate systems. If you had enough time, you could implement the model by hand and get exactly the same as the computer, provided the initial conditions were the same. There is a big difference between chaos and unpredictability!
If you look at how modern models perform, they seem to capture most of the relevant features of the past 100 years and when the variables are changed (for instance, volcanic eruptions are introduced or aerosols are increased to reflect what actually happened) they model what actually happened very well. Though not perfect, models are probably good indicators of future climate, unless, in my opinion, there are new factors that come into play that were not in play in the hindcasting period. I think it's also fair to say that because our models seem to capture climatic variability over decadal time spans, we have a good understanding of how the climate works over these time periods.
Complain about this comment
@SR #197
"Coding is the easy bit. The interesting part is developing ways to simulate the well known laws of physics over large areas. This is done by humans - we decide what the models use as the laws of physics and we decide the value of the parameters. Computers just speed up the process of implementing these models on large climate systems. If you had enough time, you could implement the model by hand and get exactly the same as the computer, provided the initial conditions were the same. There is a big difference between chaos and unpredictability!"
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about do you?
Complain about this comment
197. SR wrote:
"Coding is the easy bit. The interesting part is developing ways to simulate the well known laws of physics over large areas. This is done by humans - we decide what the models use as the laws of physics and we decide the value of the parameters."
Yes. The principle of garbage in, garbage out. Depending on what "we" put into them... which depends on who "we" are and what "we" might already expect/hope them to show.
"Though not perfect, models are probably good indicators of future climate, unless, in my opinion, there are new factors that come into play that were not in play in the hindcasting period."
Well stated. Probably is a safe enough word. And you acknowledge the possibility that "new factors" could change their projections, which I would say is highly probable given the complexity of the system, the infancy of 'global climatology,' and the recent unwillingness of the vast majority of researchers to look outside the CO2 box. I would say there are probably many feedback mechanisms that are very poorly understood now, or not even recognized yet.
But this 'probably' statement is a vast improvement over the screams that 'the debate is over!!!'
"fair to say that because our models seem to capture climatic variability over decadal time spans, we have a good understanding of how the climate works over these time periods."
Really? But, assuming for the moment that it is true, or even slightly true, how would this support the long term projections that some want us to take seriously?
Complain about this comment
Back on topic... from a story in The Register...
"Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP
“It’s not a whitewash, but it is inadequate,” is Labour MP Graham Stringer’s summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.
Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry..."
Here's the critical point:
"Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn’t the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/10/parliament-misled-over-climategate-report-says-mp/
Complain about this comment
#198 'You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about do you?'
Thanks for that thoughtful contribution. Maybe you could help by explaining the bits you don't understand?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Peter317 #190: "At the risk of being pedantic, a computer-based x-ray machine is just an x-ray machine which is observed by a computer rather than a human."
No. It takes x-ray detectors, electronic, computer and software to produce something which a human can observe. How else will you observe the sensors output? Wire it up to you brain?
But this argument has strayed from the original point. Bowmanthebard said in #138: concerning climate change... "Really? -- I've noticed absolutely nothing out of the ordinary."
The argument was whether human senses would be enough to notice any change in climate. My point was that since many of our achievements result from our aptitude in using tools, that we could well use those tools in analysing the current situation.
Tools, computers and machines can achieve much more than we can in a given time-scale. That's why we use them.
Continuing to point out that given time you can calculate Fourier transforms by hand and build pyramids with bare hands isn't going to help us much. We've move beyond that.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
@Lorax #201
Yep, I was very pleased with it - accurate and to the point.
One of the Vestibule ;-)
Complain about this comment
@ 200 CanadianRockies
"Here's the critical point:
"Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn’t the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/10/parliament-misled-over-climategate-report-says-mp/"
I disagree. The many point is the science hasn't changed as a result of this! This whole issue has been about the temp record and anyone who wants to question the data can freely access it.
Complain about this comment
@Lorax, SR and hotashes
Couple of things, the first one being that Amazongate is apparently back on....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.html
The second's to do with the source data that you people have been claiming is all freely available, I draw you attention to the following, taken from the transcripts from the enquiry by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
"Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?
Professor Jones: That is not the case.
Graham Stringer: Why is it not?
Professor Jones: Because it has not been standard practice to do that.
Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?
Professor Jones: Maybe it should be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the subject."
The first answer, by Professor Jones is the important one, by the way.
Was he lying?
If you guys are right, then he was.......... probably not a wise move.........
Alternatively, you might all be idiots and he might be telling the truth....... I'll let those of us that populate the ether decide.
I know what I think of you............. and maybe this will help them make up their minds too
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
204. hotashes wrote:
"I disagree. The many point is the science hasn't changed as a result of this! This whole issue has been about the temp record and anyone who wants to question the data can freely access it."
I disagree. What Climategate has done is to open up the closed 'debate is over' mindset and unleash a whole new look at this topic, including, most significantly, the temperature record. Almost every day now, it seems, more problems are found with that basic data and, contrary to the repeated insistence of the old 'debate is over' crowd, the surface temperature record has been found to be semi-useless due to several factors and the almost universal tendency for 'convenient' adjustments. Yes there have been apologist rationalizations explaining why it is still "robust" but one has to be in denial to accept them.
This was already starting to happen before Climategate broke but back then the 'deniers' smear campaign, and the nonstop AGW scare propaganda, kept the public from looking at it and kept too many scientists cowered.
So, the scientific basis for the IPPC AGW prjections is changing much faster than the climate.
The reason why the point noted is critical is beyond the problems with the data and goes to the loss of credibility of the IPCC gang and the growing scepticism of the public. Contrary to the wishful thinking of the AGW research-industrial complex, the public is not nearly as dense as they think and the scare tactics are wearing off rapidly.
I think that the person who leaked the Climategate emails should be recognized as an international hero and that the date it officially happened - November 17 as I recall - should become an international holiday.
Complain about this comment
#196 Geoff Ward
I am really too nice a gal to come to rapid conclusions. I read the comment once because once was enough. Even gobbledegook has its fanatics though....
#197 SR
Well I did allow for computer zombies in my previous comment as THAT IS predictable. Perhaps you'd like to consider a multi-cored PC processor which is hyped (by manufacturers and computer OS merchants) to suggest that all its cores can be given a bit of the job to do to speed up the task, or even multi-task just like your average gal. The small print says "only applies to programs that are designed to use multi-core architecture".
Consider the problem. A programmer must design firmware capable of predicting every situation a typical PC is likely to encounter in its lifetime. The programmer has no idea what is 'typical' let alone what 'encounters' it is likely to meet. And then the software. "Wow, how many cores have I got here? Oops this computer's architecture is optimised for a type B board and I was written on a type 'Zsuperdooper once only for the fanatic' board. Never mind let's just do some split processing now and again, and when the user sneeks a look in 'Task Manager' they'll think I am using the whole works".
You see we really do need an organic/biological computer AND fast. But hey we also need 'simple' coders who can think in any which way..... Yeah, SR, go back and redo the module on computer sciences, maybe it'll work second time around.
Complain about this comment
#202 davblo wrote:
It takes x-ray detectors, electronic, computer and software to produce something which a human can observe.
And humans need to observe the finished product, because that's the bit where pattern-recognition comes in. The machines are good at detecting things that do not involve patterns, such as CO or radiation; the computers are good at number-crunching; but the human eye (I mean eye+brain, obviously) is the ultimate pattern-recognizer and interpreter.
How else will you observe the sensors output? Wire it up to you brain?
I don't follow this. In an X-ray plate, by making a flat sheet of plastic through which light passes to the human eye and thence brain, you are doing just that via the eye. If the eye+brain sees no recognizable patterns such as malalignment or shadows, the issue is considered closed because the eye+brain is the best recognizer of such patterns.
But this argument has strayed from the original point. Bowmanthebard said in #138: concerning climate change... "Really? -- I've noticed absolutely nothing out of the ordinary."
The argument was whether human senses would be enough to notice any change in climate.
Not quite. The argument we've been discussing was that the human eye(+brain) can see no pattern in the up-and-down graph of past climate, so there are probably no significant lawlike connections between past climate and future climate. That remark was more of the "I'll believe it when I see it" variety. We should not take drastic action on the basis of stuff that doesn't even look mildly problematic to most people's own eyes.
SR (#197) wrote:
they model what actually happened very well
Of course they do: they were designed and then fine-tuned to do just that. Now what makes anyone think that that gives us the slightest reason to suppose they will go on to model what will happen? That would require lawlike connections of a sort that the human eye would be able to see, but which -- since the human eye cannot see them -- are probably not there.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #208: "Not quite. The argument we've been discussing was that the human eye(+brain) can see no pattern in the up-and-down graph of past climate, so there are probably no significant lawlike connections between past climate and future climate."
That's not how your statement came across.
Look again at #138.
..."138. At 11:24am on 09 Jul 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
...#137 GeoffWard wrote:
...'the scale of impact of global climatic change, to which we all contribute daily,
...is on the 'magnificent, biblical scale'.
...Really? -- I've noticed absolutely nothing out of the ordinary."
The subject was "the scale of impact of global climatic change" so when you say you notice "absolutely nothing out of the ordinary" you seem to be referring to your view of the climate (change). No mention of "graph of past climate".
Then you said in...
bowmanthebard #143: "Until I, personally, notice something out of the ordinary..."
Which seems to mean that you are talking of personal observations (of climate) rather than observations of 'climate change reports'.
I thought you wanted to be careful and clear in the way you wrote.
/davblo
Complain about this comment
#209 davblo wrote:
The subject was "the scale of impact of global climatic change" so when you say you notice "absolutely nothing out of the ordinary" you seem to be referring to your view of the climate (change). No mention of "graph of past climate".
That's right. At that point I was responding to the frankly ridiculous idea that the world is in the midst of some sort of gigantic change, when ordinary people so no difference with their own eyes. That is to put one's trust in less trustworthy things that the evidence of one's own eyes.
I little earlier, in my #132, I wrote:
The AGW idea that we -- or rather, a machine we have made -- can reliably extrapolate from an up-and-down graph that looks completely random to the human eye is folly on a magnificent, biblical scale.
Complain about this comment
#206 'What Climategate has done is to open up the closed 'debate is over' mindset and unleash a whole new look at this topic.'
Crikey, you really don't do nuance, do you? Context a closed book?
There is a broad and deep consensus amongst real climate scientists that, in the words of the US National Academy of Sciences:
'A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.'
So, you really need to consider what 'debate' you are referring to. There are endless, usually ill-informed shoutings on various blogs, of which Booker fan club are particularly witless. There are formal reviews, like the NAS one I quoted, or the currently running Royal Society one. There are intense scientific debates on aspects of climate science, and there are urgent, huge, multi-faceted debates on what the hell we should do about the threat bearing down on us.
As far as I can see, science is doing a thorough job in reviewing its working so far, and pressing forward to answer remaining questions and try to help society with a range of probabilistic predictions for the future. Climate science has, despite what you might read on your beloved Catsupwiththat, built solid foundations for the 'theory', and to that extent the debate on the basic science IS over, for now. If someone comes up with overturning evidence, great, let's re-open it. But nothing like that is coming from any 'sceptical' angle - all we get is smear, cherry-picking and character assassination from the touchline.
Lorax
That, , is
Complain about this comment
#211 Lorax wrote:
"science is doing a thorough job in reviewing its working so far"
I'm not really criticizing this remark, just noting that a vast gulf of incomprehension yawns between us, one that makes communication between our respective "sides" almost impossible.
I claim the inductivism of "climate science" rules it out as a science altogether. For that matter, I would say the same about recent "medical science" which consists of non-explanatory, non-tested "studies" which merely note utterly superficial statistical correlations. In fact I regard these two half-baked flumps as the low points of current Western civilization!
Might I guess that you regard current "medical science" as a scientific triumph, and that you believe all the standard stuff the public are given to believe about, say, links between sodium intake and high blood pressure?
I regard the politically-interested, committee-type bodies that have been charged with the ridiculous task of "examining the science" both politically corrupt and scientifically uninformed. You seem to think they're doing a great job. It is remarkable how consistently we seem to differ. You say potAYto, and I say potAHto!
Complain about this comment
#210
'the frankly ridiculous idea that the world is in the midst of some sort of gigantic change, when ordinary people so no difference with their own eyes. That is to put one's trust in less trustworthy things that the evidence of one's own eyes.'
I'm amazed. What an extraordinary idea. As I've said before, I'm always surprised at the capacity of 'sceptics' to argue detailed science, and then go on to state absurd nonsense based on blogosphere antiscience - but this takes the biscuit.
Bowman, you really want to argue that what can be measured scientifically counts for less than the evidence of your own eyes, or those of 'ordinary people'? We should discount the global glacier retreat (with a few exceptions, yes, we know) - just because most people don't live near a retreating glacier? We should ignore sea surface temperature rises, or ocean acidification because you can't see it? This is ridiculous, mediaeval antiscience, antirationalism and I can't understand why you would say such a thing, especially given your other posts.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#213 Lorax wrote:
I'm amazed. What an extraordinary idea.
I suspect you think that's an extraordinary idea because like many academics who do not specialize in epistemology you have swallowed a bit of bad philosophy. That bad philosophy is what I would call "foundationalism": the idea that knowledge has the structure of mathematics, with everything resting on foundations like theorems rest on basic axioms. The equivalent of axioms are considered certain, or at least much more secure than the rest of the beliefs that are supposed to be "based on" them.
you really want to argue that what can be measured scientifically counts for less than the evidence of your own eyes, or those of 'ordinary people'?
Very much so. Common sense is sometimes wrong, but by and large it is much more trustworthy than anything involving complicated instruments, multi-layered interpretation of readings of those instruments, calibration, etc., etc.. Occasionally, instruments can be made to "measure" things that don't even exist (such as the aether wind, caloric, phlogiston, etc.). The more complicated an instrument, the more there is to go wrong, and the more likely it is to go wrong.
I suspect that what seems very certain or secure to you is just what you are (mistakenly) supposing functions as the "basis" for all other knowledge.
In fact science is not "based on" axiom-type "data" at all, but is more like a sophisticated version of common sense that is constantly and rigorously tested and updated though various social "correcting" processes.
Complain about this comment
@Bowman
I have to agree with Lorax on this one "evidence of your own eyes" can be deceptive ("beauty in the eyes of the beholder" etc)
@lorax #213
Bowman, you really want to argue that what can be measured scientifically counts for less than the evidence of your own eyes
Would you agree that "measured scientifically" is completely difference than computer models?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@davblo #202:
"No. It takes x-ray detectors, electronic, computer and software to produce something which a human can observe. How else will you observe the sensors output? Wire it up to you brain?"
Show me an x-ray which was generated by your computer then ;-)
Seriously though, I was just trying to dispel the apparent myth that computers are magical entities which are somehow capable of deducing from the data something which humans cannot.
Complain about this comment
#215 Mango: 'Would you agree that "measured scientifically" is completely difference than computer models?'
You know the answer to that perfectly well. Of course they are. However they can be related, in the same way that the springs and cogs of a watch can be measured (shape, composition etc) - and yet if combined in the right way by a watchmaker they can give us information beyond what those component measurements can tell us.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@Lorax #217
you're right, i did know the answer and would have been surprised if you had answered in the negative. You see, this is where I think modelled values of climate sensitivity (generally high) are secondary to physically observed values of climate sensitivity (generally low), which means the whole CO2 as primary driver of climate is false, and is the main reason why i am sceptical of AGW.
I also accept what you say about the watchmaker. Watchmaking has evolved to the stage where we know how to produce consistent timepieces on a commercial scale, but computer models have lots of missing springs and cogs.
All it takes is one misplaced cog or spring to give us the wrong time.
/?Mango
Complain about this comment
206. CanadianRockies
" I disagree. What Climategate has done is to open up the closed 'debate is over' mindset and unleash a whole new look at this topic, including, most significantly, the temperature record. Almost every day now, it seems, more problems are found with that basic data and, contrary to the repeated insistence of the old 'debate is over' crowd, the surface temperature record has been found to be semi-useless due to several factors and the almost universal tendency for 'convenient' adjustments."
Your going to have to enlighten me. What are the problems with the basic data? Why is it semi-useless? What is the issue with the adjustments?
Complain about this comment
The inductivism I've been complaining about all along in climate science is a classic symptom of the more general malaise of "foundationalism".
I try never to be swayed by "what the experts think", but if anyone is tempted to "follow the experts" they might be interested to learn that foundationalism is the theory of knowledge associated with older mainstream Western thinkers such as Plato and Descartes. That is why is is almost second nature to most of us.
It is only in the twentieth century that foundationalism began to be rejected by mainstream philosophers -- such as Wittgenstein, the American Pragmatists, and others.
Complain about this comment
i am convinced that the rise in recorded global temperatures isn't linked to burning fossil fuels, but is instead linked to the rise in sales of fizzy drinks - has anybody studied this?
;)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#207 Daisy chained
"You see we really do need an organic/biological computer AND fast. But hey we also need 'simple' coders who can think in any which way..... Yeah, SR, go back and redo the module on computer sciences, maybe it'll work second time around."
I still don't get what you're trying to say here. These days, we have High level programming languages ( e.g., C++, Fortran 90) which provide abstraction between software and hardware. The programmer doesn't need to worry about how many cores they have - unless we're talking about super-optimised climate runs on super-computers, maybe. I'm running 4 climate models on my little laptop as we speak (climateprediction.net) and i'm sure the programmer didn't have my particular processor architecture in mind when he (or she) designed the code.
Complain about this comment
"i am convinced that the rise in recorded global temperatures isn't linked to burning fossil fuels, but is instead linked to the rise in sales of fizzy drinks - has anybody studied this?"
Yes. Huge scientific evidence of no link but the sceptics rejected it because they thought the research was funded by coca-cola.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #215 wrote:
I have to agree with Lorax on this one "evidence of your own eyes" can be deceptive ("beauty in the eyes of the beholder" etc)
It can be deceptive, but on the whole it is less deceptive than anything else. When you use a measuring instrument, you don't use it as an alternative to the evidence of your own eyes, but in combination with the evidence of your own eyes, which tell you that the "the pointer is pointing to 11", "the graph levels off just after point A", and so on.
Lorax #213 wrote:
you really want to argue that what can be measured scientifically counts for less than the evidence of your own eyes
A scientific explanation might count for more in terms of explanation, if it explains more. But we can hardly have more confidence or certainty that it is true, because it "buys" its explanatory power at the "cost" of saying riskier things -- about stuff that can't be seen directly, which might or might not even exist.
Complain about this comment
#218 Mango: 'You see, this is where I think modelled values of climate sensitivity (generally high) are secondary to physically observed values of climate sensitivity (generally low), which means the whole CO2 as primary driver of climate is false'
That's a heroic logical leap. I'll go with you this far - physically observed direct effects will have greater certainty, smaller error bars etc than modelled predictions - especially the further out we go from the present. But that doesn't mean they should discounted as false - it means we consider their probability as part of a risk analysis of whether we should respond.
If I was about to spend my life savings on a beachfront property in southern Florida or the Sundarbans, it would be rational of me to look at projections of increased storminess, and the likelihood that the recent acceleration in sea level rise would continue. That's because even if these things are a probability rather than a certainty, the consequences for me could be disastrous. Risk = probability x impact. That's why we use models to look into the future - even though they are less precise than measuring stuff now.
As for the watches - the analogy to climate modelling would be that we have now got many watches, assembled by different watchmakers. They don't all keep exactly the same time - but they do all approximately - say to the nearest half hour. That's not good enough for some purposes, but more than adequate to get a general idea of what time it is.
Off to watch the Tour de France coverage...
Lorax
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard
The loss of confidence when using scientific instruments is usually negligible. To dwell on it and use it as a philosophical argument for the rejection of observations that aren't directly observed is an example extreme pessimism. It's like disbelieving a man with glasses because you can't be sure how the glasses distort reality. For techniques with appreciable loss of confidence, we do have ways to quantify it and if you go through the scientific literature, at least for climate science, you'll find large chunks of the papers devoted solely to estimating the uncertainty. An example of this is with the infamous hockey sticks - the confidence in the reconstructed temperatures are obtained by comparing REAL temperature with the proxy-derived temperature for known periods.
Complain about this comment
@Lorax #225
That's a heroic logical leap.
I think you know it goes deeper than a logical leap
If I was about to spend my life savings on a beachfront property in southern Florida or the Sundarbans, it would be rational of me to look at projections of increased storminess, and the likelihood that the recent acceleration in sea level rise would continue.
Would it still be rational of you to look at computer projections knowing that observed climate sensitivity was low not high as assumed by the computer models?
the analogy to climate modelling would be that we have now got many watches, assembled by different watchmakers. They don't all keep exactly the same time - but they do all approximately - say to the nearest half hour.
or you could just look at the sun - that's good enough for most purposes
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#227 Mango: 'Would it still be rational of you to look at computer projections knowing that observed climate sensitivity was low not high as assumed by the computer models?'
But that is not what I know. So your point is moot. Your are mistaking the quantity of the sensitivity with the probability of the sensitivity actually happening.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
What a lovely weekend- i trust everyone had a nice time in the sun??
@ Albatros #152
sigh. ok to take your points in order.
1-"Please read Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), there are other recent papers out there by reputable scientists. The experts agree with you that sea levels will continue to rise beyond 100 years, 400 years even, however, they would take issue with your (unreferenced) claim that is will take precisely 441 years for it to increase by about 1.5 m. The projected sea level rise in AR4 did not account for the contribution to sea level rise from ice-sheets, that is why their estimates were so conservative."
i repeat. sigh. i have sourced this claim, for you, specifically, about 3 times.
Here we go again
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
3.4 mm 'steady' average for as long as there has been accurate records. No showing of a rise in the trend at all.
Therefore, regardless of what prediction 'your' paper makes, the empirical evidence does not back it up... oh.. wait... they were 'predictions'... so you don't NEED evidence do you.
There is also no evidence that anything will happen to rapidly increase sea levels (anartica is fine thanks for asking)
2-2) "as for albatros' numerous ramblings- well i'm guessing they're also par for the course. 30 years"- easier to link the 'statment' rather than your answer (at 152 should anyone want to read).
all well and good, but there are issues with the isotope readings as it doesn't distinguish the AGE of the carbon (important distincion). Besides- the observations DO NOT MATCH the predictions. Which means, the theory is wrong, or is not complete.
3-"3) and no AGW signature. No significant warming in ten years (as stated by jones himself).
Actually, Jones said that there has been no statistically significant warming at the 95% confidence level in the CRU data between 1995 and 2009 (not the last 10 years as you state)."
yes you are correct- it is from 1995, not 1990 as i implied, apologies. The point still stands however- at a time then the models predict 'runaway' warming... there isn't any...
4- "4) inquiries all conducted by those with direct links to AGW, taking evidence from those only on the 'accused' side.
As I mentioned before, see pages 123-125 about 110 people had the opportunity to submit evidence to CCE. The public could also submit evidence to the HoC inquiry and the PBL inquiry. And many 'skeptics' did submit evidence, some of them more than once to the same inquiry.
yet, offers to attend the inquiry and submit evidence by prominent skeptics were turned down.... huh...
"The only criminal investigation right now is into who illegally obtained the emails and how. Interesting how the people making money off this debacle are "skeptics" who have taken it upon themselves to write books"
interestingly, there's no proof they were illegally siezed, or hacked (despite even i thinking they were). Also, as the data was subject to a NUMBER of FOI requests and was suppoed to be public domain anyway i would be suprised if charges could be brought.
@ 154 and lorax
"At times we've had half-decent scientific discussions - but then you can't help repeating a Catsupwiththat-esque piece of nonsense like this. You know perfectly well that the context of the question Jones was answering does not support the point you are making. What he was saying was that 10 years of data wasn't really enough to measure the statistical significance of global temperature changes.
Why not try arguing serious points - as you're capable of - rather than this debunked piece of last night's pizza?
Lorax"
actually that was precisely my point- the amount of time to make a statistically significant measure of a global temperature change. Think about it. There are 3 options
1- If ten years is not enough time to make a statistically significant prediction on warming/cooling, then 30, 50, 100 years certainly isn't either (given the cycles)- i remind you that even in the whitewashes, it was commented on about the lack of expert statistics. OR...
2-the data shows no statistically significant warming, i.e. cooling (regardless of their being a trend or not, as was your implication- i.e. there is warming but the data doesn't show it, an EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous mindset to get in- or 'climate science' as normal scientists call it). OR...
3-the data neither supports continued warming, nor cooling. As there is not enough data on the current 'shift' to say either way.
Which is it? there literally IS no other opption, none of the above negate my point either.
Either the data does'nt support continued warming (regardless of it cooling or not), or the data is not ABLE to say either way. Which then makes the current warming trend... interesting to say the least.
Complain about this comment
@Lorax #228
#227 Mango: 'Would it still be rational of you to look at computer projections knowing that observed climate sensitivity was low not high as assumed by the computer models?'
But that is not what I know.
So what do you know about observations of climate sensitivity?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#226 SR wrote:
"The loss of confidence when using scientific instruments is usually negligible."
That's far too sweeping a statement. It depends which instruments we're using, what we're looking at, how much theory -- and how good the theories -- involved in interpreting what we're looking at. The use of a spectrometer to detect the presence of elements is less risky than the use of the same instrument to measure the red shift, which in turn in less risky than the use of the same instrument to measure the rate of recession of a galaxy, which in turn in less risky than the use of the same instrument to measure the age of the universe...
To dwell on it and use it as a philosophical argument for the rejection of observations that aren't directly observed is an example extreme pessimism.
What makes you think I'm "rejecting" something just because I'm acknowledging it's less certain? I have a great regard for legitimate sciences, which make explanatory claims, but often very uncertain ones. The theory of the Big Bang is very uncertain, but it explains a great deal. The branch of evolutionary theory that traces the growth of the tree of life is similarly uncertain. (It seems that one of the things Darwin got wrong was his guess that lungs evolved from swim bladders, rather than the other way round.)
Using a combination of tree rings and rulers to measure the global temperature of earlier times is very clever, but very uncertain. What I reject is not the use of instruments, etc., but the idea that doing something clever like that is more trustworthy and less uncertain than doing something straightforward.
Complain about this comment
#229 LabMunkey: 'If ten years is not enough time to make a statistically significant prediction on warming/cooling, then 30, 50, 100 years certainly isn't either'
Oh yeah? Got a shred of justification for this convenient fiction?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@Lorax #232:
Well, looking at the global temperature graphs, from around 1910 to around 1940 we had around 30 years of warming, followed by around 30 years of cooling, followed by warming again.
Complain about this comment
#233 So?
You do know that up to the 1940s the sun was increasing in strength? You also know that following that period we had the sun weakening, plus the peak of particulate pollution leading to the global dimming?
For heavens sake, if you intend to criticise climate science - at least make an attempt to find out what climate science says, rather than getting your views from some blog. Try skepticalscience.com for good summaries, read up what the climate scientists actually say - and then be sceptical by all means.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#222 SR
You confirm my point.
As a programmer in C, C#, C++, and a few other languages I can tell you that the platform (and therefore the code) is encapsulated at the time of compiling into object code. If a program is written for Windows it will operate in Windows because of the 'framework' incorporated into the compiler's component objects and source code (i.e. the compiler's author's engine). If a program is written for DOS it will not use any of the processors multi-core power (which need not be a limitation except the stack may overflow and crash the program unless floating point accuracy is substantially reduced which IS a consideration). Multi-platform software must use compiler objects geared to its final use or it will crash on any computer that it does not cater for.
My point however concerns the use of the word 'powerful' (hyped comparative) when the software is nothing of the sort. To monitor a group of instruments is one thing, but to read the logic occurring behind the scenes is simply fool's gold because the software cannot hope to make such 'human' judgements with any 'intelligence' at all, artificial or not. The 'model' is everything in software - if it is a bad model nothing will make it good. My concern is how these can be good models when we do not understand all the parameters that need to be considered, and computers will not do this work for us.
Complain about this comment
I never thought I would find myself defending SR but the whole point of C and C++ ANSI compliance is to make the languages platform independent.
If you are writing a program for Windows then you are not using ANSI C or C++.
That said, there are still far too many unknowns for the models to be anything more than guess testers.
Complain about this comment
@Lorax
Lorax,
You have not responded to my post #230, but have responded to later posts. Can i assume you know nothing about observations of climate sensitivity?
If not, it seems odd that you would make decisions about your future property dealings etc without having the full information available to you.
Isn't Greenpeace being sued / were sued by a property developer in Spain, when Greenpeace produced a propaganda piece showing parts Spain to be flooded "due to global warming"?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#237 Mango
The whole thrust of your posts seem to assume that you know that climate sensitivity is low. Of course, you 'know' no such thing. My property example was an exercise in trying to get across the point that these things are probabilities. So nobody has 'the full information'.
There is a good basis for expecting the kind of positive feedbacks that give a higher sensitivity. Examples which you already know but choose to discount are the lower albedo of the Arctic ocean covered in less ice. Outgassing of methane from clathrate deposits - already being observed - from the warming Arctic ocean is another. Clouds are probably the chief joker in the pack as to their feedback effect.
Why should you consider probability of higher sensitivity seriously? Because there is a body of work which combines observations and modelled outputs to give a fair probability that this the case.
How much risk do you think we should take?Given the stakes, I'd think that any chance of a high sensitivity being greater than 10% should stimulate a vigorous response. I wouldn't happily embrace a future with a 10% chance of disaster - and the work on climate sensitivity is converging on 3 degrees - a high sensitivity.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
@Lorax #238
Of course I don't know for sure - what, in science, is "for sure"? The whole ocean conveyor belt has been turned on it's head despite being the best knowledge we have for 50 years
However, as far as i am aware, observational science including clouds etc seem to point to climate sensitivity being low not high. The body of work showing climate sensitivity to be high is based on either computer models or observational excluding clouds
So yes the jokers in the pack are clouds, but they are pretty significant jokers
Basing future predictions on a big unknown is ridiculous to say the least
/Mango
Complain about this comment
#212, 214 etc
Bowman
Well, I have to confess you have completely lost me as to what it is you are actually arguing for, and why. In the space of a few posts you argue that climate and medical science are so flawed that you 'rule it out as a science altogether'. This seems to be because they fail to meet you rather idiosyncratic standards.
Then you trump this with the jaw-dropping statement to the effect that what ordinary people see with their own eyes is much more reliable than any science. Seems to me that you are arguing in two diametrically opposite directions - that better information about the world is obtained both by an absolutely 'pure' science, and also by no science at all.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Lorax wrote:
Well, I have to confess you have completely lost me as to what it is you are actually arguing for, and why.
How intellectually lazy you are. Good luck.
Complain about this comment
#211. Lorax wrote:
"Crikey, you really don't do nuance, do you?"
Well, when dealing with wholly "unprecedented" case of "planetary fever" with untold "catastrophic" consequences, I feel that the Precautionary Principle demands the most alarmist statements possible to stir the peasants to sacrifice. I'm just following IPCC et al procedures.
You keep citing the NAS as though the statements by their dear leaders are still credible. But then, that is understandable since you actually believe this:
"As far as I can see, science is doing a thorough job in reviewing its working so far."
Yes the UEA reviewed itself and all is AOK. Marvellous.
"If someone comes up with overturning evidence, great, let's re-open it."
But they CHOOSE to not see or hear what is inconvenient, so your point is meaningless.
Another critique of the latest selective whitewash:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/10/fred-singer-on-the-muir-russel-report/
Best you don't read it!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
229. LabMunkey wrote:
"3.4 mm 'steady' average for as long as there has been accurate records. No showing of a rise in the trend at all."
But... but... we're just about to reach the tipping point, and you know what that means!!!
"at a time then the models predict 'runaway' warming... there isn't any..."
Well, yes, but that is because The Warming ran away to parts unknown. So clearly the models were correct. They always are. They have been reviewed by their programmers and found to be infallible, though lacking in some public communication skills.
Complain about this comment
#236 RobWansbeck
My apologies for #235 which was unclear.
A strict ANSI coded executable will run on any basic I/O system (referred to as DOS in #235). However such a module will need 'screen', 'printer', and 'device' drivers specific to the environment it is operating in (separate to the C program). In other words the C program will not be 'universal'. The code will also need to contain 'stack' commands relative to the type of computer being used to avoid crashing unless it is very simple indeed (even with ANSI). Source headers usually deal with this to present users with the necessary information rather than letting the software crash.
Most compilers do not keep strictly to ANSI standards although they do warn about non-standard 'commands' and non-standard 'coding'. Most C++ RADs do not even use C as the language which objects and components are written and so none of these will be ANSI compliant.
A useful, user friendly piece of software will seldom be ANSI standard not because it is lazily programmed but because to do so restricts the potential power of the software via development costs.
Complain about this comment
you have completely lost me as to what it is you are actually arguing for, and why.
I am arguing for the hypothetico-deductive method in science, because it delivers the goods in terms of explanation and predictive power.
The alternative, inductivism, doesn't deserve to be called "science" at all because it doesn't deliver those goods. It is the product of a misinformed ideology that was initially inspired by the (bad) philosophical idea that the mind is non-material (i.e. that we have souls).
The hypothetico-deductive method is like a more rigorous and penetrating but also more "risky" common sense. It's "riskier" in the sense of being more uncertain, because it hypothesizes about things that cannot be observed directly -- such as electrons, gravitational fields and viruses.
Because of that greater uncertainty, we must be be more hesitant when we make public policy decisions which involve uncertain scientific conjecture rather than common sense. For example, in the 1970s it was proposed that the polar regions of the Earth should be covered in soot so as to diminish the effect of catastrophic global cooling. It was wise not to have done so.
In the space of a few posts you argue that climate and medical science are so flawed that you 'rule it out as a science altogether'. This seems to be because they fail to meet you rather idiosyncratic standards.
They seem idiosyncratic to you, but they would not seem idiosyncratic to people who have spent far more time than you have thinking and arguing about these questions.
Then you trump this with the jaw-dropping statement to the effect that what ordinary people see with their own eyes is much more reliable than any science.
Common sense is more trustworthy than science, yes, although it is much less ambitious in its aims. Both are fallible.
Seems to me that you are arguing in two diametrically opposite directions - that better information about the world is obtained both by an absolutely 'pure' science, and also by no science at all.
It seems to me that you need to think a bit more about what "better information" might be. It might be more certain or it might be more penetrating. A bus timetable is more certain but less penetrating than a theory about the first three minutes of the universe.
Complain about this comment
@ lorax #232.
"#229 LabMunkey: 'If ten years is not enough time to make a statistically significant prediction on warming/cooling, then 30, 50, 100 years certainly isn't either'
Oh yeah? Got a shred of justification for this convenient fiction?
Lorax"
Erm, it's basic statistics mate....
We have 'accurate data' for roughly 100 years. The shortest climate cycle i am aware of is the PDO, which oscilates at roughly 30 years (please correct my if i'm wrong). So you'd think to make any sort of predictions on trends you'd want at LEAST 3 cycles- 90 years..... throw in the Ninio's and you get even more uncertainty.
But, if you look at the bigger picture, taking into account the proxies- it would seem we were trying to make predictions off less than 1% of the 'known' 'data'. 'Data' (proxies and temp records that don't always match...).
So frankly, attributing an level of significance to the current warming ~(above the base rate rise) is laughable....
care to argue any of that?
Complain about this comment
@ 229. LabMunkey
"i repeat. sigh. i have sourced this claim, for you, specifically, about 3 times.
Here we go again
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
3.4 mm 'steady' average for as long as there has been accurate records. No showing of a rise in the trend at all."
The records you provide only go back to 1992. What was the average sea rise before this? Also suggesting there are no accurate records before this is a bit misleading!
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained #245.
"My apologies for #235 which was unclear."
alas, #245 doesn't do it for me either. maybe you could re-state:
"If a program is written for DOS it will not use any of the processors multi-core power (which need not be a limitation except the stack may overflow and crash the program unless floating point accuracy is substantially reduced which IS a consideration)."
which left me confused, and perhaps (this is about stack-based calling conventions, right?):
"The code will also need to contain 'stack' commands relative to the type of computer being used to avoid crashing unless it is very simple indeed (even with ANSI)."
Complain about this comment
#227. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"
@Lorax #225
'That's a heroic logical leap.'
I think you know it goes deeper than a logical leap
'If I was about to spend my life savings on a beachfront property in southern Florida or the Sundarbans, it would be rational of me to look at projections of increased storminess, and the likelihood that the recent acceleration in sea level rise would continue.'
Would it still be rational of you to look at computer projections knowing that observed climate sensitivity was low not high as assumed by the computer models?
"
The whole reason that I don't think we should trust models to much on climate is climate self regulation by living things, or 'Gaia'.
Self regulation tends to act very like a servo mechanism, it can damp or hide effects completely or amplify them, worse its sensitivity is completely dynamic and constantly changeable. From someone who is formerly in AI and robotics I thinks everyone interested in modeling should read Norbert Wieners 'Cybernetics', and at least understand some of servomechanism theory. Eg 'Servomechanisms' (I forget the author) or just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servomechanism though its not the best WP page and a little primitive.
To me that very unpredictability is the strongest argument for not waiting to act. Especially when we consider that it will probably take hundreds of years of study and observation to pin down such a huge and complex control envelope - if its even possible at all.
Complain about this comment
in 238. Lorax wrote:
" The whole thrust of your posts seem to assume that you know that climate sensitivity is low. Of course, you 'know' no such thing. "
Actually of course we DO KNOW that the climate sensitivity is low, otherwise we wouldn't exist. If you just look at the basic facts - It takes 150W/sqm to raise the temperature the 33C from the "no atmosphere warming" ice-ball. That gives an average climate sensitivity of 1C per 4.5Wpsqm. Now in the early stages when there were no aerosols (clouds) the sensitivity would have been much higher, so to give that average the current sensivitity has to be less that that. Which means that for convenience, we can take the 1C/4.5Wpsqm as an upper limit when making any consistency check for any calculation of climate sensitivity.
Now when I was an experimental physicist it was a standing joke that theoreticians never bothered to do consistency checks with the real world. So I am afraid I have to treat the current claims by climate modellers that the sensitivity is of the order of 1C/1Wpsqm with amusement. If you take the trouble to look at the modelling papers you will find a phrase akin to "the effects of aerosols are not well understood and hence a approximation has been used ". That phrase translates into normal speak as "we don't understand clouds so we have make a guess".
Now this isn't to say that they are deliberatly making a bad guess, they will be doing the best they can, but all models of physical systems include making lots of simplifications and lots of assumptions and even though these can be based on the best information available at the time, it doesn't necessarily make them accurate.
You also said "There is a good basis for expecting the kind of positive feedbacks that give a higher sensitivity."
Err No, the real world average of 1C/4.5Wpsqm includes ALL feedbacks, both positive and negative. If you really believe that the sensitivity is 1C/1Wpsqm, then please calculate what the surface temperature should be for the 150Wpsqm of normal global warming.
Complain about this comment
#240 Lorax wrote:
the jaw-dropping statement to the effect that what ordinary people see with their own eyes is much more reliable than any science.
I wonder if other AGW-believers are surprised to hear that common sense is more trustworthy than science? If so, you have failed to grasp what is valuable about science. It's not more certain than common sense, but tries to explain deeper facts than common sense. In doing so, it has to "stick its neck out" further -- thereby making it less certain.
Complain about this comment
#252
If you think about it, common sense is itself developed by a scientific process. We observe and rationalise every day and this allows us to predict.
You oversimplify in your assertion that common sense is more certain than science. This only depends on what our own scientific instrument (brain) is better at doing than the ones we can engineer. There are techniques and instruments that go far, far beyond what the human brain can do and there is no necessity that the explanatory power they facilitate comes at a cost of less certainty than the certainty of the conclusion arrived at by our human brain.
Complain about this comment
#253 SR wrote:
If you think about it, common sense is itself developed by a scientific process.
I would agree that there are many similarities. Children are avid hypothesizers and testers of their hypotheses, especially when learning language. The main difference between common sense and science is that common sense refers to everyday objects such as trees, houses, etc. -- things our native languages have words for, and which are used by everyone who speaks the language. But science really goes further than that by referring to force fields, electrons, the distant past, various abstract entities -- things that cannot be observed directly. Because it "sticks its neck out further" than common sense like that, it often gets things wrong. The history of science is a graveyard of rejected theories.
You oversimplify in your assertion that common sense is more certain than science.
I don't mean to say that common sense is infallible, but by and large it is more trustworthy than science. I would say that science often begins where one bit of common sense overrules another bit of common sense -- for example, when earlier people said "the world is flat -- but wait a minute, it just can't be flat!"
There are some areas of science that are "endorsed" by one bit of common sense, and they then overrule another, somewhat less secure bit of common sense. So science does sometimes overrule common sense, but I would say it only can do so when it is itself endorsed by a more secure bit of common sense.
There are techniques and instruments that go far, far beyond what the human brain can do
I agree, but we are only able to say that confidently when those instruments have proved themselves more able than our native equipment -- and proved themselves more able to the "tribunal of common sense". For example, an X-ray can reveal what's inside the body much better than the naked eye. But we only accept that because the naked eye and common sense together tell us that the X-ray can see inside the body!
Complain about this comment
@ 248
I can only apologise;
this site used to have data going back to the around 1900, i've used this site many times before and actually used to have hard printouts of that specific data (following a discussion with a professor i used to work with).
i was by no means trying to suggest that 1995 was the earliest records we have!! It's very puzzling as it was an excellent source of data.
it seems they're switched from direct measurement to satellite data- for which they only have 1992 as a starting point. I'm sending a request for the 'old' data. i will post it when i get it.
try this
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
specifically this line "reveal an increase in sea level over the last 80 yr of between 1.1 and 1.9 mm yr−1."
or this
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
and
on future sea level rise model predictions
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/full/ngeo780.html
Complain about this comment
Fortunately, WUWT has just posted an article on sea-level rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/bad-news-for-holland/
Complain about this comment
Isn't it funny how man thinks he's the be all and end all and can decide what the planet is going to do at will..........nature always finds a way, there are too many of us and we need to be cut back, whether it's climate change, which you can't control, disease, which you can fight, until nature works it out that you have succeeded or something a little more cataclismic like an asteroid. We need to get off the high horses and stop worrying about it and get on with what we can, the odds are we'll kill ourselves off, which is appropriate.
Complain about this comment
#251 Oldterry2:
If I understand you, you claim that climate sensitivity - the effect on temperature of the further energy we are retaining within the atmosphere and biosphere must be low because the average sensitivity is low.
That could only be correct if there was a straight-line relationship between the two variables. There isn't. The Arctic Ocean would be mostly white - i.e. a high albedo - for a range of energy inputs (measured as temperatures). Then, as temperatures rise, the Arctic will experience a dramatic change - technically called 'melting' - where large changes in albedo occur for a small further energy input. This is called a threshold. Then the less-white Arctic Ocean will absorb much more solar energy, and thus amplify the existing temperature rise that caused the melting. This is a positive feedback. There are a number of similar ones.
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#254 Bowman on 'common sense'
I think your intellectual castle is built on sand. How can you get anywhere with an ephemeral concept like 'common sense'? Everybody's definition is different from everyone else's. Many people are content to hold mutually contradictory elements of 'common sense'. 'Common sense' has given us, and still gives us, appalling examples of prejudice, cruelty and racism. Cultural definitions are radically different. Is the western fuzzy ball called 'common sense' more helpful than the Asian or African ones? Impossible to answer. Much of what people would describe as 'common sense' is readily exposed by scientific techniques as complete rubbish. We wouldn't even be able to agree between the two of us what 'common sense' is.
Science and rationalism, thank goodness, saves us from the common sense that would otherwise be a tool that leads us rapidly to barbarism.
Quick test: when a politician proposes actions because they are 'common sense', does you heart give a leap of joy?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#242 Canadian Rockies 'You keep citing the NAS as though the statements by their dear leaders are still credible.'
I keep citing the NAS report because you can't give me any reason as to why you reject its findings - other than you don't like the conclusion it reaches. Presumably Catsupwiththat hasn't yet given you the NAS-gate scandal to parrot?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
in 258.
"If I understand you, you claim that climate sensitivity - the effect on temperature of the further energy we are retaining within the atmosphere and biosphere must be low because the average sensitivity is low.
That could only be correct if there was a straight-line relationship between the two variables. There isn't."
No - it is treating the climate mechanism as a black box, which will naturally include all positive and negative feedback loops.
" The Arctic Ocean would be mostly white - i.e. a high albedo - for a range of energy inputs (measured as temperatures). Then, as temperatures rise, the Arctic will experience a dramatic change - technically called 'melting' - where large changes in albedo occur for a small further energy input. This is called a threshold. Then the less-white Arctic Ocean will absorb much more solar energy, and thus amplify the existing temperature rise that caused the melting. This is a positive feedback. There are a number of similar ones. "
sigh - but the extra water surface will produce more water vapour (which ice doesn't) which forms aerosols (called clouds) which have a high albedo and cause cooling; so things aren't as one sided as you think.
Complain about this comment
Does melting Arctic ice really result in positive feedback?
The lack of sun limits the effect of albedo changes and open water has a higher emissivity thus radiating more heat into space.
Which one wins?
Complain about this comment
Good post Richard. It's amazing how many think the data is being hidden. I am starting to see a real trend here in the states. Those that think climate change is a hoax/data is hidden are being lumped into the same group as the birthers.
Less than 10% of the population has ever heard of climate gate over here. That says something I think. Several poll and a detailed survey by Maibach et al at G. Mason Uni. (Global Warming's 6 Americas) have shown this group only makes up about 8-16% of the population. They are very loud though and will be the first commenters on any post like this.
Complain about this comment
259. At 11:25pm on 12 Jul 2010, Lorax wrote:
#254 Bowman on 'common sense'
I think your intellectual castle is built on sand. How can you get anywhere with an ephemeral concept like 'common sense'? Everybody's definition is different from everyone else's.
I'm not trying to "get anywhere" with it, and emphatically not build anything on it. I'm just pointing out that on the whole it is more trustworthy than science. That is worth saying because so many people mistakenly think the value of science is the greater confidence we can have in it than non-science. But in fact we can have less confidence in it than (some sorts of) non-science.
A lot of people have as much trouble defining 'science' as defining 'common sense' -- and so when they praise science for whatever reason they cannot even identify the very thing they regard so highly. You can't accuse me of that!
As a matter of fact, though, 'common sense' is just the closest term I can think of for the shared, repeatable observations that constrain scientific theory. (But as I've said many times is not is not the "basis" of scientific theory.) I could give you a much more precise characterization, but as a first pass "common sense" is close enough.
Complain about this comment
#259 Lorax wrote:
when a politician proposes actions because they are 'common sense', does you heart give a leap of joy?
Nothing a politician proposes ever makes my heart give a leap of joy; usually my heart sinks. It really sinks like a lead balloon when I hear that what is proposed will be informed by the "latest science", because I know that hardly any politician "gets" what science is good for. Public policy guided by what an illiterate oaf thinks is "more certain" as opposed to "more speculative" is very unlikely to come to any good.
I suppose I share Burke's view that in politics "a spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views".
Science and rationalism, thank goodness, saves us from the common sense that would otherwise be a tool that leads us rapidly to barbarism.
Again I share Burke's view that the French Revolution was an outbreak of barbarism, embarked upon by ignorant, resentful people "fired up" by the spirit of innovation -- and hence feeling justified in their many acts of destruction and cruelty.
Complain about this comment
#264 Bowman writes: 'I'm just pointing out that on the whole it [common sense] is more trustworthy than science. That is worth saying because so many people mistakenly think the value of science is the greater confidence we can have in it than non-science. But in fact we can have less confidence in it than (some sorts of) non-science.'
So, you have got two things, common sense (or non-science), and science. You also state that people have much trouble defining 'science' - which is fair enough as it has become a term used very loosely.
So, it seems to me that you're 'just pointing out' that one undefined and undefinable thing - common sense - is more trustworthy than a different undefined thing - 'science'.
Fine, if it helps you get through the day. I think it is an insight of limited value to the rest of us.
I'm off for my holidays. Enjoy the sun...
Lorax
Complain about this comment
#249 jr4412
Apologies again. It is easier to do than to explain.
The stack size is crucial when a program runs functions calling recursively* or calling other functions that may have recursive activity which, in mathematics, happens a great deal. Adjusting stack size to allow for this activity is potentially dangerous as it can inadvertently 'purchase' memory reserved for the operating system. However, failing to adjust stack size will crash the program anyway.
The adjustments are normally conducted by 'fine tuning' at coding time, or, in cases where tuning is not possible, by redesigning the functions causing the issue (limiting the number of recursive calls for example, or reducing precision of variables). Mostly a compromise can be reached simply because of the programmer's modular approach to software design and 'C' being a wonderfully eloquent (and tolerant) language in this respect. But it takes a lot of time to tune precisely.
Problems further arise if the program is extended or altered (especially by someone who was not the original designer) and the software runs close to limits whereby errors and bugs start to occur even when the machine does not crash. It can sometimes produce a very similar effect to memory leaks (eventual 'freeze') or, more dangerously, repeated erroneous data (which will come out similar every time as you can see by using a debugger).
I'd like to think we have good software out there but I am afraid to say today's programmers are nowhere near as good as they should be. RAD has a lot to answer for.
(Note: * recursive activity is not the only time in can occur but is the most likely 'culprit')
Complain about this comment
@ lorax re my number 255.
i'm not ahving much luck here mate. i'll try figure out a way of posting the links without breaking the rules (hopefully i can find a site that has a LINK to the data, rather than linking it directly).
apologies.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #264: in fact we can have less confidence in it than (some sorts of) non-science.
Lorax #266: So, you have got two things, common sense (or non-science), and science.
You need to read more carefully. Surely it is obvious that "some sorts of non-science" implies there is more than one sort of non-science.
We have shared, repeatable observations, and a set of shared, long-established assumptions that have in effect been tried and tested through countless generations of practice. These constrain scientific theorizing. Is it really standard AGW opinion that the theorizing itself is more secure than the observations that constrain it? -- Ridiculous!
Complain about this comment
#266 Lorax wrote:
"an insight of limited value to the rest of us."
You are being incredibly foolish if you think that. There is much, much more to this than you or your AGW buddies think. The most important bit you seem to be missing is the fact that what you are counting as "evidence" is essentially internal to the mind. That is the product of thousands of years of the religious assumption that the mind is "immaterial" and therefore "cut off" from the physical world.
Complain about this comment
#269/270
Bowman, you've dragged me back from my packing for one last thought. You berate me and others in almost every post, as we try to interpret your gnomic statements into something useful. To allow communication, both parties - the communicator and the listener - need to take responsibility for the the message getting through. You're clearly frustrated that others don't get what you're saying - have you considered that this may not be because we are foolish, or intellectually lazy, but because you could improve the clarity of whatever it is you are trying to say?
Lorax
Complain about this comment
Its funny, because of my former work I actually know pretty exactly how 'common sense' works. Firstly what is called common sense is actually just trained instinct, and instinct is ultimately driven by totality.
That is by a massive trained tautology totality driven (ultimate sigma) neural network. And I know no one will understand all that! AI science terminology. :)
If you boil it all though down instinct is just a kind of prediction or 'precognition' based on statistical sums, so it depends on the individual human and their total experience. I.E. the answer is that 'common sense' is either right or wrong and never totally trustworthy. Science wins every time because it depends on testable repeatable cumulative observation. (and have I just shot climate science down again? :( )
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #272
"Science wins every time because it depends on testable repeatable cumulative observation. (and have I just shot climate science down again? :( )"
Well that's my problem with Climate Studies (can't bring myself to call it Science) in a nutshell. So, I'd say "Yep, that's a bullet hole in something - I hope it wasn't something that you wanted to keep!!!"
Regards,
One of the (This joke's starting to wear a bit thin) Lobby
Complain about this comment
@ all
Any of you guys (gals?) following the detailed examinations of the Muir report?? It's absolutely unbelievable and makes the claims in Richards piece seem ridiculous.
(though to be fair to richard he was probably writing after reading the summary/press release. It's a hell of a document to go through in such a small time)
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained #235, #245, #267.
first off, I'm not quite sure in which way aspects of operating system service provision to applications supposedly impact on our ability (or lack of) to construct algorithms modelling particular physical processes, anyway..
#235. "If a program is written for DOS it will not use any of the processors multi-core power (which need not be a limitation except the stack may overflow and crash the program unless floating point accuracy is substantially reduced which IS a consideration)."
(1) DOS was designed (and obsolete!) before multi-core CPUs were a physical reality.
(2) while reducing floating point accuracy may reduce the size of the stack -- ie only when you have floating point parameters or local floating point variables in your functions.
this has no bearing on the number of cores in your CPU.
#245. "The code will also need to contain 'stack' commands relative to the type of computer being used to avoid crashing unless it is very simple indeed (even with ANSI)."
but you as a highlevel programmer don't do that!! you (cross-)compile and link for a specific system -- machine architecture plus operating system.
besides, in the rare case where your application does need tuning, compilers and IDEs provide a plethora of option switches.
there's more but I really haven't the time..
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#274 labmunkey
What specifically are you referring to? I've been through it and haven't been able to find anything that can be described as 'absolutely unbelievable'. It is mostly just a polite rebuttal of "climategate" with the caveat that climate science needs to be more open and aware of public opinion. It also warns of the dangers of the blogosphere in that the unlearned opinions of amateurs can seemingly stand alongside the strong, peer reviewed claims of the experts, commenting that this is inevitable.
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained #267.
oh, and "Adjusting stack size [at runtime] to allow for this activity is potentially dangerous as it can inadvertently 'purchase' memory reserved for the operating system."
absolutely not, you -- the programmer -- use 'malloc()' (or whichever).
the onus is on you -- the programmer -- to obtain services via the published APIs.
Complain about this comment
@ 277
Specifically, and if i'm reading this right:
-it seems that Muir was not present at any of the interviews with jones et al, barring the initial press conference and that the questions were submitted by an old colleague of jones.
-that muir didn't get access to the backup server after finding it took too long' and did therefore not review any other emails barring a superficial look at a few of the 'climategate' ones - an explicit remit of his 'enquiry'
-the UEA legal team were directly advising the 'independant' review panel and Muir.
-jones was not asked any searching questions, specifically if 'he had deleted any emails'
-the review finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]“. yet everyone is given a 'all clear' from the review.
only got so far through it and i've been trying to read as many reviews (from both sides) as i can- but it's not exactly a... thorough piece of work.
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #279
I've already asked the same questions. Richard hasn't answered yet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/i_started_mondays_post_with.html#P98159322
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/i_started_mondays_post_with.html#P98171336
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/i_started_mondays_post_with.html#P98182667
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@ Lorax #271:
To the credit of contributors, this blog touches on many subjects. Sometimes discussion goes into climate science in some depth. When it does, those involved tend to use terminology that, although standard, others will be less familiar with. If these others find it hard to follow the more technical discussions, it's hardly the fault of those who are simply using the standard terminology.
When the discussion turns to matters of truth and belief, the nature of evidence, observation and testing in science, rational decision-making, etc., whether you like it or not we are discussing the epistemology of science. I try to avoid jargon, but occasionally have to use terminology that is standard in that field (such as 'hypothetico-deductive method', 'inductivism', 'foundationalism', etc.). When I am obliged to use such terms, I try to explain what they mean.
If you are unfamiliar with those terms, it seems to me that that is just as likely to be a symptom of your unfamiliarity with the epistemology of science as my lack of clarity. You would learn more if you took the trouble to find out for yourself what these issues involve instead of "shooting the messenger" by dismissing what I've been saying as "gnomic statements".
All the same, for my part I shall try harder to be clearer.
Complain about this comment
#178 Hotashes
Sorry these are the only internet links I've found for it so far:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RM4AahMTfxEC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=revenge+of+gaia+climate+forecasts+made+in+1988&source=bl&ots=K16TSNtSpl&sig=GdJzK9RBeBeU_dmLHWGL0Eg2YTc&hl=en&ei=9908TMaCCcLc4gbP5JzzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbplovelock.html
I would agree with a more conservative 0.2 to 0.3C rise per decade, but this is not far off.
Anybody want to dispute the huge subsidies given to fossil fuel industries? I think all the arguments against AGW are old-hat and the debate has moved on to what we should do about it.
Complain about this comment
#278 jr4412
Make up your mind please! Windows uses APIs. There are no APIs in a C console programme (and in some cases even when using C for Windows). There are functions in C and that is all. RAD uses components that are scoped into the compiled program by the framework compiler. These can be written in any language the RAD provider wishes to use.
Malloc() is a function that simply allocates main memory. It is seldom used by professional C programmers, since class declarations are automatically able to claim 'safe' memory (or crash gracefully if the machine is too small) when they are instanced. Functions will use much safer and more versatile ways of memory allocation than malloc() which simply takes everything down with it.
The subject is the stack which is outside the programmers direct control (it CANNOT be altered at run time!!!). What if there are too many functions on the stack, or the variables involved are precision heavy? It will overflow and crash the software and the OS. The stack depends on very limited space within the machines reserved upper memory allocation controlling the order of instructions passed to the registers; software always runs in 'safe' space, at least at kick off. The programmer cannot access stack size other than through a header to the main() function. C has a default stack size and very few programmers I have met actually know what the stack is, what its default size is, or how you vary the size. As I said before, RAD has a lot to answer for.
Within the programme the programmer has control over apportioning memory to class members and functions, variables within those classes and functions, releasing memory when it is no longer needed, and ensuring that the code is not too big to crash the machine straight off (which can and does happen with poorly constructed RAD designs i.e. most of them).
In Windows memory allocation is internally controlled and if the software runs out of memory, for whatever reason, it will crash and potentially bring down Windows with it, even with catch and throw. In a console good software will have catch and throw to bow out gracefully because the program will not run if it too big anyway (not true in Windows) and you'll get a command line error depending on the DOS.
Have you ever done any SERIOUS programming, because if you have, you really should understand what I have been writing about (before hand too)? Clearly you do not know what I have been writing about so why not say so? It wasn't about "you not understanding" or "me not expressing myself clearly" at all.
Not bad for 3.30am.....
Complain about this comment
@ 282 "Anybody want to dispute the huge subsidies given to fossil fuel industries? I think all the arguments against AGW are old-hat and the debate has moved on to what we should do about it."
Anybody want to dispute the staggering subsidies being given to green jobs/AGW research?
I think all the argumanets for AGW are old hat and that the debate has moved on to how we can repair the damage done to science and do some actual good for the environment.
See! we can both play this game!
Complain about this comment
worth a read by BOTH sides
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/calculating-global-temperature/#more-21841
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained #283.
"Not bad for 3.30am....."
let's see it in broad daylight then, shall we?
"There are no APIs in a C console programme (and in some cases even when using C for Windows). There are functions in C and that is all."
no, IO (via console) requires (standard) library functions, the library exposes the API through header files (like 'stdio.h').
functions are not part of the C language, the standard functions are supplied via one or more libraries.
"Malloc() is a function that simply allocates main memory."
yes.
"It is seldom used by professional C programmers, since class declarations are automatically able to claim 'safe' memory (or crash gracefully if the machine is too small) when they are instanced."
horses for courses, but you are right saying that malloc() is rarely used these days. I ought to have written "use one of the functions of the malloc family" instead of "use 'malloc()' (or whichever)".
"class declarations" in C?? perhaps you meant C++ (you did write in the small hours ;)).
"The subject is the stack which is outside the programmers direct control (it CANNOT be altered at run time!!!). ... The stack depends on very limited space within the machines reserved upper memory allocation controlling the order of instructions passed to the registers; software always runs in 'safe' space, at least at kick off. The programmer cannot access stack size other than through a header to the main() function."
so much depends, are we talking about statically or dynamically linked executables? will the dynamically linked executable be output in COFF? in ELF? how?
generally, in modern OSs the application's stack isn't an issue because of process isolation, ie you cannot (usually) crash "the OS" or other processes, unless you have the privileges.
to mess with an application's stack size/contents/location from C at runtime, I'd inline or link suitable assembly code (though I haven't done anything like that in 15 years or more. sigh..).
"Within the programme the programmer has control over apportioning memory ... releasing memory when it is no longer needed.."
while the programmer has control, there's less and less need (cf constructors/destructors, reference counts, garbage collectors).
"In Windows memory allocation is internally controlled and if the software runs out of memory, for whatever reason, it will crash and potentially bring down Windows with it, even with catch and throw."
sorry for asking (I do not program under Windows, last time I looked it didn't even provide true pipes): still? even on the Server 2008/10 versions?
"It wasn't about "you not understanding" or "me not expressing myself clearly" at all."
yes, I do find your particular mix of terminology very confusing (and, clearly, I'm not the only one), and no, not exclusively; ultimately, the repetition of "gobbledegook" (sic) was the impetus to ask you to clarify. :-)
in #207 you said "Consider the problem. ... we really do need an organic/biological computer AND fast", so I'll ask again: what have stacks or OSs to do with our ability (or lack of) to construct algorithms modelling particular physical processes?
"Not bad for 3.30am....."
hmm..
Complain about this comment
wrote:
Daisy Chained #207:we really do need an organic/biological computer AND fast
jr4412 #286: what have stacks or OSs to do with our ability (or lack of) to construct algorithms modelling particular physical processes?
I'm not following the earlier discussion, but what have algorithms and modeling to do with making a genuine biological/organic computer?
I gather that so far most "neural networks" are simulated or modeled by ordinary present-day computers using algorithms. But eventually they will make real networks, by linking up devices like artificial neurons, and "train them up", won't they?
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #287.
"I'm not following the earlier discussion, but what have algorithms and modeling to do with making a genuine biological/organic computer? I gather that so far most "neural networks" are simulated or modeled by ordinary present-day computers using algorithms. But eventually they will make real networks, by linking up devices like artificial neurons, and "train them up", won't they?"
I gather that Daisy Chained's argument is that our current models, even on the fastest h/ware, won't do, and that analogues of the chemical messengers and everything are needed to improve the simulations (see #193).
the argument then is that the computer has nothing to do with the algorithms and models (excepting time/cost contraints, that is, doing the calculations for a model by hand would be too slow/too expensive) and that our understanding, skille are lacking. and, fwiw, I'd agree.
but this then got lost in irrelevant (IMO) stuff, like (#207)"multi-cored PC processor", (#235)"the compiler's component objects", (#245)"strict ANSI coded executable will run on any basic I/O system", and what not.
add misuse/cavalier use of terminology and (I know you'll understand) I bit, sigh..
Complain about this comment
#286 jr4412
Daylight or night time, you really do not know what you are talking about, do you?
There are no APIs in C. Microsoft developed APIs for Windows in the eighties which was partly written in C. APIs are functions written by Microsoft to generate the Windows system. The APIs can be written in ANY language that supports functions.
Creating memory space in C does NOT require Malloc() or any derivative of it. C/C++/C# are a common family. C++ was a natural development of C when OOP became essential. C was already naturally modular and I have some OOP code from around 1987.
C cannot run without the 'main()' function because it is function based. The simplest program in C is ONE FUNCTION - main().
The libraries are C source code functions. Any function in a library can be adapted but it is still a function. You create your own libraries which is really what classes are. C++ did not herald classes it developed the ability to use inheritance, stricter OOP and reusable components (classes) . Frameworks (i.e. conversations with APIs) are NOT part of any C release and are not ANSI standard.
Any program can crash an OS, even an OS itself! It has nothing to do with privileges! It has to do with bugs those little things that programmers used to spend ages removing but sadly now are left to the user's temper. Principal bugs these days are poor programming - down to RAD.
Even assembler will not allow you to mess with the stack because assembler is still a dynamic - the assembler code would become part of the stack and would crash itself. Stack size adjustment can ONLY be made in the compiled object code and is NOT dynamic.
Algorithms are everything in sequential computer models - poor design means poor results, poor output, poor performance and poor efficiency. When you have to travel in a straight line you need to know how much of the scene you can take in before you are so distracted you crash (hence the 'half mouse brain event'). An organic or biological computer would remove that restriction but it would be hellishly complicated to program.... It terms of climate change it would provide appropriate models. Until then the models we have are, at best, ramshackle.
Complain about this comment
Daisy Chained #289.
"Daylight or night time, you really do not know what you are talking about, do you?"
er, well, please continue to educate me. fascinating stuff.
Complain about this comment
Richard wrote :
“ ….the accused come out of it generally rather well - honesty and rigour not in doubt.. “
I really don’t know how anybody could come to that conclusion.
Richard, did you read the “Rigour and Quality Assurance” section of Oral Evidence Number 0148, relating to the (only) interview with Prof. Phil Jones and Prof. Keith Briffa?
“It was noted that individual CRU researchers develop their own algorithms and
their own software to encode those algorithms. No systematic approach could
be evidenced to either peer review of algorithms or software either within or
outside the CRU. Retrieval of data sets, meta-data and documentation from
departing researchers appeared to be at best haphazard. When pressed on the
quality issues Prof. Jones noted that “one developed a feel for the data and
instinctively knew what was right”. There seemed to be little awareness that
development and testing of software has different characteristics to that for
physical systems. In physical systems, reasonable inferences can be made as to
correct operation by testing at specific points and interpolating between them.
That is not the case for software systems. A strong impression was given that
pressure on resources led to a very low priority being given to data indexing and archiving plus software development and testing.”
Animals mostly act out of instinctive behaviour. Humans, due to our particularly designed brain, act out of learned behaviour.
What does this say about the learning environment at CRU?
Complain about this comment
Back on topic... From The Atlantic, a very liberal magazine which might have been expected to be as slavishly apologetic on the latest whitewash as Richard, but just can't. The comments are also interesting.
Excerpt:
"I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709
Complain about this comment
@ CanadianRockies
That article sarcastically echoes words that have been uttered more than once right here in this blog: "you just can't satisfy these people."
Together with similar misgivings of Fred Pearce (in the Guardian), it's hard to escape the sense that the tide has turned.
What a shame that there is a sort of "tide" here, but that's groupthink for you. (And how satisfying it is to see that word becoming established in common usage, and indeed being used in that article.)
Complain about this comment
re:293 + 292.
I guess it's just increasingly difficult to back a position that has so thoroughly and so repeatedly shot itself in the foot.
The head (politicians, copenhagen/mexico) are desperatley ploughing forward little aware (or completely ignoring) the terminal issues with the body (cru, data, 'independant' reviews, gore).
It is very hard to take a review serious that doesn't even ask the most basic, pertinent question: did you delete the emails to prevent others seeing them and then fails to ACTUALLY CHECK the backup server to revify this.
It's pathetic. Why is the establishment SO afraid of performing a thorough, INDEPENDANT (i.e. an old colleague and friend of jones' shouldn't be on the panel) and balanced review??? Don't they understand that by passing these 'whitewashes' off as clear exoneration, that they only make themselves look worse??!?
Complain about this comment
#286 jr4412
283 Daisy Chained .
"... Malloc() is ..."
Malloc() is something I certainly never expected to see on an environmental blog!, old friend and enemy I know it well.. AI is such a complex application that it needs a custom heap system, object hunks and hunk encapsulation is something that still almost gives nightmares. For what I was working on C++'s whole encapsulation and typing system was bolted on the wrong way round, square peg round hole, round peg square hole.
Complain about this comment
As some of you may have noticed already, I never made a big deal about Climategate, or any other "-gate". I use the word 'trick' myself quite often, and quite innocently. My problem with climate science goes much deeper (and wider) than complaints about the personal conduct of a few academics.
However, the "show trial" nature of repeated inquiries -- and the eagerness of politicians and (some) journalists to turn a blind eye to their obvious failures -- strikes me as pretty troubling. Blind eyes have been turned to blind eyes! It is good that some journalists who are sympathetic to climate science are beginning to open their eyes at last.
Complain about this comment
#287 bowmanthebard
"
Daisy Chained #207:'we really do need an organic/biological computer AND fast'
jr4412 #286: 'what have stacks or OSs to do with our ability (or lack of) to construct algorithms modelling particular physical processes?'
I'm not following the earlier discussion, but what have algorithms and modeling to do with making a genuine biological/organic computer?"
Firstly organic computers could never compete with silicon computers, on a DNA level at least. The person who came up with that idea didn't understand computers- which are now also a thousand times faster than when he said it. Even brains are left behind on basic computation grunt, its the way our brains work that makes them better. A human brain can do about 10 million to 10 billion calculations per second (estimated by measuring the visual cortex). The fastest computers can do about 10 million times more (over 1 Petaflop 1,000,000,000,000,000). The brain is about as computationally powerful as a modern PC.
"I gather that so far most "neural networks" are simulated or modeled by ordinary present-day computers using algorithms. But eventually they will make real networks, by linking up devices like artificial neurons, and "train them up", won't they?"
Bowman neural networks are not models, they are an "information equivalent" of the real thing. The neural network algorithm 'runs' the network in a computer memory but the network itself is the real thing.
Genetic algorithms are the same, a computer algorithm 'runs' the genetic model, but the model itself is real genuine evolution. The great power of genetic computing is that it can solve problems like magic without the need for algorithms or understanding - its like pulling rabbits out of a hat. (I've used it)
Complain about this comment
#297 Robert Lucien wrote:
neural networks are not models, they are an "information equivalent" of the real thing.
You have a dismally confused understanding of what "information" is, to say nothing of what a "model" is. "Information" is not a ghostly immaterial version of physical stuff!
Complain about this comment
#296. bowmanthebard wrote:
"As some of you may have noticed already, I never made a big deal about Climategate, or any other "-gate"."
Actually it is very well named, in the tradition of the original "gate," which was Watergate, the scandal that brought down Nixon. That too started with some of the operatives getting caught doing political 'dirty tricks' whic then opened the door for exposing things much larger. It is the same thing here. Those emails didn't reveal the actual flaws with the AGW scientific case but just brought more investigation and what was found, thanks to Climategate, was no longer simply smeared away with calls that the debate was over and that anyone who would question things was a denier.
And, as in the original Watergate, the attempts to cover things up just made things worse... or better, depending on how one sees it. From my perspective, these whitewashes have been marvellous.
Complain about this comment
#297 Robert Lucien
Well first, Mr Lucien, we have a very, very, very limited and rudimentary understanding of how 'brains' work as superbly illustrated by your illogical posting. The Blue Gene L, set against a half mouse brain running at one tenth normal speed, a very powerful supercomputer failed to keep up for one real time second, not because it didn't have grunt but because everyone of its exceedingly 'grunt-worthy' processors could only deal with one instruction at a time. That is why it collapsed - nothing to with speed, power, engineering perfection, programmer perfection, just the natural finesse of half a mouse brain, the key word being 'natural'.
Artificial intelligence does not exist. What exists is cold raw speed of adding up which our silicon chips do ever so well. Our brains do a little more than adding up or creating superlatives, well most do anyway. Train a very large group of school-kids to pull a lever on an analogue adding machine at precisely the right moments in the correct sequences and you'd have a super computer run on human power. Better still teach them to use an abacus. It still wouldn't provide you with an answer to the question you seek though and a silicon computer is not what you think it is, or should be.
As Douglas Adam's wrote - '42'.
Complain about this comment
#297 "The great power of genetic computing is that it can solve problems like magic without the need for algorithms or understanding - its like pulling rabbits out of a hat. (I've used it)"
Mmmmm. Doesn't someone have to put the rabbit in the hat before it can be 'pulled out'?
Complain about this comment
#299 CanadianRockies wrote:
Actually it is very well named, in the tradition of the original "gate,"
And furthermore, it "opened the floodgates" to further revelations about dodgy practices. It's the gift that keeps giving!
Complain about this comment
To me there's nothing hidden that would materially change any conclusions. The review showed more openness is needed so there's no hint of suspicion, that's fine. The sceptics know they can't argue with the fundamental laws of physics, so instead, seek evidence of some nefarious conspiracy between eco-looneys, tax hungry governments (how many "green taxes" did Osborne raise, BTW?), venal, grant hungry scientists (how many scientists win Nobel prizes by maintaining the status quo?), global corporations (including oil companies!) etc despite the obvious fact that such a conspiracy would fall apart by its own contradictions very quickly.
I suggest sceptics (or more usefully those on the fence) check out http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_mgmt.aspx
Complain about this comment
Robert Lucien #295.
"malloc() ... old friend and enemy"
yes, and you're right, the debate at this point was well OT.
mortice rigger #301.
"Doesn't someone have to put the rabbit in the hat before it can be 'pulled out'?"
with genetic algorithms you to put some of the key parts of "the rabbit in the hat" and 'evolve' them; if all goes well, after many iterations ('generations') something rabbit-like will emerge.
for instance, you could google 'genetic algorithm robot walking', there are some nice examples out there (some with good visuals).
Complain about this comment
Re: Genetic Algorithms.
One of my favourite demonstrations of the power of the genetic algorithm was the subject of a New Scientist Article back in 1997 titled:
"Creatures from primordial silicon" (preview available, full article behind paywall)
The gist of the research was:
"Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited [Field Programmable Gate Arrays running a genetic algorithm to] evolve a device that could... distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".
This aim was achieved within 3000 generations... The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working."
Complain about this comment
#304 cont'd.
hm, that wasn't well put, again then:
with genetic algorithms you put some of the key parts of what makes a rabbit "in the hat", these are combined and re-combined iteratively, after each iteration ('generation') you throw away the 'evolutionary dead-ends' and, eventually, you wind up with something rabbit-like.
Complain about this comment
Dave_oxon #305 wrote:
evolve a device that could... distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".
This reminds me of a wonderfully clear exposition of neural networks in a brilliant book: Matter and Consciousness by Paul Churchland (my fave rave living philosopher, apart from myself). His illustrative example involves a network on a submarine distinguishing between the sonar echo of a rock and a mine.
How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit.
He should read Churchland!
Complain about this comment
bomanthebard #307.
"He [Churchland] concludes from this that the postulated entities of folk psychology, namely propositional attitudes such as beliefs and desires, do not exist." (emphasis added)
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/churchland.html
I can see why you'd find Churchland's views attractive.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#308 jr4412 wrote:
"He [Churchland] concludes from this that the postulated entities of folk psychology, namely propositional attitudes such as beliefs and desires, do not exist." (emphasis added)
When I was an undergraduate student, that idea -- it's called "eliminative materialism" -- struck me as spot-on. Later, I realized it was wrong, but it was wrong in a very instructive way. Even now, in middle age, I still think it is half right. But it's a long story.
I can see why you'd find Churchland's views attractive.
Yes -- Churchland remains an incredibly clear writer and a joyously exciting, playful thinker. I read something he wrote recently on colour, and in my opinion he hasn't lost any of his former depth.
Complain about this comment
Did Muir Russell Misrepresent the Facts on the "Delete All Emails" Email?
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/22/blatant-misrepresentation-by-muir-russell-panel/
"chapter 10 paragraph 28
There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made.
Two e-mails from Jones to Mann on 2nd February 2005 (1107454306.txt) and 29th May 2008 (in 1212063122.txt) relate to deletion
2nd February 2005:
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
29th May 2008:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise”.
David Holland had submitted an FOI request (denoted by UEA as 08-31) on May 27, 2008, only two days prior to the “delete any emails” request.
The next day, Jones emailed FOI officers Palmer and McGarvie and Briffa and Osborn stating that “Keith [Briffa] should say” that the back-channel Wahl-Briffa correspondence didn’t exist. The following day (May 29), Jones sent the notorious email (1212063122.txt) to Mann and Briffa famously asking them to “delete any emails” with Briffa regarding AR4, saying that they planned to also ask Ammann, and asking Mann to contact Wahl to delete his emails.
The incident had also drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Committee, who stated that the importance of a “conclusive resolution” of the resolution meant that the incident should be “thoroughly investigated” regardless of the time bar:
There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000"
Anything comment Richard or perhaps you could investigate further to show that Muir Russell may or may not have misrepresented the facts?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS