Climate body seeks new wardrobe
IPCC plenary meeting in Busan: The future of the world's climate science authority is being decided behind the glass and steel facade of a modern conference centre in South Korea's second city.
The BEXCO centre's principal event this week is the Busan International Footwear and Textile Fashion Show.
But the Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is also in residence for its annual plenary meeting.
And while designers and seamstresses make last-minute adjustments to their creations in one part of the centre, in another, climate scientists and government delegates are deciding reforms aimed at re-clothing the IPCC in some of lustre that it flaunted at the time of its last assessment report in 2007, but which in some people's eyes has largely rubbed off over the last year.
The erroneous melting date for Himalayan glaciers, allegations of conflict of interest against chairman Rajendra Pachauri, flawed and inconsistent treatment of scientific uncertainties... these and other issues were held by some to mean that the emperor was either clad in disreputable rags, or wore no clothes at all.
Successive reports, notably by the Dutch government, have found nothing to challenge the basic picture of a warming world that the IPCC and many other scientific bodies have painted in recent times - whatever the findings may have been about the behaviour of some individual scientists.
Yet this isn't enough; and IPCC chiefs know it.
As the body charged with assembling and collating data and projections for the international community, they know it has to be rigorous in its methodologies and beyond reproach in its governance - and seen to be so.
Governments know it too; after all, they're paying for it.
Hence the UN decision earlier this year to commission a review of the IPCC from the InterAcademy Council, an umbrella body joining many of world's science academies.
We've reported on the conclusions and recommendations before, so I won't go into them again in detail here.
In parallel, IPCC committees had also begun to consider some of the same issues - such as how to make the treatment of scientific uncertainty more consistent, and how to deal with potential conflicts of interest.
And Busan is where all of this comes out for debate. Internal and external recommendations alike are being discussed, with the aim of reaching at least some conclusions by the time the meeting wraps up on Thursday evening.
All the documents being discussed are on the IPCC site, and prominently so - perhaps one small sign of a desire to appear more open than in the past.
The key documents are the responses from governments to the IAC report. (They're in two documents because not all governments met the initial deadline.)
As with many other international organisations, national governments set the IPCC's agenda, make the decisions and hold the purse-strings; so they will get what they want out of this.
You can see that not everything the IAC recommends will necessarily sail through.
For example, the Czech Republic appears to be adamant in its response that the use of "grey literature" - studies and reports that do not appear in peer-reviewed journals - must be eliminated.
Other governments point out that much "grey literature" comes from sources that suggest it'll be thoroughly and properly done - reports from government agencies, UN institutions, academic institutions - and that in some areas, there is very little peer-reviewed material to use.
On the issue of IPCC management, too, there are different ideas.
The IAC recommended the introduction of an executive director - a senior figure who would effectively become the manager with day-to-day responsibility for running things properly - and an executive board empowered to make decisions when they had to be made quickly.
But some governments here are asking what the point is, and whether it's necessary to introduce a new layer of management.
It's perhaps extraordinary that in an issue where the stakes are so high, the establishment of a single management post in a tiny secretariat should become an object for wrangling over - but there we are.
There's clearly a lot to get through in the four days; and delegates I've spoken to are wondering just how much can be achieved.
There are many familiar faces here, diplomats who also represent their countries at UN climate convention (UNFCCC) meetings (and a lot more besides).
Some are hot-foot from Tianjin in China, where the last round of UNFCCC talks has just ended.
According to some accounts, they've brought the politics with them, and the industrialised-versus-developing-country and US-v-China rivalries that represent the past and present of the UNFCCC are playing out here as well.
We'll see. Others here talk of a constructive atmosphere, and a common belief that to leave here with nothing changed would be a serious dereliction.
Doubtless, not all of the seams will be stitched in Busan - some will require a good amount of detailed attention and a report back at a later date.
But everyone agrees that after 20 years, the original wardrobe is looking a bit dated, and something has to change.
The key question is how much of a revamp the politics will allow - and whether frustrations stemming from within the UN climate convention will yet deposit a nasty stain on the garment being put together here.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
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.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The IPCC needs to move on from blaming CO2. It is a failed hypothesis and as soon as this is recognised the sooner the IPCC can focus on the right targets and not waste its time and energy.
Complain about this comment
In the clothing industry fashions can last just weeks but in science fashions last about 25 years. I suggest that the IPCC clothe itself in something more workman like, something less suited to exotic foreign holidays.
Complain about this comment
fashion week and IPCC
the emperor's new clothes?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Interesting post Richard, i for one will be facinated to see wha they attempt to do with the organisation.
Few points to pick you up on
"As with many other international organisations, national governments set the IPCC's agenda, make the decisions and hold the purse-strings; so they will get what they want out of this"
Does this sentence not strike you as worrying Richard? To an impartial viewer it would seem to suggest that if the IPCC did not behave as the governements wanted that it would loose it's funding.
Certianly to an organistaion that pertains to be impartial and evaluate and report the current science impartially it would seem to be not only a glaring conflict on interest, but also a sign of overt bias and potential corruption.
"Other governments point out that much "grey literature" comes from sources that suggest it'll be thoroughly and properly done - reports from government agencies, UN institutions, academic institutions - and that in some areas, there is very little peer-reviewed material to use."
One has to wonder when the justification for using grey literature is because there is insufficent scientific literature to support ones position.
Again, to a scientist this would suggest that the facts, data and reality of the situation are refusing to play ball. I.e. the real-world is not meeting the predictions.
Any future IPCC report that relies heavily on grey literature in ANY way will be ripped apart mercilessly. They MUST know that the eyes of the ENTIRE scientific community are on them.
Additionally, i'd like Richard or the other 'warmisits' to address points raised in the last post of the alst thread, before it was closed (mid interesting discussion i might add):
How can we have confidence in the global temperature records (that we rely on for there to be ANY issue over cAGW) when there is data included that simply doesnt exist, i.e. ALL of bolivia, most of the Arctic and various other regions- which all coincidentally appear as MASSIVE hotspots on the temperature maps, vastly skewing the data.
Finally, specifically at Richard- why have you not reported the New Zealand court case surrounding the FALSIFIED data that i believe was included in the last IPCC report. Data that made the basis for the southern hemispheric conclusions.... It would seem to be quite an important story. Official data that has been deliberatley falsified. Even on it's own it's important, given the current (appaling) state of climate science, it's just another worrying revelation.
Complain about this comment
just picking up on LabMunkey's post:
What effect will the US Republican party's decision to dismiss AGW as false on the IPCC. Will the US government withdraw support for the IPCC? I doubt it, but there may be repercussions
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Richard, I am not sure that the issues you mention here are the ones that the IPCC SHOULD be debating. As you know, Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, has just resigned from the American Physical Society after 67 years of membership.
This is the reason he gives for his departure: "It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
This is the problem that the IPCC faces. Hal Lewis is a hugely respected senior scientist. The details in his resignation letter about the (alleged) acceptance of corruption as the norm are shocking.
You see, from the skeptic's point of view the discussion about the SCIENCE of AGW is virtually over. Most skeptics that I know or read about believe that Man should reduce harmful emissions where possible but that the case for CO2 as a dangerous greenhouse gas on the verge of precipitating a catastrophic rise in average global temperatures is ridiculously overblown.
The possibility that scientific bodies and Governments may be deliberately misleading the public, however, is far more serious. it is potentially disastrous for the public's faith in the integrity of scientists and their democratic institutions.
I am sorry to say that it is also another potential nail in the coffin of what the blogosphere refers to MSM - mainstream media. So far, with the noble exception of the Telegraph, I have not seen a single mention of Hal Lewis' resignation in the media. A respected scientist blowing the gaff on "the most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist" and it is not newsworthy!?
These are the some of the issues that the IPCC should be getting to grips with, not housekeeping. As the BBC appears not to tolerate the mention of any news that reveals the true nature of the AGW scam, I suspect that my posting will not be allowed by the moderator. But I hope that he/she at least passes it on to you so that you can ponder these things in your heart.
Complain about this comment
These blogs have been over run by climate saboteurs, I would have expected better of the BBC.
Complain about this comment
#7. Wolfiewoods wrote:
These blogs have been over run by climate saboteurs, I would have expected better of the BBC.
They certainly seem to have all the time God gives to write and post long and repetitive tracts of speculation and general unsubstantiated opinion.
Me, I have a job of work to do so unfortunately I don't have the time to come up with a detailed response to everything.
However, my main comment to you, arising out of stuff you posted on the last thread, is that you do your position no good at all by recommending censorship. Unfortunately that tends to support (unjustified) accusations that greens - and apparently by extension anybody who thinks we should prepare for the possibility of climate change - are some kind of neo-fascist.
Just answer the points made politely every time. Even though, I know, its like trying to kill zombies.
Complain about this comment
#4 LabMunkey wrote:
Does this sentence not strike you as worrying Richard? To an impartial viewer it would seem to suggest that if the IPCC did not behave as the governements wanted that it would loose it's funding.
Remind me again, Lab
Why do you think any government would want to put an immense amount of time and money into dealing with this issue?
Complain about this comment
@Wolfiewoods
If you're not happy about this, you're going to be even less happy shortly. The BBC have been told that they are not treating Climate Studies impartially and that, that situation has to change.
You'll be seeing much, much more of us in the future ;-)
I just love it when a plan comes together.
Still back to the topic at hand:
As I've said before the only way forwards for the IPCC is to come back to the debating table, abandon consensus and the grey literature and above all to encourage all it's scientific participants to publish, publish, publish.
Obviously, making sure that you can make your source data and methods available as and when requested ;-)
Plus, getting rid of a certain railway engineer might deflect some of the criticism.
Regards,
One of the (Don't say we didn't tell you) Lobby
Complain about this comment
The erroneous melting date for Himalayan glaciers, allegations of conflict of interest against chairman Rajendra Pachauri, flawed and inconsistent treatment of scientific uncertainties... these and other issues were held by some to mean that the emperor was either clad in disreputable rags, or wore no clothes at all.
Interesting set of examples, Richard
(i) the only specific and unarguable error anybody has found in the 3000 page report
(ii) Allegations against a man who was felt to be "acceptable" after Bob Watson had been removed after pressure from the US administration at the time. That is, a man who was not seen as a threat by the then US administration. Perhaps a man who was already known to be vulnerable to said accusations.
(iii) "flawed and inconsistent treatment of scientific uncertainties" but no links to any specific instances
When it comes down to it, there really isn't very much there. But if people repeat those few things often enough and loudly enough, they can come to seem typical ....
Complain about this comment
The key question should be - What is the lowest price we can do this for and still get the job done efficiently? Any ideas Ed? It will be rather ironic if the cost of revamping creates a massive carbon footprint. 'MAKE DO AND MEND' (like us oiks are continuously being told to do). 'A STITCH IN TIME SAVES NINE.' Perhaps they could try the new spray on clothing. Remember (years ago) the paper pants fashion craze? We now have genetic engineering where mixing unlike organisms appears to be a goal, so why not swap half the fashion team with half the climate team and see what new creations can be mutated.
Paul Butler
I didn't know you were a zombie slayer.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler
"They certainly seem to have all the time God gives to write and post long and repetitive tracts of speculation and general unsubstantiated opinion."
That's a very interesting response from someone that's just made a number of posts in very quick succession.
Twiddling our thumbs, are we?
As to unsubstantiated bit, I don't think that's true at all. You might not like the evidence that's often provided and quoted, but I don't think you can call it unsubstantiated. It's not like your side of the argument don't link to real climate and the rest.
Plus, the manic censoring of Wikipedia by a certain JC doesn't help your cause if you're trying to look non-fascist.
All in all, it would seem that the consensus, what's left of it is in pretty big trouble.
So, I'm not sure the IPCC has any real alternatives left to it, it has to re-enter the debate, it has acknowledge the uncertainties, it has to stop using dodgy sources, members of it have to stop using phrases, like "Voodoo Science" and above all it’s members have to start doing proper science, at least science as the rest of us would understand it.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
@ 9
Paul.
Well first you'll have to remind me why ANY of the current actions ANY of the governments will make ANY difference whatsoever (this is not to say actions could not be made that would work, only that the current ones won't. at all. by a long shot).
Before responding to this point i'd ask you to research it properly. See what the IPCC predictions are for the reduction of man-made co2 by 2050 for example, the overall reduction in atmospheric co2 this would achieve and the estimate economic cost associated with it.
Then ponder the benefits of the carbon trading scheme. If you can explain to me how that will work in the way that ACTUALLY reduces co2 emissions, i'd be greatful.
@wolfie #7 and paul (on the same subject).
The skeptic opinions are becoming more frequent not due to any large disinformation campaign, but due to the increasing and damaging 'revelations' that are being discovered week after week wrt the cAGW pscience.
As paul suggests, try responding to the points we raise instead of just trying to promote censorship. How would you like it if i argued for your sencorship just because i disagreed with you??
Specifically, paul and wolfie- what are your takes on the New Zealand data issue and the ramifications for climate science?
To poorley paraphrase a great quote-
" i may not like what you have to say sir, however i will defend to the death, you right to say it."
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler
And,
"(ii) Allegations against a man who was felt to be "acceptable" after Bob Watson had been removed after pressure from the US administration at the time. That is, a man who was not seen as a threat by the then US administration. Perhaps a man who was already known to be vulnerable to said accusations."
What's that got to do with anything? It sounds as if you're trying to whip up some sort of conspiracy to me ;-)
Regards,
One of the (Starting to get a little crowded in here) Lobby
Complain about this comment
@ 11
"When it comes down to it, there really isn't very much there. But if people repeat those few things often enough and loudly enough, they can come to seem typical ...."
Pretty much sums up the whole cAGW theory there.
NO causal link with co2 and temp, no idea on feedbacks, no idea on climate sensitivity and suspect data.
Anything specific in that last sentence you'd care to argue?
Complain about this comment
#14. LabMunkey wrote:
Then ponder the benefits of the carbon trading scheme. If you can explain to me how that will work in the way that ACTUALLY reduces co2 emissions, i'd be greatful.
I don't support the carbon trading scheme, at least not in the way its being implemented. It looks me like a bribe to bring the main industrial polluters on board. Possibly its designed to work properly later, but (a) there's no guarantee that will happen and (b) it might be too late.
Specifically, paul and wolfie- what are your takes on the New Zealand data issue and the ramifications for climate science?
If somebody has been adjusting data for any reason other than justified homogenization, that's disgraceful and the person should resign (they already have, haven't they?). As for the "ramifications for climate science", probably none. But let's wait and see what difference it makes if the data turn out to be wrong and the readjusted data are put in the models. My personal opinion is that it would make no perceptible difference to the global picture.
Complain about this comment
#16. LabMunkey wrote:
NO causal link with co2 and temp, no idea on feedbacks, no idea on climate sensitivity and suspect data.
Anything specific in that last sentence you'd care to argue?
Yes, but no time right now. Hopefully I can come back to that later. Although I don't suppose I'd tell you anything you haven't heard a million times already and apparently found wanting!
Complain about this comment
@ 18
always open to being proved wrong. look forward to reading it.
Complain about this comment
19. At 5:12pm on 13 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
always open to being proved wrong. look forward to reading it.
lol
Complain about this comment
# 15. blunderbunny wrote:
" ... Perhaps a man who was already known to be vulnerable to said accusations."
What's that got to do with anything? It sounds as if you're trying to whip up some sort of conspiracy to me ;-)
Yeah well its the US government, innit?
Complain about this comment
@Wolfiewoods #7
LOL. Especially from you.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler
@blunderbunny
@LabMunkey
OK, on previous occasions I have tried to draw attention to the way Wolfie's opinion on whether AGW is true changes drastically during the course of 24 hours but he will still cut-and-paste from his earlier posts from months back. And his subtle dig at James Hansen, based on a common sceptic misunderstanding about Hansen's 1988 testimony, in one of them.
But as an alternative I'm going to introduce you to / remind you of his namesake, Wolfie Smith. Wolfie Smith is the title character in "Citizen Smith". The creation of writer John Sullivan and portrayed by Robert Lindsay. The leader of the ineffectual leftie revolutionary group the Tooting Popular Front. http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/citizensmith/index.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA
Sullivan went on to create and write "Only Fools and Horses".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onlyfools/
Lindsay portrayed another failure of a leftie, Michael Murray, in "GBH", and currently portrays the (politically conventional) father, Ben Harper, in long running sitcom "My Family"
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/gbh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/myfamily/cast/
So perhaps sceptics can stop taking offence at Wolfie. He isn't offensive.
Complain about this comment
I disagree, Jane. Wolfiewoods is not Wolfiw Smith. By trying to close down free speech Wolfiwoods is highly offensive to us all
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #24
There are serious inconsistencies in Wolfie's previous posts on AGW. He vacillates from on the one hand using terms like "denier" and saying "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is the biggest threat facing mankind" and saying "the debate really is setteled [sic]". And on the other hand saying "As more negative news emerges about the case for warming" and "Like many, my previous certainty regarding anthropogenic climate change has been shaken by recent revelations". And some of these different positions are on the same day, but sometimes cut and pasted from months back.
He also reused the Hansen 1988 booby trap from one of his earlier posts after I tripped it. A real warmist would have reworded the relevant text to avoid misunderstandings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/04/climate_party_loses_its_guests.html#P95460792
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/06/whats_up_with_the_weather.html#P97806553
And by the way the phrase "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change" is your sceptic put down for us warmists. It isn't warmist language, except when moderate warmists are debunking or denouncing it.
So I don't believe he is trying to close down free speech. And I repeat, you need to look at the similarities with Wolfie Smith before you decide to take offence at Woods.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#16. At 4:31pm on 13 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
NO causal link with co2 and temp, no idea on feedbacks, no idea on climate sensitivity and suspect data.
Anything specific in that last sentence you'd care to argue?
OK friends, let's deal with these one at a time
(a)no causal link with co2 and temp
I think in this case, you need to come back and remind me why you think CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas - or at any rate isn't a sufficiently strong gas to have an effect. Otherwise I'll just rehash the radiative properties of gases, which I'm sure everybody will find very boring and is probably OT
(b)no idea on feedbacks or climate sensitivity
Well, I'd say they don't have sufficiently specific models of feedbacks (which is not quite the same as "no idea"). See here, where IPCC discusses the reasons for the spread of climate sensitivities in the various models
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
and here, where the relationship between CO2 and climate during the glacial cycles are discussed
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html
Note in particular the end of that section, which explicitly accepts that a lot of work needs to be done
"In conclusion, the explanation of glacial-interglacial CO2 variations remains a difficult attribution problem. It appears likely that a range of mechanisms have acted in concert (e.g., Köhler et al., 2005). The future challenge is not only to explain the amplitude of glacial-interglacial CO2 variations, but the complex temporal evolution of atmospheric CO2 and climate consistently. "
So you may take that to mean they have no idea, whereas I take the whole of that section to mean that there are plenty of ideas, just not enough precision or resolution to integrate them.
(c) suspect data
The point here is that there is so much data, from so many heterogenous sources, that some of it is bound to be wrong. In fact quite a lot of it is bound to be wrong. But the errors themselves are heterogeneous in origin and will tend to cancel out (Don't believe everything you read on WUWT! or alternatively, don't believe that what you read on WUWT is everything).
The problem here is that the fact that there are a lot of errors means that there is plenty of scope for people with an interest in arguing against the standard AGW science to identify the subset of errors which appear to support their position and then .... let's just say .... talk about them a lot
Complain about this comment
24. At 6:31pm on 13 Oct 2010, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
I disagree, Jane. Wolfiewoods is not Wolfiw Smith. By trying to close down free speech Wolfiwoods is highly offensive to us all
But is he trying to close down free speech, or is he just pretending to be somebody who wants to close down free speech?
If that sounded confused its because I'm confused
Complain about this comment
sensiblegrannie #12 wrote:
Paul Butler
I didn't know you were a zombie slayer.
There's no such thing! When he knocks us over the head with a shovel, we reel backwards briefly -- but then we inexorably get back up again, and stagger slowly but relentlessly forwards, arms outstretched, eyes all big and starey... It'll never stop! Never, do you hear me?
As one of those "undead" types, I'd like to ask a question about the "birth" of a hypothesis. It has been claimed, by Paul Butler among others, that scientific hypotheses typically begin life by being "based" on observation. Well, I can't think of any examples, not in mainstream science anyway.
Can anyone think of an example? -- The key word here is 'based'!
Complain about this comment
@MangoChutneyUKOK #24
(@Paul Butler #27)
OK, confused. Don't know what was wrong with my #25 link to the definition of Poe's Law.
So in case somewhere in the text the language was too strong, here's the short version.
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
Complain about this comment
But is he trying to close down free speech, or is he just pretending to be somebody who wants to close down free speech?
I think she's pretending to be somebody who wants to close down free speech, but I can't bring myself to believe she really wants to open up free speech so much as discredit cagwists.
Complain about this comment
28. At 7:20pm on 13 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
sensiblegrannie #12 wrote:
Paul Butler
I didn't know you were a zombie slayer.
There's no such thing! When he knocks us over the head with a shovel, we reel backwards briefly -- but then we inexorably get back up again, and stagger slowly but relentlessly forwards, arms outstretched, eyes all big and starey... It'll never stop! Never, do you hear me?
ROFL
As one of those "undead" types, I'd like to ask a question about the "birth" of a hypothesis. It has been claimed, by Paul Butler among others, that scientific hypotheses typically begin life by being "based" on observation. Well, I can't think of any examples, not in mainstream science anyway.
No no its not you that's undead (hopefully ;-)) its (some of) the arguments
Anyway, let me try to guess where you're coming from. Are you saying that I won't be able to think up any hypothesis that is entirely based on observation? And that hypotheses are in fact derived from the existing body of science plus a bit of observation. Or maybe are just a reinterpretation of the existing body which can then be verified by observations.
Come to think of it, that actually looks better than what you say I said earlier
Complain about this comment
#29 JaneBasingstoke
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
Quite. Online you have to assume the statement is genuine unless the writer explicitly indicates otherwise.
So even if Wolfie the person sitting at his/her computer is trying to 'fool' me, I can't actually be 'fooled' because the only thing I know about Wolfie is that statement (and let's assume I haven't got time - as you have done so admirably - to trawl back through previous postings).
But does Poe's Law only apply to fundamentalism?
By the way (I read this in an interview recently, you might have done as well), Craig Brown the parodist has written a book in the form of diary entries, each entry being a parody of a different writer. Apparently he includes "parodies" that are not parodies at all, flagging them as April 1st. Otherwise I wonder if you could tell the difference.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard
Wolfiewoods has been explicit about the Citizen Smith connection. Perhaps the individual behind the Wolfiewoods persona (who I think has a masculine voice) thinks this makes the situation obvious.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/05/ipcc_review_friend_or_foe.html#P96228867
Perhaps.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler
I haven't so much spent time trawling back through previous postings as noticed issues with Wolfie's earliest postings. The subtle dig at Hansen in 1988, which after I tripped it I then had to debunk. The cut-and-pastes and near cut-and-pastes of his earlier posts. The initial unresponsiveness until I challenged him on that unresponsiveness.
Now I don't mind a bit of satire. These threads can be too serious, and satire can make good and relevant points. But I do mind it when other people take satire and sarcasm too literally.
Complain about this comment
There is no need for the IPCC to have a make over just to appeal to the masses, we know what needs to be done and we know that it is urgent, we should just do it and if the proverbial bloke down the pub' doesn’t like it then he should just be ignored.
Complain about this comment
I dunno Jane... It's awful hard for a genuine satirist to have a closing but not an opening quotation mark. I'd say Wolfiewoods must be one hell of a tough lady.
Complain about this comment
28. At 7:20pm on 13 Oct 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:
"It has been claimed, by Paul Butler among others, that scientific hypotheses typically begin life by being "based" on observation. Well, I can't think of any examples, not in mainstream science anyway.
Can anyone think of an example? -- The key word here is 'based'!"
............................
.
Once upon a time, Mr Newton was sitting under this tree.....
.
Adam observed the apple and debated "Well if I'm wrong, we still have the Garden".
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Jane, I forgot the 'winky smily thing'
G. x
Complain about this comment
@GeoffWard
@bowmanthebard
@sensiblegrannie
"can't think of any examples, not in mainstream science anyway"
Apart from Newton's Universal Gravitation (not just the apple, but also Kepler's observation based laws), there is of course Darwin's Natural Selection. From Darwin's "The Voyage of the Beagle" about Galapagos tortoises
"I have not as yet noticed by far the most remarkable feature in the natural history of this archipelago; it is, that the different islands to a considerable extent are inhabited by a different set of beings. My attention was first called to this fact by the Vice-Governor, Mr. Lawson, declaring that the tortoises differed from the different islands, and that he could with certainty tell from which island any one was brought."
(note, this text appears to date from the 1845 version)
(note, always good to be able to trot this one out for creationists)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3704/3704-8.txt
@GeoffWard
"winky smily thing"
;-)
x
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #39 wrote:
Apart from Newton's Universal Gravitation (not just the apple, but also Kepler's observation based laws)
I repeat: based. Maybe think about it a bit more!
Complain about this comment
My heart goes out to the folks trying to reform. But I'm afraid there is little chance for the "shiny" and authoritative organization they wish for, and we need.
The problem is simple; and un-comprehended. The academics believe; with religious fervor, in the power of reason. The opponents- couldn't care less about reason, and demonstrate daily its irrelevance.
Human moods are not much moved by reason- as all history shows us; yet the mAcademics persist in their fiercely played chess game- while the Denialoons refuse to play chess at all- they just respond by boxing.
Until the mAcademics learn to box; and there is no sign they know they need or, or can; the Denialoons only need to call names repeatedly, to make the masses doubt.
Complain about this comment
@Greenpa
Let's get a couple of things straight:
1) The name callers and the ad hominem attackers are most firmly entrenched on your side of the argument. You've only got to ask Judith Curry about that. By the way that's really not one of the ways in which you normally win a scientific argument. Generally, when you resort to that it's because you've already lost and before you try tell me that I'm wrong, may I humbly draw your attention to just one of the many words (obviously, I'm using "word" in its loosest and most liberal sense) in your post "Denialoons"
Would you like to explain to the rest of us how that's not offensive?
2) In my experience the reasonable and academic ones are mostly on this(my) side of the argument, whilst the ones displaying the aberrant behavioural patterns and an ignorance (being very kind here) of best or even normal scientific practices are on yours.
So, I think that you might need to brush up on your own sparring technique :-)
But thanks for popping by, it’s good to see that the Internet is such an inclusive place.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler
Terribly sorry to trouble you old chap, but this
"(c) suspect data
The point here is that there is so much data, from so many heterogenous sources, that some of it is bound to be wrong. In fact quite a lot of it is bound to be wrong. But the errors themselves are heterogeneous in origin and will tend to cancel out "
Is just, simply, frankly and succinctly, rubbish..... Note: No smiley or grinny face of any description.
I'd just like you to answer a very simple question:
So how do you know if a data set is fit for purpose i.e. On what basis do you judge good or bad?
Just a shortish answer will do, nothing taxing required.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
Up and should be asleep but had to see the last of the miners and rescuers escape from the mine. This is just one example of what humans CAN do when they are working as a team and with the eyes of the world watching them.
Complain about this comment
Richard writes: "Successive reports, notably by the Dutch government, have found nothing to challenge the basic picture of a warming world that the IPCC and many other scientific bodies have painted in recent times..."
My, what a careful cherry picker you are! Yes, that Dutch government report was notable, but since (and prior to) Climategate there has been a flood of revelations about what is wrong with the IPCC's "basic picture," starting with the basic adjustments to the data that create their "warming world."
And isn't it supposed to be a "disrupted climate world" now?
Will the IPCC become the IPCD as part of its makeover? Putting new lipstick on an old...
Complain about this comment
The IPCC should not bother with a make over, it should just stick to what it does so well, time will prove it right.
@ JaneBasingstoke – Jane, lets leave the conspiracy theories to the flat earthers.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
mammoth post- apologies.
@ paul #26
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to respond- despite your apparent mirth at my #19 (your #20) i was deadly serious. I'm a scientist ( i may have mentioned this lol). If i'm proved wrong i'm more than happy to admit it and move on- there's no ego here just curiosity.
To take the first point in your #26
"(a)no causal link with co2 and temp
I think in this case, you need to come back and remind me why you think CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas "
your a) and b) points are irrevocably linked (i did that on purpose, sorry)
However, perhaps you've misunderstood me, though i have been very clear on this paul in the numerous posts i've made: i am not arguing that co2 is not a greenhouse gas. I am arguing it's effect. There's a very subtle, but incredibly important distinction there.
C02 is know to be a greenhouse gas in ideal conditions. The science is robust on this case and can be verified in a laboratory.Hell, you could verify this in your shed had you the desire. BUt, the climate is not an ideal condition- it's an extremely complex, chaotic and (to date) largely unpredictable entitiy (mid-long term, on geological terms it's fairly predictable).
SO i agree that c02, on it's own as a gas WILL cause localised temperature rises in ideal conditions. BUt as i said above the climate does not work like this due to feedbacks (which i'll assume you know about and the issues surrounding).
The IPCC uses water and specifically clouds to impart a large positive feedback giving co2 the warming capability (as on it's own without a positive feedback co2 is insignificant and we could triple the concentration with little effect on global temps, theoretically!). If memory serves this puts climate sensitivity in the high region (4-6, you'll have to excuse me, i've forgotten the units). Observational evidence suggests a low, potentially negative climate sensitivity, but probably something around 1 seems a fair bet at present.
this would (and does) rubbish the IPCC's claims of cAGW.
So when i say there's no CAUSAL link to temperature rises, i'm not saying this is because co2 cannot do this (though you'd need a HELL of a lot more for it to do it on it's own), but that the feedbacks are only, AT BEST, very weakly positive. It's the feedbacks you need to convince me on, not co2's radiative capability. Watch the pea.
point c) makes me suspect that you're not a scientist (incidentally, while i do frequent wuwt i take in a variety of sources, recently i've found judith curry's new blog-welcome to climate, to be quite good too).
If the data is suspect, you cannot use it until the issues are resolved. period.
Now, i thoroughly understand the difficulties involved, trying to gather some sort of global 'picture' from the various unconnected data series is a mammoth undertaking and i applaud them for trying. However, they'vee been VERY lax in their QA.
I can forgive (and understand) simple errors. When they're rare. However specifically in this instance with the temperature records, there are so many unresolved and deeply worrying issues with the data that it casts doubt on the whole lot. This is even BEFORE you get to how the climate cabal have manipulated this data.
Two very specific examples Paul. The arctic interpolation and Bolivia. There are no temperature stations for the majority of the arctic and none for bolivia. Yet, they appear as very large hotspots on global temperature maps.
Can you explain this and do you think this is good scientific practice and above all honest?
Now we've got prima face evidence of deliberate manipulation of the new zealand temperature record to provide warming where none existed. This is the (then) official temperature record of an ENTIRE 1st world country, deliberatley manipulated to support an agenda. Does this not give cause for pause?
Then we have incorrect sitings of stations, arbitrary and incorrect uhi adjustments, 'selective' inclusion of warmer stations etc etc.
Paul, this isn't just about the odd niggle here and there. Each one of these issues on their own compromises the set, and there's more and more issues descovered on almost a weekly basis.
This is not good mate, hence my assetion that the data is compromised.
Complain about this comment
@ 46
what... the world IS flat ... isn't it???!
Complain about this comment
THE OBSERVED TEMPERATURE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
Here is the observed global mean temperature trend for 90-years from 1910 to 2000:
http://bit.ly/bylFMq
1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase.
2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase.
3) Slight global cooling from 1940 to 1970.
As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.
Also, the effect of 30 years of human emission of CO2 during the global cooling phase from 1940 to 2000 is obviously nil.
The data above describes the global mean temperature trend for 90 years until year 2000. What is the global mean temperature trend since 2000?
4) Since year 2000, the global mean temperature anomaly trend is nearly flat at 0.4 deg C as shown in the following plot:
http://bit.ly/aDni90
In conclusion, man-made global warming is not supported by the observed data.
According to the data, according to the apolitical science, the effect of human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is NIL.
Complain about this comment
#50 Selti1
Your logic assumes that human emission of CO2 is the only climate driver.
But there are also volcanoes and other natural cycles that act with changes in greenhouse gases to override any purely linear relationship
Or did you forget to add the smiley winky thing ;-)
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #39 wrote:
Newton's Universal Gravitation (not just the apple, but also Kepler's observation based laws)
In maths, theorems can be derived from axioms using rules of inference. In other words, given those rules, the axioms imply the theorems. In other words, the theorems are based on the axioms. That direction of implication is invoked when people use the word 'based', and indeed that direction of implication is assumed in climate science, where models are "based on data".
Exactly the opposite direction of implication is involved with Kepler's and Newton's laws. Over the ages, various peoples looked at the stars and planets, and some even made accurate records of where they could be seen in the sky. But it took an imaginative leap -- a guess -- to come up with the idea that the planets are going round the Sun in ellipses, speeding up at one end and slowing at the other. That guess implied where the planets could be seen, not vice versa. If anything, the theory is implying the "data" here, not the other way round,
It took another imaginative leap to come up with the idea that everything was attracting everything else. And again, that guess implied what could be observed, rather than the other way around.
Complain about this comment
#48. LabMunkey wrote:
The IPCC uses water and specifically clouds to impart a large positive feedback giving co2 the warming capability. If memory serves this puts climate sensitivity in the high region (4-6, you'll have to excuse me, i've forgotten the units). Observational evidence suggests a low, potentially negative climate sensitivity, but probably something around 1 seems a fair bet at present.
Good morning. Thanks for your response. Not sure I'll have time to deal with it all, but here's my take on sensitivity and feedbacks.
Climate sensitivity in IPCC is 2 - 4.5. And they accept (as we know) that cloud feedbacks are the largest source of uncertainty. This quote is from
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defi ned as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Water vapour changes represent the largest
feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}
The detailed discussion of the relevant science by IPCC is here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html
So you need to be specific about which evidence you refer to when you say "Observational evidence suggests a low, potentially negative climate sensitivity, but probably something around 1 seems a fair bet at present."
I'm not saying you're wrong, and I think given the admitted level of uncertainty about the cloud feedback, IPCC may be saying too much when they say sensitivity is "very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C"
Then you say
"So when i say there's no CAUSAL link to temperature rises, i'm not saying this is because co2 cannot do this, but that the feedbacks are only, AT BEST, very weakly positive. It's the feedbacks you need to convince me on, not co2's radiative capability"
I think the analysis of the strength of feedbacks is based on the idea that orbital forcing plus CO2 are not sufficient by themselves to explain the temperature changes during the glacial cycles. Of course we are in a different situation now - we are at the warm part of the glacial cycle, when the natural feedback loop has stabilized (and would eventually go into reverse). And CO2 has not stabilized - it has continued to increase, so its now way higher than has been observed at any point in the glacial cycle - certainly in the past 800,000 years I think. And its increasing much faster than it did at any time during the glacial cycles.
So I suggest its you who needs to convince me that we should not be concerned when one side of a known amplifying feedback system is rising without apparent limit. You need to convince me that at the current higher temps the feedback would be non existent or even negative.
I'll try to discuss your views on the data quality later
Complain about this comment
World governments need an independent climate body that they can turn to for advice should something unexpected happen, such as increased sea ice for example, the IPCC with all its baggage cannot fulfil that role and should be replaced.
JaneBasingstoke and others.
In any political movement there are clever people who present an acceptable face of their movement but there are also the foot soldiers who sometimes open their mouth and put their foot right in it. Wolfie’s comments have not helped the warmist’s side and Jane suggests that he is not a true warmist but instead is some sort of clever double agent, I wonder why she would want to do that? I suggest that people read the past posts and see what they think, evil genius of a bit of a silly Billy? The jury is out.
Complain about this comment
At paul #53
A few links for you re-climate sensitivity
-- "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications
"Richard S. Lindzen,1 and Yong-Sang Choi1,2 feb 2010"
-- http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/strong-negative-feedback-from-the-latest-ceres-radiation-budget-measurements-over-the-global-oceans/
-- (Energy and Environment. Vol 20 no1&2 2009)
Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
David H. Douglassa and John R. Christyb
---http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032759.shtml
They all support low climate sensitivity, in the region of 0.5-2.3
I must confess that the second part of your post confuses me. You admit, freely that we are in a warming phase of the glacial cycle (which would beg the question how can you attribute recent (pre 2003) warming to co2) and then seem to use past co2/temp levels to predict or re-inforce your position on the current situation.
It is interesting that you highlight co2 as part of a feedback mechanism, when looking at the paeloclimatic data it would seem that if anything, co2 levels stabilise/slow temperature rised- not the other way around. I.e., the feedback effect of co2 is slightly positive, neutral or negative and not in the region that the ipcc pertain.
Also, in at least two places in your post, you get the scientific process mixed up by asking for me to show that Co2 is not an issue instead of linking the evidence (that must be there for you to hold your position) that show's it IS an issue. You (as in the ipcc, wamrists et al) are pushing this position, not i, hence the burden of proof lies with 'you'.
The IPCC has yet to show any empirical evidence that climate sensitivity is in fact in the region they suggest- may i remind you that models do not count as evidence, so i (currently) find little that would make me change my position on this issue. Though find something that proves it is high and you'll not only be doing me a favour- but everyone else in the field!
Re- temperature data, i look forward to your post.
Complain about this comment
#43 blunderbunny wrote:
I'd just like you to answer a very simple question:
So how do you know if a data set is fit for purpose i.e. On what basis do you judge good or bad?
In this case, you are dealing with historic data sets of enormously varying quality. You have to look at each dataset individually and decide whether or not you can get any meaningful data out of it. The further back in time you go the more difficult that is and the more difficult it is to model the global climate with increasingly sparse data. I would imagine, though, that the first thing that is essential is that the set of datasets are internally consistent. So if a dataset is significantly different from others in the same region and there is no systematic explanation for the difference, that dataset would not be used.
But for a more detailed picture you need to look at papers from CRU and other places - preferably putting aside your own bias for a few minutes - and see how they describe doing it
#48 LabMunkey
Now, i thoroughly understand the difficulties involved, trying to gather some sort of global 'picture' from the various unconnected data series is a mammoth undertaking and i applaud them for trying. However, they'vee been VERY lax in their QA.
I think, mainly for historic reasons QA especially at CRU leaves a lot to be desired (the point being that when they first started compiling the historic datasets it was an academic exercise with no bearing on global climatic issues with public policy implications). One advantage of all this incessant auditing and the release of the climategate emails is that they will be forced to improve their controls.
I can forgive (and understand) simple errors. When they're rare. However specifically in this instance with the temperature records, there are so many unresolved and deeply worrying issues with the data that it casts doubt on the whole lot. This is even BEFORE you get to how the climate cabal have manipulated this data.
I think the echo chamber associated with sites like WUWT amplifies the issues with the data, and amplifies them in a partial way (ie in a way that is specifically directed at creating controversy about the AGW model), so that you get the feeling that there are many more issues than there actually are. Which doesn't mean that there aren't specific issues that do need to be addressed, the difference between CRU and GISS temperatures being perhaps the major issue
Your last sentence suggests that you have already made your mind up about what is going on. Of course, so have I, but I'd argue that my position is one which is supported by the current state of the science and does not require an unlikely conspiracy theory. If the state of the science changes, so will my view.
You have some more specific points at the end of #48 which I'll try to address this afternoon, although I may not have time to track down all the necessary references (or any of them!)
Complain about this comment
@ paul #56
"Your last sentence suggests that you have already made your mind up about what is going on. Of course, so have I, but I'd argue that my position is one which is supported by the current state of the science and does not require an unlikely conspiracy theory. "
When did ever i suggest that there was a conspiracy theory involved?
"so that you get the feeling that there are many more issues than there actually are"
data issues i have problems with
-selective use of weather stations (see the fall in stations used over time for illustration of this)
-siting of weather stations (for example the stations used to interpolate the arctic data reside at airports, next to tarmac).
- improper UHI adjustments. these are made by using population, not taking into account the varying degree's of infrastructure, nor the internet/telecoms/airconditioning expansion in the cities
- interpolation of the arctic (as i mentioned above)
- 'estimated' hot spots where no data exists (i.e. bolivia as i mentioned above and large area's of canada)
- new zealand data manipulation
- cru illegal FOI avoidance
- proxy reconstructions and the divergance problems
- over reliance on anomolies as opposed to raw data
- lack of openess regarding data, methods and models
- improper programming of the models (clouds, seas etc omitted in some, earth assumed to be flat in others, sun variances omitted in others)
- inaccuracies of the models and the hugely underplayed uncertainties
- contradicting paleoclimatic data wrt co2
- replacement of data with models
i could quite literally go on all day, there are not just a FEW issues, there are many and more being found all the time. These are all individual aspects that i have researched as they cropped up. I'd suggest you also stop trying to suggest i get this all from wuwt, as i have stated before i use many sites for my info.
Note however, these do not ALL show that the cAGW theory is wrong, and some are potentially resolvable, however it is the sheer number and repeated nature of these problems that i take issue with not to mention their universal direction (i.e. towards the theory not away from it) that suggest a larger problem. More group think contamination that conspiracy.
I repeat, had this many issues been found in any other field of science, then the theory would have been laughed off the face of the planet by now.
And, wrt the proven FOI law-breaking, would have put pretty much any other scientist in jail.
Complain about this comment
One of the things the IAC mentioned above, was certainties with very little evidence to support them...
Sea level might be one of them, and Bangladesh scares, lots of grey literature with bangladesh, Maldives sea level predicted rises with no peer review.
Watch someone called Ed supporting 10:10 in Bangladesh..
“I’m visiting a sandbank…...........”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsPtnkzBh3A&feature=related
All ”apprently’ at risk due to climate change..
(why do they always leave out man made)
Not because they have homes, on sandbanks in the world’s biggest river delta then!!! Geography lessons required, for ersosion changes in river flow, etc.
Someone said that 10:10 is just a small group with no influence..
Well.. Ed –
is ED Milliband – Former UK Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change.
He is now the Leader of the UK Labour party, in opposition to the new UK coalition government. (for those international readers - any Romm-ulans today?)
Franny Armstrong (1010) giving ED a hard time pre-Copenhagen
Climate change secretary feels the heat from the director of ‘The Age of Stupid’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r29uVnKfaQ&feature=related
Complain about this comment
#57. LabMunkey wrote:
When did ever i suggest that there was a conspiracy theory involved?
Where you say in your #48 "This is even BEFORE you get to how the climate cabal have manipulated this data."
You must admit the conspiracy idea is at least a possible interpretation of that statement
I'll try to get back to some of the other stuff later, but I have a meeting right now - Cheers :-)
Complain about this comment
news just in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11541056
well, it was hoping too much to think they'd ACTUALLY listen to any of the criticisms i suppose.
"Enhanced guidance on the use of "grey literature" - material not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - has also been drawn up, and will be finalised by chairs of the IPCC's working groups in the coming months."
so no evidence is fine, so long as you can link or cite an opinion piece from a green campaign group or governement and they expect us to take them seriously how exactly?
Complain about this comment
@ 59-
well no. If i'd meant o imply there was a conspiracy i would either have been more overt (i'm not one to mince my words paul- except when typonese takes it's toll) or stated it implicitly.
Though apologies over the confusion, but manipulation of data doesn't mean anything other than they way they treated and interpreted the data. The use of the word 'manipulated' was only there to imply that i though many of the adjustments were incorrect or at least, had little merit over any alternatives possible.
Paul, i have to say that i think you're superimposing your 'picture' of what a Skeptic is onto myself. You seem to be making wide assumptions of me and my beliefs without the actual evidence (in my behaviour) to support them.
May i suggest that you treat every person on the weight of the argument and evidence they put forward, rather than using one large brush to make assumptions.
Complain about this comment
#61. LabMunkey
well no. If i'd meant o imply there was a conspiracy i would either have been more overt (i'm not one to mince my words paul- except when typonese takes it's toll) or stated it implicitly.
Though apologies over the confusion, but manipulation of data doesn't mean anything other than they way they treated and interpreted the data. The use of the word 'manipulated' was only there to imply that i though many of the adjustments were incorrect or at least, had little merit over any alternatives possible.
Paul, i have to say that i think you're superimposing your 'picture' of what a Skeptic is onto myself. You seem to be making wide assumptions of me and my beliefs without the actual evidence (in my behaviour) to support them.
It was the word 'cabal' that suggested conspiracy rather than 'manipulation'. Of course, any data homogenization is a form of manipulation.
Sorry if you feel I was getting at you for that:-(
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #60
"an opinion piece from a green campaign group or governement"
I would hope any guidance would include a straight ban on that particular category of grey literature.
However I remind you that the glacier piece dismissed by Pachauri as "voodoo science" was also a government study that had not been peer reviewed. Personally I would like to see that sort of literature reviewed as if for a peer reviewed journal and perhaps even republished so that it could be part of the scientific canon that gets monitored by ongoing science.
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #52
OK, I forgot Galileo's and Marius's discoveries of the 4 largest moons of Jupiter. They were observed to be clearly orbiting Jupiter, which rather b*****ed contemporary ideas about an Earth centred universe. Incidentally if you have a good pair of binoculars you can see the moons on a clear night at the moment as Jupiter is quite well positioned. They are all neatly lined up and quite clearly associated with Jupiter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_moons
Kepler's laws and Newton's Universal Gravitation were a mix of observation and inspiration. Neither was purely theory on top of previous work, they were hybrids. Kepler was forced by observations to work with elliptic orbits to get his theory to work (he had for superstitious reasons preferred circular orbits). And Newton didn't just pick up on Kepler's partly observation based work and lob a bit of calculus at it, he really did claim to be inspired by the sight of a falling apple to link the gravity that he saw acting on the apple to the forces holding moons and planets in their orbits.
Watching an apple fall. That would count as an observation, wouldn't it?
http://physics.info/gravitation/
Newton's Universal Gravitation was heavily based on observation, albeit much of that observation by the giants whose shoulders he mentioned standing on, such as Tycho Brahe's observation of Mars. This is because Newton's version of gravity doesn't have a mechanism. But the gravity that emerges from Einstein's General Relativity has a mechanism of sorts so is less observation based than Newton's Universal Gravitation, that is until it gets put to the test.
I know you like Feynman, here's a clip that is sort of relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
Complain about this comment
@Smiffie #54
There are plenty of examples on the internet of people using a persona that doesn't exactly match their own situation, but does allow them to say what they want.
"Evil genius" and "clever double agent" are way strong, and such an individual would probably not risk using the name Wolfiewoods and then linking it to Wolfie Smith.
There is an intermediate that I think more likely. Wolfiewoods reads like a normal sceptic doing satire, and not wanting to break character.
Rather lower probability is someone who is neutral about AGW but is attracted by and sincere about some warmist ideas for their political side effects. Such an individual would be expected to wobble on AGW in the manner seen in Wolfiewood's posts. But this doesn't explain the sceptic friendly mistakes.
Very low probability is a warmist who doesn't know his subject and whose mistakes all accidentally look like a sceptic posing as a warmist, include using sceptic language such as "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change" in a non critical manner and repeating the accidental dig at Hansen's 1988 testimony even after it had been exposed as a problem.
Complain about this comment
@Barry Woods #58
"Someone said that 10:10 is just a small group with no influence.."
No. Someone, me, said that 10:10 is a small group that had some early luck getting through to politicians, but now feels confused and powerless as politicians backpedal on tackling AGW in the wake of Copenhagen and Climategate and Glaciergate. 10:10 have some influence, but even before their unfortunate film it was small and almost completely informal.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #64 wrote:
Newton's Universal Gravitation was heavily based on observation
But it just wasn't -- it was tested by observation, in effect, when its predictions turned out to be accurate time and time again. But it just wasn't implied by observations at all, not even the slightest bit! That's why we regard Newton as a genius. (It's also why Newton regarded Newton as a genius.)
Complain about this comment
I would like to see no use of "grey literature". I don't see the point. If information is important then convert it to non-grey literature.
I would also like the IPCC reports to contain more "we cannot rule out" statements and to push these out in the form of warnings into the summary for policymakers. If we cannot rule out rainforest dieback at 600ppm CO2 (that's just an example not necessarily true), then policymakers should be told that such a potentially devestating effect cannot be ruled out.
Complain about this comment
#48. At 08:33am on 14 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
Two very specific examples Paul. The arctic interpolation and Bolivia. There are no temperature stations for the majority of the arctic and none for bolivia. Yet, they appear as very large hotspots on global temperature maps.
Can you explain this and do you think this is good scientific practice and above all honest?
Obviously I can't 'explain' the details of these without an immense amount of detailed research. But with respect to the arctic trends in particular, I'd like to draw your attention to this interesting comparison between trends over the last 10 years in GISS, CRU and the 2 satellite data sets.
Now here's a rather long link to WoodForTrees which I hope works
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/plot/uah/last:120/plot/rss/last:120/plot/gistemp/last:120/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:120/trend/plot/uah/last:120/trend/plot/rss/last:120/trend/plot/gistemp/last:120/trend
So you'll see there that the trend shown by GISS is considerably steeper than that shown by CRU - presumably as a result of the differing treatment of the Arctic. But the two satellite records are also steeper than CRU, and the slope from UAH is almost exactly the same as that from GISS.
Of course this doesn't lend itself to the common accusations of data manipulation. The dataset run by the most extreme 'warmist' (Hansen at GISS) gives a trend almost identical to that run by the skeptic sympathiser (Spencer at UAH). And the mob at CRU have somehow produced a trend that is virtually flat.
So this suggests (a) that nobody is indulging in any kind of manipulation to prove their own point of view and (b) whatever methods Hansen is using to interpolate the Arctic data, the fact that the GISS trend is close to the satellite trend indicates that the GISS methods may actually be more accurate than CRU's
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #67
"wasn't implied by observations at all, not even the slightest bit"
Fine. Please direct me to where someone gives a mechanism for Newton's Universal Gravitation that predates Einstein.
Complain about this comment
@quake #68
"I would like to see no use of "grey literature". I don't see the point. If information is important then convert it to non-grey literature."
The point is that the peer reviewed literature is insufficiently comprehensive.
And I 100% agree with your solution, with the caveat that where there is no existing peer reviewed publication to take it on, then the material needs the equivalent of a peer review and then the equivalent of being flagged as canonical so that it is under similar initial and ongoing scrutiny to conventional peer reviewed publications.
Complain about this comment
"Successive reports, notably by the Dutch government, have found nothing to challenge the basic picture of a warming world that the IPCC and many other scientific bodies have painted in recent times - whatever the findings may have been about the behaviour of some individual scientists."
Every report that clears the dicredited scientists identified in the emails have been carried out by organisations with a vested interest in the green gravy train carrying on.
So how much money has been spent on these clowns flying to South Korea with their Superman complex to save the planet?
There is a superb post at Watts up with That by Willis Eschenbach, which would be the sort of article the BBC would have been proud to produce. But not now, mediocrity from apparatchicks is the order of the day.
"There’s a New York Times article on the CDM here. This is the part that I found to be hilarious (emphasis mine):
Since it began operating in 2006, the board has validated 2,918 projects, 40 percent of them in China, according to the U.N. Environment Program’s database at the Risoe Center, in Denmark, which tracks every project in the C.D.M. pipeline. The center’s data show that 1,668 projects are in hydroelectric power and 1,060 of those are in China.
So the effect of the Kyoto Protocol is that it is OK for the West to burn fossil fuels, as long as the West is also subsidizing hydroelectric dam construction in China …"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/dammed-if-you-do-dammed-if-you-dont/#more-26393
What defines a human being is when they are capable of admitting being wrong?
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler #69
BBC thread software treats colons as end of links. One work around for the problem is to use %3A instead of colons. Giving
Actual temperature anomalies
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last%3A120/plot/uah/last%3A120/plot/rss/last%3A120/plot/gistemp/last%3A120
Trends in temperature anomalies
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last%3A120/trend/plot/uah/last%3A120/trend/plot/rss/last%3A120/trend/plot/gistemp/last%3A120/trend
Complain about this comment
That small group have more access and influence than I'll ever have...
just the notting hill chattering classes 'rich luvvie' set...
Franny herself just a media brat... with totally disproportionate access
from the comments at Watts up:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/07/frannys-guilty-pleasure/
Franny is a big fake.
She describes herself, in breathless biographies in the Guardian etc, as an “ex rock drummer turned self-taught film maker.
In fact she’s a second generation, upper middle class, activist
Her Daddy, Peter Armstrong http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/113201 , was a senior documentary maker for 20 years at the BBC (where else!) until he bought out the multimedia technology he had developed there and floated “The Multimedia Corporation” on the junior stock market – it later bombed in the dot-com crash. He now runs his own international activist organisation
Daddy worked with her for 10 years on her first film “McLibel” – http://spannerfilms.net/films/mclibel – about the two hippies who were sued for telling lies about Macdonalds. (British left wing media types HATE Macdonalds because their food is enjoyed by the people they most despise – Americans and common people).
She still runs a website providing anti-Macdonalds propaganda to activists.
Her step mum is also an activist film maker and Mummy and Daddy still work with her at her film company – http://spannerfilms.net/node/424.
“Greenery” is just her latest vehicle for self promotion.
-------------------
Anyway the good news is (from the Guardian) that the BBC willl have a tiny 'carbon footprint' covering Cancun Cop16..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/14/chilean-miners-bbc-cancun-climate-talks
Damian Carrington - Guardian
"Certainly the political momentum has gone out of the climate talks after the Copenhagen debacle, which saw 120 world leaders turning up to sign a treaty which had yet to be negotiated. But sending just one correspondent to Mexico seems very underweight for one of the world's biggest newsgathering organisations. Shame on them."
What a shame. all those beaches and nice hotels going to waste.
Complain about this comment
@66. At 4:44pm on 14 Oct 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:
@Barry Woods #58
"Someone said that 10:10 is just a small group with no influence.."
No. Someone, me, said that 10:10 is a small group that had some early luck getting through to politicians, but now feels confused and powerless as politicians backpedal on tackling AGW in the wake of Copenhagen and Climategate and Glaciergate. 10:10 have some influence, but even before their unfortunate film it was small and almost completely informal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jane
I would use the term 'irrelevant' to describe the group and event. In the last blog, Yorkie missed the point - we saw nor heard nothing of this in the 4th largest city in America...Nothing local, nothing on the national news.
Lets face it, the whole AGW movement has become irrelevant. Cap and Trade is dead...RIP. Very few people think the weather can be predicted 4 days out - much less 100 years.
Every time we turn around, there is a new '-gate'. The NZ data is now just the latest in a long list. The reality is that we really don't have a single, good, clean data set. I won't even get into the models here...LOL
It is laughable that we still have so many hangers-on like Richard and Paul Briscoe.
It appears that (finally) the US is going to dump the IPCC entirely.
All good developments, now we can refocus our efforts on science, rather than fantasy.
Today on the BBC it is reported 'Climate Panel to make minor changes...'. This does not sound promising to me, nor does it inspire confidence.
M Mann wrote an editorial in the Washington Post that basically said - vote democrat, so I don't go to jail...LOL
It is time to get back to important issues - like getting rid of and cleaning up plants such as the one in Hungary that just had that massive mudslide contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff. Like saving the rainforest, bluefin tuna, how about developing a newer, cleaner, better energy source?
Can't wait for Cancun - yet another junket to an exotic destination with a carbon footprint for each person larger than that of a whole family in the US for a year...lol...and for what?
Also reported this week: IKEA, the furniture company will install solar panels on top of three stores in Toronto - enough to power 100 homes. Which, with the government subsidies, they get paid 6 times what consumers currently pay for electricity - people can't afford very many of these type of projects.
Cheap energy will drive a bright future...
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke @#65
Thanks for responding, I favour your second option, “someone who is neutral about AGW but is attracted by and sincere about some warmist ideas for their political side effects.” Many people have warned that the climate change issue has been hijacked by those with hidden agendas, indeed many things called for in the name of saving the planet sound less like environmentalism and more like the Khmer Rouge.
Complain about this comment
@Jane
@Bowmanthebard
Regarding Newton's Universal Law of Gravity...
My recollection is that prior to Newton, 'consensus' was that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. He demonstrated this to be false and that the force of gravity is uniform.
Newton did 'define the mechanism' if you will - he hypothesized that Gravity was a universal force between two bodies. In effect - a field. In my view, Einstein just refined this and showed that matter warps space through its gravity field - and also that gravity effects things without mass - i.e. energy - photons are affected by gravity. The path of light from distant stars is 'bent' as it passes through the gravity well of objects in between the observer and the source.
We still need the darned 'Unified Theory', I am afraid, to 'define the mechanism' of gravity. We can describe gravity, and we can predict gravity - to an extent, but why does this force of attraction exist? What drives it? How does it work? Why does it exist?
Here is one for ya - if photons of electromagnetic energy are affected by gravity - do they (massless as they are) also produce a 'gravity field'? Is it a field with zero strength as there is no mass? If so, why does the light get bent?
From any old physics book we can find:
G*M*m
F= ---------
d^2
I suspect that there is a lot more too it than this and that this equation, using the Universal Gravitational Constant is just a rough approximation which works for what we refer to as 'normal matter'. But again, what about light? With zero mass, there should be no force and it should not be bent...what about dark matter?
The puzzle is still missing a number of pieces.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #70 wrote:
Please direct me to where someone gives a mechanism for Newton's Universal Gravitation that predates Einstein.
Hmmm. Not sure where you're going with this request! Newton's explanation of planetary motion explained and amended Kepler's, and Einstein's explained and amended Newton's, so I'm not denying that there is cumulative progress in science. But not a single one of that series of successive theories was "based on data". The previous theory itself functioned as "data" for the later theory that reduced it. (A beautiful example of this is Newton's proof of Kepler's "equal areas in equal times" law, which surprisingly depends on nothing more than the assumption that the force always acts radially.) Once again -- nay always, always! -- the theory implies something like "data", rather than is implied by "data".
My central point, remember, is that NO mainstream scientific theory was ever remotely "based on data" ( = implied by data); instead it implied that particular things could be observed, and when they were actually observed as predicted, the theory was considered corroborated.
It is only in such dead-end disciplines as psychology and climate science that 20th century positivism's vice-like grip leads people to expect to derive theory (computer models, whatever) from "data" rather than the other way around.
Complain about this comment
Labmonkey I think in your #57 you are right to suggest the the issues you list are not in themselves conclusive evidence against AGW.
What they show is that in climate science, data collection and interpolation standards are appallingly low and that there is an pervading eagerness somehow to sex up the disappointing banality of the data as collected.
It would be a big job, but an independent review could sort this out and until this is done no on can really tell for sure whether there is anything to worry about or not.
The more serious problem is that after all these years the IPCC still hasn't a clue what the value for climate sensitivity is. It clings to the curious idea that climate models are "evidence" for the high value it assumes. It ignores the sources you quote in #55 and the fact that the base troposphere hotspot its assumed value predicts is absent.
All of these suggest that the 3 degree warming the IPCC assumes is likely in reality is less than 1 degree and that the $1.3 trillion we are planning to spend addressing this non problem could all be better spent.
Complain about this comment
LarryKealey #77 wrote:
if photons of electromagnetic energy are affected by gravity - do they (massless as they are) also produce a 'gravity field'? Is it a field with zero strength as there is no mass? If so, why does the light get bent?
Interesting question! A gravity field is an accelerated frame of reference, so anything moving through it in a straight line (to the ordinary observer) will seem (in it) to take a curving path. The classic illustration of this involves two men in an elevator in outer space, where there is zero actual gravity but "artificial gravity" created by a constant pull on the elevator cable. One guy tosses his keys to the other, and although the keys travel in a straight line to inertial observers, to the men in the lift the path "bends". In fact everything will "bend", whether it has mass or not.
Photons are sometimes said to have zero "rest mass", but as far as I know there's no such thing as a photon at rest -- they're "strictly nomadic"! Like ocean waves, they only really exist when "on the move". And in that state they carry energy, so they do they have mass (i.e. must have mass according to special relativity) and therefore they too must be surrounded by an extremely fleeting and weak gravitational field.
Complain about this comment
Re 57 LabMunkey:
That's a list of "problems" from skeptics over the months, but the actual problem is we need better quality skeptics.
Lets just take the first "problem" on the list. I could go through them all, but you'll get the point.
"-selective use of weather stations (see the fall in stations used over time for illustration of this)"
You make a loaded assumption without justifying it. Why is a fall of stations illustrative of "selective use"? What evidence do you have that the stations lost were not lost objectively (eg objectively: through some stations dropping out due to lack of automated updates from those stations, rather than say someone deliberately excluding them)
Later on you claim: "it is the sheer number and repeated nature of these problems that i take issue with not to mention their universal direction (i.e. towards the theory not away from it)"
Why do you conclude station drop-off is a problem "toward the theory" rather than away?
Complain about this comment
Many timeson the Richad Black blog and other blogs, wiki articles have been cited with rerefenve to AGW
Comments are made that that wiki AGW topics were taken over by a founding member of RealClimate
Who is now topic banned at Wiki.. as are others (both sides)
But Section 8 is where it is at..... WMC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/14/going.html
Hal Lewis being edited....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/
Complain about this comment
#57 LabMunkey
Following on from quake's #81, let's deal with your second point
siting of weather stations
This has been studied (for the US at least) in this paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
Matthew J. Menne, Claude N. Williams Jr., and Michael A. Palecki
From the abstract:
Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on
temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
The point being, you need to look at the data (and the associated adjustments) rather than just look at pictures of the stations (taken, I'd imagine, by volunteers who were likely not inclined to impartiality)
Full paper available here (I hope):
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Complain about this comment
@LarryKealey #77
"prior to Newton"
Yeah, thought it was Galileo that debunked this. (Although the story about the leaning Tower of Pisa is apparently apocryphal.)
"... Gravity was a universal force between two bodies. In effect - a field."
Fine. A nice mysterious field that acts at a distance in Euclidean space-time with no exchange of particles. How? Magic? If you don't base such a theory on observations where do you get your ideas from? What do you base your equations on? Where does the inverse square law come from? (It doesn't apply to the weak and strong nuclear forces.) Why does Newton credit any "giants" for providing shoulders to stand on? How is a "field" not based on observations, and not based on space-time distortions and not based on particle exchange any different from a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn?
"zero mass"
Zero rest mass. Not zero mass. And I think bowmanthebard's #80 elevator example explains things.
@bowmanthebard #78
"NO mainstream scientific theory was ever remotely "based on data" ( = implied by data)"
How could Newton have aimed at deriving Kepler's laws from the inverse square law if Kepler's laws hadn't been discovered first? How could Kepler have aimed at creating a model for planetary motion without Brahe's observations?
And do I really need to remind you that Kepler was forced to introduce elliptical orbits into his theory to deal with otherwise awkward observations of Mars. Or that the sight of a falling apple inspired Newton to link gravity affecting an apple falling to the orbits of the planets. Or that the sight of the moons of Jupiter through a telescope had Galileo denying geocentricism?
Meanwhile are you writing off that Galapagos tortoise contribution to Darwin's Natural Selection? Isn't that an observation? Or is Darwin's Natural Selection not a "mainstream scientific theory"?
Complain about this comment
@Quake
I suggest you do some more research before trying to dismiss Labmunkey's first point. I can heartily recommend:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/assume-a-spherical-cow-therefore-all-steaks-are-round/
His responses to Tamino are simply classic :-)
Honestly, you could at least do the same as us and read both sides of the argument
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
A very interesting fact emerged from the coverage of the Hal Lewis tipping point and the APS response which is of great relevance to the Oxburgh whitewash and other convenient things.
"The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2009/ar/supplementaryinformation/advisoryboards.html The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-aps-response-to-dr-hal-lewis-resignation/
Such a small world.
Complain about this comment
'81. At 9:06pm on 14 Oct 2010, quake wrote:
... the actual problem is we need better quality skeptics.
Just wondering, but who is 'we'?
Is this the bunch that disagree with some who disagree with others, but who think only they should be allowed to post, or those that agree with them, but in a way that is not helpful, and as such is obviously the reverse of what is being agreed or disagreed with?
Or something.
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard #78: NO mainstream scientific theory was ever remotely "based on data" ( = implied by data)
JaneBasingstoke #84: How could Newton have aimed at deriving Kepler's laws from the inverse square law if Kepler's laws hadn't been discovered first? How could Kepler have aimed at creating a model for planetary motion without Brahe's observations?
Those observations were what Kepler was trying to explain; Kepler's laws were what Newton was trying to explain; to explain something, in general you derive it from something else -- something that implies it, not that it implies. Kepler explained Brahe's observations because those observations were (pretty much) what you would get if the planets travelled on elliptical orbits, etc.; Newton explained Kepler's laws by showing that they were a mathematical consequence of Newton's laws.
The direction of implication is absolutely vital: in the examples above, planetary positions that agreed with Brahe's observations were based on Kepler's laws, not vice versa, and Kepler's laws were based on Newton's laws, not vice versa.
And do I really need to remind you that Kepler was forced to introduce elliptical orbits into his theory to deal with otherwise awkward observations of Mars. Or that the sight of a falling apple inspired Newton to link gravity affecting an apple falling to the orbits of the planets. Or that the sight of the moons of Jupiter through a telescope had Galileo denying geocentricism?
Observation is vital; we agree on that. But theory/models are not based on observation.
The mistaken idea that science is based on observation only (mis)guides "positivist" disciplines like psychology and climate science; it does not apply to mainstream physics, biology, or other genuine sciences.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler #83
#57 LabMunkey
Following on from quake's #81, let's deal with your second point
siting of weather stations
This has been studied (for the US at least) in this paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research
On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
Matthew J. Menne, Claude N. Williams Jr., and Michael A. Palecki
Are you aware that the Menne et al paper isn't as robust as they claim? For example, Menne chose to comment on the surfacestations data, when that data was only 43% complete and hadn't been checked for errors or quality control. Watts wasn't given a chance to review or respond to the paper as far as i am aware. It would seem Menne at al were in too much of a rush to prove Watts was wrong. When Watts wrote this piece:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
he was up to 87%. Perhaps Menne should update his paper to see what the 87% results would yield?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
morning all.
Phew, lot to cover- ok, In oreder (ish)
Paul @ #69
your link's broken mate, can you confirm that what jane posted in # 73 were what you were trying to post. cheers.
Paul @ # 83
i'm afraid a very simple sniff test of that paper makes me disinclined to accept it.
For example, one station used in official records (this one WAS on wuwt, so feel free to dismiss it out of hand...) was sited in a place where jet-engine exhaust washed over it artificially raising the temps.
Also, using the arctic siting, the ones used to extrapolate the 'void area' are next to a black, tarmac runway. Basic physics tells me that that will drastically change the local temperature.
Further to your report there is another being published shortly that shows a high proportion of the temp stations being used fail their OWN guidlines for siting. I'd suggest you look again.
Finally, the report states that the circuitry has been changed on the stations resulting in a cooler baseline?? Is this true???? seriously?? You do realise that effectively makes them NEW stations? removing any credibility of a continuous data set?? unbelievable.
And paul did you read the whole paper? I keep getting stuck at this statement"
[8] Notably, only 71 USHCN stations fall into the good
exposure category, while 454 fall into the poor category.""
How is that reflected in the abstract?
Quake @ 81.
Better quality skeptics? nice, Yet YOU'RE dismissing the point out of hand aren't you?
OK can you tell me the total number of temperature monitoring stations available for the data sets. The numbers ACTUALLY used (with yearly drop off), the latitude ranges (with percentile bands) and the reasons for excluding the 'dropped' stations? All freely available data.
Aso can you explain why rural stations are excluded with preference for city-based ones and why those that are included have had many movements/adjustments etc while those excluded, have not??
I concluded that the issue is a problem towards the theory as colder stations (with statistical significance) are omitted in favor of warmer, lower latitude ones. It creates a bias before the data is even manipulated and don't even get me started on UHI
Jane @ 71
if there is insufficent peer-reviewed data to base the report on that that tells us, quite conclusively that there is insufficient EVIDENCE to base the report on. That one phrase makes me incredibly angry (not at you jane obviously!!!). If the justification for using grey literature is that they don't have enough hard evidence then it is even more proof that this whole pscience/theory is a political/ideological view and not a scientific one.
@79
i agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. The data and the science can be rescued- it just needs willing and an ACTUAL impartial view.
@ blunder #85
wow. great article. thanks.
Complain about this comment
Re 85:
I have read both sides that's why I know skeptics are wrong about station drop-off. Your link admits that the drop-off doesn't mean the Earth is cooler or warmer. It admits it doesn't mean someone selectively removed stations. These are both admissions after the fact that they are both things skeptics have widely claimed (and still do, eg #57). What you link to is a damage limitation exercise to parry justified criticisms of skeptics errors by acting half-reasonable.
The next claim in #57 is about GISTEMP arctic extrapolation, which this bears on:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic-advanced.htm
Figure 5 is most relevant as it suggests GISTEMPs use of extrapolation is very close to DMI even with year to year variations. How can that be unless the 2500km extrapolation method works?
Complain about this comment
@ quake # 91
i dont think that you can dismiss it so easily. especially given the propensity towards urban sites in prefereance over rural and the UHI problems.
Re- extrapolation. The surface air readings taken by plane, unless i'm mistaken show the extrapolations to be vastly wrong. Further more, independant temperature readings of the arctic have shown a temperature that doesn't get close to the extrapolated readings.
this aside, extrapolating large area's of the globe for which you have NO data is just bad scientific practice, this is not a point you can argue Quake. If i tried somethign similar in my field i'd end up in jail Seriously mate- you cannot make cliams without the data. NO amtter what you 'Think'.
Complain about this comment
Re #91
I can dismiss it for good reason. First most of the dropoff occured very suddenly in the 90s, yet the temperature record doesn't show a large upswing at that point in time. Second surface and satellite measurements continue to show close agreement over that point. Third the dropoff was of land stations so if there was a disjoint caused by it you would expect to see a mismatch over that period between land and ocean records. Fourth, already mentioned, there is no reason to expect station dropoff to have a significant effect.
Plenty of reasons for me to expect that when GHCNv3 comes out, which provides updates for many stations that dropped off, we will find the surface records barely change.
"this aside, extrapolating large area's of the globe for which you have NO data is just bad scientific practice"
It isn't if you can justify it. Ie by demonstrating that temperature anomalies correlate well over large distances. Hansen did that. Also the link I provided compares the GISTEMP extrapolation with DMI data (independent data) over the entire period and shows good agreement.
You cite "independant temperature readings of the arctic have shown a temperature that doesn't get close to the extrapolated readings". Reference?
Make sure these independent temperature readings cover several decades and the right area in question. Ie don't do as some skeptics do and cite a single monthly value. The idea of extrapolation is not that it gives the right value every month, but that it's gives the right trend over long periods of time.
Complain about this comment
#90. LabMunkey wrote:
your link's broken mate, can you confirm that what jane posted in # 73 were what you were trying to post. cheers.
I found I could get there by copying and pasting the link rather than just clicking on it. Or you could do what Jane suggests which will give you the wiggle chart and trends on different charts.
But what it shows leads to a similar conclusion to that described in Quake's SkS link in #91. But that article is more useful because it compares the various datasets in detail, concentrating on Arctic data.
Then you say (#92) "The surface air readings taken by plane, unless i'm mistaken show the extrapolations to be vastly wrong. Further more, independant temperature readings of the arctic have shown a temperature that doesn't get close to the extrapolated readings."
But you don't give any links and you don't give any indication of the spatial and temporal extent of the readings you refer to. You're not going to convince unless you can link to a pretty detailed rebuttal of the SkS article
Complain about this comment
@ paul and quake
Background reading
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-polar-interpolation/
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/colder-arctic-temperatures-in-the-melt-season-vs.-giss-temperatures-188.php
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/
and this in particular- though on WUWT, it's reposted practically verbatum from another source
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/22/arctic-isolated-versus-urban-stations-show-differing-trends/
@ paul re- the article you posted, you didn't respond to my querey
"[8] Notably, only 71 USHCN stations fall into the good
exposure category, while 454 fall into the poor category."
doesn't quite match the thrust of the abstract- also see mango's post at #89.
Quake-"First most of the dropoff occured very suddenly in the 90s, yet the temperature record doesn't show a large upswing at that point in time"
this point is irrelevant and you know it-
"Second surface and satellite measurements continue to show close agreement over that point"
really? i was under the distinct impression that the satellite and ground data was NOT in close agreement??
"Third the dropoff was of land stations so if there was a disjoint caused by it you would expect to see a mismatch over that period between land and ocean records"
the drop off also includes sea-based bouys.
"Fourth, already mentioned, there is no reason to expect station dropoff to have a significant effect."
Unless they are favouring urban sites with incorrect UHI adjustments, which they are.
Quake- do you know the proportion of temperature stations in urban locations vs rural?
Complain about this comment
Richard,
This comments on this blog are getting out of hand. The 'Watts up with that' gang are flooding the blog with off topic misinformation which is stifling any proper discussion. I would like to post on this blog to discuss the issues you raise. Instead I find myself challenging misinformation from 'watts up with that bloggers.
For reality concerning New Zealand temp adjustments please see http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/
There are also a number of further links at the end of the article. And please note the date.
Complain about this comment
@ 96.
Hotashes, you are aware right that the people who manipulated the data have already admitted that they did so and that they cannot justify their manipulations and the reason for them??
As such the NZ temp record has been disowned by the relevant bodies??
Also, although it's unwise to get all your information from one site, WUWT does generally have good articles (some of the opinion pieces are too slanted though in my opinion).
If you have a complaint about any one particular article/issue that would be far more productive. On the plus side, if you contribute to the site by posting your post will not be deleted as per RC protocol.
Also, the comments on this blog are in reply to the general highly contentious subject and judging by the recent review that stated that the BBC is being too biased with its scientific reporting, i'd be expecting more wide ranging comments/articles- not less.
@quake/paul
Just been re-reading my posts and i'm worried you may think i'm using this issue with the temerature stations to disprove cAGW- i am not (although it does worry me). I'm approaching this purely from a data integrity and QC direction- so don't get offended by me or my points, i'm not attacking your overall position in this context.
Complain about this comment
#95. LabMunkey wrote:
Background reading
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-polar-interpolation/
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/colder-arctic-temperatures-in-the-melt-season-vs.-giss-temperatures-188.php
The point is, these links compare DMI with GISS only during the melt season The SkS article linked to in quake's #91, but here it is again ....
http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic-advanced.htm
.... shows clearly that when the whole year is considered a warming trend is apparent, and that most of the warming occurs during the autumn, winter and spring
@ paul re- the article you posted, you didn't respond to my querey
"[8] Notably, only 71 USHCN stations fall into the good
exposure category, while 454 fall into the poor category."
Here's the link to the article again
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
You said in your earlier post that you "keep getting stuck at this statement" which is a shame, since the authors go on to say (in the very next sentence)
"Fortunately, the sites with good exposure, though small in
number, are reasonably well distributed across the country
and, as shown by Vose and Menne [2004], are of sufficient
density to obtain a robust estimate of the CONUS average
(see their Figure 7).
At least as far as the US is concerned, there's plenty of redundancy in the data.
Complain about this comment
@ 98
ok, this will probably drag us WAY too much OT, but i don't agree with your assesment of that article or the apparent rebuttal piece (which i think was also dealt with in the preceeding discussion on WUWT).
I can go into it if you wish, but it will be a LONG post lol- or we could agree to disagree, i'm easy either way mate!
re- the article.
I did infact read the entire paper, hence the comment- it's good that you raised this point as it is pertinent.
Do you think that finding around 70% of the US temperature stations (that are in this study, note as mango pointed out their reference for this study was an incomplete record) are inappropriate for use does not in anyway compromise the data? or that relying on only 71 stations for the ENTIRE US is good practice, statistically sound and indicative of good data collection???
Complain about this comment
Re 95. LabMunkey
Why do you post http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php as background reading. What relevance does that graph have to anything?
The entire subject of the skepticalscience article is the same data shown in that graph:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic-advanced.htm
It finds the DMI 80N data is similar to the GISTEMP 80N data, therefore the idea that GISTEMP extrapolation is wildly inaccurate is false. Unless the DMI arctic data - which you just cited as background reading - is also false.
Well is it?
Complain about this comment
97. At 11:40am on 15 Oct 2010, LabMunkey wrote:
@quake/paul
Just been re-reading my posts and i'm worried you may think i'm using this issue with the temerature stations to disprove cAGW- i am not (although it does worry me). I'm approaching this purely from a data integrity and QC direction- so don't get offended by me or my points, i'm not attacking your overall position in this context.
Accepted. And with the issue being as important as it is enhanced data integrity and better station coverage in many areas can only be a good thing. And I don't think everything on WUWT is bad. But with no peer review and a clear agenda among many writers, it is left to the intelligent reader to find the nuggets of gold.
For example I can read EM Smith ("Chiefio") going into excruciating detail about station siting, instrument changes, biases, anomalies, all that stuff and I kind of find myself thinking, well, OK, but how much of this is really relevant, how much is already taken account of in the data adjustments, shouldn't you really be talking to the people who actually run the stations?
Complain about this comment
Labmonkey RE New Zealand adjustments - the blog clearly expains New Zealand adjustments.
This is a none story, which has polluted two blogs.
Complain about this comment
@100
"finds the DMI 80N data is SIMILAR " (my emphasis) but there is a difference, with the dmi data being consistently lower than the giss.
The link for the data was so you could look at it for yourself- from the source- i don't like posting blog entries when you can just as easily get the data.
Incidentally, my argument is not in the differences (though that's covered in the article- probably explaining your confusion) but in the lack of data at +80N.
THIS is my point. you cannot interpolate for data you do not have. It is dishonest and as i have said MANY TIMES, if i did this im my job i WOULD GO TO JAIL.
Why do you think it is acceptable in climate science but in NO other scientific field?
Repsond to what i'm saying, not what you THINK i am saying- specifically see the bottom of my #97.
Paul @101
" And with the issue being as important as it is enhanced data integrity and better station coverage in many areas can only be a good thing" i wholeheartedly agree.
i get very annoyed over sloppy data (as is probably evidenced in my posts), hence my posts. Everything rests on the data, if the data is not good enough to make predictions/conclusions off (which i'm not convinced it is) then you're sunk. REGARDLESS of how good the theory may or may not be.
Re- WUWT. as with any blog site you have to use your 'common sense' filter and try to be critical of the articles you read. I like WUWT because of the free-posting allowed underneath, Many issues are identified, argued and resolved (if needed) in this section. You really don't find many sites that do this. this makes the site valuable in my opinion (common sense still required obv).
Complain about this comment
102. this is not a none story as it is currently in COURT.
your article is a year out of date. i suggest you look again.
Complain about this comment
99. LabMunkey wrote:
@ 98
ok, this will probably drag us WAY too much OT, but i don't agree with your assesment of that article or the apparent rebuttal piece (which i think was also dealt with in the preceeding discussion on WUWT).
I can go into it if you wish, but it will be a LONG post lol- or we could agree to disagree, i'm easy either way mate!
Noooooo .... holds up forefingers in front of face in shape of cross ...
But are you sure you can't tell me in a succinct para why it is more relevant to analyse the melt season alone rather than the whole year? And if you can't do it in a succinct para, we'd better agree to differ ;-)
the article.
I did infact read the entire paper, hence the comment- it's good that you raised this point as it is pertinent.
Do you think that finding around 70% of the US temperature stations (that are in this study, note as mango pointed out their reference for this study was an incomplete record) are inappropriate for use does not in anyway compromise the data? or that relying on only 71 stations for the ENTIRE US is good practice, statistically sound and indicative of good data collection???
I actually don't know. But the quote says that Vose and Menne [2004] think they are of sufficient density. So perhaps you should get that paper.
More generally .... This is the problem with science. If you're not actually working in a specific field, eventually you have to accept the peer reviewed literature, simply because there isn't the time to go into it in enough detail. And if somebody wants to challenge what's in the literature, they eventually have to publish it themselves. And, yes, sometimes it can be difficult to publish if you arguing against an entrenched paradigm. But if what they are saying is correct and important, it will eventually get through (that is supposed to be the distinction between science and a religious belief system)
Complain about this comment
Lab Monkey RE New Zealand Temp Adjustments
This is exactly the same story - dragged up again. Which court is it in? And what are the aspects of the case? Read the WUWT article it carefully uses the word 'apparently' after it says it is in court.
You might be interested in this page which shows warming in New Zealand without adjustment.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data
Complain about this comment
Paul
"But are you sure you can't tell me in a succinct para why it is more relevant to analyse the melt season alone rather than the whole year? And if you can't do it in a succinct para, we'd better agree to differ ;-)"
I will try, i'll have to type out my argument and then try and condense it in a way that makes sense (being a scientist i have then annoying habbit of including much more detail than is required) so it may take a while. Remind me of it if i get sidetracked.
"I actually don't know. But the quote says that Vose and Menne [2004] think they are of sufficient density. So perhaps you should get that paper."
It's simple maths i'm afraid mate- look:
The US is ~ 3.79 million square miles in size (wiki). If we take the number of temp stations in that paper with GOOD siting, 71, then that gives us roughly 1 temperature monitoring centre for every 53,380.3 square miles. One station. This does not even pass basic scientific rigor and is almost certainly painting an incomplete picture. This is even before we go into the siting bias.
THIS tells me that it affects the quality of the data.
"This is the problem with science. If you're not actually working in a specific field, eventually you have to accept the peer reviewed literature, simply because there isn't the time to go into it in enough detail. And if somebody wants to challenge what's in the literature, they eventually have to publish it themselves".
very true mate, however there is also the flip-side of this, that one can become too involved and too entrenched in your work- not allowing you to take in the wider perspective and perhaps, not realise the assumptive errors you have made.
This is why i find the open and public examination of data/theories to be so useful and exciting. It is effectively putting peer-review into real time. However- we clearly need a way to separate those with agenda's versus those who are genuinley trying to contribute.
Complain about this comment
@ 106.
you REALLY need to check your sources better
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1658-legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-.html
Complain about this comment
#103 LabMunkey wrote:
THIS is my point. you cannot interpolate for data you do not have. It is dishonest and as i have said MANY TIMES, if i did this im my job i WOULD GO TO JAIL.
.....
i get very annoyed over sloppy data (as is probably evidenced in my posts), hence my posts. Everything rests on the data, if the data is not good enough to make predictions/conclusions off (which i'm not convinced it is) then you're sunk. REGARDLESS of how good the theory may or may not be.
Then you need to work at improving the data rather than trashing the science.
And .... you're really not going to like this, but they rely on models to leverage the skill of the interpolations. Because of the nature of climate data (heterogeneous, often sparse, subject to variable external sources of bias, derived from different national networks with differing protocols) it isn't possible to do it any other way.
But the climate models ultimately derive from meteorological models, which had their own problems when they were first being developed. If you read "A Vast Machine" by Paul Edwards, an accessible history of the development of weather and climate models you'll see how quite powerful and accurate weather models can be built on the basis of a rather sparse amount of actual data. More difficult with climate of course, because we are dealing with longer time spans and more variables.
But I think basically its this reliance on models that means that climate science can deal with poorer quality data than would be acceptable in your field. They use the models because the data quality is poor. They use them to maximise the useful information they can get from that data.
If you don't accept the use of models, you probably won't accept climate science as bona fide. But I think you're fighting a losing battle there. With continually increasing computer power, what you see as this "problem" will come to "infect" more and more scientific fields.
Complain about this comment
Labmunkey that link is very similar in nature/wording to the WUWT article - copy and pasting large sections.
Again what Court? What Judgement?
Complain about this comment
#107 LabMunkey wrote:
"I actually don't know. But the quote says that Vose and Menne [2004] think they are of sufficient density. So perhaps you should get that paper."
It's simple maths i'm afraid mate- look:
The US is ~ 3.79 million square miles in size (wiki). If we take the number of temp stations in that paper with GOOD siting, 71, then that gives us roughly 1 temperature monitoring centre for every 53,380.3 square miles.
How many square miles do you need to measure a weather system, though?
This is from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_scale_meteorology
"The synoptic scale in meteorology (also known as large scale or cyclonic scale) is a horizontal length scale of the order of 1000 kilometres (about 620 miles) or more"
A horizontal length scale of 620 miles is ~360,000 sq miles. So you could argue that you've got about 7 stations for each weather system. Given that weather systems are relatively heterogeneous and predictable, I'd say that was plenty.
Complain about this comment
@107
Labmunkey, it is clear from your attempt at an analysis of the method that you have no idea the actual steps taken on the whole record such that only a relatively small number of stations can be used. It is a statistically based process, not just a crude selection exercise.
As others have already said, read the paper and understand the steps.
Complain about this comment
In addition, it is perfectly clear that the confidence begins to saturate as you increase the number of stations. Adding more and more will only yield tiny increases in confidence. This has been proven, not in a wishy washy airy fairy kind of way but in a robust mathematical way.
Complain about this comment
#113. SR wrote:
In addition, it is perfectly clear that the confidence begins to saturate as you increase the number of stations. Adding more and more will only yield tiny increases in confidence.
Sounds just like the radiative effect of CO2 ;-)
Complain about this comment
Re number of weather station. I have to agree with Paul and SR. Labmunkeys comments regarding the number of weather stations required shows that for a scientist he shows a clear lack of understanding of the issue.
I believe you can get quite a good idea of global temp from using less than 20 stations. But in reality scientist use many stations and many methods to calculate global temp. And guess what they all broadly agree.
Complain about this comment
@ paul #109
I am not trashing the science, i am only questioning (in this instance) the amount and quality of the data.
As for the use of models, it is widely accepted that weather models only proffer any level of REAL predictability up to a 4 day window. The cimlate models are based one these weather models and yet claim predictability in the decadal scale, i do not buy this and many other scientists do not.
Couple with the fact that the correct prediction of past and current climate events has so far eluded the models then i have a reasonable confidence that they are insufficient.
Also there is a VERY important distinction in the application. Using models to crunch data is one thing, using models to CREATE data, is an entirely different and less easily defended thing.
@quake
"How many square miles do you need to measure a weather system, though?"
that is actually an exceptionally good question, i'm not aware of any work that stipulates a 'minimum' data 'capture' area, unless you are??
I'm by no means suggesting that we need stations ever few feet! I also take the point, and largely agree that you can expect a degree of homogeneity across certain area's, but i'm also sure that you'll agree that this homogeneity is not, erm, homogenius.
Additionally, i fully accept that you reach a 'saturation' point with the data where the addition of new stations only yields limited benefit- but again without a guide to this it's difficult to comment.
Looking at the numbers i crunched though, the 53,380.3 sq miles per station would be the same as having 1 station (or less) in each of the following countries:
north korea,
iceland,
portugal,
Austria,
ireland,
netherlands,
israel,
or the same as only having 4 stations in the uk....
you must admit there's scope for very large climatic changes within these areas. It just doesn't seem enough mate, not even close.
@ SR# 112.
" It is a statistically based process, not just a crude selection exercise."
it is on the stations included in that analysis, but many are not. That is my point.
@110 hotashes
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=14&Itemid=47
Complain about this comment
Jane if you think Wolfie woods is so bizarre he must be a sceptic, having a laugh..
Have a look at this website ( very real, just search for: Jo Abbess Richard Harrabin) very much a real CAGW activits..
One of the latest blogs, is a classic..
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/13/the-messiah-with-us/#comments
Jo Abbess: "Osama bin Laden is not a saint, but his heart is turned towards the suffering of others, so he too has been touched by the spiritual Messiah, the ever-present Holy One of God.
How to do the work of the Lord, who has power in gentleness and patience, and who is mighty, yet only touches the Earth with warming sunlight ? How to be the eyes, hands and feet of the Spirit of Life ?
The more people desire to do the will of God (or the Demands of Ethics) the more chasms we can bridge between our faiths and our economic beliefs and our technology choices.
Climate Change is an amazing opportunity to rise above the chaos and conflict of centuries and work together for the common good.
We don’t need to see the Messiah to know he is with us."
A very commited 'Campaign Against Climate Change Activits'
Funniestquote has to be (over at RealClimate) having a circle of devotion to Phil Jones!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/
5 jo abbess says:
7 April 2010 at 4:26 PM
I would like to propose that we form a “Phil Jones Devotional Circle”, and put a nice logo on our personal and organisational websites, linking through to a page here at RealClimate (or elsewhere) that extols the virtues of said Phil Jones, and catalogues his many great achievements.
That, at least, could warm Phil Jones’ heart, in letting him know how much we value and support him. If those suffering from septicaemia choose another target, we should have a “We Love…” page for them as well. I think it’s about time we had a page explaining just how much we venerate and adore Michael Mann, for example. And James Hansen. And Malte Meinshausen. And Tom Wigley… There’s such a long list…
---------
I read that one in realtime, and like Jane, I thought it was some sceptic having a laugh...
But no, very real... Jo has had a few run ins with James Delingpole as well..
There are real people, with real views like WolfieWoods, Jane..
As for Wolfie I guess we will never know...
Complain about this comment
@LabMunkey #90
You may wish to compare my #71 with my #63.
There is stuff out there that meets most of the criteria for what the IPCC want and can use, but gets classed as grey literature because it can't be published in a peer reviewed publication, for instance if the relevant peer reviewed journal turns up its nose at anything already published but otherwise suitable.
The "voodoo science" paper in Glaciergate is a prime example, Glaciergate could have been prevented simply by having a mechanism whereby this stuff gets properly reviewed and flagged up for ongoing scrutiny.
Now given the choice between getting upset about a problem and applying a straightforward fix I personally like to at least attempt the fix first. Introducing proper reviews, especially for WG1 which has used comparatively little grey literature so might need comparatively little effort to fix, needs to be looked at.
Complain about this comment
Labmunkey - that link shows and tells me nothing. Either provide some evidence or admit there is nothing wrong with the adjustments made to the New Zealand temp record. And please don't just post another link to a site that says nothing.
Complain about this comment
@119
that link shows it was submitted to the NZ high court, as you asked. it also shows links to statements from the involved parties.
It lists the legal submissions made to the high court, correspondence between the lawyers and a general overview showing the differences between the adjusted and the RAW data.
Seriously??? what more do you need?!!?!!?
Complain about this comment
@everybody questioning the NIWA court case status
Guys, stop burying your heads in the sand
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1010/S00015/court-action-against-niwa-progress-report.htm
For the last ten years, visitors to NIWA’s official website have been greeted by a graph of the “seven-station series” (7SS), under the bold heading “New Zealand Temperature Record”. The graph covers the period from 1853 to the present, and is adorned by a prominent trend-line sloping sharply upwards. Accompanying text informs the world that “New Zealand has experienced a warming trend of approximately 0.9°C over the past 100 years.”
The 7SS has been updated and used in every monthly issue of NIWA’s “Climate Digest” since January 1993. Its 0.9°C (sometimes 1.0°C) of warming has appeared in the Australia/NZ Chapter of the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 Assessment Reports. It has been offered as sworn evidence in countless tribunals and judicial enquiries, and provides the historical base for all of NIWA’s reports to both Central and Local Governments on climate science issues and future projections.
Read the rest for yourselves, because the BEEB won't let me paste the whole story
/Mango
Complain about this comment
http://hot-topic.co.nz/niwa-v-cranks-4-shoot-out-at-the-fantasy-factory/
Labmunkey & Mango. I have provide links showing why the adjustments have been made, I have provided a link showing you still get warming if you use unadjusted site. Now I have also provide I link debunking the so called legal victory, and organisations distancing themselves from the data. The entire story is about an organisation submitting it's already debunked claims to the high court. It is a meaningless none story. Please drop it.
Complain about this comment
i guess we will see
Complain about this comment
@Hotashes #122
"Labmunkey & Mango. I have provide links showing why the adjustments have been made, I have provided a link showing you still get warming if you use unadjusted site. Now I have also provide I link debunking the so called legal victory, and organisations distancing themselves from the data. The entire story is about an organisation submitting it's already debunked claims to the high court. It is a meaningless none story. Please drop it."
That is simply untrue the non-adjusted data shows no warming at all.
EhHemm - That's why they are all in court at the moment ;-)
Or do you think that the Judiciary in New Zealand routinely waste their time for fun and giggles?
Sorry, I've been very busy boy today, but I will get back to lots of this later.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
#116. LabMunkey wrote:
As for the use of models, it is widely accepted that weather models only proffer any level of REAL predictability up to a 4 day window.
Is it?
The cimlate models are based one these weather models and yet claim predictability in the decadal scale, i do not buy this and many other scientists do not.
Different kind of prediction though. Climate models try to predict large scale long term patterns rather than short term weather systems
Couple with the fact that the correct prediction of past and current climate events has so far eluded the models then i have a reasonable confidence that they are insufficient.
They have variable skill at prediction. Part of the process of improving them occurs through the comparison between models and observations. Surely you wouldn't say that if Mark One of some technology doesn't work we should therefore abandon any further development?
Also there is a VERY important distinction in the application. Using models to crunch data is one thing, using models to CREATE data, is an entirely different and less easily defended thing.
But inevitably that's what happens ... because sometimes the problems of homogenizing the data are intractable and the modelled data are BETTER than the real raw data. And of course where there is no data you do have to use models. Later you might get some observations that indicate whether or not the model is correct, so you can correct the model, and then do a reanalysis of the past data using the new model.
"How many square miles do you need to measure a weather system, though?" that is actually an exceptionally good question, i'm not aware of any work that stipulates a 'minimum' data 'capture' area, unless you are??
No (I'm sure that work has been done though - I just don't have time to track it down). But the scale of a synoptic weather system seems appropriate
you can expect a degree of homogeneity across certain area's, but i'm also sure that you'll agree that this homogeneity is not, erm, homogenius.
Not quite sure what you mean by that!
Looking at the numbers i crunched though, the 53,380.3 sq miles per station would be the same as having 1 station (or less) in each of the following countries:
north korea,
iceland,
portugal,
Austria,
ireland,
netherlands,
israel,
or the same as only having 4 stations in the uk....
you must admit there's scope for very large climatic changes within these areas. It just doesn't seem enough mate, not even close.
I think the UK is only affected by one or at most two weather systems at a time. Because these systems can be quite well modelled, it means that even if there were just 4 suitably sited stations in the UK, the model would give a pretty good picture for the whole country
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #88
I don't think we are as far apart as some of the pre-post-#88 stuff suggests.
I remind you that the trigger for this discussion was your problem with claims that scientific hypotheses began life based on observation. So we need to be clear what those claims meant.
You seem happy that observation does have a role in science beyond simplistic testing of theories.
So here is a bit more argument meant to clarify my position, and hopefully that others such as Paul Butler.
Firstly the role of observation in Newton's gravity is intrinsically greater than that in 20th century theories about forces. Newton's and Kepler's work only give mathematical models that fit the observations. General Relativity offers a partial mechanism for gravity - distortion of space time. Similarly electromagnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces all offer a partial mechanism for the observed force - the exchange of particles.
Secondly look at big G, the gravitational constant. Unlike pi or e, big G cannot be derived, it can only measured. And it is not obvious why gravity is so much weaker than electromagnetism.
None of this is to deny the important role of observation in testing. But observation is also involved in the groundwork for the original hypothesis. Until some impossible TOE allows us to derive all scientific laws and all physical constants from pure maths, science in the real world will have to be grounded in observations, as the alternative is invisible pink unicorn territory.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #126 wrote:
You seem happy that observation does have a role in science beyond simplistic testing of theories.
Of course, but let's not forget the beautiful cunning and creativity of experimenters such as Michelson and Eddington (I mention them, since we've been talking about Einstein). There is rarely anything "simplistic" about the testing of hypotheses, especially when there seems to be no way of telling which of two rival hypotheses is better. Something like that is currently going on in biology between group selectionists and gene's-eye-view guys (like me). When this is settled, you will hear the popping of champagne corks and brain arteries, respectively!
Firstly the role of observation in Newton's gravity is intrinsically greater than that in 20th century theories about forces.
I think you need to explain that!
Newton himself seemed to think that he was unpacking the consequences of some very basic, self-evident principles. Hence his notorious "hypotheses non fingo" remark (or at least that's the way I interpret it). Einstein too did nothing at all like "extrapolate from data", even with his easiest-to-grasp stuff such as his explanation of the way rivers carve out their banks.
Newton's and Kepler's work only give mathematical models that fit the observations.
This may be the heart of our disagreement. You seem to be expressing a sort of "instrumentalism" here (instrumentalism is the doctrine that scientific theories are neither true nor false, and do not penetrate the hidden structure of reality, but are merely "instruments" for predicting what we observe directly).
look at big G, the gravitational constant. Unlike pi or e, big G cannot be derived, it can only measured.
Let me think who came first -- was it Newton or Cavendish? Please explain you point in more detail here!
observation is also involved in the groundwork for the original hypothesis.
Observation yields stuff to be explained, I agree. But it just never, ever implies the stuff that explains it.
science in the real world will have to be grounded in observations, as the alternative is invisible pink unicorn territory.
I suggest you think more about the idea of an idea being "grounded in observations". And I recommend our old mutual friend Richard Feynman as the principal source.
(-- Or me, but I doubt that would go down too well!)
Complain about this comment
Jane Bowman et al
Yes gravity is a really tricky problem, a force thAT AFFECTS OBJECTS AT A DISTANCEthat affects objects at a distance without visible means of contact. Relativity solves it a a space time curvature. Special Relativity uses an absolute base frame - but this means it does not explain gravity. However General Relativity has no absolute frame its only frame is local space time itself - this allows it to explain gravity.
General Relativity is a very good very strong theory in many ways but it does run into some pretty big problems. For instance GR predicts that black holes should have infinite space time curvature and one of the effects of this is that they would have no external gravity field. The only way that gravity can escape is if it either is not tied to space time or moves faster than light, either breaks GR. There is a solution using gravitational red shifting but that doesn't actually get ride of the FTL problem it just hides it. A much bigger problem is with the general shape of space time because without an FTL geometry the only part of the universe that exists is the Earth, with an FTL geometry there must exist an absolute frame and goodbye General Relativity. :)
As for the rest mass of light there is a bit of a problem here as well, again because of Einstein. Standard physics might say that light has no rest mass but this violates E=mc^2, the problem is that light carries energy and energy has mass. A simple way of solving it is to say that the rest mass of light is below some 'quantum limit' of momentum and appears to be zero although there is an infinitesimal mass there. The nature of light is really a pretty complex and subtle question and like a lot of physics the answer is subject to a lot of variables and always open to new theories. Hope I said everything a little more clearly than the last time we discussed this. :))
Complain about this comment
@bowmanthebard #127
"I think you need to explain that!"
OK, don't think you understood some of my #126.
I was contrasting Newton's gravity with Einstein's. Newton's doesn't include any cause. Einstein's includes space time distortions as contributing to the cause of gravity, the influence of which can be calculated by those with good maths.
For good measure I was also contrasting Newton's gravity (no obvious cause) with 20th century theories about electromagnetism, where exchange of photons contributes to the cause of electric and magnetic forces, and again, the influence of which can be calculated by those with good maths.
Incidentally I'd interpret Newton's "hypotheses non fingo" as Newton making it quite clear he did not know what caused gravity, only how it behaved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo
As for my point about pi, e and big G
There is a formula to calculate pi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi
There is a formula to calculate e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
There is no such formula to calculate big G (the gravitational constant). Big G has to be measured. So big G is a pure observation related component of Newton's gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
And there is no clear or accepted explanation for why electromagnetism is so much more powerful than gravity. The difference between the two forces is only reflected in their respective theories via observation.
Some theoretical physicists hope that a TOE could help fix all this, by giving us a way to calculate physical constants rather than measure them. Even if they are all calculable in the future, for now they have to be measured.
(note, big G is not dimensionless, it is however used in the dimensionless gravitational constant)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #128
E = mc^2 is a very famous equation. It's also a special case for objects at rest. Which obviously doesn't apply to moving objects such as photons.
Photons do have mass but they don't have rest mass. Instead it is relativistic mass. So if electrons and positrons annihilate each other producing gamma ray photons there is no loss of mass.
Complain about this comment
@Paul Butler, LabMunkey, Quake, Hotashes
surfacestations
it seems NCDC also think there are problems with the US temp record
if you go to the dreaded blog:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/how-to-solve-attribution-conflicts-in-climate-science/
and find the link to the pdf, you will see lessons learned written by Menne, Williams & Lawrimore and presented Exeter in Sept 2010
/Mango
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #129 wrote:
big G is a pure observation related component of Newton's gravity.
The value of G is determined by an experiment that resembles a test more than anything else, with a ruler's "tick marks" representing various outcomes of the test. Since G is quite abstract, it cannot be directly observed, and its value is not determined by any sort of extrapolation from things that can be directly observed. Induction is just not involved here.
Yet the near-universal assumption of warmists and sceptics alike is that science is essentially a matter of extrapolating from observations, of getting theories or models that are "based" (in the strict sense of the word) on observations. That's why you hear people uttering the words "based on data" all the time, even though it is a completely misguided, utterly wrong picture of science. No real science has anything like that sort of structure at all.
As Wittgenstein might say, "a picture holds us captive". That picture is the old idea that the mind is non-physical, and hence is a sort "engine of experiences" which is "cut off" from the physical world in a problematic way, and hence knowledge is a matter of an idea being "based on experience". I don't know where to begin to persuade people of how completely wrong that is -- but I've enjoyed our conversation all the same! -- Thanks!
Complain about this comment
As an ordinary mortal trying to understand these things have I understood correctly? The IPCC are trying to link up all continuous data sets from all sources from all around the world and from the various satellites in space? I should imagine this ongoing process will be very expensive and will require commitment from all governments. As this collection of data uses vast amounts computer memory, will the data be spread out and linked from computer to computer or is it all going to be centralized somewhere in one super computer? If so, who gets the supercomputer, let me guess.
Is it worth arguing about what has happened before or is it better to work with the improvements of data gathering? Surely data from the past is a useful reminder but as history shows, repeats of things don't happen in exactly the same way only in a similar pattern. Surely one can only get a general idea of future events from past events?
I don't believe in any conspiracy theory surrounding data collection or its consequent publication. I believe that scientist work with the best tools of their day to the best of their ability. If the data later turns out to be less accurate than expected then that is merely the result of working within the limitations of techniques and tools from a past era. If governments chose to use the data from previous times to make a point, it is probably an attempt to motivate and get funding from declining economies, to improve data collection in the future.
Complain about this comment
Blunderbunny
"That is simply untrue the non-adjusted data shows no warming at all." This is false - as the link I provided shows 11 sites in New Zealand, that don't require any adjustments because they haven't moved, show warming.
Also, if New Zealand weather stations aren't showing warming as you keep asserting - why do satellites and other observations? How do you explain the contradiction?
"EhHemm - That's why they are all in court at the moment ;-)"
They are not in court - the group who released the press release are trying to get this in to court - that is all!
As far as I can see a number of sites are trying to push this press release to create enough 'chatter' online to try and force this into court.
Complain about this comment
@hotashes #134
If there is not a high court case NZCSET v NIWA, why has NIWA produced a statement of defence complete with reference to the case?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2010-404-005092
UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and Part 30 of the High Court Rules
BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE SCIENCE EDUCATION TRUST Plaintiff AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WATER AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH LIMITED
Defendant
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
14 SEPTEMBER 2010
The statement can be downloaded here:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=667&Itemid=1
/Mango
Complain about this comment
I also understand judgement of this case is due just before the Cancun conference discussed by Richard in this article.
Would it be too much to ask that Richard brings us news of the judgement, whether it is for or against NIWA?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Mango,
Because that is how the law works. Someone makes a claim, and before it goes to court the defendent is given the opportunity to respond. A judgement is then made to whether the case warrents being heard in court.
Again I repeat, this case is not in Court. That is still to be decided!
PS Anyone with enough time and money can make a Claim no matter how wild!
Complain about this comment
@hotashes #137
you know what? I think you are correct in this respect
what we have is the preliminary claim by NZCSET and the defence statement by NIWA, where they agree or disagree with the plaintiff's claims.
Nothing more at this stage
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@Robert Lucien #128
"GR predicts that black holes should have infinite space time curvature ... only way that gravity can escape"
I think I'm picking up on some hidden assumptions here.
I think you may be confusing a black hole with its internal singularity. It is not clear that you understand the role of the event horizon in a conventional black hole.
If you are aware of black holes having event horizons then you seem unaware of the way the event horizon functions as a barrier to stuff, including information, inside the event horizon leaving the black hole (except evaporation through Hawking radiation).
The experts on general relativity go to great pains to provide explanations that explicitly involve the event horizon. Investigations into and debate about information content and entropy of black holes explicitly involves the event horizon.
There is the concept of a naked singularity, one where the event horizon does not hide the singularity, but there are no decent astronomical candidates for such an object. (Whereas there are many objects known to astronomy that are probably conventional black holes.)
Complain about this comment
@hotashes
@MangoChutneyUKOK
Wow. Seriously civilised conversation. Respect.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke #139 wrote:
the event horizon functions as a barrier to stuff, including information
Fine, as long as we're clear that in this context "information" is not information that something is the case, but mere reliable co-variation -- in other words, it's the sort of thing you get between the two ends of a seesaw, usually the result of causal influences. Since no physical particles can pass across the event horizon, and causal influences consist of physical pushes and pulls mediated by physical particles, there's no causal influence, and therefore no reliable co-variation.
I mention it only because that sort of information is not "stuff" -- in other words, it's no sort of commodity. Many people are tempted to think it is "stuff" because (A) engineers have a "metric" for it, in other words they have a way of numerically measuring how much and how reliable co-variation is between two locations; and (B) people in general have a yearning for an "immaterial substance" or spirit that has scientific credentials. Well sorry, but this isn't it!
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #140
I always aim for civilised conversation
I don't always reach my goal, but i always acknowledge when I am wrong
/Mango
Complain about this comment
@hotashes
Re: Court + NIWA
Proceedings are most definitely underway, depositions/statements have been made by both sides, I've got copies of them. As I said in my original posts on the subject, no judgement has been made yet.
What is your problem with that?
If there was simply/obviously no case to answer then it would have already been thrown out.
With regard to the other temperature records, I think we'll find at the end of the day that they've all been similarly manipulated (sorry, adjusted) and the space based measurements don't go back that far, so you can't bring those into the argument.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
#139. JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"@Robert Lucien #128
"GR predicts that black holes should have infinite space time curvature ... only way that gravity can escape"
I think I'm picking up on some hidden assumptions here.
I think you may be confusing a black hole with its internal singularity. It is not clear that you understand the role of the event horizon in a conventional black hole. "
If you want to sound really arrogant you should call it the Swarzschild radius surely only someone ignorant would call it an event horizon. [I'm being cynical]
At the event horizon is where the escape velocity reaches the speed of light, within it exceeds it.
"If you are aware of black holes having event horizons then you seem unaware of the way the event horizon functions as a barrier to stuff, including information, inside the event horizon leaving the black hole (except evaporation through Hawking radiation)."
Hawking radiation aside you just made my case for me. Gravity is carrying information and energy into and out of the black hole past the event horizon which breaks general relativity not just once but in several ways. As I said before there is an STL route if there is an absolute reference frame, or an FTL route which requires an FTL geometry (which also requires an absolute frame). Even theories like Quantum Loop Gravity can't escape the problem and generally rely on some kind of tachyon that carries the information indirectly.
As for Hawking radiation energy does not escape the black hole at all, Hawking radiation occurs when a virtual particle pair is created and the negative particle falls in to the black hole while the positive particle escapes - reducing the black holes overall mass.
The experts on general relativity go to great pains to provide explanations that explicitly involve the event horizon. Investigations into and debate about information content and entropy of black holes explicitly involves the event horizon.
The whole problem with Relativity is that its 'experts' have become like the high priests of a religion, they weave their spells with their impossible to understand maths based on insoluble Laplace transforms in closed systems of 8 or more terms. They prove to the billionth degree that their version of relativity must be correct and that anything that contradicts it in any way is wrong by definition even physical reality itself.
There is the concept of a naked singularity, one where the event horizon does not hide the singularity, but there are no decent astronomical candidates for such an object. (Whereas there are many objects known to astronomy that are probably conventional black holes.)
There is a solution to the equations of gravity that puts tiny singularities at the heart of all atoms and all matter. It might not be a popular theory but it is very hard to disprove.
******************************************************
BTW I published the first version of this in a hurry in the middle of editing it as my stupid computer was crashing again (**@ unstable graphics drivers).
Yes gravity is a really tricky problem, a force that affects objects at a distance without visible means of contact.
General Relativity is currently the best solution to gravity because it provides an extremely accurate approximation that works on many scales and because it provides a relatively simple answer, however it has problems and fails in a number of different areas plus it is fundamentally incompatible with quantum mechanics.
Special Relativity(SR) uses a flat space time with an absolute 'base frame' - but this means that it does not and cannot explain gravity directly.
General Relativity(GR) uses a space time but with no absolute frame and its only frame is relative to local space time itself - this allows it to explain gravity as space time curvature.
Problems with General Relativity.
For instance GR predicts that black holes should have an infinite space time curvature and one of the effects of this is that they should have no external gravity field. The only way that a black hole can have gravity is if gravity is either tied to some base reference frame or moves faster than light, and either breaks GR. There is a solution to this using 'gravitational red shifting' but that doesn't actually get ride of the FTL problem it just hides it.
Another much bigger problem is with the general shape of space time because without an FTL geometry the only part of the universe that exists is the Earth and our historical light cone (which makes no sense). Once you allow an FTL geometry there must be an absolute reference frame and goodbye General Relativity at least as a standalone solution. :)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS