PDA

View Full Version : APP - Climate data so bad MET office says redo it



tinfoil
02-24-2010, 10:24 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7039264.ece

LOL
Awesome AGW science!!

FUCK THE POLICE
02-24-2010, 12:10 PM
Your article doesn't say what you say it says.

Damocles
02-24-2010, 12:35 PM
The Met Office document stresses that the new assessment would be fully independent and be based on data that was freely available to the public and could therefore be examined by climate sceptics.

Good.

FUCK THE POLICE
02-24-2010, 02:02 PM
Don't call them "skeptics".

Damocles
02-24-2010, 03:29 PM
Don't call them "skeptics".
Why not?

FUCK THE POLICE
02-24-2010, 03:38 PM
Why not?

Because it's insulting to me. You are a denier (like "holocaust denier"), not a skeptic. A skeptic approaches issues rationally and ways the evidence from both sides. A denier, like you, would deny the Earth spun if it fit your political ideology well enough.

And it doesn't matter how the report turns out. If it turns out pro-climate change (which it will), you will dismiss it and collect your check from the oil and gas industries. If it finds any flaws what so ever, you will declare that this means that all data ever collect on global warming is insignfigant and therefore there's no climate change.

This is classic denialism. You people think just like religious fundamentalists.

Damocles
02-24-2010, 03:42 PM
Because it's insulting to me. You are a denier (like "holocaust denier"), not a skeptic. A skeptic approaches issues rationally and ways the evidence from both sides. A denier, like you, would deny the Earth spun if it fit your political ideology well enough.

And it doesn't matter how the report turns out. If it turns out pro-climate change (which it will), you will dismiss it and collect your check from the oil and gas industries. If it finds any flaws what so ever, you will declare that this means that all data ever collect on global warming is insignfigant and therefore there's no climate change.

This is classic denialism. You people think just like religious fundamentalists.
I am a skeptic. I prefer to be able to review the information and come up with a decision. I don't like it when the information isn't available for review (specifically the redacted information changed by a computer program without any access as to methodology).

I don't deny that it might be, only that the "fix" wouldn't fix anything and killing our economy isn't a viable solution and leaves us less capable of fixing things when it becomes necessary. And I certainly don't trust the people who kept shoving it down our throats as being unquestioned.

The article is the solution, I applaud what they are doing. Give us the information, this is a good thing.

The very idea that they are making the information reviewable is a major bonus and directly contradicts your assertions that it was freely reviewable previously. It wasn't.

Cypress
02-24-2010, 08:55 PM
This is like the ten billionth time some wingnut has posted a link from a rightwing blog, or a rightwing British tabloid, whereas I went to the actual source reported in the article and found out that what the blog-reading teabaggers claims was said, was actually pretty much the opposite of what really went down.

So, in summary, Tinfoil reads a British rightwing tabloid on this and hastily concludes:


TINFOIL: Climate data SO bad Met says REDO it! The Met Office ADMIT they LIED! LOLZ! The global liberal scientific conspiracy is crumbling before my eyes! LOLZ!!!!!


But, when you go to the actual Met Office report, that is linked in tinny’s own article, it pretty much states the exact opposite of what Mr. Wingnut tried to imply…..

The Met stands by the data. The earth through the 20th century has been trending warmer.

The reason they are doing the data review is to achieve higher resolution datasets, so that higher resolution trends can be analyzed.

In short, the article Tin Wingnut was easily duped by, is a complete teabagging mischaracterization and completely misleading about the Met Office.

Truly pathetic to watch a teabagger, so easily manipulated. Tin Wingnut duped again by a rightwing british tabloid. Just as easily as tinfoil was duped into supporting the Iraq fiasco.

Carry on.



Met Office, from Tin Wingnut’s Own Link:

Surface temperature datasets are of critical importance for detecting, monitoring and communicating climate change. They are also essential for testing the validity of the climate models that are used to produce predictions of future climate change. The current datasets, constructed in the UK and US using different methodologies, agree in showing that the world is warming. Taken together these records provide a robust indicator of global change and form part of the evidence base that led the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to conclude that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”…

…..we have been considering how the datasets can be brought up to modern standards and made fit for the purpose of addressing 21st Century needs. We feel that it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyze surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has the responsibility for global observing and monitoring systems for weather and climate.

The proposed activity would provide:
1. Verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data at both monthly
and finer temporal resolutions (daily and perhaps even sub-daily);
2. Methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;
3. A set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent
groups using independent methods;
4. Robust benchmarking of performance and comprehensive audit trails to deliver
confidence in the results;
5. Robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and
geographical in homogeneities.

It is important to emphasize that we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale multi-decadal trends. This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent.


Background
In many respects HadCRUT has been the default choice of surface dataset in all 4 IPCC
Assessment Reports. However we must stress that other independent datasets are used which support the HadCRUT data. There are three centres which currently calculate global average temperature each month:

• Met Office, in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of
East Anglia (UK);
• Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is part of NASA (USA);
• National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which is part of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (USA).

These groups work independently and use different methods in the way they process data to
calculate the global average temperature.

Despite this, the results of each are similar from month to month and year to year, and there is robust agreement on temperature trends from decade to decade.

All existing surface temperature datasets are homogenized at the monthly resolution, and are therefore suitable for characterizing multi-decadal trends. These are adequate for answering the pressing 20th Century questions of whether climate is changing and if so how. But they are fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st Century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken. Monthly resolution data cannot verify model projections of extremes in temperature which by definition are (sub-) daily resolution events.

ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/SESSIONS/CCl-XV/English/DOCs/pdf/inf15_en.pdf

tinfoil
02-24-2010, 09:03 PM
the very fact that they have to do ANYTHING with the data is PROOF it was fucked up!!!

Cypress makes me laugh. what a dolt.

It's fricken hilarious how this pea-brain thinks I'm ignorant when I've spanked his ass every thread.

link your sceince, Crypiss!!

One fricken study that proves human CO2 is causing catostrophic global warming.

Just one link!

I've linked the recent studies that show water vapor was not included and misattributed to human caused CO2

link your science, mr. warmer!!

Just once! link some science, mr. warmer

Cypress
02-24-2010, 09:06 PM
the very fact that they have to do ANYTHING with the data is PROOF it was fucked up!!!

LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You probably wouldn't know this from laying carpets, or whatever it is you do.

But data sets are culled, tossed out, and refined all the time in science.


But you were easily manipulated and duped by smarter machiavellian conservatives into supporting the Iraq Fiasco. So, I'm not surprised at how easily manipulated you are, yet again.

tinfoil
02-24-2010, 09:15 PM
You probably wouldn't know this from laying carpets, or whatever it is you do.

But data sets are culled, tossed out, and refined all the time in science.


But you were easily manipulated and duped by smarter machiavellian conservatives into supporting the Iraq Fiasco. So, I'm not surprised at how easily manipulated you are, yet again.

Hey cypress, do you have any links, partner? I doubt you can scrounge up even one single study that shows the human CO2 forcing causes catostrophic warming.


and I love you knocking me. Do it all you want. you'rte nothing but a social working pencil pushing desk jockey. I wouldn't be suprised if you couldn't hammer a nail into a board.

I'm a highly skilled artisan.
I make double what you make for sure. You have no idea what contractors make. I bet you're salaried and have multiple bosses. LOL I answer to no one! I'm my own fucking boss, so laugh all you want bean counter.

As for the dataset at CRU, if you had followed the news instead of watcthing gay porn all day long, you'd know that the CRU data is in question by the Russians for selective omission of warm trending sites.

Do yoy honestly believe the MET will reveal this? LOL
IDIOT

tinfoil
02-24-2010, 10:00 PM
no links. Just as I figured. You're all talk Crypiss. Just a big mouth. Your boyfriend must love it. That, and that you like playing catcher

Taichiliberal
02-24-2010, 11:37 PM
This is like the ten billionth time some wingnut has posted a link from a rightwing blog, or a rightwing British tabloid, whereas I went to the actual source reported in the article and found out that what the blog-reading teabaggers claims was said, was actually pretty much the opposite of what really went down.

So, in summary, Tinfoil reads a British rightwing tabloid on this and hastily concludes:


TINFOIL: Climate data SO bad Met says REDO it! The Met Office ADMIT they LIED! LOLZ! The global liberal scientific conspiracy is crumbling before my eyes! LOLZ!!!!!


But, when you go to the actual Met Office report, that is linked in tinny’s own article, it pretty much states the exact opposite of what Mr. Wingnut tried to imply…..

The Met stands by the data. The earth through the 20th century has been trending warmer.

The reason they are doing the data review is to achieve higher resolution datasets, so that higher resolution trends can be analyzed.

In short, the article Tin Wingnut was easily duped by, is a complete teabagging mischaracterization and completely misleading about the Met Office.

Truly pathetic to watch a teabagger, so easily manipulated. Tin Wingnut duped again by a rightwing british tabloid. Just as easily as tinfoil was duped into supporting the Iraq fiasco.

Carry on.


Met Office, from Tin Wingnut’s Own Link:

Surface temperature datasets are of critical importance for detecting, monitoring and communicating climate change. They are also essential for testing the validity of the climate models that are used to produce predictions of future climate change. The current datasets, constructed in the UK and US using different methodologies, agree in showing that the world is warming. Taken together these records provide a robust indicator of global change and form part of the evidence base that led the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to conclude that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”…

…..we have been considering how the datasets can be brought up to modern standards and made fit for the purpose of addressing 21st Century needs. We feel that it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyze surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has the responsibility for global observing and monitoring systems for weather and climate.

The proposed activity would provide:
1. Verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data at both monthly
and finer temporal resolutions (daily and perhaps even sub-daily);
2. Methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;
3. A set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent
groups using independent methods;
4. Robust benchmarking of performance and comprehensive audit trails to deliver
confidence in the results;
5. Robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and
geographical in homogeneities.

It is important to emphasize that we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale multi-decadal trends. This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent.


Background
In many respects HadCRUT has been the default choice of surface dataset in all 4 IPCC
Assessment Reports. However we must stress that other independent datasets are used which support the HadCRUT data. There are three centres which currently calculate global average temperature each month:

• Met Office, in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of
East Anglia (UK);
• Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is part of NASA (USA);
• National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which is part of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (USA).

These groups work independently and use different methods in the way they process data to
calculate the global average temperature.

Despite this, the results of each are similar from month to month and year to year, and there is robust agreement on temperature trends from decade to decade.

All existing surface temperature datasets are homogenized at the monthly resolution, and are therefore suitable for characterizing multi-decadal trends. These are adequate for answering the pressing 20th Century questions of whether climate is changing and if so how. But they are fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st Century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken. Monthly resolution data cannot verify model projections of extremes in temperature which by definition are (sub-) daily resolution events.

ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/SESSIONS...f/inf15_en.pdf

What do you expect from someone who calls himself the local crank and wears a tinfoil hat...logic? Rationality? Hardly.

Denial is the watchword of global warming deniers. Dodges, lies, distortions, supposition and conjecture are their main stays.

Kudos to you for logically and factually putting the kibosh on this stooges' latest BS attempt....but it's only for the rational and objective to appreciate.

tinfoil
02-25-2010, 12:29 AM
you clowns able to link science, or what?

cancel2 2022
02-25-2010, 03:49 AM
What do you expect from someone who calls himself the local crank and wears a tinfoil hat...logic? Rationality? Hardly.

Denial is the watchword of global warming deniers. Dodges, lies, distortions, supposition and conjecture are their main stays.

Kudos to you for logically and factually putting the kibosh on this stooges' latest BS attempt....but it's only for the rational and objective to appreciate.

Nobody credible is denying that there has been global warming, what is very much in contention is the extent and the cause.

Taichiliberal
02-25-2010, 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What do you expect from someone who calls himself the local crank and wears a tinfoil hat...logic? Rationality? Hardly.

Denial is the watchword of global warming deniers. Dodges, lies, distortions, supposition and conjecture are their main stays.

Kudos to you for logically and factually putting the kibosh on this stooges' latest BS attempt....but it's only for the rational and objective to appreciate.



Nobody credible is denying that there has been global warming, what is very much in contention is the extent and the cause.

True enough.....what drives me crazy is how folks on both sides of the argument seem to either minimalize or outright dismiss the exponential increase in deforestation and industrial pollution as a major contributor.

cancel2 2022
02-26-2010, 07:05 AM
True enough.....what drives me crazy is how folks on both sides of the argument seem to either minimalize or outright dismiss the exponential increase in deforestation and industrial pollution as a major contributor.

Yes you are right about pollution. Here is a picture of the Asian Brown Cloud taken by NASA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Giant_Brown_Cloud_Storm_over_Asia_%28NASA%29.jpg

Taichiliberal
02-26-2010, 07:00 PM
Yes you are right about pollution. Here is a picture of the Asian Brown Cloud taken by NASA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Giant_Brown_Cloud_Storm_over_Asia_%28NASA%29.jpg

:shock::(

midcan5
02-27-2010, 06:42 AM
"Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change... Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html


"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/12/in_praise_of_scepticism.html)

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Excllent piece 400,000 year view global warming

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.h tml

NOVA
02-27-2010, 02:09 PM
Yes you are right about pollution. Here is a picture of the Asian Brown Cloud taken by NASA.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Giant_Brown_Cloud_Storm_over_Asia_%28NASA%29.jpg

Funny,
how this cloud is portrayed depends on the agenda of the portray-er....

Another view....

Asian Dust' (also yellow dust, yellow sand, yellow wind or China dust storms) is a seasonal meteorological phenomenon which affects much of East Asia sporadically during the springtime months. The dust originates in the deserts of Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan where high-speed surface winds and intense dust storms kick up dense clouds of fine, dry soil particles.

cancel2 2022
02-27-2010, 05:59 PM
Funny,
how this cloud is portrayed depends on the agenda of the portray-er....

Another view....

Asian Dust' (also yellow dust, yellow sand, yellow wind or China dust storms) is a seasonal meteorological phenomenon which affects much of East Asia sporadically during the springtime months. The dust originates in the deserts of Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan where high-speed surface winds and intense dust storms kick up dense clouds of fine, dry soil particles.

Nice try!!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/366816.stm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYYK-2sDN4U"

Cypress
02-27-2010, 07:47 PM
Nobody credible is denying that there has been global warming, what is very much in contention is the extent and the cause.


I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that there is uncertainty in science. That's the nature of the beast, man.

As for the credibility comment, well I agree that no one credible is denying warming. And no one credible is babbling about a global scientific conspiracy either. Yet, surely you recall that for the entire 1990s this same cabal of "skeptics" were the ones that hollered that "there was no warming trend". That the warming trend was the invention of lying, liberal scientists who were misinterpreting their data.

It's only been in recent year that these very same "skeptics' have had to move their goal posts, and flip flop to say that there is warming but that it isn't man made.

They were wrong, horribly wrong in the 1990s. When someone is that wrong, I'm usually not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when they holler "But, THIS time I'll be right!"


Thousands of the world's top climate scientists who actually do their own peer reviewed research in this area have given us an informed conclusion that there is a high probablliity that the recent warming trends are being exacerbated by human activities.

The skeptics, almost universally, are all either non-scientists, or they don't do any of their own peer reviewed lab or field research in climate science. They don't collect and present their own peer-reviewed data sets. All they do publish articles on blogs, issue statements to the press, or write a non-peer reviewed article for some rightwing think tank. Cranks yelling from the back bench and from the peanut gallery, in essence.

In other words, I disagree with your assertion that the effects of global warming "are very much in contention". They're not. Unless you consider rightwing think tanks, and statements to a blog or a newspaper from some dude to be legitimate science. It's not. The skeptics aren't providing their own legitimate peer reviewed science. They're just complaining, and writing articles for blogs and think tanks. That isn't science, bro.

The fact that there is uncertainty is not a reason to do nothing. Although, scientists have concluded with a relatively high degree of confidence that human activities are significantly contributing to climate change, it's never going to be proven with absolute, bullet proof certainty. But, that's just the nature of science. The question, from a policy perspective, is one of risk management. Risk management is what policy is always about. Indeed, in your every day life, managing risk is done on a daily basis even absent 100%, guaranteed bullet proof certainty of facts. That's just life.

The question is, how high is the probability that humans are influencing the climate (pretty high, according to the world's top climate scientists), and even without ever knowing fully 100% the nature of that risk, how should we manage the risk, or should we even worry about managing the risk.

Changing the climate on a global basis is a pretty huge risk. Even if we aren't fully 120% certain of the exact nature of the risk. Ronald Reagan fucking moved like a bolt of lightening and imposed a hardcore and severe complete worldwide ban on CFCs on the basis of less information, than we have now on greenhouse gases. And you know what? The same denialists who said in the 1990s that there was no warming were the same denialists who said that CFCs and the Ozone hole were all liberal lies, as well.


Its the same shit, different day, man.

Taichiliberal
02-27-2010, 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by bravo
Funny,
how this cloud is portrayed depends on the agenda of the portray-er....

Another view....

Asian Dust' (also yellow dust, yellow sand, yellow wind or China dust storms) is a seasonal meteorological phenomenon which affects much of East Asia sporadically during the springtime months. The dust originates in the deserts of Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan where high-speed surface winds and intense dust storms kick up dense clouds of fine, dry soil particles.


Nice try!!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/366816.stm

YouTube- [CNN] Asia's Pollution Super-Cloud 2008.11.13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYYK-2sDN4U)

Well done. Bravo now has to scramble like crazy to find a denier site that can offer some type of plausible denial of what you post here. I'm curious to see who is calling this brown cloud "seasonal" dust.

Minister of Truth
02-28-2010, 01:54 AM
Well, at least we know the ozone holes over Antarctica are seasonal...

cancel2 2022
02-28-2010, 07:33 AM
Changing the climate on a global basis is a pretty huge risk. Even if we aren't fully 120% certain of the exact nature of the risk. Ronald Reagan fucking moved like a bolt of lightening and imposed a hardcore and severe complete worldwide ban on CFCs on the basis of less information, than we have now on greenhouse gases. And you know what? The same denialists who said in the 1990s that there was no warming were the same denialists who said that CFCs and the Ozone hole were all liberal lies, as well.


Its the same shit, different day, man.



The science is by no means settled and my main bone of contention is that politicians are using what there is to impose swingeing green taxes and to justify carbon credits. Is it any wonder that Goldman Sachs and all the other leeches were at Copenhagen waiting for their next attempt to screw the world? I have been following the CLOUD experiment with great interest as it provides an alternative explanation for global warming.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/12/cerns-cloud-experiment.html

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

Cypress
02-28-2010, 06:36 PM
The science is by no means settled and my main bone of contention is that politicians are using what there is to impose swingeing green taxes and to justify carbon credits. Is it any wonder that Goldman Sachs and all the other leeches were at Copenhagen waiting for their next attempt to screw the world? I have been following the CLOUD experiment with great interest as it provides an alternative explanation for global warming.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/12/cerns-cloud-experiment.html

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/


I just wrote that the science isn't 100% settled. It never will be.

400 years after Isacc Newton, we are still debating the exact nature and cause of gravity. Nothing is ever known with 100% certainty in science. The best we can do is assign a probability to scientific estimates. The world climate science community has proffered it's judgement that the probability that humans are significantly affecting the climate is very high. That is beyond dispute. To suggest that it's very much in contention, is just plain wrong.

As for cap and trade, carbon taxes, that's fine if you have a problem with it. That's not science. That's policy. And I happen to agree that the wall street robber barons and global financiers are desperate to create schemes that will keep CO2 from being regulated like any other known or probable pollutant of concern.

As for CLOUD offering an "alternative explanation" (your word) to climate change, I watched your entire video. And it said nothing of the sort. No scientifically defensible theory was proffered. If you go to his conclusion slide, the dude even says himself, that his experiment may show that cosmic radiation has a negligible effect on clouds, or that it may show that cosmic rays are an important contributor to climate change. In short, the dude himself says he doesn't know. He's offering a hypothesis. An educated guess. There's no body of work on cosmic radiation that has been widely accepted by the scientific community as a significant forcing on climate change.

Now, this dude's experiment may shed some interesting light on cloud formation. But, as far as being a major contributor to climate change, he says himself he has no idea. Its just a hypothesis. It doesn't rise to the level of climate change being "very much in contention", as I believe you put it.

No doubt, there's a few physicists on the planet who've spent the last two decades trying to find a link between sun spots and cosmic radiation to explain climate change. Most of it has been debunked. Certainly, experiments devoted to understanding cloud cover are important, and there are uncertainties worthy developing experimental data to mitigate. But, nothing legitimate and supportable has ever been offered to suggest that climate change can be explained by cosmic rays. Nothing but hypothesis and speculations. The dude on your own video said that, in his conclusions. We can only make policy decisions on what we know, or what has been widely accepted as expert, informed analysis and conclusions. Not on hypothesis, and speculations.

In fact, most scientists have pretty much debunked the alleged correlations between cosmic radiation, clouds, and climate.


Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 024001
Sloan and Wolfendale


A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.pdf?request-id=28a14b56-9fd5-47e3-9867-0741e982cce7

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/1/014006/erl9_1_014006.pdf?request-id=6f6ef0ae-72cd-494e-a042-5462f836e226

Cancel 2016.2
02-28-2010, 09:23 PM
I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that there is uncertainty in science. That's the nature of the beast, man.

As for the credibility comment, well I agree that no one credible is denying warming. And no one credible is babbling about a global scientific conspiracy either. Yet, surely you recall that for the entire 1990s this same cabal of "skeptics" were the ones that hollered that "there was no warming trend". That the warming trend was the invention of lying, liberal scientists who were misinterpreting their data.

It's only been in recent year that these very same "skeptics' have had to move their goal posts, and flip flop to say that there is warming but that it isn't man made.

They were wrong, horribly wrong in the 1990s. When someone is that wrong, I'm usually not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when they holler "But, THIS time I'll be right!"


Thousands of the world's top climate scientists who actually do their own peer reviewed research in this area have given us an informed conclusion that there is a high probablliity that the recent warming trends are being exacerbated by human activities.

The skeptics, almost universally, are all either non-scientists, or they don't do any of their own peer reviewed lab or field research in climate science. They don't collect and present their own peer-reviewed data sets. All they do publish articles on blogs, issue statements to the press, or write a non-peer reviewed article for some rightwing think tank. Cranks yelling from the back bench and from the peanut gallery, in essence.

In other words, I disagree with your assertion that the effects of global warming "are very much in contention". They're not. Unless you consider rightwing think tanks, and statements to a blog or a newspaper from some dude to be legitimate science. It's not. The skeptics aren't providing their own legitimate peer reviewed science. They're just complaining, and writing articles for blogs and think tanks. That isn't science, bro.

The fact that there is uncertainty is not a reason to do nothing. Although, scientists have concluded with a relatively high degree of confidence that human activities are significantly contributing to climate change, it's never going to be proven with absolute, bullet proof certainty. But, that's just the nature of science. The question, from a policy perspective, is one of risk management. Risk management is what policy is always about. Indeed, in your every day life, managing risk is done on a daily basis even absent 100%, guaranteed bullet proof certainty of facts. That's just life.

The question is, how high is the probability that humans are influencing the climate (pretty high, according to the world's top climate scientists), and even without ever knowing fully 100% the nature of that risk, how should we manage the risk, or should we even worry about managing the risk.

Changing the climate on a global basis is a pretty huge risk. Even if we aren't fully 120% certain of the exact nature of the risk. Ronald Reagan fucking moved like a bolt of lightening and imposed a hardcore and severe complete worldwide ban on CFCs on the basis of less information, than we have now on greenhouse gases. And you know what? The same denialists who said in the 1990s that there was no warming were the same denialists who said that CFCs and the Ozone hole were all liberal lies, as well.


Its the same shit, different day, man.

1) Not sure why anyone is surprised that there is 'uncertainty in science'... despite the fact that these global warming fear mongers have been shouting 'consensus' and 'the debate is over'? So no surprise??? Fucking hilarious.

2) People in the 1990s who questioned global warming were questioning 'man' causing it. While I imagine there were certainly fringe people who said there was no warming, the SCIENTISTS were questioning the use of the data by the fear mongers. Turns out, they were correct to do so.

3) The group moving the goal posts... are the global warming fear mongers... you know, the ones who NOW insist upon calling it 'climate change'... they do this because by calling it climate change they can point to ANY change and say 'see... we told you so'..... this was done because as they now admit, there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS. (a point I brought up to you fear mongers a couple years ago, when idiots like you had a hard time understanding that a trend line is linear).

4) Those scientists who 'did their own studies'.... tell us... WHOSE data did they use? Go on... tell us... you know the answer... they were using the data from the CRU, NOAA and Goddard.... they ALL USED THE SAME MAJOR DATA SOURCES. IF THE SOURCES WERE TAINTED (or sloppy as Jones stated) then the subsequent studies are called into question.

5) Peer review is brought into question given the attempts by the fear mongers to suppress opposing views. You are also wrong, there are thousands of scientists who are critical of the theory that man is the primary cause of the most recent warming trend. But I know... you will continue to point to the government agencies who have a vested interest in their own fear mongering and pretend this somehow legitimizes their 'studies'.

cancel2 2022
03-01-2010, 05:43 AM
I just wrote that the science isn't 100% settled. It never will be.

400 years after Isacc Newton, we are still debating the exact nature and cause of gravity. Nothing is ever known with 100% certainty in science. The best we can do is assign a probability to scientific estimates. The world climate science community has proffered it's judgement that the probability that humans are significantly affecting the climate is very high. That is beyond dispute. To suggest that it's very much in contention, is just plain wrong.

As for cap and trade, carbon taxes, that's fine if you have a problem with it. That's not science. That's policy. And I happen to agree that the wall street robber barons and global financiers are desperate to create schemes that will keep CO2 from being regulated like any other known or probable pollutant of concern.

As for CLOUD offering an "alternative explanation" (your word) to climate change, I watched your entire video. And it said nothing of the sort. No scientifically defensible theory was proffered. If you go to his conclusion slide, the dude even says himself, that his experiment may show that cosmic radiation has a negligible effect on clouds, or that it may show that cosmic rays are an important contributor to climate change. In short, the dude himself says he doesn't know. He's offering a hypothesis. An educated guess. There's no body of work on cosmic radiation that has been widely accepted by the scientific community as a significant forcing on climate change.

Now, this dude's experiment may shed some interesting light on cloud formation. But, as far as being a major contributor to climate change, he says himself he has no idea. Its just a hypothesis. It doesn't rise to the level of climate change being "very much in contention", as I believe you put it.

No doubt, there's a few physicists on the planet who've spent the last two decades trying to find a link between sun spots and cosmic radiation to explain climate change. Most of it has been debunked. Certainly, experiments devoted to understanding cloud cover are important, and there are uncertainties worthy developing experimental data to mitigate. But, nothing legitimate and supportable has ever been offered to suggest that climate change can be explained by cosmic rays. Nothing but hypothesis and speculations. The dude on your own video said that, in his conclusions. We can only make policy decisions on what we know, or what has been widely accepted as expert, informed analysis and conclusions. Not on hypothesis, and speculations.

In fact, most scientists have pretty much debunked the alleged correlations between cosmic radiation, clouds, and climate.


Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 024001
Sloan and Wolfendale


Jasper Kirkby, or the dude as you term him, is not giving much away because he got burnt before by the powers that be back in the late 90s. I can assure you that CERN would not have put the money up for this research if it was based on a few cranks and a dodgy hypothesis. The full results should be coming forth this year so you won't have long to wait. I can see that you are not that familiar with this research or that of Henrik Svenmark and Nir Shaviv, so I suggest that you bone up on their work first before forming an opinion, that is how a true scientist operates. At the same time show me that your opinions are formed from sound deductive thinking rather than an emotive something must be done agenda.

The reason why I say the science is very much in contention is because there is very little in the way of evidence apart from Mann's infamous hockey stick and a few trees in the Kamchatka Peninsula.. Yet politicians are potentially willing to throw countless billions away on something that is based on tenuous evidence.

tinfoil
03-01-2010, 05:50 PM
1) Not sure why anyone is surprised that there is 'uncertainty in science'... despite the fact that these global warming fear mongers have been shouting 'consensus' and 'the debate is over'? So no surprise??? Fucking hilarious.

2) People in the 1990s who questioned global warming were questioning 'man' causing it. While I imagine there were certainly fringe people who said there was no warming, the SCIENTISTS were questioning the use of the data by the fear mongers. Turns out, they were correct to do so.

3) The group moving the goal posts... are the global warming fear mongers... you know, the ones who NOW insist upon calling it 'climate change'... they do this because by calling it climate change they can point to ANY change and say 'see... we told you so'..... this was done because as they now admit, there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS. (a point I brought up to you fear mongers a couple years ago, when idiots like you had a hard time understanding that a trend line is linear).

4) Those scientists who 'did their own studies'.... tell us... WHOSE data did they use? Go on... tell us... you know the answer... they were using the data from the CRU, NOAA and Goddard.... they ALL USED THE SAME MAJOR DATA SOURCES. IF THE SOURCES WERE TAINTED (or sloppy as Jones stated) then the subsequent studies are called into question.

5) Peer review is brought into question given the attempts by the fear mongers to suppress opposing views. You are also wrong, there are thousands of scientists who are critical of the theory that man is the primary cause of the most recent warming trend. But I know... you will continue to point to the government agencies who have a vested interest in their own fear mongering and pretend this somehow legitimizes their 'studies'.

aint it a hoot? Cypress, mr. consensus, telling us he doesn't know where anyone got the idea the science was settled. Laugh out fucking loud funny


If the science is uncertain, as cypress now maintains his position has been all along (yeah, right, buddy), how is it we can spend billions on measures based on the science, and why the fuck do you call sceptics deniers?