Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[David M]

All that I need to claim about Hansen is what i quoted in post # 42 above. The issue is not about a court of law as to who said what first. The quotes in post # 42 by Hansen are the type that drive the hysterical public reaction to so-called "global warming"

I am concerned that it is promoted by bad modeling of the physics and can have dangerous consequences.

Is that not clear enough?

So are you retracting your claim that Hansen says "its all AGW"?

Thats what I said was wrong.

[Augustine2004]

First, we need good data. I share Glenn's concern that it is not as good as represented by leading 'climatologists.'

Finally, we need a good model. I mean what Shadowmaster means: a scientifically constructed and verified model. Start with known physics laws and principles. Avoid adjustable parameters as far as possible (a version of Occam's Razor?). Test the model by comparing it to good data.

Rather impossible now, because we know so little about what is going on and in the ground, on and in the oceans, and in the air. Volcanoes did have effects that we are still studying.

[Augustine2004]

David M apparently will attack every instance of hyperbole. Maybe he will even attack this post.

[FreezBee]

David M apparently will attack every instance of hyperbole. Maybe he will even attack this post.

If he does, then it won't be hyperbole, and then he won't attack it. so you should be safe.

- FreezBee

[shadowmaster]

David M apparently will attack every instance of hyperbole. Maybe he will even attack this post.

What is hyperbole?
Is it anything like parabole?

[shunyadragon]

What is hyperbole?
Is it anything like parabole?

It is one, not two, holes in the pavement, and deeper.

[grmorton]

This does not match the long term CO₂ level data from the Vostok Ice core, which shows that CO₂ levels have been rising for over 10,000 years. Nor does it fit the history of fossil fuel use, which dates back to at least the Roman Empire.

What is your source for CO₂ levels?

Roy

Hi Roy, I don't think that anyone will accuse Stephen Schneider of being a global warming skeptic. I will cite him from his page http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...Influence.html

The first two pictures below are from his page.

The third is from the IPCC. Note that the CO2 level from 1650 to about 1850 was quite flat. Please note Roy that what happens in these debates is that I say that the world has been warming since 1650 before the CO2 rise went up, and you reply about CO2 levels back 10,000 years ago. I wasn't speaking about 10,000 years ago. I was speaking about 1650 on.

That being said, I have now provided a chart going back 10kyr ago and it shows that CO2 hasn't risen, according to the IPCC itself. THAT is my source of CO2 information.

Sorry to be sharp, but this has been a really bad day

[grmorton]

Simply quoting the published results, which Morton disputes, as “evidence” is as dishonest as one can get. (See for example all posts by Tiggy)

Norton is "strange" in that he does not blindly follow "peer reviewed" literature as though it were some holy interpretation of the Bible.
He forces an analysis based upon first physical principles.

This is a non-Tiggy-poop thread. All of your claims and all of mine are subject to analysis. You may go first.

SM

I see I have been promoted up the alphabet from Morton to Norton. I always liked Ed Norton.

OK, if that is what you meant by me being strange, you are right. I don't believe anyone until I have looked at the data, to the best of my ability. And I am not cowed by so called peer reviewed science. Shoot peer reviewed science used to deny pre-clovis Americans and would let nothing showing pre-clovis people be published.. That group think was quite wrong

[grmorton]

But this is really an aside as my point was that the NOAA data does not show what Glen said it did and that is fully supported by the graph that he linked to. It shows a warming trend not a cooling one.

I'm not a climate scientist but I can read a graph and do some maths.

this is the data that went into that graph. I can't figure out how you can say it doesn't support what I said. In my original note I mentioned that 2005 was hotter than 1998, but that is the only year. All other years post 1998 are cooler than 1998. That is what I said, I stand by it. The data is from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ano...1-2000mean.dat These are the global land and ocean temperature anomalies that went into the graph I posted.


1998 0.5971 This is the start year
1999 0.4199 Oh gee, this one is colder
2000 0.3886 Oh gee, this is even cooler than 1999
2001 0.5173 Cooler than 1998 but warmer than 2000
2002 0.5746 Cooler than 1998 but warmer than 2001
2003 0.5818 Ditto
2004 0.5416 Cooler than 1998 and colder than 2003
2005 0.6154 Yep, as I said, 2005 is warmest year
2006 0.5601 Oh golly, this is cooler than 1998
2007 0.5472 Oh golly this is cooler than 1998
2008 0.4803 Oh golly this is cooler than 1998
2009 0.5565 Oh golly this is cooler than 1998

Please tell me how this series is showing warming POST 1998? I am absolutely flummoxed by your assertion that the graph which came from this data doesn't support my contention that there is a difference between the pre1998 trend and the post 1998 trend.

[grmorton]

You lied when you said that the NOAA data showed a cooling trend for the last 10 years. I'll point out that this, strictly speaking, excludes 1998 which means 1999 is the startpoint and the trend since then is UP.

So I didn't lie because I started in 1998. Please retract your charge that I lied. I know that you, being an honorable person will do so.

[grmorton]

Why are you lying about what Hansen is saying SM?

David, I started this thread to avoid this kind of mis-treatment of participants. I am going to ask you to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar or I will ask the moderators to remove you. I intend this thread, as I said in the beginning to be a Tiggy-free zone. If you behave as Tiggy I don't want you here.

You are free to stay if you drop the liar routine in all future communications. You can't possibly read anyone's mind (most assuredly SM's) to be able to categorically state that he is lying.

Moderators, Please enforce the rules about using the word liar.

[grmorton]

First, we need good data. I share Glenn's concern that it is not as good as represented by leading 'climatologists.'

Finally, we need a good model. I mean what Shadowmaster means: a scientifically constructed and verified model. Start with known physics laws and principles. Avoid adjustable parameters as far as possible (a version of Occam's Razor?). Test the model by comparing it to good data.

Rather impossible now, because we know so little about what is going on and in the ground, on and in the oceans, and in the air. Volcanoes did have effects that we are still studying.

I can't get anyone else to answer this question, Augustine, do you think that the programming code for the models should be released as part of the scientific publication? I do because I have seen shenanagans in code outside of global warming, shenanagans which invalidate the output. Code should be open for examination by one and all IMO

[technomage]

Edited to add: roland and I were not talking about what was or was not above average. We were talking about trends after 1998. Would you or would you not agree that the trend after 1998 is different than the trend before 1998?

Do you state that the post-1998 "trend" overturns the previous 100+ year trend?

That is my point: by narrowing the examination to the degree that you are, you are ignoring contrary data--the classic definition of cherry-picking, and precisely the same as one type of behavior that you bitterly condemn the YEC crowd for.

I just searched for the word cooling in that paper. It appears twice and doesn't seem to be in the same sentence as raw data, which doesn't occur in the paper.

"Such estimates were calculated using both the unadjusted and adjusted (homogenized) monthly temperatures. Specifically, the unadjusted and adjusted monthly station values were converted to anomalies relative to the 1971–2000 station mean." p 7

"In total, four time series of the CONUS maximum and minimum temperature anomalies were generated using the combinations of unadjusted and adjusted USHCN temperature data from good and poor exposure sites." p 7

"We note also that only about 30% of the good exposure sites currently have the newer MMTS-type sensors compared to about 75% of the poor exposure locations. For this reason, we also generated CONUS annual average temperatures by sub-setting the USHCN into stations with MMTS versus those with CRS sensors, again using both adjusted and unadjusted data." pp 7,8

"In contrast, when calculated from unadjusted values, the CONUS average maximum trend is significantly smaller from the poor exposure sites relative to the trend from good exposure sites (see also Table 1)." p 8

"Notably, the unadjusted CONUS minimum temperature trend from good and poor exposure sites as well as from CRS and MMTS sites show only slight differences in the unadjusted data." p 9.

At this point, I gave up. Do you contend that "unadjusted data" is different from "raw data"? Or do you wish to make an argument based on using the terminology idiosyncratically, which is incidentally another arguing habit you condemn the YEC crowd for?

Well excuse me but MMTS's largely came in post 1980. That, at least makes it harder to compare the stations output today with that of the past, requiring some judgement on the amount of temperature correction to be applied.

Read the "Methods" section, pp 6-8. or do you intend to argue from incredulity, which is yet another YEC debating tactic you demonstrate no mercy towards?

Ok, I am particularly interested in your comment wrt the homogeneity filter. Is it good practice if one is wanting to determine an average trend from a lot of time series,, to go around changing the trend of the input to the average?

The homogeneity filter does not "change the trend of the input to the average." It eliminates measurement artifacts--as you would know, if you read the article. (You might also want to read the referenced article Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams, Jr. (2009), Homogenization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. J. Climate, 22, 1700–1717.

[technomage]

do you think that the programming code for the models should be released as part of the scientific publication?

Depends. If it's commercial code, then no matter what I think, the company has the right to do with the code as it will, including refuse to release it. If it's code from a US Government project, written specifically by a government agency, then it may fall under the general tradition of not copyrighting government publication. If it's patented, then the algorithm must be published--in the patent forms, if nothing else.

I'm all for open source, and would greatly prefer that all code (not just for scientific publications) be publicly available, but I also realize that most of the industry does not agree with me.

[Augustine2004]

Depends. If it's commercial code, then no matter what I think, the company has the right to do with the code as it will, including refuse to release it. If it's code from a US Government project, written specifically by a government agency, then it may fall under the general tradition of not copyrighting government publication. If it's patented, then the algorithm must be published--in the patent forms, if nothing else.

I'm all for open source, and would greatly prefer that all code (not just for scientific publications) be publicly available, but I also realize that most of the industry does not agree with me.

Nevertheless, if commercial code, one can still run tests to see what bugs it may have and to ascertain the details of its output given extreme inputs (simlar to stress testing). Moreover, if the code was written by a scientist or under his aegis or direction, then it should be available at least for testing.