Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Hot?

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Near Cranbrook, Kent
  • Location: Near Cranbrook, Kent
Posted (edited)

Only if your new model 'learns' from the errors you spotted on the last one otherwise you'll just make the same mistakes again!!!

This is where I feel climate science is with the 'hockey stick'. It has built it again and again using all manner of proxies and found the same result. Though there may well have been issues with some of the origional proxies surely the 'later models' ironed out such 'issues'?

True, but I know what works for me, and I'd rather challenge the assumptions every time, instead of erroneously assuming that the basis of the previous model will work again...after 20 years of doing it, as I say, I know what works for me!

Ironically, I think you're comforted by the same things that worry me, namely proxies. Proxies are surely vulnerable to statistical manipulation, because they aren't real hard data, but extrapolations from limited and subjective data.

Edited by loafer
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Posted

Though maybe 'off topic' it appears to me that there is a body of people who choose to ignore the mountains of growing data (which all backs up the basic principle of climate shift) in favour of looking for accidental flaws in the data or ways to question sound data by attacking the people who brought the info to us all.

Is this true sceptical investigation or is it something else? What do we gain from such?

I think I agree, G-W.

I get the impression that some folks are in a state of denial. Not just in the anthropogenic/all natural sense, which is valid; but of the very notion that climate can change per se?

It's a bit like shooting the messenger IMO...

I also get very confused by conflations of: it's all natural and it's not happening at all - which is it?

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Posted

On the other hand, there's a body of people who wish to check and verify the figures who get frustrated when their efforts are blocked. This then transfers into suspicion of the work and by inference, the scientists involved; transparency and co-operation could have avoided much of the discrediting and suspicion.

If blame is to be apportioned in all this nonsense then those accused of shady dealings must hold their hands up and take their share too IMO.

I can think of no other science where to question and attempt to replicate results of research leads to labels of "denier", verification is and always has been a very important part of scientific research. Without it, every crackpot theory would have equal footing with sound science.

Discerning the proportions of natural versus AGW warming is (again IMO) very important. How else do we understand the changes which can be expected, how else do we plan for adaptation?

Already plans have been mooted to attempt to change the albedo of the planet by using mirrors in space, painting vast surfaces white, talks and attempts to change the uptake of CO2 in the oceans by seeding them with Iron - how dangerous will this be if it turns out that only a small percentage of warming is due to man? What happens if the majority of warming is due to natural cycles, the cycles then change to cooling and we've added to the cooling too? Historically, a colder world has killed more people than a warmer one; shouldn't we make every effort to be certain before we do things we may regret?

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Posted

Absolutely agree with you, Dawn. I do wish I could be bothered to put all my thoughts down properly, too! :drinks:

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Posted

Well this is interesting:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx

High Pressure, you haven't posted here for a long time but I'm hoping you still pop in for a look now and again, if this is as promising as it may seem then you deserve to take a bow and do a little merry jig, you were right.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted (edited)

Well this is interesting:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx

High Pressure, you haven't posted here for a long time but I'm hoping you still pop in for a look now and again, if this is as promising as it may seem then you deserve to take a bow and do a little merry jig, you were right.

Blogosphere refutation, here.

Main problem with Lu's paper is that the conclusion is driven from strong correlation - such a thing should be the nudge to begin work, and not finish it. If this wasn't the case I would be collecting my Nobel Prize for the Leaky Integrator hypothesis at around abouts now ....

Edited by VillagePlank
Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Posted

Damn, and there was me getting all excited that HP had it figured before the experts.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted

Damn, and there was me getting all excited that HP had it figured before the experts.

Well, the truth of the matter is - he could be right, but deriving a conclusion that says he is right from a correlation - but to be fair, he is proposing a physical mechanism - is interesting, and in my view, comes under the category: 'one for further investigation'

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
Posted

Well this is interesting:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx

High Pressure, you haven't posted here for a long time but I'm hoping you still pop in for a look now and again, if this is as promising as it may seem then you deserve to take a bow and do a little merry jig, you were right.

I have not been here for while as I am not sure the debate has actually moved on, it still seems a subject with a heck of a lot of smoke and mirrors.

My view has not changed that the Ozone Hole must be related to climate change as the correlations and timings are asking too much of mere coincidence. It remains the one thing that cannot be checked historically, so we have no knowledge of what the ozone layer was like in previous climatic change periods.

I am pretty confident in my own mind that the period of global cooling associated with industrialisation was heavily influence by man made sulphur emissions. I think it is therefore reasonable to suggest that an increase in global temps would follow naturally. When Ozone depletion comes into the picture we start to see the increased rate of warming, this warming does not appear to me to correlate with man made CO2 emissions.

It is this which raised my interest in Ozone depletion and whether in fact it could 'possibly' be playing a serious role in GW?

I think this latest research which is probably no less flawed then those relied upon by the IPCC, is potentially a link in what is a complex chain of effects indirectly and directly caused by Ozone depletion. My own view which has not changed is simply that our Oceans are not absorbing CO2 as you would expect them to do. The effect is most dramatic in the Southern Oceans which just happens to tie up with the greatest depletion.

I think that Physics, Chemistry and Biology all play a part and remain of the opinion that simply blaming CO2 emissions is the easy way out and to date I am yet to see any evidence that a relatively minute amount of CO2 alone could in fact cause serious Global climatic changes. I am also of the opinion that the IPCC are a hindrance to sensible and informed research and debate due to political duress and bias.

Thank you Dawn for bring this to my attention, another link that maybe of interest:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17385-ozone-hole-has-unforeseen-effect-on-ocean-carbon-sink.html

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Posted

Thanks for stopping by Clive.

Do you or anyone else fancy a thread to discuss this further? I know there was one but that was quite a while ago and it seems there may have been a bit more research into this topic since. Worth exploring further on here?

Posted
  • Location: Liphook
  • Location: Liphook
Posted

Hi Folks,

Have any of you seen this yet ?

http://www.accuweath...ing-cooling.asp

Sort of links into the Oceanic debate thread. Mr laminate floori is discussing his thoughts on the predicted coolling later this year (Global cooling that is).

Its very interesting to see he is still going with this, it makes a lot of sense IMO for this to occur, esp wit hthe combo of a low solar set-up, a La Nina that is developing steadily and the Atlantic which should steadily cool once the hurricane season really ramps up and transfers more warmth into the subtropics. That being said I think he is too agressive with cooling, given everything that is occuring I think we may not cool till the first 1/3rd of next year to any great degree.

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Posted

The Government is to investigate how much Palm Oil is used in Britain in an effort to make the consumption sustainable :)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100712/tuk-research-to-look-at-uk-palm-oil-use-dba1618.html

Guest North Sea Snow Convection
Posted (edited)

On the other hand, there's a body of people who wish to check and verify the figures who get frustrated when their efforts are blocked. This then transfers into suspicion of the work and by inference, the scientists involved; transparency and co-operation could have avoided much of the discrediting and suspicion.

If blame is to be apportioned in all this nonsense then those accused of shady dealings must hold their hands up and take their share too IMO.

I can think of no other science where to question and attempt to replicate results of research leads to labels of "denier", verification is and always has been a very important part of scientific research. Without it, every crackpot theory would have equal footing with sound science.

Discerning the proportions of natural versus AGW warming is (again IMO) very important. How else do we understand the changes which can be expected, how else do we plan for adaptation?

Already plans have been mooted to attempt to change the albedo of the planet by using mirrors in space, painting vast surfaces white, talks and attempts to change the uptake of CO2 in the oceans by seeding them with Iron - how dangerous will this be if it turns out that only a small percentage of warming is due to man? What happens if the majority of warming is due to natural cycles, the cycles then change to cooling and we've added to the cooling too? Historically, a colder world has killed more people than a warmer one; shouldn't we make every effort to be certain before we do things we may regret?

I thoroughly agree with all this - very much as per my own often stated position:)

Edited by North Sea Snow Convection
Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted (edited)

I thoroughly agree with all this - very much as per my own often stated position:)

What will really put the cat amongst the pigeons is that if you accept all of the evidence set out before us, and therefore the hockey stick graph, take a look at the temperature trend before the industrial revolution - it was going down, fast.

Does this therefore lead to the conclusion that human warming has saved the planet from another ice age, and has therefore kept the status quo in terms of biodiversity?

(EDIT: I don't believe that for a second)

Edited by VillagePlank
Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Location: Edinburgh
Posted

I can think of no other science where to question and attempt to replicate results of research leads to labels of "denier", verification is and always has been a very important part of scientific research. Without it, every crackpot theory would have equal footing with sound science.

The problem there is that there is so little real replication done by the community of people who would like not to be called 'deniers' by the rest. Replication of results means that you reproduce the same results using your own methodology, a different dataset, or even both. It does not mean fire off an FOI request or two, get exactly the same data and code and fiddle to find trivial errors. Meanwhile, massively irritate the people who did the hard work gathering and analysing the data in the first place, while nothing useful emerges.

If I want to verify that the published global temperature data is correct, I'd download the raw data, apply necessary corrections, then lay the data out spatially and assess the result. I would not need to have the exact code for the data corrections, or for the spatial analysis, I would generate it myself (I have done similar jobs with smaller datasets - it's not that hard). DItto timeseries of proxies - which are a rather better data source than one poster suggested earlier. I don't even have to do complicated statistics to identify the trends! If MacIntyre, Watts and their ilk spent more time (actually, any time at all would do) doing real science, they would be taken seriously by real scientists. Verification is carried out all the time in science and especially in climate science (hence the myriad 'hockey sticks'!) - but it has to be done properly, After all, great fame does await someone who can show that we have nothing to worry about regarding global warming - if they can overturn one of the most verified theories their place in the pantheon of greats is assured. Genuine scientific replication and verification would be a place to start for the MacIntyres, Keenans and Watts of this world.

I like your last post VP! THe thing is, I do believe that was where we were headed, only very sloooowly! Most 'hockey' sticks and their relatives do not have very steep pre-industrial gradients, and some of that can be accounted for by combined volcanicity and low solar conditions. You're also right to point out the refutation of the Lu paper. The same physics that works for the CFC molecule has to work for the CO2 molecule, and so if you argue for CFCs being a contributor, you're arguing for CO2 to be a major contributor - the links in the ever-excellent Skeptical Science article show that observations match modelled predictions for downward longwave radiation, of which CFCs only contribute a relatively small part. Someone else called Skeptical Science biased - well, I guess it is if you don't want your theories to stand solely on the evidence that supports or refutes them.

sss

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Posted

Here! here! S.S.S.

I can even understand why human frailties get the better of some folk and lead them to opine ,in private, that they'd rather not give the data over to be mutilated/mis-represented in such a way.

We all like our work checking but not by folk with agenda's (other than to check our work for silly errors...or glaring ones!!!) who look through the study solely to find 'ammunition' to fire at you. It is just not nice and ,should they care to put in some real study ,they would understand this.

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted

I don't even have to do complicated statistics to identify the trends!

For interest - this is how you do it.

lls.pdf

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
Posted

It does not mean fire off an FOI request or two, get exactly the same data and code and fiddle to find trivial errors.

But sometimes "trivial errors" cause big problems further down the line. Take rounding points as an example.

2.2 + 2.4 = 4.6

But rounded...

2 + 2 = 5

Now pass that result onto the next person or include it in your own work.. Not accurate is it?

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Posted

But sometimes "trivial errors" cause big problems further down the line. Take rounding points as an example.

2.2 + 2.4 = 4.6

But rounded...

2 + 2 = 5

Now pass that result onto the next person or include it in your own work.. Not accurate is it?

And that's why code should be coded by professionals, and not scientists. Well, at least in my view.

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
Posted

And that's why code should be coded by professionals, and not scientists. Well, at least in my view.

It's also the reason why data should be allowed to be accessible to any interested party so they can then test the results for accuracy. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the data but rounding can skew the results of any data set.

Posted
  • Location: York, North Yorkshire
  • Location: York, North Yorkshire
Posted

It's also the reason why data should be allowed to be accessible to any interested party so they can then test the results for accuracy. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the data but rounding can skew the results of any data set.

Hi Folks,

You are both correct (in my opinion).

(don't want to stir up a hornet's nest again, but McIntyre and Mkindrick are professional statatiscians ........ Mann (at least at the time of the 98/99 papers ..... was not).

Y.S

Its very interesting to see he is still going with this, it makes a lot of sense IMO for this to occur, esp wit hthe combo of a low solar set-up, a La Nina that is developing steadily and the Atlantic which should steadily cool once the hurricane season really ramps up and transfers more warmth into the subtropics. That being said I think he is too agressive with cooling, given everything that is occuring I think we may not cool till the first 1/3rd of next year to any great degree.

Hi Kold,

Yeah, it will be interesting to watch what happens over the latter part of this year. Its particularly noteworthy that the CPC models are backing his earlier thoughts (if on the extreme side of the equation).

Y.S

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Posted

Hi Folks,

You are both correct (in my opinion).

(don't want to stir up a hornet's nest again, but McIntyre and Mkindrick are professional statatiscians ........ Mann (at least at the time of the 98/99 papers ..... was not).

Y.S

Isn't McIntyre a retired mineral engineer and McKitrick a economist? Neither of them are professional statisticians.

Posted
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Location: Edinburgh
Posted

But sometimes "trivial errors" cause big problems further down the line. Take rounding points as an example.

2.2 + 2.4 = 4.6

But rounded...

2 + 2 = 5

Now pass that result onto the next person or include it in your own work.. Not accurate is it?

P.P., nobody does their rounding like that... rounded, 2 + 2 = 4. If your input data supports it, 2.2 + 2.4 ~= 5. :hi: Though I see the point you're trying to make, it's irrelevant to generalise like this. The point was (it was one of the Muir Russell findings) that MacIntyre and his ilk could easily get the data if they wished and perform their own analysis. And also that the data in question, (CRU temperature series) has been independently verified by several other temperature series, and the CRU series itself replicated. What big problems do you see in a temperature series that has been verified several times over? If it was the only one in existense, you would have a point, but it's not, so your point is rendered irrelevant.

The M&M's have no greater claim to be professional statisticians than Mann, or Tamino for that matter. But why don't you analyse the millennial-scale timeseries yourself? Simple averaging produces a bent 'hockey stick' (Medieval comparable to mid-late 20th Century), a Mann-type algorithm, where records have greater relevance if their correlation to 20th Century warming is greater, produces a straighter-shafted stick where the 20th Century is unprecedented. But the data is there for you to try! I suspect the truth lies between these two (unprecedented in some but not all is the message from other palaeo-records), but the significance is this:

1: nobody sensible debates the instrumental record seriously, ie the world is warming.

2: very few people debate that CO2 rise is contributing to that warming significantly.

3: a more bent stick = more climate sensitivity.

4: more climate sensitivity is a very bad thing. I hope Mann's closer to the truth because it implies a lower climate sensitivity and therefore warming closer to 2C than 5C in the coming century.

Is the Hockey Stick relevant to anthropogenic climate change? Yes, but only for determining climate sensitivity - romantic notions of what our Viing ancestors put up with, or our Roman ancestors for that matter, are not terribly relevant as the forcing factors active in their climates were different to the forcing factors operating now. The graph doesn't tell you anything much about the physics operating in the atmosphere, or the other forcing factors at work. That's why Mann himself thinks the graph is overplayed, but unfortunately I imagine the politicians liked a pretty, simple and striking graph they could comprehend...

sss

Posted
  • Location: York, North Yorkshire
  • Location: York, North Yorkshire
Posted

Isn't McIntyre a retired mineral engineer and McKitrick a economist? Neither of them are professional statisticians.

Yes, you are correct, but both have statistical qualifications.

Y.S

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...