Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know about you but I consider it a fraud when a scientist manipulate the data to fit the desired result. And it's immoral to hijack the peer review process to allow papers of supporting view to be published while suppressing those of opposing views.

And if you think the emails are really taken out of context, what about the leaked codes? Take this fragment for example. Why are they applying arbitrary "fudge factors" to the raw data set?

I've also heard someone located a function that tried to adjust the data further to fit the desired model, and when all fails simply remove those data points. Their so called simulation model is nothing more than a program designed to output a pre-determined graph.

As the emails also implicate scientists working for NASA, it means a large portion of the data that climatologists all over the world depends on is questionable.

Unless and until all the data are audited and made public, all those theories about global warming or cooling or what not are simply baseless. Garbage in garbage out, it's that simple.

Current climate models are based on bad science

Examples of good science: quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromdynamics, the Standard Model for Particles and Fields. Even classical Lagrangian Mechanics is better than anything current in climatology or meteorology.

The problem is basically chaotic non-linear dynamics. We just don't have the chops for it yet. We can predict eclipses a thousand years from now. We cannot predict next month's weather.

We just haven't got a handle on chaotic systems, yet.

I am not ready to sacrifice my comfort and health on the basis of politically corrupted pronouncements made on what is a best dicey "science" and what is most likely bad science. Your Chicken Little buddies were predicting an Ice Age back in the 70's. Now they are predicting we will turn into the planet Venus. When they get a decent theory (do not hold your breath) maybe we can do something rational.

In the mean time we can stop burning hydro-carbons by paving over North America with fast breeder reactors. We can get our heat from atoms, not Muslims

ruveyn

What you call "bad science" has practical uses, as I've pointed out previously. Your rhetoric shows your disdain for those who are not mathematicians, physicists or chemists, but doesn't demonstrate that other disciplines are not valuable. You don't need to model at the atomic or sub-atomic level to produce something that's of practical use. As I've described before as an example, meteorological modeling benefits those working in weather-dependent industries. Tropospheric modeling allows high-accuracy GPS coordinates to be obtained. Both those examples involve complex systems where we haven't a cat-in-hell's chance of predicting with complete certainty the conditions at any one point in time; but despite that we can use our relatively-crude models to make limited predictions that are of use. This is how the modern world works, ruveyn. And as I've said before, it allows you and your N American compatriots to live in the lap of luxury. You may not choose to label meteorologists as scientists, for example, but it is completely unreasonable to suggest that they have not contributed significantly to your standard of living. The same goes for geologists, palaeontologists, climatologists, palynologists etc. To maintain your illusion of superiority you may not to call them scientists, but without them you'd have run out of oil years ago. Naturally, the data collected and research carried out by these disciplines is, to suit your convenience, to be selectively-ignored within the context of CO2 and warming.

Absolutely. It provides employment to scientifically second rate people and it provides the government with more excuses to get in our trousers.

Besides, what is a liberal pinko stinko commie socialist without a shibboleth to beat his opponents over the head with?

Riddle: why is an ecologist like a watermelon? Answer: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

Riddle: What is an elephant? Answer: a mouse designed by the government. Oversize and expensive to feed.


ruveyn

You may not like the climate change models, but the weather patterns and global shifts that they predicted five years ago, and even a decade ago, are in fact coming to pass. Successful prediction of future events and discoveries is one of the hallmarks of a good theory.

http://www.elrst.com/2009/03/12/worst-i ... ing-place/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourt ... ent_Report

1. Have you read the link "Criticism of IPCC AR4" on wikipedia's page yourself?

2. The report is written by IPCC claiming that their predictions are correct. CRU is one of the major source of their data and most scientists implicated by the leaked emails worked on that report too. What makes you think that their report can be trusted?

3. If this article "NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases" is confirmed, then they have probably mangled weather temperatures all over the world to make predictions look correct.
Seriously, I don't think you need to go into such details. If their prediction is correct, where is the hockey stick now?

That is a problem. If anyone faked any data, then 30 years of real data is now also corrupt.

It is like the prosecution is right, but they committed perjury, so the murder trial gets dismissed.

I know that about half of the criticism is from scientists who think that the IPCC is too conservative - that it does not go far enough in outlining dangers and calling for action.



Firstly, because they agree with climate reports I read on a regular basis in Science, from researchers around the world. Secondly, because I have yet to hear anything scientifically damaging in the leaked e-mails; the 'fix' that they talk about, for instance, involves swapping in the real temperature numbers for tree-ring projections as those actual measurements become reliable due to technology (IIrc, in the 60's).

[/quote]

The link above goes to an article that claims that global temperatures have actually been cooling. I don't know how they mangled the data to get that, or if it's a whole-cloth fabrication; however, I have seen enough raw information from enough scientists (not to mention the climate change of my own home county, which used to get as much rain as a rain forest but has been transitioning to a mediterranian climate in the last two decades) to not believe that it is even remotely possible that the climate has actually been cooling. As for the hockey puck, the simple fact is that we are sitting in the trough of an unusually long solar minimum - look it up. You don't even have to visit a climate-related site - just go look up some basic astronomy.

Just don't forget or make it sounds like the other half doesn't exist. They think that the IPCC report is unfounded.


So undermining the the peer review process isn't damaging in your view?
The original paper that questioned the hockey stick graph is rejected because the publisher said that it's of no interest to its readers. The author had to submit it to another journal to get it published. In this kind of atmosphere it's hard to hear the other side of the arguments.


What they meant in the emails is any one's guess, but they have at least applied these tricks to the proxy data:
1. cherry pick the trees used
(they rejected all trees in the Yamal data set that shows no hockey stick and a warmer Medieval Warm Period)
2. swap in instrumental data
(data are already added before 1960 and then the graph is smoothed)
3. truncate the graph after 1960
(they droped the tree ring graph beyond this point and connected it to the instrumental graph, which the data is also homogenized)

Seriously, just the 2nd and 3rd points means that their model is inadequate. It's acceptable to have a wide margin of error for this kind of data, but when a divergence occurs it means something is fundamentally wrong! If something actually caused tree rings to not correlates well with temperatures, who can say the same condition had not happened before, or even if the condition is actually the norm.

You are right in saying that reliable instrumental data is only available very recently. But it also means that the window to verify or calibrate tree ring data to temperature is extremely short, and somehow we are expected to believe the interpretation for thousands of years based on such data is correct.
The fact is out of the overlapped proxy and instrumental data, only the early part, about 80 years, shows reasonable correlations; the later part, about 35 years diverged so much that they have to truncate it. Put it another way, the tree ring data is totally surreal 30% of the time!

Now if you add in the first point, I don't know how anyone can call it science anymore.

btw a recent study showed even cosmic radiation correlates better to tree growth than temperature or humidity. The tree ring data should never be used in the first place.


Are we looking at the same article? Or have you read it?
The link above shows that the actual raw data of the stations used by NOAA/GHCN to calculate Australia's temperatures actually shows cooling.

Somehow all pre-1930 data used a -2°C adjustment. Then the adjustment rises in a curious stepwise pattern to +2.4°C in 1980 and stay there.
So the real question is whether this "homogenization" adjustment is justified? I obviously think not, you are free to draw your own conclusion.

btw this article raised similar question for the New Zealand data too. At least in this case NIWA has responsed here.
The only problem is all 7 stations have their data adjusted but they only gave one reason: station moved.
OK, one of the stations did move, so what about the other 6.


NIWA already responded, and they only said that the adjustments are warranted so the accusation is real. The question left is whether you buy their argument or not. As such mangling happened in New Zealand, you can't simply dismiss it as fabrication. Of course it will be fun to hear Australia's explanation seeing their adjustments are larger still.


Have you checked the degree of adjustments? This "homogenization" is actually legitimate, it's the level of adjustments that's in question.


1. No one claims that the entire earth is cooler. The article only claims that the weather stations used by IPCC in Australia are cooler. But it highlights the discrepancy of IPCC's figures.
2. I haven't lived in Australia to confirm or debunk the temperatures there.
3. Nor have I lived in New Zealand to do the same, although NIWA confirmed the adjustments.
4. I don't know where you live but I'm unlikely your neighbor, so I most likely haven't witnessed your local climate change either.
5. The thing is change is actually the norm. Hoping for the climate to stay unchanged is actually against nature. If global warming is really an issue, it's the man made portion that is supposed to lead to catastrophic results that is of concern.
6. If they are willing to temper the records of 2 countries, it's hard to believe them for the other regions too.


I'm well aware of that. In fact I support the theory that the sun is the root cause of temperature change on Earth. I also like the theory that the wave length distribution of the sun's output has an impact on the amount of energy that reach Earth. So counting sunspot alone is not enough. Too bad NASA doesn't seem to be remotely interested in sending satellites up to do the measurements. And without this data, no one knows how much less energy is reaching Earth and so no one knows how much less cooling can be attributed to the sun. Both the theory you believed (low sun output delayed the temperature raise) or the one I believed (the sun is the cause of the temperature changes) can't be confirmed or refuted.

Don't overlook secondary and tertiary cosmic radiation which is a major factor in cloud formation. Clouds are a key factor in how much sunlight reaches the ground.

ruveyn

I've always wondered why nobody considers sub crust temperatures. Do plate tectonics play a part?

The problem is that the vast majority of that other 'half' are not climate scientists and have no idea what they're talkig about. The consensus among climate scientists about climate change is about as strong as the consensus among geologists about plate tectonics.


I don't see how the e-mails that were leaked undermine peer review.



Ummm... you're talking about a paper that *did* get published. You can't exactly claim that the argument isn't being heard. Do you think that every paper submitted to every journal gets accepted the first time? Sometimes the journal in question doesn't have the right reviewers, and sometimes the paper is too far outside of the journal's specialty; sometimes, as with papers submitted to the uber-prestigious journals Science and Nature, the paper just isn't good enough or ground-breaking enough.



Just out of curiosity, what do you think the tree rings for the 1980's through the early 2000's look for Southern California? The ones from the trees that didn't burn, that is.
Those were the hottest decades on record, but also some of the dryest and most fire-prone. Tree rings reflect total growing conditions, not just temperature. Tree rings always reflect total growing conditions, not just temperature. It is not unusual for a researcher to 'control' for known variables that would otherwise blur the picture of the data; in fact, researchers can be heavily criticized by their peers for not doing so. Not being a paleodendrochronologist, I don't know if that's what happened in this particular case; however, I don't have the slightest doubt that the researchers would have been smacked down very harshly by their peers if they had been as duplicitous as you imply. Deliberately fasifying one's data is in the scientific community about as frowned upon as an embezzling priest in the religious community.



Tree rings are only one source among many for the charting of historical climate change. They all tend to correlate.



see above.

.

Got a source for that?



They did the best they could with the data they had at the time.



Uh, yeah. Darwin, Australia, specifically. So either that has global ramifications - in which case the author is trying to extrapolate Darwin's theoretically cooling climate out to the rest of the world (which was my supposition after a quick read), or the author is saying that the local climate of Darwin does not match global climate changes, in which case it is irrelevant to the discussion of global climate change.



Here is the response site from NIWA, for anyone who'd like to see it from the horse's mouth:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/clima ... is-warming



I actually wasn't refering to temperature data. I was referring to data about bird migrations changing time and place, as predicted decades ago by ornithologists when they looked at the theory of climate change; the times of emergence of insect species changing, as predicted; the increasing global spread of sub-tropical and tropical diseases, as predicted; the nearly universal global retreat of montane glaciers, as predicted; the retreat of circumpolar ice sheets, as predicted; the thinning ice cover of the north pole, as predicted; the upward and northward marches of timberlines, as predicted; the thawing of arctic permafrost, as predicted...

and all of that was just off the top of my head.



Where do you live? If it's outside of the tropics, I'd bet money that I can find something that's changing in your area that you just haven't been paying attention to. I notice these things because I'm a biologist; I don't know what you do, but presumably your focus is elsewhere.



Eeeyyeahhhh.
It's the speed of the change that is the problem. 2-6 degrees C in 100 years is less than a geologic eyeblink.

That is, of course, assuming that we don't get caught in a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus due to the feedback mechanisms already mentioned.



We are currently in a solar minimum. The past ten years have been the warmest decade on record. What part of that supports your theory that warming is caused by the sun?



*snort*
Ulysses: http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/
Glory: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... iance.html
SOHO: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/soho/index.html
EVE: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/sdo_eve.html

as far as "wave length distribution" goes, that's something that could be pretty easily calculated (with computers, anyway) by pooling the intensity data of the various specific-wavelength telescopes that are and have been aimed at the sun. If you have any actual sources for your claim, please post them.



Bull. See the links above.



Bull. Again, see the links above. And maybe start reading some acual science journals instead of denialist blogs.

No.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171122.htm

[quote="ruveynDon't overlook secondary and tertiary cosmic radiation which is a major factor in cloud formation. Clouds are a key factor in how much sunlight reaches the ground.

ruveyn[/quote]

That's actually the least far-fetched hypothesis anyone's mentioned so far. Here's a link to the basics of that theory:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 080631.htm

It doesn't rule out anthropogenic global warming, but it also doesn't fly in the face of well-known data and makes a certain amount of sense.

Here's a link to someone who disagrees with the theory, and knows more about it than I do:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/ ... k-between/

True. It's also one of the reasons proposed to explain Australia's cooling. (Interesting that most AGW supporters cliam it's a positive feedback.)
It definitely needs more study too as we know even less about it. Warming causes more clouds to form, less energy reaches earth and thus less warming; but then it also reduce radiation out to space and trap more energy. Water is after all a better green house gas than carbon dioxide. (I guess EPA will declare it a pollutant next.) And then there's the related effects of rain and ice. I don't think the sun can be written off though, since the temperates of all the planets in our solar system tends to warm and cool together.

Interesting. It shows how little we really know about how our planet works.