@TMTisFree

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio

Part VIII (last part)

Quote:

Analysis and Conclusion Though other criteria, such as climate sensitivity (Spencer, Lindzen), can be used to test the AGW hypothesis, ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid. Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it. It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed. Assuming the hypothesis is not false, its proponents must now address the failure to skillfully project heat accumulation. Theories pass through stages of development as they are tested against observations. It is possible that the AGW hypothesis is not false, but merely oversimplified. Nevertheless, any refinements must include causal mechanisms which are testable and falsifiable. Arm waiving and ad hoc explanations (such as large margins of error) are not sufficient. One possibility for the breakdown may relate back to climate sensitivity. It is assumed that most feedbacks are positive, amplifying the slight warming (.3º-1.2ºC) caused by CO². This may only be partially correct. Perhaps these feedbacks undergo quasi-cyclical changes in tandem with natural fluctuations in climate. The net result might be a more punctuated increase in heat accumulation with possible reversals, rather than a monotonic increase. The outcome would be a much slower rate of warming than currently projected. This would make it difficult to isolate and quantify anthropogenic forcing against the background noise of natural climate signals. On the other hand, the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years. Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science. References Cazenave, A., et al., 2008: “Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo,” Glob. Planet. Change, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.004. Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: “Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth.” Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 178-189 (13). Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.” Science, 308, 1431-1435. IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. See www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, J. Wang, T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and A.J. Broccoli, 2001: “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system.” Science, 292, 267-268. Loehle, Craig, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4). Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: “A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system.” Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55. Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: “Heat storage within the Earth system.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 331-335. Pielke Sr., R.A., “A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement“, climatesci.org, April 4, 2007. Pielke Sr., R.A., “Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions“, climatesci.org, Feb. 9, 2009. Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: “Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales.” J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036. Willis, J. K., 2008: “Is it Me, or Did the Oceans Cool?”, U.S. CLIVAR, Sept, 2008, Vol. 6, No. 2.

The conclusion says it all (underlines by me).

Bye
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 14-May-2009 at 10:10 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I suggest you go back in time and in this and the 2 other threads to check that I have numerous time (related mostly to Mann, Amman, and recently with Austrialia/NZ trees' works) made it clear that tree rings are not proxy for temperature

I take it back a number of times TMTisFree does claim tree rings are wrong. Reading the posts however, TMTisFree moves the goal post. Tree rings are wrong when they don't support his views. Yet if tree rings do support his view then he's happy to accept that evidence as accurate. For 2 examples of how TMTisFree used Tree Rings to show his view is correct ---
#31: tree ring evidence shows, climate change is a natural phenomenon #86:The dendrochronological record from the Kauner valley, showing high and very high tree-line positions between approx. 7100 and 2100 b.c. with only two gaps (around 6490 b.c. and from 3350 to 3280 b.c.), suggests that summer temperatures as observed in the late 20th century were at the normal or the lower limit of the temperature range ... In both cases TMTisFree uses trees as part of the conclusion that CO2 has no relationship with climate change.

Quote:

Instead of repeating the self-response by the Master of Pseudo-Science to his own question on Yahoo Answer, himself repeating UnRealClimate pseudo-analysis, better check the paper by yourself: it is not that difficult to find and you will at least appear a little bit more serious

Went back to Loehle's paper here is his graph which clearly neglects anything after 1950. http://tiny.cc/AYpa1 The pseudo-analysis is by Loehle. Wrong assumption that I used www.realclimate.com. Thanks I'll go there and see what they have to say.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You are obviously wrong here. I have no problem with the fact itself. But attributing cause without any support is neither a scientific nor a journalistic acceptable practice. So it matters a lot. It is the root of the problem indeed. Your failure to understand that is demonstrative of the difference between popular culture and scientific culture.

First off, if you recall I gave links from several scientific and mass media sources (which you dismissed out of hand) so your argument that somehow the articles I've submitted are tainted by popular cutlure is false.

I understand perfectly what the difference is between the two sources. Thats why I gave examples from both when I provided the links earlier in the thread. My understanding of the scientific principle and method are sound thank you very much. You on the other hand seem to be the one with difficulties.

You constantly attack the character of the person either submitting the evidence or where the source came from. You don't ever get round to the evidence itself. This is the reason why I can not take you seriously. OR at least why I find it very hard to. I've seen many scientific debates where this happens and its usually means the one that is doing so is trying to find excuses, not results.

This is what angers me. It has nothing to do with what you believe in. Even if you were arguing on the other side of the fence, your technique is what I have strong opinion about.

Quote:

Back to the consensus argument again

THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING!

/me takes a deep breath and relaxes.

I am saying that when you are arguing from the smaller group, dismissing out of hand what the larger scientific community has researched is contemptuous. You can disagree all you like with the conclusion that has been reached, but you appear to be doing this with the evidence (And this has nothing to do with any links that I have provided)

This isn't religion or faith we are talking about. Its many years of study and investigation based on factual evidence. That you choose to treat this in the manner that you do annoys the hell out of me.

Of course the majority may have come to the wrong conclusion from the evidence they have found. I am in no way making any claim that this is not possible. It is entirely possible. You just seem to be dissmissing the evidence instead of the conclusion. Thats 100% my problem with you in this thread. Its like you are sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "I cant, hear you" over and over whenever anything you don't like appears.


Anyway, thats it. The sum total of why I cannot partake in this thread in debate. I have no other problem with you, your character, or the factual evidence that you have submitted. Some of it is new to me and is of great interest. I just cannot stand your techniques. It reminds me of the time I had the misfortune to find myself on a long haul flight with David Icke, though in fairness to you, he is way outta your league

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy Quote: It is well known that neither Moon nor Mars have rotating iron cores that generate such a protecting field If earth has an iron core is under dispute as a hypothesis of abiotic oil. The hypothesis says that oil is formed with magma and extreme pressures. As the center of the earth is most extreme it is likely to be a creamy nugget of oil.

Hmmm - I did a google research, but none of the sites I visited had a mention of earth having a core that "is likely to be a creamy nugget of oil".
There were new findings about the core, but they were not remotedly related to abiotic oil - but see yourself:

Earth's Interior

Three-Dimensional Anisotropy and Texturing of Iron Crystals of Earth's Inner Core

Scientists Present New Theory for Earth's Iron Core - Computer simulations prove iron core theory

Discovery of the Earth’s Inner, Inner Core

Quote:

BrianK wrote: This in turn will always produce endless oil and therefore peak oil is the myth.

I highly doubt that...

Last edited by Dandy on 14-May-2009 at 01:03 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

There were new findings about the core, but they were not remotedly related to abiotic oil

I was providing the response from the abiotic camp. I agree their evidence is weak.

Russia is claimed, by some, to have large uses of aboitic oil. Yet they don't act as if this is a limitless resource. And appear to put oil rigs in swamplands. If abiotic was limitless, easy, low cost, and true something such as this would NOT be needed. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/wallpaper/img/2008/06/june08-18-1280.jpg

Quote:

I highly doubt that

I agree. We know 'fossil' oil is proven true. It well may be that aboitic is true in part. But, the questions of peak oil don't change. The simplest two is what is the planet's rate of resupply of the resource vs what is our rate of use.

@BrianK

Quote:

TMTisFree moves the goal post.

Who has commented (here) about Loehle's 2007 work when the current subject was Loehle's 2009 ocean heat content work?

Quote:

Tree rings are wrong when they don't support his views.

Mann's work has been discredited by others because he has choosen tree lines previously demonstrated not to be adequate as proxy temperature (not to speak about the statistical flaws and data twisting). Other scientists have OTOH taken great care to select tree lines as proxy for temperature. I nevertheless consider that trees are not good proxies for temperature in general given the uncertainty of the influence of other factors (precipitation, CO²and/or incident solar radiation levels, etc). Note that my post 31 does not deal with trees but with length of the day: BrianK has wrongly concluded too fast because he has not read carefully. About my post 86, I invited Dandy to look at the study because he might be interested. I have personally not stated any opinion about it. So BrianK's two examples are irrelevant and do not support his wrong claim.

Quote:

Went back to Loehle's paper here is his graph which clearly neglects anything after 1950.

And? His data ends at 1935 exactly. What is your point? His goal was not to disprove 'unprecedented 1985-1995 temperature' but to demonstrate the existence of a MWP and a LIA which the ~2000 years reconstruction you link to shows marvelously well. So your point is once again totally irrelevant and just supports, if still needed, the occurrence of a MWP.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

First off, if you recall I gave links from several scientific and mass media sources (which you dismissed out of hand) so your argument that somehow the articles I've submitted are tainted by popular cutlure is false.

Surely we do not share the same definition of what is a scientific source.

Quote:

I understand perfectly what the difference is between the two sources. Thats why I gave examples from both when I provided the links earlier in the thread. My understanding of the scientific principle and method are sound thank you very much. You on the other hand seem to be the one with difficulties.

Giving your previous popular links as examples just emphasizes my point. No need to enter this childish game.

Quote:

You constantly attack the character of the person either submitting the evidence or where the source came from. You don't ever get round to the evidence itself. This is the reason why I can not take you seriously. OR at least why I find it very hard to. I've seen many scientific debates where this happens and its usually means the one that is doing so is trying to find excuses, not results.

Certainly you have followed my interventions here quite superficially. Btw if you can not take me seriously just refrain to reply: this will save time for both of us.

Quote:

This is what angers me. It has nothing to do with what you believe in. Even if you were arguing on the other side of the fence, your technique is what I have strong opinion about.

So you give yourself the right to have emotionally-driven off topic rants about personae, but refuse me the right to point out unscientific practices/data/methods with my incisive tone: how balanced. What you don't like is my manner and my technique: sorry, I prefer direct confrontation, I am not drinking tea with a small cloud of semi-skimmed milk with anyone here (I prefer Pastis btw).

Quote:

I am saying that when you are arguing from the smaller group, dismissing out of hand what the larger scientific community has researched is contemptuous. You can disagree all you like with the conclusion that has been reached, but you appear to be doing this with the evidence (And this has nothing to do with any links that I have provided)

Contemptuous for who, exactly? It is true I have provided many evidences/data/observations/falsifications that have reduced the AGW hypothesis to nothing more than wishful thinking based on unphysical assumptions and the model-based eco-catastrophic predictions to nothing less than, well, nothing. You think I have hurt you or others non scientists here doing so? Really I don't care much if some formatted brains here have lost the ability to modify their opinions in the face of the contradictions by letting their hypothalamus takes the control: it is a requirement and an achievement for *real* scientists. There is no shame to modify his position if convincing evidences are revealed. For the moment I do not see even hot air in climate Science.

Quote:

This isn't religion or faith we are talking about. Its many years of study and investigation based on factual evidence. That you choose to treat this in the manner that you do annoys the hell out of me.

You do not appear to have read the IPCC reports and all the critics against it (for example the summary for policy makers is written before the report itself: so much for its value; the scientific résumé is written by non scientific persons and do not reflect parts of the report itself; the claimed thousand scientists working on IPCC's report was just some tenths; etc). You just are annoyed by me because I constantly underline, and will continue to do so, the flaws in the "many years of study and investigation based on factual evidence" with works and studies by others scientists showing opposite evidences. Too bad, this is how Science works and progresses.

Quote:

Of course the majority may have come to the wrong conclusion from the evidence they have found. I am in no way making any claim that this is not possible. It is entirely possible. You just seem to be dissmissing the evidence instead of the conclusion. Thats 100% my problem with you in this thread. Its like you are sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "I cant, hear you" over and over whenever anything you don't like appears.

Conclusions dismissed themselves when the supporting evidences appear methodologically flawed or based on wrong/twisted/biased/modelled data or not supported by any real world observations or just based on others not demonstrated assumptions either. That is what I point(ed) out repeatedly and I can assure you the climate science is mined with such unscientific works/practices (not to speak of the green-tainted mass media or the horde of alarmist supporters all voicing their scientific illiteracy in the insane hope this will change anything of the contrarian nature of Nature).

Quote:

Anyway, thats it. The sum total of why I cannot partake in this thread in debate. I have no other problem with you, your character, or the factual evidence that you have submitted. Some of it is new to me and is of great interest. I just cannot stand your techniques. It reminds me of the time I had the misfortune to find myself on a long haul flight with David Icke, though in fairness to you, he is way outta your league

It is a good move to recognize limits on certain topic and one has to respect it. Having said that, I don't know who is David Icke.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Who has commented

Your humor is appreciated. Thanks!

Quote:

BrianK has wrongly concluded too fast because he has not read carefully. About my post 86, I invited Dandy to look at the study because he might be interested

Trying to ensure clarity. You provided the study but disagree with the study and it's use of trees?

Quote:

His data ends at 1935 exactly. What is your point?

The point is Loehle and other anti-GW's claim Loehle's work proves the MWP is warmer than today. It ends at 1935, taking your indication, thus cannot say anything about 2008/9.

Quote:

but to demonstrate the existence of a MWP and a LIA which the ~2000 years reconstruction you link to shows marvelously well

Mann and others already showed both the MWP and LIA. So Loehle really therefore hasn't done anything. Therefore, at most he showed that if Mann dumped the trees the MWP would still exist. Though I disagree with even trying to conclude that much positivism from this work.

Do you have any idea why Loehle failed to publish his 2007 work in any major scientific journals? Instead he published in 'Energy and Environment'. E&E's record isn't good for 'peer reviewed' science. It appears neither 'Energy and Environment' nor Loehle are cited as sources in climatology? To me it appears the article is neglected and will die a slow death while anti-gws try to give it mouth to mouth.

@BrianK

Oh, dear. This debate is still going.

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Do you have any idea why Loehle failed to publish his 2007 work in any major scientific journals? Instead he published in 'Energy and Environment'. E&E's record isn't good for 'peer reviewed' science. It appears neither 'Energy and Environment' nor Loehle are cited as sources in climatology?

I'm not going to get into the global warming debate, but having trouble publishing your papers can have nothing to do with the soundness of its content, and everything to do with reviewers egos and own agendas getting in the way.

Rudolf Kalman had trouble publishing his work on the Kalman filter, which now appears in just about every control systems text book, and is used extensively. He ended up publishing it in a mechanical engineering journal rather than an electrical engineering one, which is what he originally intended.

As someone who has published papers in journals, I have experienced first hand how easily this can happen. I had one paper rejected at a journal based on the recommendations of a reviewer who hadn't even read the abstract properly; the reviewer had no idea what the paper was actually about. A different reviewer for another paper found the phrase "Kalman filter" once in an entire paper, and turned it into the cornerstone of my algorithm, thus claiming that it was not novel. The next set of reviewers saw the very same paper as being very novel and important work.

While I still agree with the idea of peer reviewing for quality control, unfortunately it's not perfect, and the process does get abused. If your work is radically different from anyone else's, a threat to someone else's research, or differing from common opinion in scientific circles, then you will likely have trouble publishing work. If your work is a rehash of someone else's with slight changes, or you come from certain institutions (with journals that don't have double-blind reviewing), then you can publish mediocre work.

Hans

EDIT: Before anyone tries to accuse me of this, I don't imply that Loehle didn't publish in a "more respected" journal because of the problems that I outlined above. Rather, the "he/she had trouble publishing it and it ended up in a lower quality journal" argument holds no weight whatsoever.

Last edited by Hans on 15-May-2009 at 06:18 AM.
Last edited by Hans on 15-May-2009 at 06:17 AM.
Last edited by Hans on 15-May-2009 at 05:28 AM.

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @SpaceDruid ... because I constantly underline, and will continue to do so, the flaws in the "many years of study and investigation based on factual evidence" with works and studies by others scientists showing opposite evidences. Too bad, this is how Science works and progresses. ...

To me it rather seems that this exactly is how even the slightest progress can be blocked by spreading FUD...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: the horde of alarmist supporters all voicing their scientific illiteracy ...

If I were you I would hurry up to climb down from this high horse.
Otherwise it might turn out that "the horde of alarmist supporters" (to my best knowledge the "the horde of alarmist supporters" is outnumbering those who think like you) sees you as a "social illiterate"...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Trying to ensure clarity. You provided the study but disagree with the study and it's use of trees?

As I said, the authors took great care to select the trees they used to build the study. Nevertheless I do not consider trees as relevant proxies for temperature in general given the uncertainties (there are plenty papers about tree limitations in literature especially before Mann's wrong hockey stick). So keeping the previous in mind, I take this study (and others dendro-based) pragmatically.

Quote:

The point is Loehle and other anti-GW's claim Loehle's work proves the MWP is warmer than today. It ends at 1935, taking your indication, thus cannot say anything about 2008/9.

And he has not. What you have done here is taking a plot from his corrective paper from 2008 and compare it with his conclusion of his 2007's paper: how smart and fair.

Quote:

Mann and others already showed both the MWP and LIA.

Not correct. There was no MWP in the hochey stick plots: that was the very aim of his 'work' to suppress the MWP and wrongly claimed 'unprecedented warmer present'. The plot was represented in the film by All Gone and dismissed by UK justice (amongst so many false claims) and IPCC's TAR as an icon (not in AR4 but still present).

Quote:

So Loehle really therefore hasn't done anything. Therefore, at most he showed that if Mann dumped the trees the MWP would still exist. Though I disagree with even trying to conclude that much positivism from this work.

As the 700 others papers demonstrating the MWP then. What you have failed to note is that past ~2000 years reconstructions not based on dendro are rather rare. Also I am waiting for Mann correcting his statwistical papers (1998 & 2008) as Loehle, as a true scientist, has corrected his own paper. I must also point out Loehle has released all the data and algorithms in 2007 and has issued the correction after a reanalysis by ClimateAudit and others. Still waiting for Mann's data and procedures for his 1998 and 2008 papers: honest practices and due diligence are unknown for UnReal team.

Quote:

Do you have any idea why Loehle failed to publish his 2007 work in any major scientific journals?

Define major scientific journals. I personally prefer an honest paper in a new journal than junk statwistics in Nature. Anyway he said that he submitted to GRL: Quote:

"By the way, GRL sent it back unreviewed because they were tired of seeing reconstructions."

Quote:

Instead he published in 'Energy and Environment'. E&E's record isn't good for 'peer reviewed' science.

Repeating others' judgment without even reading a paper from the journal draws the level of seriousness. Go to the website instead, download some reviews or papers and judge the work by yourself. Below is what Loehe said about EE: Quote:

"The E&E review was as rigorous as for any other journal I've submitted to (of my 107 pubs)."

Quote:

It appears neither 'Energy and Environment' nor Loehle are cited as sources in climatology?

It appears you do not read much papers...

Edit: added a quote by Loehle
Edit2: remove an orphan quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 15-May-2009 at 10:25 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 15-May-2009 at 09:59 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Hans

Quote:

Oh, dear. This debate is still going.

Facts are stubborn and Nature follows his own rules, well hidden to the arrogant human specie, especially those claiming "Science settled", debate over", etc: humility weights nothing in face of their 'certitude' (and money).

Quote:

As someone who has published papers in journals, I have experienced first hand how easily this can happen. I had one paper rejected at a journal based on the recommendations of a reviewer who hadn't even read the abstract properly; the reviewer had no idea what the paper was actually about. A different reviewer for another paper found the phrase "Kalman filter" once in an entire paper, and turned it into the cornerstone of my algorithm, thus claiming that it was not novel. The next set of reviewers saw the very same paper as being very novel and important work.

Ah a (former?) scientist, at last! Your experience is very similar to mine related to peer reviewers attitude. I had a paper (in developmental neuropharmacology) sweating blood and water to wrote it (and it was very carefully and properly built): rejected 3 times. Another one fast written in one morning was accepted at first submission.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Surely we do not share the same definition of what is a scientific source.

See now you are offending me. If you note that article you linked to was published on the World Scientific website. If it hadn't been, how exactly would the scientific community been able to gain access to or even know about this study?

Oh yeah, it appears that if you want anyone other than the authors to know you have to publish it. And where do you publish things like this? Oh yeah, on scientific journals, magazines, websites, etc.

If you care to look at any of the links I gave (including the not-so-scientific wikipedia), you'll see all provide direct access to the full documents like the one you linked to. I provided links to the websites rather than the pfd file for the simple reason that its much easier for the reader to read a preview or summery of a document, than to download a bunch of pfd files that are mutliple megabytes in size and that might crash a browser and that don't always provide an introduction written so that a layman can understand what its about.

I'm subscribed to about a dozen scientific magazine journals because of my interest in investing in emergant technologies and while I can't claim to study each and every article within, I get enough information to know which way the wind is blowing. Every week articles are submitted concerning this subject from both sides of the fence, but they are not even in numbers. Considerably more articles support climate change (in areas not limited to enviromental science) than ones that don't. Its not simply that the establishment has a fixed view that is not bending and somehow studies that go against the grain get ignored. They get burried under the sheer weight of fresh studies that support the current view.

It might be that in all these areas of research (such as the glacier melts, trees that have been growing for a hundred thousand years in an area dieing because the climate has changed beyond the tree's ability to adapt, the temperature of North America changing dramaticly when all the aircraft were grounded following 9/11, etc) have explainations beyond mans ability to affect the climate or only are short term effects, but circumstantially they all point to one thing. Now I know as well as the next man that circumstantial evidence is not real evidence, but it certianly is a big clue.

I am aware that studying the climate is a bit like pinning the tail on an invisible donkey thats running around the yard in random directions, which is why the community is devided in the way that it is. Every single one of your arguments is as fragile as the ones on the opposing side for the same reasons. This is a bad situation to be in because we will only really ever know which side is right when the world goes into meltdown or restores itself to the status quo. One of these results is very very very very very very very very very bad. We don't want to be wrong on this. Personaly, I'm for playing safe. We won't get a second chance on this one.

I think I'll try to stay away from this thread for the simple reason that its of such interest to me that I won't be able to prevent myself from joining in, whats the point? Nobody on this site has any sway with governments and one side convincing the other isn't going to change a thing. At least on a religious thread there is always the possibility of swaying an opinion (either way, I don't mean for selfish reasons) or better explaining a position so that there is greater tolerance between the sides. I don't see any positive effect from this threads debate (perhaps bickering is a better word? At least where I'm concerned) and since this has run on longer than any other subject on this website without anyone changing their stance, I don't imagine the situation wil change anytime soon.

I can tell the difference between an article in Nature and an article in the New York Times. If you can look beyond the sensationalism in the articles I've linked to, you'll see they all provide links to the source. Sometimes that source requires membership so its a helluva lot easier to link to the newspaper article, hench the reason why I did. I use the BBC a lot here for the simple reason that I browse this site immedialtly before the Beebs website so this place is still fresh in my mind when I find a story of interest.

I've decided to make this post rather than just leave because you seem to have the opinion that I'm just a reactionary tabloid news reader that only has surface deep knowledge and wanted to correct that. I have dyslexia which means I can't articulate in writing as well as I can verbaly, so it may be that you arrived at that view fairly. Had not personal circumstances changed, it is possible that I would have had M.A. after my name. I understand how the scientific process works as well as any man does and I know how the mass media works because of my previous employment in the music industry meant I had personal dealings with it daily.

There is no need to reply to this post because if I don't ignore the thread complelely I'll just end up getting drawn back in again (My willpower is 1, I chose 9 INT so I could maximise my skill points on leveling up so I had to reduce Willpower and Endurance), so I won't see it. Sorry for jumping in halfway through a debate. You talked about glaciers in post #503 and I couldn't resist posting the news item in relation.


Quote:

Having said that, I don't know who is David Icke.

Be thankful for that. If you google him you'll undertand my pain and the reason why I bought my own aeroplane to avoid such encounters in the future.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 15-May-2009 at 11:47 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@TMTisFree

Quote:

there are plenty papers about tree limitations in literature especially before Mann's wrong hockey stick). So keeping the previous in mind, I take this study (and others dendro-based) pragmatically.

IMO pragmatically Loehle, and you, should turn that selection on other critieria. Pollen certainly is much, much worse a predictor. Coral, likely, is not either. This is why Loehle's methodology isn't consistent as he throws out trees but keeps evidence that has a greater factor of limitation.

Quote:

What you have done here is taking a plot from his corrective paper from 2008 and compare it with his conclusion of his 2007's paper: how smart and fair.

'You' I assume you mean the royal you because I personally wasn't the one doing it. Instead I was observing that this is how the anti-gw crowd is using it. They claim MWP warmer than now. Then throw out Loehle, who again doesn't have anything about now.

Quote:

There was no MWP in the hochey stick plots

If the year was 1999 you would be correct. However, Mann has continued to improve on his model. Here is a more recent graph . When people vie the graph they can take a look at Mann's 2003 plot. 850AD is -.6. It spikes to .1 at close to 1000AD. It falls back again to about -.5 around 1200 AD. So a clear 400 year period where an increase and spike that is provided by Mann during what has been labeled as the MWP. So yes the hockey stick developed a crick in it's back as yearly as 4 years before Loehle came to the table.

Quote:

Mann correcting his statwistical papers (1998 & 2008) as Loehle, as a true scientist, has corrected his own paper

I understand you want to focus off of Loehle's issues. It's a fallacy to try for a Tu quoque approach. Showing Mann wrong doesn't prove Loehle is correct. Look at the inaccuracies within Loehle's paper.

Per 1998 -- Mann did improve. We can see I demonstrated it with the graph provided above and the changes in 2003. Just because you have a lack of knowledge of the scientific work doesn't mean there is a lack of scientific work.

If you are crying for any scientist that has not committed corrections in the last year as unscientific I ask you apply that standard uniformly. In fairness Loehle has not met your criteria of improving against the criticisms since 2008.

Quote:

Define major scientific journals. I personally prefer an honest paper in a new journal than junk statwistics in Nature

Major science journals are one's that publish lots of work and that work gets used in other areas of science.

Quote:

Below is what Loehe said about EE: Quote: "The E&E review was as rigorous as for any other journal I've submitted to (of my 107 pubs)."

Circular logic. I state that E&E isn't a major journal and Loehle's work is in it. We expect anti-gw claims because that's what this journal does.

Quote:

It appears you do not read much papers...

Your conclusion is completely incorrect.

@BrianK

Quote:

IMO pragmatically Loehle, and you, should turn that selection on other critieria. Pollen certainly is much, much worse a predictor. Coral, likely, is not either. This is why Loehle's methodology isn't consistent as he throws out trees but keeps evidence that has a greater factor of limitation.

There is no perfect proxy (hence the name) and 2000 years long proxies are even more rare. If you have read his paper you should have noted he did not completely reject tree rings as the China composite include 2 trees series (averaged) out of 8 (but accounting for less than 1.5% of the total data). The main advantage of his reconstruction is the long period studied, the mixing of different proxies with many world locations and his use of calibrated data thus avoiding the PCA twisting used by UnReal team (not to speak of one of their favourite methods of data creations with RegEM data infilling). Specifically about coral, your current claim grossly contradicts your previous one's stating that corals are affected by temperature variations: care to explain such discrepancy (why corals are not good proxy for temperature)?

Quote:

'You' I assume you mean the royal you because I personally wasn't the one doing it. Instead I was observing that this is how the anti-gw crowd is using it. They claim MWP warmer than now. Then throw out Loehle, who again doesn't have anything about now.

No. BrianK wrote here: Quote:

"The 2008 graph he provides no longer runs to 2000 but only 1950. Yet Loehle retains the claim that the MWP is warmer than today? We're hotter than 1950 and he doesn't go to today."

Who is doing misplaced comparison here then? Loehle especially warned in his paper to not compare past reconstruction with current temperatures ("it is not possible to compare recent annual data to this figure to ask about anomalous years or decades."). BrianK appears to do it with no shame.

Quote:

If the year was 1999 you would be correct. However, Mann has continued to improve on his model. Here is a more recent graph . When people vie the graph they can take a look at Mann's 2003 plot. 850AD is -.6. It spikes to .1 at close to 1000AD. It falls back again to about -.5 around 1200 AD. So a clear 400 year period where an increase and spike that is provided by Mann during what has been labeled as the MWP. So yes the hockey stick developed a crick in it's back as yearly as 4 years before Loehle came to the table.

So much blabla for nothing: you have difficulties reading properly a plot as Mann's 2003 data begin at 1500 AD. In addition all the reconstructions of the spaghetti graph are notoriously not independent (all authors belong to or are colleagues of the UnReal team) and all used the same problematic tree rings, as pointed out previously (we have had this discussion already in the previous thread...refer to it, I will not discuss it here again).

Skipping the junk thereafter...

Quote:

Major science journals are one's that publish lots of work and that work gets used in other areas of science.

According to your definition, there are then full loads of journals which fall in this category, thus defeating the usefulness of the definition itself. Refer to Hans' post if you want a different opinion by someone who knows.

Quote:

Circular logic. I state that E&E isn't a major journal and Loehle's work is in it. We expect anti-gw claims because that's what this journal does.

And it is me selecting papers supporting my view...

Quote:

Your conclusion is completely incorrect.

Possible. Nevertheless your past reactions and comments did not suggest you have.

Edit: grammar, typos, etc
Edit2: added link to a picture of Mann's clique for fun

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 15-May-2009 at 07:15 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 15-May-2009 at 06:42 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

I've decided to make this post rather than just leave because you seem to have the opinion that I'm just a reactionary tabloid news reader that only has surface deep knowledge and wanted to correct that. I have dyslexia which means I can't articulate in writing as well as I can verbaly, so it may be that you arrived at that view fairly. Had not personal circumstances changed, it is possible that I would have had M.A. after my name. I understand how the scientific process works as well as any man does and I know how the mass media works because of my previous employment in the music industry meant I had personal dealings with it daily.

Thanks for exposing your point of view, it helps understanding your writings better.

Quote:

There is no need to reply to this post

Too late.

Quote:

You talked about glaciers in post #503 and I couldn't resist posting the news item in relation.

And I could not resist myself pointing out the unscientific causative attribution of the first line of the article "Scientists in Bolivia say that one of the country's most famous glaciers has almost disappeared as a result of climate change.". As you have stated, you are subscribed to many scientific journals and are aware of the scientific principle: so I think you might understand my reaction to such an unscientific claim attributing cause to such oxymoron as 'climate change' and the resulting post I did underlining such fallacy. I can understand you were frustrated I did not rather discuss the fact and only emphasize the unsupported and thus incorrect causative attribution.

Quote:

Be thankful for that. If you google him you'll undertand my pain and the reason why I bought my own aeroplane to avoid such encounters in the future.

Done. He seems to have some strange (and not so strange) ideas and some culture about them: a rather uncommon person it seems.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

There is no perfect proxy (hence the name) and 2000 years long proxies are even more rare.

I agree. This is part of the reason why scientific work include an error factor.

Quote:

Specifically about coral, your current claim grossly contradicts your previous one's stating that corals are affected by temperature variations: care to explain such discrepancy (why corals are not good proxy for temperature)

Nothing I said creates a discrepancy. Corals, like other life forms, have an ideal environment and when you introduce the life form to conditions less ideal they, to no suprise, result in less life. This includes warmer and cooler temps.

Quote:

So much blabla for nothing: you have difficulties reading properly a plot as Mann's 2003 data begin at 1500 AD.

Check the graph again you will find Mann's 1999 data didn't extend past 1500AD. Mann 2003 grided and weighted boreholes goes well past 1500AD. The reading problem you accuse me of is your own difficulty not mine.

As for the other graphs I have no problem not discussing them. The graph was solely used by me to demonstrate you are incorrectly viewing Mann from 2003. You accused him of not improving his science from 1998. Mann addresses some of the critics since 1998, 2003 is one example of this. You accused him of failing to show a MWP, and he does show a MWP, again in 2003.

Again we were talking about Loehle so whatever Mann does neither proves or disproves Loehle.


@HANS
Quote:

While I still agree with the idea of peer reviewing for quality control, unfortunately it's not perfect, and the process does get abused. If your work is radically different from anyone else's, a threat to someone else's research, or differing from common opinion in scientific circles, then you will likely have trouble publishing

I agree with you. Certainly I never claimed Loehle should be rejected without review because it was in a journal that has it's own anti-gw. Certainly good science has appeared in minor journals.

But how reputable a journal is, is an important starting point. E&E articles are rarely cited so not held in high esteem with mainstream climatology for a source. Again doesn't mean Loehle is wrong. I think I've more then adequately defined how he made the science of past conditions worse.

@BrianK

Quote:

Nothing I said creates a discrepancy. Corals, like other life forms, have an ideal environment and when you introduce the life form to conditions less ideal they, to no suprise, result in less life. This includes warmer and cooler temps.

This triviality, which is only superficially correct, is not an answer to my genuire question that arose from your 2 claims:
1/ corals are affected by temperature variations;
2/ corals are bad proxies for temperature.

Quote:

Check the graph again you will find Mann's 1999 data didn't extend past 1500AD. Mann 2003 grided and weighted boreholes goes well past 1500AD. The reading problem you accuse me of is your own difficulty not mine.

It was not an accusation, it was an objective noticing: you have to check back again and put your cleaned stronger glasses this time: you will see that Mann's 1999 data extend from 1000 to 1990 (mauve line - conveniently truncated at 1000 when data was available before) and Mann's 2003 from 1500 to 2000 (blue and dirtygreen lines - no more data from MWP, again a convenient start point [LIA]). Anyway this discussion is worthless because:
1/ trees responses to temperature are non linear (Schoettle, 2004) or, worst, even reverse (D’Arrigo et al. 2004), thus defeating usefulness and value of dendro studies;
2/ even IPCC has recognized in AR4 both MWP last 2000 years warmest and the need of additional data, indicating Loehle's study is very welcomed:Quote:

"[T]he warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100 [...] The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century."

Quote:

As for the other graphs I have no problem not discussing them. The graph was solely used by me to demonstrate you are incorrectly viewing Mann from 2003. You accused him of not improving his science from 1998. Mann addresses some of the critics since 1998, 2003 is one example of this. You accused him of failing to show a MWP, and he does show a MWP, again in 2003.

Not correct in the light of the above and my previous post. Unfortunately for Science, only his statwistics have improved: not a great achievement (discredited by numerous papers by McIntyre and McKitrick and others).

Quote:

Again we were talking about Loehle so whatever Mann does neither proves or disproves Loehle.

True, the reverse is correct: Loehle's ~2000 years reconstruction attests the evidence of a MWP/LIA as was already well known before Mann's statwistics. Certainly Loehle will not be remembered in Science history, but it is probably better than appearing high up in the junk/fraud column.

What has been learnt so far:
1/ existence of a ~900-1200 AD MWP;
2/ temperature of MWP last +2000 years warmest.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

This triviality, which is only superficially correct, is not an answer to my genuire question that arose from your 2 claims: 1/ corals are affected by temperature variations; 2/ corals are bad proxies for temperature.

You asked why the discrepency. I see none. (2) provided by you is simplistic. That is the problem. The reason for the 'bad proxies' is our understanding is the relationship is complex and not easily predictable. Coral proxies frequently have worse predictability than dendro.

Mann -- let's go back this is perhaps simpler for you. MWP was there. Look at the boundaries of certainity. They are -.5 to .5 (roughy) perfectably able to carry a spike during this time. Anti-gw claims that Mann has no MWP are false. The CO2Science 700 articles you feel prove Mann wrong is a wrong conclusion. View their data it's within Mann's boundary of certainity. Again another false claim.


Quote:

Unfortunately for Science, only his statwistics have improved: not a great achievement (discredited by numerous papers by McIntyre and McKitrick

You are correct that McIntyre and McKitrick trried to discredit Mann. McIntyre and McKitrick's work was discredited by numerous papers.

@BrianK

Quote:

You asked why the discrepency. I see none. (2) provided by you is simplistic

As simplistic as BrianK's writing, referring to tree rings (hence my still not answered question): Quote:

Pollen certainly is much, much worse a predictor. Coral, likely, is not either.

Quote:

The reason for the 'bad proxies' is our understanding is the relationship is complex and not easily predictable. Coral proxies frequently have worse predictability than dendro.

I note a convenient shift from 'likely, not [predictor]' to 'frequently'. Care to provide precise papers supporting your claim (coral proxies 'not [predictor]' because 'frequently [...] worse predictability than dendro')?

Quote:

You are correct that McIntyre and McKitrick trried to discredit Mann. McIntyre and McKitrick's work was discredited by numerous papers.

Typical response by a believing alarmist not based on any fact checking. McIntyre and McKitrick's papers have repeatedly discredited Mann's data uses and statistics because there were able to:
1/ reproduce the hockey stick with red noise only;
2/ suppress the HS by removing 1 single tree ring;
thus respectively indicating statistical flaws and the data mining. A conclusion supported by Wegman 2006, NCR 2006, North 2006, NAS 2006, IPCC 2007, etc. No amount of UnReal pseudo-defense will ever change anything to the cruel reality: such a 'work' so widely discredited by so many scientific people and organizations is demonstrative of no scientific integrity.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".