…of Climaquiddick.
I’m struggling to say something polite about this. By way of an illustration, can you imagine the reaction if a scientist reported in the safety literature that there was a critical flaw in the design of a nuclear power station, but told policymakers that everything was fine? Do the committee really think it’s fine to hide important information from policymakers so long as you report it in the literature?
Astonishing.
Or it should be astonishing. Unfortunately, it’s become increasingly difficult to be astonished at these power mongers.
I may regret asking this, but what would you consider to be acceptable evidence of global warming?
I’d accept the results of an open process where the data, the source of the data and all the processing on the data were published and debated.
I’ll ask the true believers the same question in reverse what would you accept as evidence that man made global warming does not exist?
Based on the peer reviewed open scientific record there have been times in the past (before humans) with more CO2 and faster warming. When I look at the long term temp trends I personally see a graph that shows we warmed less than past events at this point in the repeating climate cycle. If you look at this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
In the time between 500 and 15K years ago there is an obvious repeating cycle. Based on that pattern we should be at a higher temperature than we are, as all the previous cycles had a fast temperature run up (to temps higher than we are now) followed by a sudden decline in temps. I’m much more worried about a decline in temp than an increase. An increase would increase the farmable land, a significant decrease would greatly decrease the farmable land.
Look here for a linear graph over the area in question
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
where the data, the source of the data and all the processing on the data were published and debated. I thought that’s what we’re having? I’ve provided links before to the raw data and the scientific journals are full of data, sources and source code.
Except that a good chunk of what you’re claiming to be raw data has already been (somewhat arbitrarily) altered, in order to “correct” it.
Chris, you obviously thought wrong. There is missing data and even more missing information about the processing thereof, not to mention the lack of real debate since one side considers the science settled and actively apposes debate.
Big D – let me repeat my original question – what would be acceptable evidence of global warming?
Its sort of like criminal evidence, it has to have a chain of custody, ALL the data that came out of the group in east anglica is not traceable. The sad part is the vast majority of the warming articles all use that very same data.
Things like the tree ring data from siberia whose results were not reproducible and whose raw data collection was never made available.
All the NASA result suffer from the same problem the chief NASA researcher would not give the path to get from raw measurements to the end result. In my view all this obscuration is there to hide the fact that temps have been declining for 5 to 10 years and that does not fit ANY of their predictions.
Chris, a VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION TO YOU:
What would you accept as evidence that man made global warming does not exist?
Frank – I’ll rephrase my question. “From whom would you accept evidence of global warming?”
By the way, news today states Arctic Sea Ice levels have returned to normal.
Somebody telegarph Algore.
Paul Breed – data that actually shows global warming is not happening.
Chris a 2nd question:
Find a single scientist touting global warming as a catastrophe that published predictions at least 5 years ago. Did ANY aspect of his five year old prediction come true? IE did his model predict the current global weather situation? If not why should we listen to him(her) now?
– data that actually shows global warming is not happening.
The current temperature record shows that the last five years have been cooling,
Try:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
they have individually surveyed 82% of the us temperature data network. In the stations that have been in the same place and have not had city heat island encroachment the temperatures have declined. All the data is there, the methodology is there
What part of their methodology or data collection or analysis do you disagree with?
Say this one, no city encroachment data record going back 100+ years, last 15 years have shown obvious decline.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725910040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Compare it to this station where the temp sensors are near new air conditioning outlets and over new blacktop parking lot.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745000030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Which data would you trust?
Show me ANY temperature data where you can trace the results back to raw measurements (where the raw measurement data is available) in a open way that shows any temperature increase in the last 10 years.
The key to me is that the scientists that are global warming deniers almost ALL provide the raw data, descriptions of their analysis and
full disclosure of their methodology. The scientists touting global warming as a human caused catastrophe don’t. I don’t trust anyones opinion, I want to check their work, their data and so far one side seems to be meticulous and one side seems very sloopy…
So Chris are you having a debate of being a troll?
I’ve provided very specific statements and traceable data to back my claims, ball is in your court.
Chris, have you ever done any scientific data analysis? If you have, then you should be appalled when you read the HARRY_READ_ME text file, a log kept by Ian “Harry” Harris at CRU when he was trying to figure out what the climate scientists had done with their data and was trying to replicate their results. This was part of the “Big CRU Leak.” Most critics of CRU have focused on the e-mails, but this file alone is pretty damning.
Here, read this and get back to us: HARRY_READ_ME.txt. (This is one of many copies on the Web; feel free to use any of them to reassure yourself that it’s genuine.)
The researchers at CRU may have been well-intentioned, but they weren’t competent programmers, statisticians, or data archivists. Poor Harry …
Bonus questions: Do you believe that there is a mature science of “dendroclimatology”? Why or why not? How about phrenology?
Here are some possibilities for me:
* Something I can go and look at for myself and not have to wonder if it’s been cooked.
* Something that we’re not under pressure to accept or be attacked as no better than Holocaust deniers.
* Something Al Gore says proves the Earth is getting cooler AND THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!1!!!!
Paul Breed – in 1988, Hansen gave Congress three climate lines. He said line “B” was the most probable line. Guess what – Line B closely matches what happened, including calling an El Nino.
Mike Puckett – this is one of the those “heads I win / tales you loose” accounting gimicks. February ice levels were was the fourth lowest February extent since the beginning of the modern satellite record. So, to you – what would be proof to you that global warming is happening?
I may regret asking this, but what would you consider to be acceptable evidence of global warming?
I think of evidence in the sense of a court room. It varies in quality and believability. I have to consider the source and their credibility. The chief problem with climatology and the issue of global warming, anthropogenic and otherwise, is that there are huge stakes (trillions of dollars in my view) in determining whether or not global warming exists. Many lives are at stake as well.
The current problem is that there are too many chokepoints in climatology owned by one side, the pro-AGW side. For example, I don’t trust anything out of NASA’s GISS group because the group is headed by James Hansen, a politician masquerading as a scientist (does anyone believe he’d be in his current position, if he wasn’t a tireless proponent of AGW for the past twenty years?). I’m not inclined to weigh heavily claims by people running a blatant agenda. They can still be absolutely right, but it needs verification by independent parties.
The fundamental problem is that the data – the RAW data, with no ‘adjustments’, ‘modifications, ‘normalisations’ etc. does not seem to be available.
It MUST be available, and the computer programs that manipulate that data to create the graphs and provide the predictions MUST be available and they MUST be independently reviewed and confirmed as valid.
Without this, there is no VERIFIABLE evidence of global warming.
Chris,
From any set of reputable scientists. People who publish all their data, collection techniques, models, processes, etc.
Their work needs to be reproducible by other reputable scientists. I would not believe any individual who has a history of fraud or who is obviously not following the scientific method.
If an individual (or group) made such a claim and was willing to fully disclose and allow others to attempt to repeat the findings I would want funding available to other scientists to attempt to do so.
If mankind is causing global warming I want to know about it. I want it to stop before it causes a problem. I want it to continue as long as it is beneficial.
If mankind had the technology to control the Earth that would be a good thing. It would, like all technology, need to be used responsibly.
Chris, Line B shows an increase, I just showed you RAW data that shows a decrease, hows is line B remotely like the raw data?
Using rural stations in the U.S. The hottest year on record was some time in the mid 1930’s.
Your own link shows that sea ice has been increasing over the last 5 years! Also note that If you take some European temperature data that goes baqck300+ years even the IPCC own’s chart from 1990 shows that Europe was warmer in the 1500’s. Funny how the very same data presented by the very same panel changed? IE they smoothed out the medieval warm period because it did not fit their narrative.
Paul Breed – I looked at both of the stations you linked to. I see a big spike from 1980 to 1998 in both, a big dive to the 2000 level, and a warmup after 2000. Both sites appear to have calmed down after 2002. Maryville shows more variability, but I’d eyeball a correlation of .8 or better (1 is perfect).
Mike G. – It appears that Harry’s making notes to himself as he converts files from different data formats to run this program (don’t know which program). He’s having some issues. That means global warming is a fraud? Help me out – what part of this file is supposed to support your argument?
Tony Says:
From any set of reputable scientists. People who publish all their data, collection techniques, models, processes, etc.
Their work needs to be reproducible by other reputable scientists. I would not believe any individual who has a history of fraud or who is obviously not following the scientific method.
Exactly!!!! And you can find data and results that exactly match Tony’s requirements, all data published all processes applied to the data published and those scientists ALL say no man caused global warming, and no warming at all for the last 10 years.
Paul Breed – and sea ice has been trending down since 1979. The 2008 max is below the 1982 min.
Paul Breed / Frank – would you like to share a name of the scientists who support your side on this?
Guys, give it up. You are talking to Chris G. and he is standing there with his eyes closed and his fingers jammed in his ears and is droning on “the science is settled – the science is settled – the science is settled”
Jiminator – the science is never “settled.” Science is in flux. My question is “what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?”
The 1980 to 1998 spike is real and NO bigger than the 1930’s spike.
Marysville data is garbage because the site is corrupted. Orland data clearly shows that the 1930’s spike and increase was bigger than he 2000 ish spike. Yet the AGW people want us to think its wildly different.
Even if we assume that MR Mann’s worse case temperature prediction is correct, why should we do anything about it? Global sea levels have been rising for the last 2000 yrs and cities coasts etc have dealt with it. Far more people freeze to death than die of heat, and there is much more uninhabited land that is presently too cold to settle.
Yea if you live in the maldives and have killed off all the reef fish that continually build up you coral island sea level rise is going to suck.
This is more of a result of over fishing beak nosed reef fish that sea level rise, the coral atoll is a dynamic system that when healthy keeps itself just above sea level. A continual balance between coral washed ashore and blown away with the wind. When you over fish the ecosystem and kill the fish that help make the continuously replaced coral mass your feet are going to get wet. Even if sea levels fall.
Chris Gerrib, the real question is “When will climatology provide the evidence that would convince me that AGW is a serious risk that warrants immediate restrictions of human activity?”
Paul Breed – Heat island or not, if the temperature at both sites moves in the same pattern, that means an outside force is at work. But we seem to have transitioned from “global warming isn’t real” to “it isn’t a problem.” I’ll skip that debate.
Karl Hallowell – since I consider that climatology has already provided sufficient evidence to act, my question is “what would you consider sufficient evidence?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is about more than someone trying to convert files. The author is also trying to massage the data to fit what he believes is the right hypothesis.
Chris do you even understand what a heat Island is?
Its by definition a local distortion of the temperature in a positive direction.
I don’t disagree that we had warming until the late 1930’s and that we have always had random fluctuation. The very specific things I do claim are as follows:
1)This warming trend (1K years trend) is very similar to all previous warming trends, maybe even a little less severe. It is not caused by man made CO2.
2)None of the dire predictions made by the global warming people have shown any correlation to actual data.
3)It is possible that global warming could exist, I’ve seen no solid evidence either way.
4)Even if it does exist I think the proper response is to make society more robust, not more fragile. We should be prepared for changes, man-made or otherwise, we should embrace technology, not shun it as evil.
Paul Breed – thank you for the link. I read it with interest. I note that three scientists (geography, chemistry and geology) disbelieve warming is happening.
The rest either question the causes, magnitudes, accuracy of prediction or impact on humanity. These are all valid scientific disputes, which are being conducted in the open media, like they should be.
“These are all valid scientific disputes, which are being conducted in the open media, like they should be.”
Except that they aren’t. The pro-AGW part of the debate is no longer discussing such issues and neither are the politicians who support them. You either believe or you don’t, and if you don’t you are some kind of backward thinking moron. If you do believe, the answer is clear, curtail enger use as much as possible by any means possible.
Chris G. said:
The burden of proof is on the one who demands more government restrictions. The burden of proof is on you Chris G. not me or others posting here.
The peer review process regarding AGW has been compromised. The government bureaucrats that run this cannot be voted out of office (they cannot even be fired by the elected officials above them, WTF!?), thus, there will be a very long time before its evidence can be called sufficient.
Paul Breed – yes, I do understand what a heat island is. But I don’t care how much heat island effect you get, O’Hare Field in January is going to trend pretty darned cold. That’s why correlation is used. Climate studies are not the only field with noisy data. The problem with the dire predictions is that they are, for the most part, many years out. So, no, they haven’t happened yet.
Chris L. – You are assuming that the AGW “side” is monolithic. It’s not. However, arguing that global warming is not happening won’t help with that side. Arguing about the magnitude, costs and benefits will.
Paul / Chris L. – the “curtail energy use as much as possible by any means possible” is an extremist position, and almost nobody seems to think we’ll be able to do that. I certainly don’t – but every pound of CO2 we don’t put in the atmosphere is a pound we won’t have to remove / mitigate later, so **reasonable** efforts to reduce CO2 seem, well, reasonable.
R7 – so what would you consider to have met the burden of proof?
I make a prediction that says in 5 years this will happen in 10 years this and in 50 years a catastrophe.
If the 5 and 10 year predictions fail why should I give ANY credence to the 50 year one?
I’m not saying that the dire things haven’t happened I’m saying that the people that both support AGW and claim dire results have made very specific short term preditctions as well as long term dire predictions there short term predictions have all failed.
Such as ever increasing temperatures, increasing hurricanes, increasing tornadoes etc… the facts don’t match their earlier claims.
You can find scientists that think AGW is happening slowly that don’t think its going to be a big deal. I have no beef with these scientists because the record is muddy and they are not making extraordinary claims, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I don’t think a 1 degree increase in temps and a meter in sea level are catastrophes.
Why do any thing to reduce CO2 emission, poverty is the number one killer of people and even the AGW fanatics don’t disagree that the the CO2 restrictions they propose will have significant economic impact.
These very restriction will kill far more people then they claim to save, the position is nonsensical. For the ones that claim the green jobs will more than make up for the job loss from CO2 restriction, I have a one word answer, Spain, they went down that path its been a disaster.
The green jobs will all be formed in countries that don’t restrict CO2, because the lowest cost way to produce anything is still fossil fuel based. Meanwhile the green lemmings will be unemployed and starving to death.
It seems that Chris is selling a package deal, in that the existence of a warming trend on earth automatically means that it is due to activities of man.
That is incorrect. There may or may not be warming, but the question of man’s contribution is entirely separate at the moment. I have never seen a believable energy balance for the earth, particularly one which could predict a 0.67% change in absolute temperature based on a change of 0.0144% change in atmospheric composition.
The noise-to-signal ratio is just too high, and our modeling skills are completely inadequate. But the heuristic argument of “trapped infrared radiation” is complete BS. Even the warmmongers admit that.
Karl Hallowell – since I consider that climatology has already provided sufficient evidence to act, my question is “what would you consider sufficient evidence?”
1) Firm evidence that CO2 levels are increasing and that this increase is due to human activity.
This is probably true. I consider it sufficiently proved.
2) Firm evidence that the radiative model and the temperature sensitivity of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are correct.
The radiative model is probably good enough though it might have unexplored weaknesses (eg, cloud cover, solar input, and other issues that supposedly have been dealt with, but might not have been). The temperature sensitivity is a problem since the estimate appears based on past climate changes which were transitions to and from glacial periods. That environment is very different from today’s far less glaciated environment which hypothetically will transition to a near complete lack of glaciation. The greater ice fields would increase the temperature sensitivity of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
3) Firm evidence that human activity contributes significantly to global warming.
Not established.
4) Firm evidence that global warming will cause trillion dollar or worse harm in the next few decades.
Not established.
5) Firm evidence that we can restrict carbon emissions in a way that will cause less harm than not doing anything.
Not established. There are several factors to consider. First, there are no mechanisms for carbon accounting (or any sort of pollution control) in other countries. Due to the global nature of CO2 pollution, compliance globally is required else industry will simply move to the places that have weaker regulation. Second, no one has any idea of the cost of transitioning to a society that emits less CO2. I might add that the economic models used by climatologists are pretty weak.
“You are assuming that the AGW “side” is monolithic.”
“the “curtail energy use as much as possible by any means possible” is an extremist position, and almost nobody seems to think we’ll be able to do that.”
The problem with both those statements is that the politicians who are advocating carbon credits and the like do see it in monolithic terms. I have seen nothing from people like Al Gore that even resembles the moderation you are suggesting. In fact, any suggestion that the problem might not be as severe as we are being told is treated as heresy. So from the policy point of view, there really is only one position being advocated by those who actually make policy.
Chris g is a troll,nothing more–leave it at that.
Chris Gerrib: I consider that climatology has already provided sufficient evidence to act
What actions? Are jackboots required?
“Are jackboots required?”
Not if you cooperate with all Inner Party directives.
Not if you cooperate with all Inner Party directives.
How does one get on this Inner Party? I take it requires more than just knowing the secret handshake.
Donating lots of money to the winning party helps.
Chris G: thanks for proving my point!
10:21am: “what would you consider to be acceptable evidence of global warming?”
11:57am: “what would be acceptable evidence of global warming?”
11:59am: “From whom would you accept evidence of global warming?”
12:24pm: “what would be proof to you that global warming is happening?”
12:54pm: “what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?”
1:07pm: “what would you consider sufficient evidence?”
1:56pm: “so what would you consider to have met the burden of proof?”
I have read several well considered rebuttals to your questions and comments, yet you continue to respond like a broken record. Epic troll
Ok, how about:
-Show me a climate model which doesn’t demand exactly the same solutions proposed back in the 1970s for global cooling.
-Show me a climate model that uses computer models which have been validated by way of real-world examples. To my knowledge, none of the popular models have been validated.
-Show me reliable, original open-source data which hasn’t been regularly massaged upwards, then convince me you have the slightest clue as to what’s been happening to the three-quarters of the world without temperature stations the last two centuries. After that, tell me how you know what the global average was three, four, or five centuries ago. Which reminds me; Jerry Pournelle has regularly asked “just how do we determine average global temperature?” Have a simple answer? 🙂
Then you can explain all the natural variations historically recorded the last thousand years, including the Medieval Warm Period, the little Ice Age, the Maunder and other minimums, and why recent warming trends aren’t just yet another natural variation. That’s not to mention the possibility raised by some scientists who have proposed that we really should be entering an Ice Age as we speak, but only AGW is saving the planet. Oh, the potential irony. 🙂
After all that, explain what the “normal” average global temperature is, and why. Is 12C normal? Or is it 14C? Or is 8C normal? Why or why not?
@PaulBreed,
I’d have loved to say that – but it was Frank, not me.
@Casey,
Succinct and to the point.
Mike G. – It appears that Harry’s making notes to himself as he converts files from different data formats to run this program (don’t know which program). He’s having some issues. That means global warming is a fraud? Help me out – what part of this file is supposed to support your argument?
Better work on your reading comprehension, Chris. It means that the scientists themselves did not take care of the data properly, could not tell what they did in the past to obtain their “normalized” data sets from the raw readings, did not adhere to proper documentation standards (to be able to tell one file from another!), did not adhere to proper programming standards (e.g., not generating an error message when the input data is clearly wrong, but just continuing the analysis as if nothing had happened), used code with known bugs … and they now cannot reproduce their prior results. And remember, this is the data set that’s better than the NASA GISS data.
Which program? Lots of different programs — most of which were so buggy that the results were crap! Harry was debugging programs that never worked correctly in the first place! The climatologists didn’t know what they were doing, and didn’t know that they didn’t know.
Bottom line: CRU’s data sets cannot be trusted, and the results of their analysis are a joke.
Or as “Harry” put it so eloquently:
More …
Paul, I’m willing to support AGW and yell from the rooftops that it is going to kill us all, if it’ll get greenies to love nuclear power. But that 6 month romance seems to be fading 🙁
It still might have some legs for fusion though.. if anyone can get it working.