Climate Change - the big debate (Part 3)
Discussion
Mr Gear said:
turbobloke said:
Dean Morrison said:
Yes but nothing to do with disproving climate change, nor that solar factors are dominant.
Already posted a response in that direction. From before peer review got broken and the stranglehold applied. Before two strong El Ninos that are used to mislead people into thinking it's manmadeup warming.Newell et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 16, 4, 311-314 (1989)
New Scientist in days of climate science political netrality said:
A 22-YEAR cycle linked with changes in the Sun's activity has influenced trends in temperature this century more than any other factor. This is the conclusion of Nicholas Newell, a scientist in Arlington, Massachusetts. He and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have analysed temperature variations from 1856 to 1986.
More than any other factor, that means 'dominant'.Next.
Surely things have moved on since 1989?
How has the data moved on when the period in question was available then and is now?
How has methodology moved on when it's not something that requires 2010 laptops or mainframes to analyse data in that way?
No use, it's there in the literature and no amount of wishful thinking will take it away.
Yes, since 1989 a small group of scientists looked at how the peer review process in climate science might be, erm, evolved, to keep science out of print, to get Journal editors moved from posts, to manage somehow to know who anonymous reviewers are or were and get the review process nicely broken. The entire climate science debate became the subject of £trillions and was politicised. That must be what you refer to.
turbobloke said:
Attrition loops, repetition, diversion, all obfuscations totally transparent.
C'mon, you're not that bad....OK, so that was a bit childish.
Back on point, you do realise that it is precisely because in the past CO2 lags other climate variations that CO2 is implicated in current warming?
Normally, historically, you are right - but it seems to be different this time, so I don't think this advances your argument to be honest.
turbobloke said:
Mr Gear said:
turbobloke said:
Dean Morrison said:
Yes but nothing to do with disproving climate change, nor that solar factors are dominant.
Already posted a response in that direction. From before peer review got broken and the stranglehold applied. Before two strong El Ninos that are used to mislead people into thinking it's manmadeup warming.Newell et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 16, 4, 311-314 (1989)
New Scientist in days of climate science political netrality said:
A 22-YEAR cycle linked with changes in the Sun's activity has influenced trends in temperature this century more than any other factor. This is the conclusion of Nicholas Newell, a scientist in Arlington, Massachusetts. He and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have analysed temperature variations from 1856 to 1986.
More than any other factor, that means 'dominant'.Next.
Surely things have moved on since 1989?
How has the data moved on when the period in question was available then and is now?
How has methodology moved on when it's not something that requires 2010 laptops or mainframes to analyse data in that way?
No use, it's there in the literature and no amount of wishful thinking will take it away.
Yes, since 1989 a small group of scientists looked at how the peer review process in climate science might be, erm, evolved, to keep science out of print, to get Journal editors moved from posts, to manage somehow to know who anonynous reviewers are or were and get the review process nicely broken. The entire climate science debate became the subject of £trillions and was politicised. That must be what you refer to.
Facefirst said:
turbobloke said:
Attrition loops, repetition, diversion, all obfuscations totally transparent.
C'mon, you're not that bad....OK, so that was a bit childish.
Back on point, you do realise that it is precisely because in the past CO2 lags other climate variations that CO2 is implicated in current warming?
Normally, historically, you are right - but it seems to be different this time, so I don't think this advances your argument to be honest.
Contemporary data has no causal or dependent signal from emissions, historical data where there is sufficient time resolution show the same thing, only assumptions from methodology and sampling from sites with inadequate time resolution allow speculation.
turbobloke said:
Yes, since 1989 a small group of scientists looked at how the peer review process in climate science might be, erm, evolved, to keep science out of print, to get Journal editors moved from posts, to manage somehow to know who anonynous reviewers are or were and get the review process nicely broken. The entire climate science debate became the subject of £trillions and was politicised. That must be what you refer to.
See, this is the sort of stuff that should set alarm bells ringing - it is a central tenent of all 'denialist' commentators, be it 9/11, evolution, homeopathy, that science is somehow 'broken'.Scepticism is set apart from denialism by this trait.
turbobloke said:
Dean Morrison said:
Yes but nothing to do with disproving climate change, nor that solar factors are dominant.
Already posted a response in that direction. From before peer review got broken and the stranglehold applied. Before two strong El Ninos that are used to mislead people into thinking it's manmadeup warming.Newell et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 16, 4, 311-314 (1989)
New Scientist in days of climate science political netrality said:
A 22-YEAR cycle linked with changes in the Sun's activity has influenced trends in temperature this century more than any other factor. This is the conclusion of Nicholas Newell, a scientist in Arlington, Massachusetts. He and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have analysed temperature variations from 1856 to 1986.
More than any other factor, that means 'dominant'.Next.
In 1986 I could say that Liverpool was the dominant football club in England. Sadly no longer true.
Facefirst said:
turbobloke said:
Yes, since 1989 a small group of scientists looked at how the peer review process in climate science might be, erm, evolved, to keep science out of print, to get Journal editors moved from posts, to manage somehow to know who anonynous reviewers are or were and get the review process nicely broken. The entire climate science debate became the subject of £trillions and was politicised. That must be what you refer to.
See, this is the sort of stuff that should set alarm bells ringing - it is a central tenent of all 'denialist' commentators, be it 9/11, evolution, homeopathy, that science is somehow 'broken'.Scepticism is set apart from denialism by this trait.
Those working anywhere near the climate science arena knew that the review process was broken, all Climategate did was reveal how badly and by whom. If you think it's irrelevant in the ultimate analysis it could be seen that way BUT when others, not you iirc, ask for lists of names or lists of papers (also irrelevant, but they ask) then the fact that papers have been rejected for no good reason is a bias in the system and renders such considerations null and void.
Prior to the Hockey Team there was a much more balanced publications profile, which having been a reviewer of the climate science literature for over 20 years I'm able to confirm, clearly you won't accept my word so let's move on.
Guam said:
You really arent a layperson are you, because to go down that route will require far more than a Lay grasp of the subject matter 
Also We have to avoid posting equations on here imho (indeed I seem to recollect we did that once and were begged to stop)
Also to make any kind of sensible assessment would require access to the working out (as TB would put it)
Anything less would be opinion (happy to do that as long as we recognise it as such)
Of course I may be misunderstanding where you are heading with this?
I do understand that dodgy stats can be used for all kinds of purposes, but I confess to not really knowing anything about stats in practice (it's been a while since I studied this at Uni and even then I'm not sure I learned that much!).Also We have to avoid posting equations on here imho (indeed I seem to recollect we did that once and were begged to stop)
Also to make any kind of sensible assessment would require access to the working out (as TB would put it)
Anything less would be opinion (happy to do that as long as we recognise it as such)
Of course I may be misunderstanding where you are heading with this?
I'm driving at the principles here, because I want to establish common ground for what causality could look like outside of the lab.
Since the science has moved on I've updated the 'Climate Con' Wiki to give links to up to date data from NASA rather than 22 year old articles in New Scientist and links to Watts Up With That.
The real Climate Con is that perpetrated by the Oil Companies and their political lobby groups, so I think it's best to stick to the science there don't you think?
The real Climate Con is that perpetrated by the Oil Companies and their political lobby groups, so I think it's best to stick to the science there don't you think?
turbobloke said:
This is reporting fact not some social commentary.
Those working anywhere near the climate science arena knew that the review process was broken, all Climategate did was reveal how badly and by whom. If you think it's irrelevant in the ultimate analysis it could be seen that way BUT when others, not you iirc, ask for lists of names or lists of papers (also irrelevant, but they ask) then the fact that papers have been rejected for no good reason is a bias in the system and renders such considerations null and void.
Prior to the Hockey Team there was a much more balanced publications profile, which having been a reviewer of the climate science literature for over 20 years I'm able to confirm, clearly you won't accept my word so let's move on.
Out of interest, has there ever been a publication bias study done? Those working anywhere near the climate science arena knew that the review process was broken, all Climategate did was reveal how badly and by whom. If you think it's irrelevant in the ultimate analysis it could be seen that way BUT when others, not you iirc, ask for lists of names or lists of papers (also irrelevant, but they ask) then the fact that papers have been rejected for no good reason is a bias in the system and renders such considerations null and void.
Prior to the Hockey Team there was a much more balanced publications profile, which having been a reviewer of the climate science literature for over 20 years I'm able to confirm, clearly you won't accept my word so let's move on.
It would be quite interesting if there had, because that would show to what extent the problem impacted on the subject.
EDIT: There is one, but I don't have access to it. Damn.
Facefirst said:
Out of interest, has there ever been a publication bias study done?
It would be quite interesting if there had, because that would show to what extent the problem impacted on the subject.
EDIT: There is one, but I don't have access to it. Damn.
I've just found one and....(drum roll)...it is by Patrick Michaels. What. A. Shocker.It would be quite interesting if there had, because that would show to what extent the problem impacted on the subject.
EDIT: There is one, but I don't have access to it. Damn.
And where was it published? Energy and Environment. Wow, didn't see that one coming!
Here is the link:
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/x327242...
Dean Morrison said:
turbobloke said:
Dean Morrison said:
Yes but nothing to do with disproving climate change, nor that solar factors are dominant.
Already posted a response in that direction. From before peer review got broken and the stranglehold applied. Before two strong El Ninos that are used to mislead people into thinking it's manmadeup warming.Newell et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 16, 4, 311-314 (1989)
New Scientist in days of climate science political netrality said:
A 22-YEAR cycle linked with changes in the Sun's activity has influenced trends in temperature this century more than any other factor. This is the conclusion of Nicholas Newell, a scientist in Arlington, Massachusetts. He and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have analysed temperature variations from 1856 to 1986.
More than any other factor, that means 'dominant'.Next.
Dean Morrison said:
In 1986 I could say that Liverpool was the dominant football club in England. Sadly no longer true.
Poor analogy which fails as carbon dioxide remains non-dominant. There is no human carbon dioxide signal in climate temperature data since the 1989 publication date of Newell et el. Just El Nino, La Nina, solar, volcanism. The El Nino episodes are natural events and all there is to see on the warming front.See for yourself 1989 is easy to pick out, the only warming is El Nino in 1998 and 2010.
The view of solar forcing needed to question dominance is an artificial false one. Look at unamplified TSI, which is simply wrong. Bucha, Ahaviv and Svensmark - given people look at the correct papers on the correct subject in the correct years - show that climate forcing also via solar eruptivity (not irradiance alone) is still dominant. There are no other signals in the data.
Solar eruptivity forcing vs temperature, smoothed values for reasons explained earlier relating to solar wind properties and IPCC comparisons where they use smoothed temperature representations.
The only feature of non-solar eruptivity is the 1940-42 anomalous troposphere event due to El Nino.
Oakey said:
I saw what you did Dean, now you're just behaving like a trolling pleb
I was surprised there was a Wiki here dedicated entirely to depositing sceptic 'resources' at the same time claiming to be 'fair' and 'not wanting to influence people.I simply sought to inject some balance, and some up to date science from NASA.
However it would seem fair to have both sides of the story represented there - so I've now posted the NASA stuff alongside the 'sceptic' contributions, and give you guys the last word.
I hope you'll agree that is a fair compromise, and shows what a fair and balanced forum Pistonheads is
turbobloke said:
You mean there was one journal where no stranglehold operated? Good.
It could be that, couldn't it? And yes, there is even publication bias for studies on publication bias, but this is the first time I have seen anyone with any 'standing' use a 'trade journal' like Energy and Environment.Oh hang on. No it isn't. The 9/11 Truth lot do similar things.
Funny that.
What people think if E&E:
'Writing in The Australian, Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales described the publication as "the climate sceptic's journal of choice, the bottom-tier Energy and Environment", adding that it was used "to advance all manner of absurd theories: for example, that CO2 concentrations actually have fallen since 1942".
The ISI Web of Knowledge does not list Energy & Environment. Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in 2007 about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited."
Ah well, more time wasted. I'll just stick it on your tab TB.
turbobloke said:
Poor analogy which fails as carbon dioxide remains non-dominant. There is no human carbon dioxide signal in climate temperature data since the 1989 publication date of Newell et el. Just El Nino, La Nina, solar, volcanism. The El Nino episodes are natural events and all there is to see on the warming front.
See for yourself 1989 is easy to pick out, the only warming is El Nino in 1998 and 2010.
I see a warming trend with a blip in it. Plus a guy trying to convince you it's cooling because it's cold in January.See for yourself 1989 is easy to pick out, the only warming is El Nino in 1998 and 2010.
turbobloke said:
The view of solar forcing needed to question dominance is an artificial false one. Look at unamplified TSI, which is simply wrong. Bucha, Ahaviv and Svensmark - given people look at the correct papers on the correct subject in the correct years - show that climate forcing also via solar eruptivity (not irradiance alone) is still dominant. There are no other signals in the data.
Solar eruptivity forcing vs temperature, smoothed values for reasons explained earlier relating to solar wind properties and IPCC comparisons where they use smoothed temperature representations.
Yes that's that unreferenced graph you posted before. Until you can explain where you got it from or what data it's based on it remains a collection of pretty squiggly lines.Solar eruptivity forcing vs temperature, smoothed values for reasons explained earlier relating to solar wind properties and IPCC comparisons where they use smoothed temperature representations.
I'm guessing that it's fake, and until you come up with a reference for it, that will remain the case.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff