Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[turbobloke]

'believe'

All in a word.

[Somewhatfoolish]

turbobloke said:

'believe'

All in a word.

Well I assume you do believe that there's a conspiracy.

Would you agree that the facts are consistent with either a conspiracy or with AGW being significantly true?

[Ali G]

G_T, since you have raised this thread,

Here's my opinion from a related one! I think it concurs with an earlier opinon, but in no way supports your 'storm in a teacup' scenario!

Have now ploughed my way though the report by the International Panel on the CRU..

Not quite a whitewash - seems to me more of a 'politically convenient' review, but would seem that the CRU were a bunch of amateurs incapable of supporting the MMGW theory..

In short, they took unsupported data, carried out second rate statistical analysis of it and then made undocumented conclusions. Further, the analyses that they have carried out in the past may not be relevant today (by their own admission), and what precautions they made of their conclusions were ignored by the IPCCC... None of this seems to be an analysis of the fundamental physics of increasing the the level of CO2 and its potential impact - but simply seems to be trying determine the increase in the average temperature of the earth! Further, the impact of inner-city heat has not been factored into their findings.

Unfortunately, their findings have been hi-jacked by politicians to serve their own ends - it stinks.

The review of the CRU by the International Panel as it has been presented provides no enorsement of MMGW and is simply a view on how the CRU conducted its afairs - and in many ways is very critical.

Relevant quotes to highlight the problems with the CRU..

Scope of the review..

"The panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published reseach was correct".

With regards to using Dendroclimology (use of tree rings)..

"The potential for misleading results from selection bias is great in this area. It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistic. Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made so that work can in principle be replicated by others"

"At the time work was done, the (the CRU) had no idea that these data would assume the importance they have today and that the CRU would have to answer detailed inquiries on earlier work. Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on researchers to document the judgement decisions they have made so that wotk can in principle be replicated by others"

"The difficulty in releasing program code is that to be understood by anyone else it needs time-consuming work on documentation, and this has not been a top priority"

"The Unit freely admits that many data analyses they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today"

Temperatures from Historical Instrument Records

"In the later part of the 20th century CRU pioneered the methods for taking into account a wide range of local influences that can make instrumental records from different locations hard to compare. These methods were very labour intensive and were somewhat subjective."

"It has become apparent from a number of studies that there is elevation of the surface temperature in and around large cities and work is continuing to undersrtand this fully."

"CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have somtimes neglected to highlight this issue."

[odyssey2200]

Ah! I see the new Warmist tac-tic!

Start as many different MMuGW threads as you can in the belief/hope that you might not get shot down in flames in one of them and therby feel instantly better about your sad little life.

How can anyone with a brain cell not see MMuGW for the complete politically motivated bks that it is?



TB you have the patience of a saint!

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

Yes, uncritically accepting papers like Essenhigh (that should set s2art off) when they are easily demonstrated to be incorrect.

LOL! Then why havent you done so? Much easier to demonstrate the IPCC assumptions to be incorrect by just examining the atmospheric isotope profile.

s2art, the atmospheric isotope profile is in accordance with the IPCCs assumptions on residence time. The trouble is that the rise and fall of atmospheric concentrations is not determined by the residence time, but the adjustment time. They are not the same thing, but Essenhigh doesn't understand that and neither apparently do you.

Wrong, and Engelbeen thinks so too. Go and re-read the thread where it was discussed.

LOL, Englebeen has a webpage devoted to evidence demonstrating that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_meas...

Englebeen said:

To be sure about my skepticism: I like to see and examine the arguments of both sides of the fence, and I make up my own mind, based on these arguments. I am pretty sure that current climate models underestimate the role of the sun in climate variability and overestimate the role of greenhouse gases and aerosols. But I am as sure that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is mainly from the use of fossil fuels.

There are several reasons why the hypothesis of large non-human CO2 variations in recent history is wrong and that most of the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere indeed is mainly man-made, but that need a step-by-step explanation. Follow the steps:

He even quotes the mass balance argument that you and turbs said was the "wrong paradigm".

Does this look familiar at all from the other thread?



It should do, it is Ferdinand's version of the plot I used to demonstrate that the growth in atmospheric concentrations is always less than anthropogenic emissions and so the environment must be a net sink, taking up the difference.

Edited by ludo on Thursday 15th April 18:20

[ludo]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

G_T said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

I'm sorry mate, but the burden of proof rests with the accuser!

There is not one single report out there that can show the slightest bit of evidence why Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the DIRECT CAUSE of an increasing global temperature.

You're right it does.

That's why the IPCC published their report.

You are now denying the evidence exists. So you are the accuser. So provide your proof?

See, we have evidence that can show other possible factors other than man are affecting the climate - this can be seen by noticing the temperature variance of the planet pre-industrial era, and pre-human civilisation. I'm not claiming one overall theory is responsible.

The AGW camp, however, say that MAN is soley responsible for increasing temperatures, and that nothing else is effecting the climate.

No, they don't say any such thing, which you would know if you read the IPCC report (just the FAQs would do). Neither of the claims you state are made by the IPCC, it is just a straw man.

[ludo]

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

Yes, uncritically accepting papers like Essenhigh (that should set s2art off) when they are easily demonstrated to be incorrect.

LOL! Then why havent you done so? Much easier to demonstrate the IPCC assumptions to be incorrect by just examining the atmospheric isotope profile.

s2art, the atmospheric isotope profile is in accordance with the IPCCs assumptions on residence time. The trouble is that the rise and fall of atmospheric concentrations is not determined by the residence time, but the adjustment time. They are not the same thing, but Essenhigh doesn't understand that and neither apparently do you.

Wrong, and Engelbeen thinks so too. Go and re-read the thread where it was discussed.

Discussing the mass balance argument (you know the one I was explaining on th other thread)

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_meas...

Englebeen said:

This proves beyond doubt that human emissions are the main cause of the increase of CO2, at least over the past near 50 years. But there are much more indications for that...

looks to me like you didn't understand Englebeen either!

ETA: I'm sure that s2art can emply the usual pedantry-fest to make it not worth my while continuing - he usually does, but this one was rather funny!

Edited by ludo on Thursday 15th April 18:29

[Somewhatfoolish]

odyssey2200 said:

Ah! I see the new Warmist tac-tic!

Start as many different MMuGW threads as you can in the belief/hope that you might not get shot down in flames in one of them and therby feel instantly better about your sad little life.

How can anyone with a brain cell not see MMuGW for the complete politically motivated bks that it is?



TB you have the patience of a saint!

That the science is being seized upon by politicians as an excuse to push through a load of nonsense does not invalidate the science itself.

[The Excession]

ludo said:

CO2 emission stuff

Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it the debate surrounds the fact that we are struggling to link this directly to climate changes (be they up or down in temperature).

The same point is repeated again and again. Correlation does not equal cause.

There are correlations all over the place, it's the cause that many of us are struggling to find.

[odyssey2200]

Somewhatfoolish said:

odyssey2200 said:

Ah! I see the new Warmist tac-tic!

Start as many different MMuGW threads as you can in the belief/hope that you might not get shot down in flames in one of them and therby feel instantly better about your sad little life.

How can anyone with a brain cell not see MMuGW for the complete politically motivated bks that it is?



TB you have the patience of a saint!

That the science is being seized upon by politicians as an excuse to push through a load of nonsense does not invalidate the science itself.

Science ceases to be science when the data is carefully selected to support a predetermined result.
When the peer review process has been corrupted and when inconvenient truths that do not support the agenda are ignored.

Call it what you want but please don't insult scientists by calling this rubbish science.

[FunkyGibbon]

The Excession said:

ludo said:

CO2 emission stuff

Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it the debate surrounds the fact that we are struggling to link this directly to climate changes (be they up or down in temperature).

The same point is repeated again and again. Correlation does not equal cause.

There are correlations all over the place, it's the cause that many of us are struggling to find.

Exactly!

[coanda]

Somewhatfoolish said:

coanda said:

cs02rm0 said:

That's pretty unpleasant.

Edited by cs02rm0 on Thursday 15th April 17:27

But not unexpected.

The 'deniers' will be made into the next set of extremists...it'll take time but its all set up for nastiness. Its a bit like the beginning of christianity. The 'unbelievers' will be made to suffer regardless of the fact that the way the climate issue has been looked at is despicable from a scientific standpoint.

It's really sad that you guys believe this kind of thing - certainly I know all I'm interested in is the truth.

Too many vested interests now....if anyone finds unequivocal proof one way or another, one side loses out big style. Nope, the truth no longer serves a purpose for the players. Because the players can't handle being wrong.

What makes me sad is that there is a 460 odd page thread that I suppose (as I haven't read it...) is based off the information all the players have been putting forward to further their aims. Is there any objective competent analysis of the raw data out there at all???

[Somewhatfoolish]

The Excession said:

ludo said:

CO2 emission stuff

Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it the debate surrounds the fact that we are struggling to link this directly to climate changes (be they up or down in temperature).

The same point is repeated again and again. Correlation does not equal cause.

There are correlations all over the place, it's the cause that many of us are struggling to find.

The easiest thing to do is to make a testable prediction. The mainstream climate scientists have quite clearly made one in the IPCC report (amongst others) about where the climate is headed - we can see in 10 years time whether it has been effective by reasonably simple statistical tests.

[Somewhatfoolish]

coanda said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

coanda said:

cs02rm0 said:

That's pretty unpleasant.

Edited by cs02rm0 on Thursday 15th April 17:27

But not unexpected.

The 'deniers' will be made into the next set of extremists...it'll take time but its all set up for nastiness. Its a bit like the beginning of christianity. The 'unbelievers' will be made to suffer regardless of the fact that the way the climate issue has been looked at is despicable from a scientific standpoint.

It's really sad that you guys believe this kind of thing - certainly I know all I'm interested in is the truth.

Too many vested interests now....if anyone finds unequivocal proof one way or another, one side loses out big style. Nope, the truth no longer serves a purpose for the players. Because the players can't handle being wrong.

What makes me sad is that there is a 460 odd page thread that I suppose (as I haven't read it...) is based off the information all the players have been putting forward to further their aims. Is there any objective competent analysis of the raw data out there at all???

Not that everyone will agreed on

[Jasandjules]

Exonerated? This is a surprise, it's almost as if the Govt don't want the billions of pounds in tax they are robbing us of on the basis of fake data to stop or something.

[ludo]

The Excession said:

ludo said:

CO2 emission stuff

Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, that is exactly the claim made by Essenhigh, that the rise in CO2 is non-anthropogenic. The sceptic cause is greatly damaged by not dropping such ideas, once they are shown to be false.

The Excession said:

As I understand it the debate surrounds the fact that we are struggling to link this directly to climate changes (be they up or down in temperature).

The same point is repeated again and again. Correlation does not equal cause.

There are correlations all over the place, it's the cause that many of us are struggling to find.

No, there is plenty of basic physics that explains why temperature rises in response to increasing CO2 following a logarithmic law. Sceptics such as Roy Spencer and Pat Michaels (even!) will tell you that. This mechanism has been known for sixty years or more, from the work of Callendar and Plass, and is very widely known (see Spencer Weart's book for details). What is uncertain is how climate feedbacks will amplify the warming or attenuate it (although there isn't much evidence for the latter), which is what climate sensitivity is about.

RoySpencer said:

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

Edited by ludo on Thursday 15th April 18:45

[turbobloke]

Somewhatfoolish said:

The Excession said:

ludo said:

CO2 emission stuff

Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it the debate surrounds the fact that we are struggling to link this directly to climate changes (be they up or down in temperature).

The same point is repeated again and again. Correlation does not equal cause.

There are correlations all over the place, it's the cause that many of us are struggling to find.

The easiest thing to do is to make a testable prediction. The mainstream climate scientists have quite clearly made one in the IPCC report (amongst others) about where the climate is headed - we can see in 10 years time whether it has been effective by reasonably simple statistical tests.

Why not apply those tests to the IPCC 'method' and the last 20 years?

Others have, result: fail.

As to carbon dioxide which is a substitute focus of attention in the absence of any visible human signal in global temperature data with established causality to (etc), there is peer-reviewed science based on atmospheric data not manmade computer models, supporting the view that human emissions do not determine atmospheric levels, but that the level of tax gas is determined by adjustments in partition equilibria occurring as a result of natural temperature changes. As known for some time, another attrition loop is not required

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

"With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident."

See also:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/09123...

[ludo]

turbobloke said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

The Excession said:

ludo said:

CO2 emission stuff

Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it the debate surrounds the fact that we are struggling to link this directly to climate changes (be they up or down in temperature).

The same point is repeated again and again. Correlation does not equal cause.

There are correlations all over the place, it's the cause that many of us are struggling to find.

The easiest thing to do is to make a testable prediction. The mainstream climate scientists have quite clearly made one in the IPCC report (amongst others) about where the climate is headed - we can see in 10 years time whether it has been effective by reasonably simple statistical tests.

Why not apply those tests to the IPCC 'method' and the last 20 years?

Others have, result: fail.

As to carbon dioxide which is a substitute focus of attention in the absence of any visible human signal in global temperature data with established causality to (etc), there is peer-reviewed science based on atmospheric data not manmade computer models, supporting the view that human emissions do not determine atmospheric levels, but that the level of tax gas is determined by adjustments in partition equilibria occurring as a result of natural temperature changes. As known for some time, another attrition loop is not required

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

"With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident."

See also:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/09123...

There you are turbobloke disputes that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is why I am so keen to discuss Essenhigh as that kind of thing will just get the sceptics marginalised and I don't want such nonsense spreading.

Edited by ludo on Thursday 15th April 18:53

[Somewhatfoolish]

turbobloke said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

The Excession said:

ludo said:

CO2 emission stuff

Sure, I don't think anyone is disputing that man burning hydrocarbons is contributing to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. As I understand it the debate surrounds the fact that we are struggling to link this directly to climate changes (be they up or down in temperature).

The same point is repeated again and again. Correlation does not equal cause.

There are correlations all over the place, it's the cause that many of us are struggling to find.

The easiest thing to do is to make a testable prediction. The mainstream climate scientists have quite clearly made one in the IPCC report (amongst others) about where the climate is headed - we can see in 10 years time whether it has been effective by reasonably simple statistical tests.

Why not apply those tests to the IPCC 'method' and the last 20 years?

Others have, result: fail.

As to carbon dioxide which is a substitute focus of attention in the absence of any visible human signal in global temperature data with established causality to (etc), there is peer-reviewed science based on atmospheric data not manmade computer models, supporting the view that human emissions do not determine atmospheric levels, but that the level of tax gas is determined by adjustments in partition equilibria occurring as a result of natural temperature changes. As known for some time, another attrition loop is not required

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

"With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident."

See also:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/09123...

I wanna see the tests proposed in advance.

Incidentally what's the null hypothesis for the non-AGW camp?

[FunkyGibbon]

turbobloke said:

partition equilibria

Oh oh...



Ambiwlans tractor time