Slashdot Mirror
Domain: climate2003.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to climate2003.com.
Comments · 13
-
Re:US vs World
The classic paper on this is: Jones PD, Groisman PYa, Coughlan M, Plummer N, Wangl WC, Karl TR (1990) Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperatures over land. Nature 347:169-172. This conclusion was refreshed by Easterling '97.
The IPCC TAR stated:
These results confirm the conclusions of Jones et al. (1990) and Easterling et al. (1997) that urban effects on 20th century globally and hemispherically averaged land air temperature time-series do not exceed about 0.05C over the period 1900 to 1990 (assumed here to represent one standard error in the assessed non-urban trends).
There have been a couple of recent papers that Steve has been looking at, but as his site is down I don't have the citations handy (and I don't know them off-hand).
You should be careful with realclimate.org. While the site is climate science by climate scientists, it is characterized by evangelism rather than objectivity. This isn't to say their evangelism isn't often scientific and correct, but they do distort, obscure, and ignore information that hurts their evangelism.
As it happens, Steve started his blog climateaudit.org after he was subject to smear campaigns on realclimate.org over a couple of papers he published demolishing the statistical techniques used in MBH'98. Judge for yourself: MM'05, rc1, rc2, Recap
Steve's papers were ultimately vindicated by a NAS panel review. A copy of which Steve posted on his website: Wegman Report
. -
Re:US vs World
The classic paper on this is: Jones PD, Groisman PYa, Coughlan M, Plummer N, Wangl WC, Karl TR (1990) Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperatures over land. Nature 347:169-172. This conclusion was refreshed by Easterling '97.
The IPCC TAR stated:
These results confirm the conclusions of Jones et al. (1990) and Easterling et al. (1997) that urban effects on 20th century globally and hemispherically averaged land air temperature time-series do not exceed about 0.05C over the period 1900 to 1990 (assumed here to represent one standard error in the assessed non-urban trends).
There have been a couple of recent papers that Steve has been looking at, but as his site is down I don't have the citations handy (and I don't know them off-hand).
You should be careful with realclimate.org. While the site is climate science by climate scientists, it is characterized by evangelism rather than objectivity. This isn't to say their evangelism isn't often scientific and correct, but they do distort, obscure, and ignore information that hurts their evangelism.
As it happens, Steve started his blog climateaudit.org after he was subject to smear campaigns on realclimate.org over a couple of papers he published demolishing the statistical techniques used in MBH'98. Judge for yourself: MM'05, rc1, rc2, Recap
Steve's papers were ultimately vindicated by a NAS panel review. A copy of which Steve posted on his website: Wegman Report
. -
Re:Institutional Bias
Right, but McIntyre and McKitrick were arguing that that particular study was flawed, a conclusion that may well be correct. That doesn't say anything about the truth or otherwise of global warming itself, and it certainly isn't any evidence that global warming is not happening. Indeed, McIntyre and McKitrick explicitly reject any such conclusion. McIntyre's website is devoted to the admirable task of verifying published data and taking the authors' responsible to task for sloppy work - which happens occasionally in all fields; the poor quality of typical refereeing in most/all peer-reviewed journals doesn't help[*]. From McIntyre's FAQ:
Does your work disprove global warming?
We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.[*] at least im my own field this is true; I have no doubt it applies everywhere. It is essentially a symptom of the 'publish or perish' push to produce N publications per year or lose funding. This itself is a side-effect of putting bean counters in charge of science funding - they don't know anything about the science itself so the only criteria they use is the raw number of publications. In the push for quantity the quality inevitably goes down, so as well as having more papers to referee, the job of refereeing each paper is harder because it is more difficult to sort out the main results from the hastily prepared and sloppy writing.
-
Re:Scientific Debate has Ended?we arrived almost immediately at the part about science that you don't understandFalse. What IS true, however, is that we arrived immediately at the part where you are a prick (the initial "review" where you falsely claimed the debate was over, even though you later explicitly admitted you were lying when you said that). And now you continue being a prick. Kudos.
I am not pointing out merely that "some people disagree."I know. You are merely pointing out that some people disagree, and that you agree with those people. Whoopee. Please don't pretend that your experts are right just because they agree with you, because it's really embarassing for you.
You may be used to philosophical and religious discussions, where disagreements are not resolvable definitively and argumentation is a matter of superior persuasion. But this is science; your sarcasm has no power here.Neither does your prickness.
But that doesn't change the fact that nothing you presented actually proved McIntyre and McKitrick to be wrong, any more than McIntyre and McKitrick actually proved Mann to be wrong (even though I think the evidence shows Mann was wrong). Or do you mean because it is in peer-reviewed journals, that makes it right? Since when? And how does that square since McIntyre's and McKitrick's original work was in a peer-reviewed science journal, and continues to appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals, later than the citations you made (e.g. this paper, published in Energy and Environment in 2005)?
In fact, out of M&M's 10 claims, only one was sortof discredited, and it was because Mann et al never made their full data available, and when they did (after M&M's first article), it showed even greater problems than originally realized, and further show the previously undisclosed methodology that led to the M&M error was also flawed in other ways (including whether the methodology itself was valid, whether it was properly applied, and whether the selected proxies themselves have any validity).
You just showed by linking to those other URLs that the debate continues. But you already conceded that anyway -
Re:Get a real argument pleaseA survey of articles is not evidence of consensus. It is evidence of editorial policy. The article you site asserts that 928 articles were published between 1993 and 2003 and that ALL of them were written by researcher drawing the same conclusion. There are many scientific peer reviewed journals that publish articles on climate and atmospheric science. I seriously doubt that ALL, 100% as your statement asserts, of those publishing scientists have this single, very specific belief/conclusion from ALL the data they have.
A search of Google Scholar on the search terms "climate change" results in 734,000 hits. I don't know what time period that spans, and many of them would indeed support your assertion, but it makes a survey consisting of 928 articles statistically insignicant if your hypothesis is 100% consensus.
To disprove your assertion, that ALL scientists have this belief, I need only provide one single dissenting opinion. Not counting my own personal acquaintance, which includes researchers and former researchers in Physical Chemistry, here are a couple of contra-sources, just for consideration:
- Steve McIntyre's Site - basically geared toward discounting the statistical existence and/or importance of the 'hockey stick' temperature graph. Specifically, this is a discussion of the statistical errors involved in using multiple proxies (like tree rings, ice cores, etc) to model correlations.
- Climate Audit site - this is key to address your point; this site has a lot of scientists/researchers who dissent from populist view of anthropomorphic climate change, at least based on the current models. There is some important, and sometimes subtle, stuff here.
- A New Temperature Reconstruction - one of the stories linked to in the above site; worth a look.
- The Discovery of Rapid Climate Change - simply emphasizes that rapid climate change HAS occured historically and that human causes are not required; note that the swings in temperatures, etc, are MUCH larger than the 1-5 C shifts many take as catastrophic.
- Some have asserted that the AGW phenomenon is an example of Pathological Science. Note specifically the criteria:
- The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
- The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
- There are claims of great accuracy.
- Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
- Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
- The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
(note: please don't respond with why you might think these sites or conclusions are 'wrong;' my point in posting them is to discount the notion that EVERYBODY on the issue agrees with one, specific conclusion - it is the consensus issue I am trying to nullify)
Further, I propose that 'climate change' research is a money-maker right now, and almost guaranteed to generate funding from the federal agencies. This also possibly introduces a bias in the publication statistics.
Finally, I would say that 100% consensus in science is a bit dangerous. As Albert Einstein said, once you 'know' something, you stop 'understanding.' Honest debate on this issue is good and maintains scientific integrity. -
Re:Duh!
From http://www.climateaudit.org/?m=200501
Our article "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance" has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, copyright 2005 American Geophysical Union (doi: 2004GL012750). A pre-publication version is at http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf. Further reproduction or electronic distribution is not permitted.
Our article "The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate index: Update and Implications" has been accepted for publication by Energy & Environment and is available at http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick. pdf.
Our research shows fundamental flaws in the "hockey stick graph" used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to argue that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. The original hockey stick study was published by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and his coauthors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. The main error affects a step called principal component analysis (PCA). We showed that the PCA method as used by Mann et al. effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns. Even from meaningless random data (red noise), it nearly always produces a hockey stick.
This "backgrounder" provides a road map and summary of the 3 articles. While these papers have been under review, Mann et al. have opened up their own weblog realclimate.org and criticized some of our earlier work. We include some comments here on this commentary and some FAQ. -
Re:Where?
-
Re:Where?
-
Re:[PREDICTION]
No one ever said that humans were responsible for all of the climate change.
As for the medieval peak, there's some dispute over that, but even the pro-medievil peak people have it as less than 0.1 degree warmer. -
Open Source the Science for verification by all
The folks at http://www.climate2003.com and http://www.climateaudit.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.realclimate.org/.
The folks at http://www.realclimate.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.climate2003.com/ and http://www.climateaudit.org/.
This is as it should be in science.
The graph used in the New Scientist article about the Bush Whitehouse accepting humans as the cause of global warming, here http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334, has been debunked as bad science here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/. Mann's own bad science puts any reports that use it in doubt. This is how science works.
How did they debunk it? They used the scientific method of attempting to duplicate Mann's study using Mann's data. They couldn't. They found flaws. They found buggy software - the math was simply wrong! It always produces a hockey stick even with random data with a flat trend! They reported those flaws. Unfortunately for Mann his science was junk.
Scientific understanding progresses as a result. Now we know more.
As for the Time Online report at the top of this thread (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955
Open source the science otherwise it's all disconnected conclusions and might as well be mind poo (a technical term
Open source science is science that can be audited by anyone. Otherwise how can you really judge it's value? If a scientist with the stature of Mann can be debunked and have his result crushed like a bug how can anyone trust the reputation of any scientist? The answer is that you can't ofcourse otherwise you're bringing a belief into your resoning: a belief that you trust a particular scientist. That's not science, that's potentially religion, or at least faith based science (due to the trust factor).
Open science is the only way to go to be able to have supportable conclusions. The Times Online article is just a fluff peice with no hard data to back it up. It's just a summary of items to peak interest. Where's the beef? Where's the data? I want the software. Let's audit the software for bugs. That's what was partly wrong with Mann's analysis, a software bug.
Earth is too important to us to have the wrong conclusions, no matter which way they are headed. It's better to know reality accurately than believe in a fantasy as far as Global Warming is concerned.
Which would you rather be: faith based or science based? If your are science based then you must be prepared to have your views shaken now and then as a result of more accurate and up to date science. If you are faith based then go to church and leave us rational humans be.
Oh, as a final point, it's the responsibility of a scientist to be skeptical. To hold the neurtal gound even when faced with conclusive data. To keep asking the questions time and time again. To ask questions that underly the conclusions. To question the conclusions. Remember that consensus isn't science, it's mob rule, science works by multiple scientists auditing the data, methods and process of the analysis and conclusions.
Unfortunately for Mann his famous hockey stick hasn't passed this close scutinty process. Now he has to fight for his reputation and career. It seems harsh, but that's what happens with junk science.
I remain an open minded skeptic.
Pet -
Re:No bias here
Then perhaps you would consider that McKittrick and McIntyre's latest paper (PDF warning) was published in the February 2005 Geophysical Research Letters?
You might also consider that Mann refuses to release the complete dataset on which he based his research as well as the algorithm used to generate the graph. This means his work cannot be validated by anyone else because he is not making available the conditions for the experiment.
McIntyre has also pointed out that the general method used by Mann tends to generate hockey-stick results even on random data.
Humans may well be warming the planet with their activities. Mann's work, until properly verified, should not be used as evidence of this. -
Re:'gain a relative economical advantage'..
Second, you could use this argument to justify absolutely anything. If all you have to do to disprove a scientific finding was to simply say "all these scientists might be wrong"
You're taking an absolutist stance in which the goal is to "justify" and "disprove".
That is not the goal. We (who feel that the scientific method has more merit than politics) simply wish to let the process of theory and trial work itself out without turning every morsel of conclusion into a talking point. Let the Manns and McKitricks debate the evidence and let others in the field reproduce data. This is how it works. Heck, the most conclusive piece of data yet was published in 1998. Anything less than 10 years ago is rarely something that has had time to be assailed by reasonable scrutiny from the scientific community.
That we're simply too impatient to wait for the conclusion is not a matter that is of interest to the scientific method. -
Re:Uh huhI leave it up to you to read any of the many other comments on this story that relate this test to the climateprediction.net results.
In other words, you can't make a cogent argument to back up the vitriol? Maybe if you were more of a scientist and less of a fanatic, you could provide a link or two to back up your assertions? The climateprediction.net site says they're still verifying their model.
I do follow this very closely, and I have seen nothing to indicate your statement concerning the veracity of the "current models" has any validity. Is this in peer-reviewed research or are you, as I suspect, talking out your ass? If it's all so cut and dried, maybe you could address some of this gentleman's points?
Next time, try engaging your brain before hitting 'post' and embarrassing yourself in public.
This sort of idiocy doesn't belong in reasoned discourse. I find it most often from people who can't back up their assertions when challenged.