With enough sub-models, I can thus model anything, without any one of the models (or an aggregate!) ever being useful for the actual question I want to answer.
Is that science?
(As to your comments on Tisdale's work it'd be much better for him to reply than me)
Researchers do not start off with a forgone conclusion and then try to find some way to shoehorn data into it.
Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.
(from the Climategate 2.0 email archive this thread is about)
But actually that is how most science gets done; on a hunch. The thing that separates scientists from believers is whether or not they can drop their hunch when the observations don't agree.
You mean like the models that predict ocean currents, pacific oscillation, jet stream, gulf stream, and whose decadal temperature predictions are, if anything, a bit on the conservative side?
Hasn't Tisdale conclusively shown that the models fail completely at ENSO? (and thus PDO and other ocean current as well)
Not all scientists have the integrity of the BEST researchers
I agree.
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
On "the hockey stick", from the Climategate 2.0 email release this thread is about:
Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
This thread is a good example. Currently posts in favor of AGW are highly rated while posts bringing up skeptical points have been modded "troll", no matter the quality of the actual content. I find it slightly amusing, and sad.
It was singled out by the BBC. That specific show is "extra", and not everyone wants to pay for it, especially when the narrator isn't as well known in some of the countries as he is back home.
“It would be impossible to do a presenter-less version. Only those countries that accept David as a presenter (and there are many where he is well-known – such as Australia, New Zealand and Scandinavia) could be expected to take episode seven as it stands.
Really? We have good empirical evidence that cap and trade works. Check out sulfur dioxide pollution, acid rain
From the Climategate 2.0 email release this thread is about:
Briffa:
Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even real?
Confirmed what? BEST did not at all look into causes of the warming we've seen since the Little Ice Age.
Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.
Also:
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
My point is that a scientist recognizes the limit of knowledge as well, we simply do not have data with regards to natural ice variations in the arctic. We know from anecdotal evidence (even when it comes from scientific expeditions!) that there has been out-of-the-ordinary warming and melting since before the industrial revolution.
If you don't understand the above, maybe you need to study the scientific method some more.
You still don't seem to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, nor being able to understand what the statement I replied to means and what I in turn wrote.
I'm saying that the relationship according to all the proxies we have available over geological times doesn't seem to be linear. Thus the statement I replied to is in no way as clear cut as the poster made it out to be.
Oh I'm quite sure I do a lot of science - and that's why I pointed out that it's a hypothesis, most certainly not a theory:) You might not want to use words you don't understand.
Why would we experience that warming for 1000 years? And why do you believe the rate of warming during the last warm phase of the PDO to have been unusual? (It isn't, it was the same earlier in the 20th century and during the only long term records we have, CET, we see the same rate during periods going back hundreds of years)
You do realize that we have no data on ice changes in the arctic from pretty much before 1970 I hope? The only thing we have, the only way to know whether something unusual has happened or not, are "anecdotes" from... the Royal Society, ship captains etc.
I'm not sure you understand the scientific method. Observation is a key concept.
Eye witness reports from the 40s and 19th century contradicts that the Arctic is thinning in any way different now compared to then. We even sent scientific expeditions to the arctic to investigate the unusual warming, more than a hundred years ago.
Then it froze right back.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817
“From an examination of the Greenland captains, it has been found that owing to some convulsions of nature , the sea was more open and more free from compact ice than in any former voyage they ever made: that several ships actually reached the eighty-fourth degree of latitude, in which no ice whatever was found; that for the first time for 400 years, vessels penetrated to the west coast of Greenland, and that they apprehended no obstacle to their even reaching the pole, if it had consisted with their duty to their employers to make the attempt.”
Greenland, the adjacent seas, and the North-west Passage to the Pacific Ocean: illustrated in a voyage to Davis's strait, during the summer of 1817 (Google eBook)
Slashdot Mirror
With enough sub-models, I can thus model anything, without any one of the models (or an aggregate!) ever being useful for the actual question I want to answer.
Is that science?
(As to your comments on Tisdale's work it'd be much better for him to reply than me)
There's over 97% agreement with the IPCC report
Really? The only way someone could possibly think so is if they know nothing about statistics.
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
Researchers do not start off with a forgone conclusion and then try to find some way to shoehorn data into it.
Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
(from the Climategate 2.0 email archive this thread is about)
But actually that is how most science gets done; on a hunch. The thing that separates scientists from believers is whether or not they can drop their hunch when the observations don't agree.
You mean like the models that predict ocean currents, pacific oscillation, jet stream, gulf stream, and whose decadal temperature predictions are, if anything, a bit on the conservative side?
Hasn't Tisdale conclusively shown that the models fail completely at ENSO? (and thus PDO and other ocean current as well)
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/satellite-era-sst-anomalies-models-vs-observations-using-time-series-graphs-and-17-year-trends/
Not all scientists have the integrity of the BEST researchers
I agree.
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#disagreement
Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#skepticism
Feel free to support your claims.
James Hansen, Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
(from a link posted elsewhere in this thread on the millions of dollars Hansen apparently made from his activism while on the public payroll)
On "the hockey stick", from the Climategate 2.0 email release this thread is about:
Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
Consensus?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-12598
This thread is a good example. Currently posts in favor of AGW are highly rated while posts bringing up skeptical points have been modded "troll", no matter the quality of the actual content. I find it slightly amusing, and sad.
It was singled out by the BBC. That specific show is "extra", and not everyone wants to pay for it, especially when the narrator isn't as well known in some of the countries as he is back home.
“It would be impossible to do a presenter-less version. Only those countries that accept David as a presenter (and there are many where he is well-known – such as Australia, New Zealand and Scandinavia) could be expected to take episode seven as it stands.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8889541/BBC-drops-Frozen-Planets-climate-change-episode-to-sell-show-better-abroad.html
Really? We have good empirical evidence that cap and trade works. Check out sulfur dioxide pollution, acid rain
From the Climategate 2.0 email release this thread is about:
Briffa:
Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-12598
Confirmed what? BEST did not at all look into causes of the warming we've seen since the Little Ice Age.
Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.
Also:
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#disagreement
"The oil companies" have been sponsoring AGW research for many years. Don't fall for popular myths, verify facts yourself.
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Petroleum, Department of Energy, National Power, Shell, Sultanate of Oman, United States Department of Energy
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
My point is that a scientist recognizes the limit of knowledge as well, we simply do not have data with regards to natural ice variations in the arctic. We know from anecdotal evidence (even when it comes from scientific expeditions!) that there has been out-of-the-ordinary warming and melting since before the industrial revolution.
If you don't understand the above, maybe you need to study the scientific method some more.
Yes, we have satellites today - since the 1970s. That's the problem - we don't have anything besides anecdotes (and some proxies) further back.
In what way do you mean you _shouldn't_ doubt the data we don't have since before the satellite era?
You still don't seem to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, nor being able to understand what the statement I replied to means and what I in turn wrote.
(As to what I used to do, you're correct)
I'm saying that the relationship according to all the proxies we have available over geological times doesn't seem to be linear. Thus the statement I replied to is in no way as clear cut as the poster made it out to be.
Oh I'm quite sure I do a lot of science - and that's why I pointed out that it's a hypothesis, most certainly not a theory :) You might not want to use words you don't understand.
No, but thanks for creating and attacking a straw man.
Myself I like to do science.
That's a hypothesis, it has no basis in observation so far.
I like the scientific method. I'm worried it seems few do nowadays.
Is that "likely" from the same models that predicted increased precipitation over Africa's Horn perhaps?
Why would we experience that warming for 1000 years? And why do you believe the rate of warming during the last warm phase of the PDO to have been unusual? (It isn't, it was the same earlier in the 20th century and during the only long term records we have, CET, we see the same rate during periods going back hundreds of years)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
You do realize that we have no data on ice changes in the arctic from pretty much before 1970 I hope? The only thing we have, the only way to know whether something unusual has happened or not, are "anecdotes" from ... the Royal Society, ship captains etc.
I'm not sure you understand the scientific method. Observation is a key concept.
(There are some proxies we can use, and papers have recently been published. According to them it's normal for the arctic to have low extents of ice throughout history: http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/ )
Can you please explain how ice that didn't exist would be thick?
(I can only assume you don't realize we're talking about sea ice)
Data from 1979 ..
Eye witness reports from the 40s and 19th century contradicts that the Arctic is thinning in any way different now compared to then. We even sent scientific expeditions to the arctic to investigate the unusual warming, more than a hundred years ago.
Then it froze right back.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817
“From an examination of the Greenland captains, it has been found that owing to some convulsions of nature , the sea was more open and more free from compact ice than in any former voyage they ever made: that several ships actually reached the eighty-fourth degree of latitude, in which no ice whatever was found; that for the first time for 400 years, vessels penetrated to the west coast of Greenland, and that they apprehended no obstacle to their even reaching the pole, if it had consisted with their duty to their employers to make the attempt.”
Greenland, the adjacent seas, and the North-west Passage to the Pacific Ocean: illustrated in a voyage to Davis's strait, during the summer of 1817 (Google eBook)
Does this evidence disagree with your conclusion?
Actual science says Sahara is greening: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html