True, and it's got nothing to do with what would happen if the Himalayas decided to suddenly disappear as well, which is about as likely.
The GP claimed we know sea level rise with extreme certainty. We don't. Photos and sea level markers at docks are excellent observational proof over models - and Mörner is the sea level expert whom the IPCC wish would just stay quiet.
Nah. Sahara was a green savannah only a few thousand years ago. It was when it became a desert the spread out pockets of civilization had to move together in the Nile valley we got the Egyptian civilization.
"this kind"? Is this another case where "climate statistics" can only be done if you're a "climate scientist" (whatever that is) meaning professional statisticians can't do valid research on the methods used?
You're also completely misrepresenting the paper in question. Have you read it? If not, please read the full conclusion. The gist of it is "there's no support in actual data to support conclusion of a hockeystick kind".
Finally: Can you please tell me where the honest scientist Mann stood up and said IPCC and Al Gore misrepresented his work with regards to errors bars (i.e, statistical uncertainty) in graphs used to claim that we're currently in a period much warmer than anything of the last 1000 years - and that there was no MWP?
Yeah, me neither, since it never happened. At least Briffa tried, according to the leaked emails.
Mann's hockey stick has recently been completely falsified, even assuming all of his data and methods are sound, by professional statisticians. The NRC report is hardly an authority with that in mind.
In short, the error bars are so large that we _cannot_ say that we're currently warmer than during the MWP.
You're correct - but that's due to us being in a warm period between glaciations, called the Holocene. There's no scientific support for claiming this is due to the A in AGW - which is what was claimed in the post I replied to.
If we take their advise and continue to burn the known coal reserves over the next 100-200yrs then we will have a change similar to the prehistoric vulcanisim event that turned the oceans acidic and wiped out 90% of extant species
No, actually not even close, and why would you want us to burn coal when solar power is on a development curve that will in just a few decades supply us with all the energy we need?
99.99% of research and 100% of reputable research supports the conclusion that mans efforts at living the good life have effected the climate in such a way that polar ice caps are melting, storms are getting stronger and weather patterns changing.
Get with the program. Storms getting stronger is so 2005;)
(IPCC has, as usual, been very selective in the data they quote. When using all data, the conclusions change)
When it comes to changing weather patterns, that's due to ocean cycles and they change on scales of several decades. The PDO and the AMO seems to be the main culprits here.
With regards to polar ice caps, there's dubious support in the data for a statement about "melting". Compaction due to wind caused the huge drop in arctic extent in 2007 and it's been growing since. In antarctica the extent is bigger than ever. Globally it seems that the NH and SH extents are in an opposite relationship and over long periods the amount of ice stays the same: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
As you are well aware, Mann has been repeatedly investigated by political hacks and repeatedly cleared
Really? I was under the impression that his work has recently been falsified, in the scientific meaning of the word, by expert statisticians. It's doubtful that he didn't know his work didn't hold up to scrutiny these last few years (since M&M at least) and thus there's plenty of reason to believe he's been accepting grant money under false premises.
Sorry, I'm Swedish;) We do have "universal" cellular coverage (and high speed at that except very rural areas) and I'd absolutely consider my Android MID to augment me.
I still doubt exoskeletons being a good way to get to work. It seems really complicated when I try to picture thousands of humans speeding along at 60mph without running into each other. Sure, if we have the lenses, constant radio communication and all exoskeletons being forceable part of a swarm.. maybe.
Your three examples all require big spending and big infrastructure. SciFi always fails in understanding that takes a long time _to build_ even after the tech is available, if ever built. Lenses, neurointerfaces, mobile phones etc don't.
You'll get your zooming lenses with infrafred vision (and throw in constant visual context aware information off the Internet while we're at it) in ten or so years.
(60mph running, well, exoskeletons are cool but is there a need for that in making every day life simpler?)
... and the mark of a good skeptic, is somebody who understands that they realistically cannot know all that much of anything, and to defer to the judgement of experts -- and not just ANY experts, but recognised experts.
Seriously, no. The mark of a good skeptic is to be skeptic of claimed authority - which includes "recognized experts". You know, you find cheating scientists in the later group, until they get caught.
You were right in that a good skeptic knows the limits of his or her own knowledge as well though.
They're taking on someone that can actually afford to litigate that position and win- with the end result of Oracle eating the expense of the lawsuit and losing a handful of patents in their portfolio.
Thanks. I've been going through post after post wondering when someone would mention this. No owner of software patents WANT to appear in court - it's just too risky.
The fact I find most interesting is that you seemingly don't understand the papers you cite - yet I get the distinct impression that you actually work in the field. That, or you would really like to anyway.
The point with the quote still stands no matter where you cut it (I could just include the very next sentence to refute your rant above - "It is recommended that the noninterpolated SST data set HadSST be used alongside HadISST1 for climate monitoring and climate change detection studies") - it's still a multiple of "single locations". You might want to claim we've integrated them enough (or, to use the words from your paper - "assumed enough") to claim it doesn't matter - but then you need to find research that supports your claim. The paper you cited does not - as I pointed out. They even make that very clear.
When it comes to "never-before observed" I repeat my point. It means it hasn't been observed before. It does NOT mean it hasn't happened before. It's a bit like the "ozone hole" - we saw it when we first looked. As to whether it has existed before - we don't know.
There's a wonderful Confucius proverb that fits well here. Do you know which one I'm thinking of?
As to #3 - you really need to learn the difference between someone else's arguments and your own constructed strawmans.
Moderators. The fact that Rei gives an impression of knowing what he talks about does not mean his posts are "informative". Just as the laughable claim that he made that the north pole hadn't been exposed in millions of years from one of his earlier posts he seemingly does not understand the questions posed and the links he offer in return discuss something completely different.
I believe he knows this himself, and the answer to the question I asked is thus clear. He's more interested in propaganda than actual science.
So;
1) The HADISST paper is not anything like what I asked for. It does however validate the "we only have one position, in multiples" claim I made - that Rei then offers up a link to himself to contradict;)
Care must be taken when using HadISST1 for studies of observed climatic variability, particularly in some data- sparse regions, because of the limitations of the interpola- tion techniques
(We only have real ice coverage data from 1979 and onwards. Before that we have models, ship logs from specific locations, observations from specific locations etc)
2) Rei's ignorance shows through in believing that an observed phenomenon ("Arctic Dipole") starts to exist when observed. A scientist knows about his own inability to know about the state before.
3) Rei is still attacking the strawman _he created_ instead of what I actually wrote. It's somewhat funny, actually, when shouting the propaganda becomes more important than the actual subject at hand:)
Rei would post more informed comments if he made sure the contents were about science and not his own agenda.
Which peer reviewed studies of ancient ship logs, naval photography during the 20th century and old newspaper magazines are you referring to?:) I'd be really interested to know how they disagree with me.
I agree with you that one location is not the arctic ice extent. On the other hand, we only have "one location" (in multiples, depending on the observer) before 1979. You know that as well as I do.
I also seem to remember the wind patterns of 2007 as being heralded of proof of the arctic climate being in a death spiral - as opposed to being referred to as what it was. Weather.... and finally, you're spouting complete and utter nonsense with regards to "in the past million years" and "large-scale melting" and you know it. Is propaganda perhaps more important to you than actual science?
(Nice diagram by Spencer btw, it completely supports my comment with regards to your original statement - but of course not the strawman _you_ constructed from it)
Before that, we have sailing logs and logs from Arctic cities for the arrival and departure of ice
Yes, we have, and those do not support claims that arctic ice is in some sort of rapid unprecedented decline. On the contrary, we have photos of an "ice free north pole" from the last century.
we have ample evidence that the planet's temperature is dominated on the inter-annual scale by ENSO, and to a lesser extent, by other factors, but is dominated by AGW on the multi-decadal scale.
You seem to forget about the PDO, the AMO, the AO etc. Those seem to (e.g. correlate well) with multi-decadal variations.
If the rules say you are only allowed to give out a an employees password to the employee
... then you fire whomever came up with the rules. No person ever should have access to the passwords of others. It's not needed and should not exist as a policy anywhere.
(Rationale, of course, is that people reuse passwords and that's something much harder to fix than to stop storing passwords in clear text)
Slashdot Mirror
1992, and no, it's not extremely accurate (look at the calibration).
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
I'm sorry, can you please explain to our readers what dowsing has to do with sea levels?
Mörner has actual observational records (photographs, sea level markers at docks etc) that disprove modelled sea level records*.
Where I'm from (Sweden, same as Mörner) you try to disprove the message, not the messenger. You should try it.
*) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
True, and it's got nothing to do with what would happen if the Himalayas decided to suddenly disappear as well, which is about as likely.
The GP claimed we know sea level rise with extreme certainty. We don't. Photos and sea level markers at docks are excellent observational proof over models - and Mörner is the sea level expert whom the IPCC wish would just stay quiet.
Nah. Sahara was a green savannah only a few thousand years ago. It was when it became a desert the spread out pockets of civilization had to move together in the Nile valley we got the Egyptian civilization.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111115843.htm
Given we know the rate of ocean rise with a high level of certainty.
Absolute bollocks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
"this kind"? Is this another case where "climate statistics" can only be done if you're a "climate scientist" (whatever that is) meaning professional statisticians can't do valid research on the methods used?
You're also completely misrepresenting the paper in question. Have you read it? If not, please read the full conclusion. The gist of it is "there's no support in actual data to support conclusion of a hockeystick kind".
Finally: Can you please tell me where the honest scientist Mann stood up and said IPCC and Al Gore misrepresented his work with regards to errors bars (i.e, statistical uncertainty) in graphs used to claim that we're currently in a period much warmer than anything of the last 1000 years - and that there was no MWP?
Yeah, me neither, since it never happened. At least Briffa tried, according to the leaked emails.
Mann's hockey stick has recently been completely falsified, even assuming all of his data and methods are sound, by professional statisticians. The NRC report is hardly an authority with that in mind.
In short, the error bars are so large that we _cannot_ say that we're currently warmer than during the MWP.
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf
You're correct - but that's due to us being in a warm period between glaciations, called the Holocene. There's no scientific support for claiming this is due to the A in AGW - which is what was claimed in the post I replied to.
during the preceding four centuries
a.k.a "little ice age"
Mann's hockey stick is about 1000 up to 2000 years. Try again.
If we take their advise and continue to burn the known coal reserves over the next 100-200yrs then we will have a change similar to the prehistoric vulcanisim event that turned the oceans acidic and wiped out 90% of extant species
No, actually not even close, and why would you want us to burn coal when solar power is on a development curve that will in just a few decades supply us with all the energy we need?
Why are you anti-science? :(
99.99% of research and 100% of reputable research supports the conclusion that mans efforts at living the good life have effected the climate in such a way that polar ice caps are melting, storms are getting stronger and weather patterns changing.
Get with the program. Storms getting stronger is so 2005 ;)
http://www.leshatton.org/Documents/Hurricanes-are-not-getting-stronger.pdf
(IPCC has, as usual, been very selective in the data they quote. When using all data, the conclusions change)
When it comes to changing weather patterns, that's due to ocean cycles and they change on scales of several decades. The PDO and the AMO seems to be the main culprits here.
With regards to polar ice caps, there's dubious support in the data for a statement about "melting". Compaction due to wind caused the huge drop in arctic extent in 2007 and it's been growing since. In antarctica the extent is bigger than ever. Globally it seems that the NH and SH extents are in an opposite relationship and over long periods the amount of ice stays the same: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
As you are well aware, Mann has been repeatedly investigated by political hacks and repeatedly cleared
Really? I was under the impression that his work has recently been falsified, in the scientific meaning of the word, by expert statisticians. It's doubtful that he didn't know his work didn't hold up to scrutiny these last few years (since M&M at least) and thus there's plenty of reason to believe he's been accepting grant money under false premises.
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf
Sorry, I'm Swedish ;) We do have "universal" cellular coverage (and high speed at that except very rural areas) and I'd absolutely consider my Android MID to augment me.
I still doubt exoskeletons being a good way to get to work. It seems really complicated when I try to picture thousands of humans speeding along at 60mph without running into each other. Sure, if we have the lenses, constant radio communication and all exoskeletons being forceable part of a swarm .. maybe.
Your three examples all require big spending and big infrastructure. SciFi always fails in understanding that takes a long time _to build_ even after the tech is available, if ever built. Lenses, neurointerfaces, mobile phones etc don't.
You'll get your zooming lenses with infrafred vision (and throw in constant visual context aware information off the Internet while we're at it) in ten or so years.
(60mph running, well, exoskeletons are cool but is there a need for that in making every day life simpler?)
I'd have serious doubts about voting for someone who regularly bites off far more than they can chew
We tried to get one seat in the european election. In the end we got two.
But feel free to support future statements with facts :)
I lol'd
for real ;)
... and the mark of a good skeptic, is somebody who understands that they realistically cannot know all that much of anything, and to defer to the judgement of experts -- and not just ANY experts, but recognised experts.
Seriously, no. The mark of a good skeptic is to be skeptic of claimed authority - which includes "recognized experts". You know, you find cheating scientists in the later group, until they get caught.
You were right in that a good skeptic knows the limits of his or her own knowledge as well though.
They're taking on someone that can actually afford to litigate that position and win- with the end result of Oracle eating the expense of the lawsuit and losing a handful of patents in their portfolio.
Thanks. I've been going through post after post wondering when someone would mention this. No owner of software patents WANT to appear in court - it's just too risky.
The fact I find most interesting is that you seemingly don't understand the papers you cite - yet I get the distinct impression that you actually work in the field. That, or you would really like to anyway.
The point with the quote still stands no matter where you cut it (I could just include the very next sentence to refute your rant above - "It is recommended that the noninterpolated SST data set HadSST be used alongside HadISST1 for climate monitoring and climate change detection studies") - it's still a multiple of "single locations". You might want to claim we've integrated them enough (or, to use the words from your paper - "assumed enough") to claim it doesn't matter - but then you need to find research that supports your claim. The paper you cited does not - as I pointed out. They even make that very clear.
When it comes to "never-before observed" I repeat my point. It means it hasn't been observed before. It does NOT mean it hasn't happened before. It's a bit like the "ozone hole" - we saw it when we first looked. As to whether it has existed before - we don't know.
There's a wonderful Confucius proverb that fits well here. Do you know which one I'm thinking of?
As to #3 - you really need to learn the difference between someone else's arguments and your own constructed strawmans.
Moderators. The fact that Rei gives an impression of knowing what he talks about does not mean his posts are "informative". Just as the laughable claim that he made that the north pole hadn't been exposed in millions of years from one of his earlier posts he seemingly does not understand the questions posed and the links he offer in return discuss something completely different.
I believe he knows this himself, and the answer to the question I asked is thus clear. He's more interested in propaganda than actual science.
So;
1) The HADISST paper is not anything like what I asked for. It does however validate the "we only have one position, in multiples" claim I made - that Rei then offers up a link to himself to contradict ;)
Care must be taken when using HadISST1 for studies of observed climatic variability, particularly in some data- sparse regions, because of the limitations of the interpola- tion techniques
(We only have real ice coverage data from 1979 and onwards. Before that we have models, ship logs from specific locations, observations from specific locations etc)
2) Rei's ignorance shows through in believing that an observed phenomenon ("Arctic Dipole") starts to exist when observed. A scientist knows about his own inability to know about the state before.
3) Rei is still attacking the strawman _he created_ instead of what I actually wrote. It's somewhat funny, actually, when shouting the propaganda becomes more important than the actual subject at hand :)
Rei would post more informed comments if he made sure the contents were about science and not his own agenda.
Google's applications are not part of Android.
Android is truly open source.
Google's own applications aren't.
Which peer reviewed studies of ancient ship logs, naval photography during the 20th century and old newspaper magazines are you referring to? :) I'd be really interested to know how they disagree with me.
I agree with you that one location is not the arctic ice extent. On the other hand, we only have "one location" (in multiples, depending on the observer) before 1979. You know that as well as I do.
I also seem to remember the wind patterns of 2007 as being heralded of proof of the arctic climate being in a death spiral - as opposed to being referred to as what it was. Weather. ... and finally, you're spouting complete and utter nonsense with regards to "in the past million years" and "large-scale melting" and you know it. Is propaganda perhaps more important to you than actual science?
(Nice diagram by Spencer btw, it completely supports my comment with regards to your original statement - but of course not the strawman _you_ constructed from it)
Before that, we have sailing logs and logs from Arctic cities for the arrival and departure of ice
Yes, we have, and those do not support claims that arctic ice is in some sort of rapid unprecedented decline. On the contrary, we have photos of an "ice free north pole" from the last century.
we have ample evidence that the planet's temperature is dominated on the inter-annual scale by ENSO, and to a lesser extent, by other factors, but is dominated by AGW on the multi-decadal scale.
You seem to forget about the PDO, the AMO, the AO etc. Those seem to (e.g. correlate well) with multi-decadal variations.
If the rules say you are only allowed to give out a an employees password to the employee
(Rationale, of course, is that people reuse passwords and that's something much harder to fix than to stop storing passwords in clear text)
They aren't? Then what are all those GPS/location equipped mobiles in those cars doing?
Have a look at Waze - http://world.waze.com/