Any time one is in a vehicle stopped by a member of law enforcement, whether a traffic cop getting ready to write a citation or a border cop inspecting for contraband, the basic rule is to stay in the car. They've been teaching this in driver's ed for many years, it's mentioned on TV and on the radio, and aside from that, it's common knowledge.
In Canada?
It sure isn't where I got my drivers license, in Europe, more than 15 years ago.
(Yes, I know, you're required to know all local laws etc - I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy as you make it out to be)
Thank you! (Yes, I mean it) It is the first time you actually gave me something to read;)
The first study shows that one species (out of 275000) planktonic foraminifera seem to have evolved during a period of 50k years:) It also includes the following quote:
other variables such as temperature, salinity and nutrient availability may also influence calcification rate... but I don't think it's important - I'm do not believe in a static environment and the fact that shell builders adapt their shells in response to varying levels of dissolved CO2 feels reassuring. As I wrote before, they've apparently survived magnitudes higher CO2 levels before - why should today's fluctuations pose any problems?
The second link is the same as the first. Was that intentional?
The third link is one of the worst papers I've read - and it only deals in projections, models and weird citations, like this one:
Bibby and colleagues (2007) documented interesting behavioral, metabolic, and morphological responses of the intertidal gastropod Littorina littorea to acidified seawater (pH=6.6)
pH 6.6 - seriously? What's that supposed to prove?... and I'm not sure how well reviewed it was before being published:
I see you pointing - it doesn't make anything you write more correct though:)
McIntyre has written more good blog posts on the fraud btw, they support everything I've written and none of yours.
(PS: Yes, Swedish courts would likely conclude that Phil Jones is guilty of fraud. He's not Swedish though, let's see what happens in the UK. All that data that was, according to him, irrevocably lost in the 80s has magically appeared in the leaked archive... )
Oh feel free to come visit Sweden and try my statements as "libelous":) Our courts would have a field day with that. The graphs are incorrectly labelled, it's obvious to anyone that they are (and proven by the original picture being drawn differently, that is, correct. Why change it?)
The big question is, why is it so important for you?
And just to repeat for the newcomers. Mike's Nature Trick is to use instrumental readings as source data when interpolating and smoothing proxy data, making it appears both as if the proxies fit better with modern data, and to make it appear as if we have one dataset that suddenly skyrockets at the end of a long lull. The picture in question does not in any way show the shift from one set of data to another, quite the opposite, they show three separate sets in three different colours _all_ without a single disruptiong where the source data changes.
Statistics 101 - you don't do this.
"But it was only used a cover picture! Surely our politicians disregard obviously faulty pictures and read the complete papers!"
What we might disagree on is the importance of graphs for publishing or actual paper writings. Since briefs and graphs are used to sway politicians, I consider them to be very important - it seems you do not think so as long as the correct details are in the papers.
Apparently I was correct. I do not understand why you keep posting:) The captions in the image I linked to are incorrect and deceiptful.
It's possible that you were talking about something interesting, but it seems you weren't able to link to anything supporting your claims:) Thus, it's not about chasing up "more" papers - since you didn't chase up any at all.
The only paper I see posted shows, which fits well with established science, that ocean living creatures have no problems with small fluctionations in CO2 levels. And yes, over their evolutionary lifespan, the current fluctuations are very, very, small.
Did I link to a source for that before? Don't remember, I'll simply do it again:
If you want to debate proper science, and your posts imply that you do, you need to source your statements better than random web portals and google searches where the contents don't match up with your sayings.
In the second diagram, they claim it portrays something it does not - they name the curves as being something they are not. That's the definition of fraud.
The _fraudulent_ version where the curves - now continuing up without being visibly cut off, having had their data changed etc - that was actually published:
From your link. First hit is a 404, the second contains this passage that fits in quite nicely in our discussion:
Orr et al. (2005) developed model scenarios of future changes in surface ocean carbonate chemistry as a function of changes in atmospheric CO2, using the IPCC IS92a "business-as-usual" CO2 emission scenario, with the median projection of DIC changes from 13 ocean models that participated in the OCMIP-2 project. Based on their model outputs and global gridded data (Key et al., 2004), we plotted the projected aragonite saturation state of the surface oceans for the years 1765, 1994, 2050, and 2100 (Figure 4). The model results indicate that, by the time atmospheric CO2 reaches 780 ppmv near the end of this century under the IPCC IS92a "business-as-usual" CO2 emission scenario, portions of the Subarctic North Pacific and all of the Southern Ocean south of 60S will become undersaturated with respect to aragonite
Now. Instead of pointing me to random searches and portals on the web - feel free to direct me to actual papers contradicting what I write;) I'm sure they exist - the point of the paper I guided you to is that it seems to falsify a lot of the earliers studies (like the one above, based on models) with actual observations.
I'm one of those weird researchers who believe in observations and falsifiability, I confess.
however you can saturate the oceans with CO2 to form carbolic acid and severly disrupt the very roots of the global food chain.
... as you did?:) As far as I can there's no scientific basis for claiming either or.
After all, we know (through reputable science) that CO2-levels in the atmosphere are currently very low, and during the timescales these creatures have been around the levels of CO2 have been more than a magnitude higher. We also know that these sea-creatures haven't changed all that much during this time.
I do not know of any conspiracies, sorry, and I do not know of any peer-reviewed science that I've poo-poo'd. Maybe you're thinking of someone else.
You might have noted it twice, but you're still not correct. What we might disagree on is the importance of graphs for publishing or actual paper writings. Since briefs and graphs are used to sway politicians, I consider them to be very important - it seems you do not think so as long as the correct details are in the papers.
"Completely separate data" is correct since we're not talking about calibration.
Both Mann and Briffa refused for a very long time to supply independent researchers with the actual data. It doesn't matter if it was available when it wasn't pointed to - since it wasn't known which data was which.
The fraud is in using completely separate data to create an artificial correlation (by smoothing/interpolation) and use that correlation as "proof" that the proxies are good!
(It's not a simple truncation or substitution, which I believe was covered in the link I posted)
I'm sorry, but I think we need to clarify what a hockeystick is (you know, as seen in Gore's movie).
Historically climate science has been about understanding the cyclic changes between cold and warmth - Roman warm period, Medieval warm period, dark ages, Litte ice age etc - and no one thought much about it getting warm, cold, warm, cold during the 20th century.
That changed when Mann claimed to have a reconstruction where today's temperatures were much higher than ANY time during the last 1000 years, and showed a graph without much variation (i.e, almost no trace of the MWP or LIA) except in the later part oth the 20th centry where it "took off" (the blade part of the hockeystick).
Since that blade was apparently something out of the ordinary, we needed an explanation. Due to correlation, we found CO2. The rest is.. history.
That's why the refuted hockeysticks of Mann and Briffa are so important. Without them, the current warm period (and it matters little whether it's a tenth of a degree warmer than the Medieval or Roman warm periods or not - plenty of studies says it's not) is not out of the ordinary at all, and the likely explanation - just as it always has been - is that it's due to natural cycles.
Now I'm not sure you're actually interested in actual science, judging by the tone of your posts, but here it is anyway.
Open peer review would do fine. Today it's a club of who knows whom. Enforce (not just claim you do) access to everything the papers are basing their conclusions on, allow anyone to verify.
We're currently living in a CO2-starved environment - and that's why plants grow better when CO2-levels are higher. They evolved in a more CO2 rich atmosphere.
Could you please let me know which of the articles available from your link you intended to point me to? It's to the base page for that site, not to anything specific.
Regarding the oceans I think we need to be careful not to to call pH>7 "acidic". The oceans aren't even near going pH=7, and I cannot see pH7 ever happening (which would be needed for "acidic" to be a proper term). Again, they weren't acidic even though CO2 levels were above 4000ppm "a few million" years ago.
I'm also well aware on how they end their press statements (although thankfully he used the word "guess"). Thanks to Climategate we now know (earlier we just speculated) that you must end everything you publish with something about your belief in the dangers of CO2 else you will get ousted and the papers where you publish will get redefined as to not belong in the "peer review literature";)
(On Slashdot, as an example, no matter how well scientifically sourced your posts are, if you even dare question AGW you get moderated "troll". It's happened to several of my well-written well-sourced posts in this thread)
I'm sorry, but I even quoted the section that clearly stated they do not believe in a hockeystick themselves. You're of course welcome to source your statements, but so far you haven't.
It might help if you quote something from the paper?
I repeat; do you seriously think all of climate science hinges on one single study?
No. First it was Mann, then it was Briffa. Since both have been found statistically wanting, the hockeystick is dead.
Without a hockeystick, the most likely explanation for changes in climate are pure natural. The hockeystick is the _reason_ we even tried to find a non-natural cause.
however you can saturate the oceans with CO2 to form carbolic acid and severly disrupt the very roots of the global food chain
The oceans are nowhere near becoming acidic, and have never been so before even though the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been more than an order of magnitude higher.
Feel free to base your posts on actual science when debating - especially when trying to allude to your opponents being "deniers", "paid by the industry" etc.
As an example, the models that claimed shell building creatures would fare bad if more CO2 was dissolved in the oceans have been falsified by proper scientific testing:
Yes, if the data is made public when other scientists want to challenge it. Please read up on McIntyre vs Mann and McIntyre vs Briffa.
I fail to understand why to claim that leaving out the tree ring proxies doesn't have any material effect - since it has. Actually, due to McIntyre's work we now know the whole concept of a hockeystick to be falsified - there simply isn't any other research supporting its validity.
Without a hockeystick, there's no reason to even search for a causal relationship between higher levels of CO2 and a warmer atmosphere.
So, as I've asked others. Please point to a hockeystick not based on the "research" (now falsified) by Mann or Briffa.
Slashdot Mirror
Any time one is in a vehicle stopped by a member of law enforcement, whether a traffic cop getting ready to write a citation or a border cop inspecting for contraband, the basic rule is to stay in the car. They've been teaching this in driver's ed for many years, it's mentioned on TV and on the radio, and aside from that, it's common knowledge.
In Canada?
It sure isn't where I got my drivers license, in Europe, more than 15 years ago.
(Yes, I know, you're required to know all local laws etc - I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy as you make it out to be)
Thank you! (Yes, I mean it) It is the first time you actually gave me something to read ;)
The first study shows that one species (out of 275000) planktonic foraminifera seem to have evolved during a period of 50k years :) It also includes the following quote:
other variables such as temperature, salinity and nutrient availability may also influence calcification rate ... but I don't think it's important - I'm do not believe in a static environment and the fact that shell builders adapt their shells in response to varying levels of dissolved CO2 feels reassuring. As I wrote before, they've apparently survived magnitudes higher CO2 levels before - why should today's fluctuations pose any problems?
The second link is the same as the first. Was that intentional?
The third link is one of the worst papers I've read - and it only deals in projections, models and weird citations, like this one:
Bibby and colleagues (2007) documented interesting behavioral, metabolic, and morphological responses of the intertidal gastropod Littorina littorea to acidified seawater (pH=6.6)
pH 6.6 - seriously? What's that supposed to prove? ... and I'm not sure how well reviewed it was before being published:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119880047/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
In contrast, the study I linked to deals in actual observations of multiple species (and more complex species at that).
I see you pointing - it doesn't make anything you write more correct though :)
McIntyre has written more good blog posts on the fraud btw, they support everything I've written and none of yours.
(PS: Yes, Swedish courts would likely conclude that Phil Jones is guilty of fraud. He's not Swedish though, let's see what happens in the UK. All that data that was, according to him, irrevocably lost in the 80s has magically appeared in the leaked archive ... )
Oh feel free to come visit Sweden and try my statements as "libelous" :) Our courts would have a field day with that. The graphs are incorrectly labelled, it's obvious to anyone that they are (and proven by the original picture being drawn differently, that is, correct. Why change it?)
The big question is, why is it so important for you?
And just to repeat for the newcomers. Mike's Nature Trick is to use instrumental readings as source data when interpolating and smoothing proxy data, making it appears both as if the proxies fit better with modern data, and to make it appear as if we have one dataset that suddenly skyrockets at the end of a long lull. The picture in question does not in any way show the shift from one set of data to another, quite the opposite, they show three separate sets in three different colours _all_ without a single disruptiong where the source data changes.
Statistics 101 - you don't do this.
"But it was only used a cover picture! Surely our politicians disregard obviously faulty pictures and read the complete papers!"
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Quoting myself from an earlier post:
What we might disagree on is the importance of graphs for publishing or actual paper writings. Since briefs and graphs are used to sway politicians, I consider them to be very important - it seems you do not think so as long as the correct details are in the papers.
Apparently I was correct. I do not understand why you keep posting :) The captions in the image I linked to are incorrect and deceiptful.
This discussion is going nowhere :) I can just assume you're lying on purpose, although I don't understand why.
In this picture, as I posted before, the curves (note the colours) do not depict what the captions claim they depict.
It's as simple as that.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg
It's possible that you were talking about something interesting, but it seems you weren't able to link to anything supporting your claims :) Thus, it's not about chasing up "more" papers - since you didn't chase up any at all.
The only paper I see posted shows, which fits well with established science, that ocean living creatures have no problems with small fluctionations in CO2 levels. And yes, over their evolutionary lifespan, the current fluctuations are very, very, small.
Did I link to a source for that before? Don't remember, I'll simply do it again:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
From Geocarb III, talked about in detail here:
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2002-051.html
If you want to debate proper science, and your posts imply that you do, you need to source your statements better than random web portals and google searches where the contents don't match up with your sayings.
In the second diagram, they claim it portrays something it does not - they name the curves as being something they are not. That's the definition of fraud.
I'm now falsifying the contents of your post, pay attention ;)
Original scientifically "correct" diagram, which is as you write, a diagram where datasets have been dropped and the point is still made:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg
The _fraudulent_ version where the curves - now continuing up without being visibly cut off, having had their data changed etc - that was actually published:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg
From (and please read through):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
(Yes, I know .. _that_ site .. !)
Yes?
From your link. First hit is a 404, the second contains this passage that fits in quite nicely in our discussion:
Orr et al. (2005) developed model scenarios of future changes in surface ocean carbonate chemistry as a function of changes in atmospheric CO2, using the IPCC IS92a "business-as-usual" CO2 emission scenario, with the median projection of DIC changes from 13 ocean models that participated in the OCMIP-2 project. Based on their model outputs and global gridded data (Key et al., 2004), we plotted the projected aragonite saturation state of the surface oceans for the years 1765, 1994, 2050, and 2100 (Figure 4). The model results indicate that, by the time atmospheric CO2 reaches 780 ppmv near the end of this century under the IPCC IS92a "business-as-usual" CO2 emission scenario, portions of the Subarctic North Pacific and all of the Southern Ocean south of 60S will become undersaturated with respect to aragonite
Now. Instead of pointing me to random searches and portals on the web - feel free to direct me to actual papers contradicting what I write ;) I'm sure they exist - the point of the paper I guided you to is that it seems to falsify a lot of the earliers studies (like the one above, based on models) with actual observations.
I'm one of those weird researchers who believe in observations and falsifiability, I confess.
(Slashdot cut some markup there, sorry, pH-less-than-7 of course)
How was that any more dishonest than claiming;
however you can saturate the oceans with CO2 to form carbolic acid and severly disrupt the very roots of the global food chain.
After all, we know (through reputable science) that CO2-levels in the atmosphere are currently very low, and during the timescales these creatures have been around the levels of CO2 have been more than a magnitude higher. We also know that these sea-creatures haven't changed all that much during this time.
I do not know of any conspiracies, sorry, and I do not know of any peer-reviewed science that I've poo-poo'd. Maybe you're thinking of someone else.
(PS: The textbook definition of acidic is pH7)
You might have noted it twice, but you're still not correct. What we might disagree on is the importance of graphs for publishing or actual paper writings. Since briefs and graphs are used to sway politicians, I consider them to be very important - it seems you do not think so as long as the correct details are in the papers.
"Completely separate data" is correct since we're not talking about calibration.
Both Mann and Briffa refused for a very long time to supply independent researchers with the actual data. It doesn't matter if it was available when it wasn't pointed to - since it wasn't known which data was which.
The fraud is in using completely separate data to create an artificial correlation (by smoothing/interpolation) and use that correlation as "proof" that the proxies are good!
(It's not a simple truncation or substitution, which I believe was covered in the link I posted)
Yes, I know, but that has still nothing to do with the concept of "hockeystick". Please see the other reply I just wrote :)
I'm sorry, but I think we need to clarify what a hockeystick is (you know, as seen in Gore's movie).
Historically climate science has been about understanding the cyclic changes between cold and warmth - Roman warm period, Medieval warm period, dark ages, Litte ice age etc - and no one thought much about it getting warm, cold, warm, cold during the 20th century.
That changed when Mann claimed to have a reconstruction where today's temperatures were much higher than ANY time during the last 1000 years, and showed a graph without much variation (i.e, almost no trace of the MWP or LIA) except in the later part oth the 20th centry where it "took off" (the blade part of the hockeystick).
Since that blade was apparently something out of the ordinary, we needed an explanation. Due to correlation, we found CO2. The rest is .. history.
That's why the refuted hockeysticks of Mann and Briffa are so important. Without them, the current warm period (and it matters little whether it's a tenth of a degree warmer than the Medieval or Roman warm periods or not - plenty of studies says it's not) is not out of the ordinary at all, and the likely explanation - just as it always has been - is that it's due to natural cycles.
Now I'm not sure you're actually interested in actual science, judging by the tone of your posts, but here it is anyway.
Open peer review would do fine. Today it's a club of who knows whom. Enforce (not just claim you do) access to everything the papers are basing their conclusions on, allow anyone to verify.
It's a bit like open source.
I know it is true that humans are both increasing the amount of carbon dioxide to multiple times what it is w/o human influence
Unfortunate, since it's not true .. ;)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
We're currently living in a CO2-starved environment - and that's why plants grow better when CO2-levels are higher. They evolved in a more CO2 rich atmosphere.
False. A very detailed explanation as to why, and how they were indeed committing fraud, can be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
Could you please let me know which of the articles available from your link you intended to point me to? It's to the base page for that site, not to anything specific.
Regarding the oceans I think we need to be careful not to to call pH>7 "acidic". The oceans aren't even near going pH=7, and I cannot see pH7 ever happening (which would be needed for "acidic" to be a proper term). Again, they weren't acidic even though CO2 levels were above 4000ppm "a few million" years ago.
I'm also well aware on how they end their press statements (although thankfully he used the word "guess"). Thanks to Climategate we now know (earlier we just speculated) that you must end everything you publish with something about your belief in the dangers of CO2 else you will get ousted and the papers where you publish will get redefined as to not belong in the "peer review literature" ;)
(On Slashdot, as an example, no matter how well scientifically sourced your posts are, if you even dare question AGW you get moderated "troll". It's happened to several of my well-written well-sourced posts in this thread)
I'm sorry, but I even quoted the section that clearly stated they do not believe in a hockeystick themselves. You're of course welcome to source your statements, but so far you haven't.
It might help if you quote something from the paper?
No, the updated Mann hockeystick is still falsified, and you're free to source your statement about that "bunch" :)
I repeat; do you seriously think all of climate science hinges on one single study?
No. First it was Mann, then it was Briffa. Since both have been found statistically wanting, the hockeystick is dead.
Without a hockeystick, the most likely explanation for changes in climate are pure natural. The hockeystick is the _reason_ we even tried to find a non-natural cause.
This might shock you, but, it's true.
however you can saturate the oceans with CO2 to form carbolic acid and severly disrupt the very roots of the global food chain
The oceans are nowhere near becoming acidic, and have never been so before even though the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been more than an order of magnitude higher.
Feel free to base your posts on actual science when debating - especially when trying to allude to your opponents being "deniers", "paid by the industry" etc.
As an example, the models that claimed shell building creatures would fare bad if more CO2 was dissolved in the oceans have been falsified by proper scientific testing:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
it is better to have some data than no data
Yes, if the data is made public when other scientists want to challenge it. Please read up on McIntyre vs Mann and McIntyre vs Briffa.
I fail to understand why to claim that leaving out the tree ring proxies doesn't have any material effect - since it has. Actually, due to McIntyre's work we now know the whole concept of a hockeystick to be falsified - there simply isn't any other research supporting its validity.
Without a hockeystick, there's no reason to even search for a causal relationship between higher levels of CO2 and a warmer atmosphere.
So, as I've asked others. Please point to a hockeystick not based on the "research" (now falsified) by Mann or Briffa.