Will we really be destroying the worlds economy or will we instead just be changing it? Transportation used to be built around horses and sailing vessels. That changed and we didn't destroy the economy. Why not look forward to the upcoming changes as opportunities?
When they use climate models to look at the past they call it a hindcast (as opposed to forecast).
There is evidence that the MWP was a regional phenomenon centered around the North Atlantic area, perhaps due to some changes in ocean currents. The LIA has some but less evidence for regionality. My understanding is that climate scientists are not dissatisfied with their hindcasts considering the uncertainties involved in the inputs. The GCMs are apparently quite good on hindcasts for the last 100 years or so where we have less uncertainty of the inputs.
They generally supply a cool place or a pool for a polar bear to retreat to in a zoo.
At this point, with all we know about life on earth and the extreme environments it's found in, I'd almost be surprised if we don't find at least some simple forms of life on Mars.
Of course an undisturbed buried carcass would become fossilized over time. It's not the parts that rot away but the parts that don't, bones and teeth, sometimes hair, feathers and scales that become fossilized. In some extraordinary cases softer parts have been prevented from rotting and been fossilized but it's pretty rare.
There is plenty of life in the tropical ocean but the waters there are nutrient poor compared to cold oceans. But it's seasonal, in the spring there are huge blooms of phytoplankton in the colder oceans that peter out in the fall. The amount of life in colder waters can be an order of magnitude greater than in tropical waters at times of the year and is seldom less.
No sterilization is needed and all deep burial needs is time and plate tectonics. There may be occasional catastrophic events, like volcanoes, but they are not necessary to the process. After all how did fossils of sea life end up at 20,000 feet in the Andes? The Nazca Plate is subducting under the South American Plate pushing up the Andes including the old sea floor where the fossils are found. The Andes have been rising for over 100 million years.
From the Wikipedia article on coal:
Coal starts as layer upon layer of annual plant remains accumulating slowly that were protected from biodegradation by usually acidic covering waters that gave a natural antiseptic effect combating microorganisms and then later mud deposits protecting against oxidization in the widespread shallow seas — mainly during the Carboniferous period — thus trapping atmospheric carbon in the ground in immense peat bogs that eventually were covered over and deeply buried by sediments under which they metamorphosed into coal. Over time, the chemical and physical properties of the plant remains (believed to mainly have been fern-like species antedating more modern plant and tree species) were changed by geological action to create a solid material.
Petroleum is thought to have formed when the remains of zooplankton and alge settled to the bottom of lakes abd seas under anoxic conditions then is buried under sediment.
Neither of those requires sudden catastrophic events.
I never saw the point in name calling and such. Every one is entitled to their opinion, but at the same time they're not entitled to their own facts. I do admit to occasionally being snarky though. Thank you for a rational discussion.
-- We don't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.
I'm astounded that you would say "it is not like this is either a big or complex data problem".
Bringing together data from a myriad of sources and normalizing it so it is connected and contiguous is an extraordinarily complex job. It may be that the computer code to process the data isn't particularly complex but that has nothing to do with the understanding you need to bring diverse sources of information together in a comprehensive whole.
And when it comes to the General Circulation Models (aka Global Climate Models) they run on some of the most powerful computer systems in the world and may take a month to finish a particular run. Modeling the dynamics of the atmosphere is about as complex as anything you can find. And the GCM's don't particularly depend on any data other than the input of forcings (like solar radiation and levels of various GHG's...) which aren't really data since we don't know exactly how they will change in the future. All we can do is use realistic scenarios for that input. The GCM's will converge on an outcome regardless of where you start them because when all the various factors involved come into balance it demands a particular outcome. A simple example of this kind of convergence is that you can set a pan of ice and a pan of boiling water next to each other on the counter and after a period of time they will both be the same temperature.
By my understanding the data that was thrown away by the CRU was processed data and the raw data is still available from the original sources. You have to realize that back when this happened storage on some sort of electronic media was immensely more expensive than it is nowadays. A 250 Meg hard drive for a large computer system might cost $10,000 and a backup tape might hold 50 Meg on a big reel. If they had known then that they would have to eventually defend the work against spurious attacks they probably would have found a way to keep it.
The vast majority of climate data is available if you care to look for it and the CRU etc. is but a part of the whole of climate science.
I agree with you that long comments can be hard and time consuming and often are a waste of time.
Well, I get notified when there's a reply to one of my post and often (but not always) respond.
You really ought to read the Wikipedia article on ozone depletion. It has a good overview of of ozone in the atmosphere. The science on it is quite robust. Ozone depletion is still a problem and will be for a long time. Please point me to the NASA scientists who couldn't find the ozone hole because I don't believe you. No creditable scientist ever said there would be no ozone up there. It forms naturally in the stratosphere when an O2 molecule dissociates after absorbing an ultraviolet photon. That single O atom then combines with another O2 to form O3 or ozone. They just said our increasing the available chlorine in the atmosphere through release of CFCs would reduce the amount of ozone and they've shown it to be true by measurements. Ozone is a very important gas in the atmosphere as it protects the surface and us from excess ultraviolet radiation.
Regarding the Russians, check this comparison of the IEAs stations to the CRUs stations. After 1950 there is practically no difference between them. That doesn't indicate any fraud to me.
What does Pat Buchanan's article have to do with the Russians? And what specifically is hard to dispute? All I see are some out of context facts and outright misunderstanding of what they mean. The increase in Antarctic sea ice is not unexpected. It is in part comes from the ozone hole causing the circumpolar winds to strengthen thus isolating Antarctica more strongly from the rest of the planet. Recent observation from the GRACE satellite show that East Antarctica has been losing total ice mass just like West Antarctica.
Steve McIntyre's post only covers the continental US, 1.6% of the Earth's surface area. 1934 may have been the hottest year in the continental US but what does that have to do with global temperatures? This year the continental US has been a bit cooler relative to the rest of the world. 2009 is still going to be in the top 10 global temperature years (likely #2 or #3).
Any data that may be missing or withheld is relatively trivial. The vast majority of climate and related data is available if you care to look for it. The raw data the CRU used and deleted is still available from the original sources. Raw temperature data from around the world is available from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Source code is available for the GISS ModelE GCM. There are a bunch of other links to both raw and cooked data as well as directories to other sources on this page.
I've already spent too long on this post so I'll sign off for now. Ciao.
I don't know about you but I prefer a temperature around 70 F myself. 90 F is just too damn hot for my taste.
If what you say about you say about water vapor rising in the atmosphere were true then this would be a desert planet because most of it would have escaped to space over the billions of years the planet has existed. That happened to Mars just because of it's low gravity and thin atmosphere. There are a myriad of things other than dust particles that can be condensation nuclei. Studies of the subject have found there is never a lack of them throughout the atmosphere. I'd be surprised if you could find a creditable atmospheric scientist that would agree with your hypothesis.
Fossils and fossil fuels are being made today. All it takes is the right conditions but that has little to do with temperature. If you buried a carcass and it lay undisturbed for a million years it would become fossilized. We've certainly found many fossils that were laid down during colder periods on the planet. A peat bog could eventually become a coal bed or oil field if it gets buried under favorable conditions. You do know that warm oceans are not nearly as productive as cold ones. Every year humpback whales (a mammal with a body temperature warmer than humans) migrate from warm Hawaiian waters, where they traveled to give birth and mate, to cold Alaska waters where they go to feed on immense spring blooms of krill and herring. There is very little for them to eat around Hawaii so they're basically fasting for the half of the year that they spend there and traveling between.
I dispute both of your "facts". Higher temperatures (and higher CO2 levels) may increase the rate of accumulation of potential fossil fuels but they don't preclude them from forming nowadays. The real conversion to fossil fuels largely takes place deep underground where temperatures and pressures are not significantly affected by surface conditions. The ideal temperature for life is what it's adapted to. If you take a gorilla to the arctic it will die of hypothermia. If you take a polar bear to the gorillas normal habitat it will die of heat stroke.
The CRU has not lost any raw data. They deleted processed data that they no longer had a use for. The raw data they used is still available from the original sources.
Phil Jones stepped down temporarily as head of the CRU because of the FUD manufactured heat surrounding him. When he's exonerated he may decide to resign anyway since the heat probably won't go away completely for a while. They may find a few nits to pick but I'll be shocked if they find any real scientific impropriety (as I imagine you will be shocked when they don't:).
Raw data is useless without processing. If you're talking about raw surface temperature data it's collected from hundreds of weather services and thousands of individual weather stations and other sources. There are discontinuities and errors in those records that have to be accounted for. I imagine many if not most of those sources have had an instances of discontinuities in their records. For instance a weather station may change thermometers for various reasons, or an urban heat island may develop around a station, or a station may be so poorly run that its data is unreliable, or they may find a systemic error in the measurments like they did with the satellite data, or... By studying the causes of those errors you can correct for them thus normalizing the data, or if you can't correct for them you can throw that particular data out as unreliable. Unless you're willing to take the time to make all of those adjustments (massage the data) anything you try to say about the raw data is bogus because you're not correcting for known errors. If you're going to challenge the station and data selection you need to do it with scientically rigorous information, not some blather about your perception of what some emails said.
And the vast majority of the raw data is available if you care to look for it. Temperature records from around the world are available at the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Source code is available for the GISS ModelE GCM. I imagine you will have to go to the original researchers for much of the proxy data though.
Are you a Brit? You only mentioned British services and the IPCC. Do you think NOAA or GISS and any of the other services around the world doing the same science feel slighted? The point is that CRU-HADLEY-MET is but one (well 3) of many different organizations around the world studying the subject. You have to impeach them all since they're mostly (if not completely) in agreement with each other.
I don't know why you got the flamebait mod either.
An allegation is just that, an allegation. Unless the accusers can show in a scientifically rigorous way that the stations were excluded for unwarranted reasons it's just more FUD.
The vast majority of the climate data is available from sources other than the CRU. The same sources they got their raw data from. If the list of Russian stations isn't available somewhere how did the IEA in Moscow get it to compare against their own set?
Keep in mind the FOIA we're talking about here is Britain's, not the US's. I've seen comments from (US) climate scientists that they are getting buried by requests lately. It amounts to a DDOS attack by the deniers causing the scientists to waste their time on responding instead of their real work.
The only "embargo" I'm aware of was when Climate Research's publisher refused to allow the editor-in-chief to publish a retraction of a paper with major errors in it. The e-i-c then resigned and several other editors did as well. Why would you want to publish in a journal that will publish a paper with known errors in it and refuse to publish a rebuttal? That's going to help your reputation? The publisher eventually admitted that the paper shouldn't have been published in the first place.
If you know of other embargoes pleas tell me about them.
Wadda ya mean normalization is never justified? You normalize data to account for things like the difference between old and new instruments, or a change in measurement technique, or measurements that were off in a consistent way because of a miscalibrated instrument, or to compensate for the UHI effect or... Without normalization the data is nearly useless. As long as the methods and reasons for the normalization are disclosed its a perfectly valid statistical technique. The information is available if you care to look for it. Do you want them to personally explain it to you?
The GISS (NASA) & NOAA data is 100% available. There is lots of raw data at the Global Historical Climatology Network. You can get the full code for the GISS ModelE GCM here.
Modern weather forecasting depends heavily on computer models. The satellite and radar data as well as regular weather station data are inputs to the models. Often meteorologists who are familiar with a particular region can improve the forecast with intuition but that's largely because it hasn't been included in the model yet, probably because it's on too small a scale to be included in the model.
Chaos is constrained by the physical limits of a system and can be analyzed statistically to help determine the constraints that lead to those limits. Thus the chaos of weather and natural variability can be analyzed to determine the factors that constrain climate. The better you understand the constraints the better you can understand how changes in them will constrain climate. That's what GCM's do. They incorporate our understanding of the constraints of climate into the models and project possible future climate outcomes based on various scenarios for changes in the constraints.
That particular paper (Soon & Baliunas 2003) should have been rejected because of bad science and was published by the "troublesome editor" because of his ideology.
The main objections to the paper were they used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. (from the Wikipedia page on Sallie Baliunas).
I'd says using data reflecting moisture rather than temperature is a pretty serious error in the context of what the paper was trying to say and an editor that caused it to be published despite that is deserves castigation.
The reason Michael Mann said I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal... is because the publisher wouldn't allow the editor-in-chief to publish a retraction of the paper. Because of that the E-I-C and several other editors resigned. Reason enough for me to boycott the journal.
Bullshit! 99% of it is available, raw or cooked, if you care to look for it. But that wouldn't support your position very well, would it? Do you expect scientists to hold your hand so you can get it? They've got better things to do with their time.
I guess you could call mathematics the science of numbers but to me it's more of a tool used to give us a means of understanding things. Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Armin, you never give up, do you? I know that anyway because I've seen your posts elsewhere.
Have you ever heard of something called plate tectonics? It shows that the various land masses on the earth move around. In the 4.5 billion years of Earths existence they've moved around quite a bit. Antarctica wasn't always at the South Pole you know. But there have been times when there was no ice in the polar regions and there were plants and animals on Antarctica. It's just that sea level was over 200 feet higher then.
Those seeds you mention exist throughout the atmosphere. They may be more concentrated in the troposphere but there are plenty of them everywhere. And even if what you say was true the atmosphere gets so thin at altitude it still wouldn't amount to that much water vapor. 3/4 of the mass of the atmosphere is concentrated within the first 6.8 miles (36,000 feet) of it. The top is sort of arbitrary but atmospheric effects are first noticed in space capsule reentry around 75 miles. So 75% of the atmosphere is concentrated in the first 9.1% of the depth (6.8/75). We've been comprehensively measuring the composition of the full depth of atmosphere at various elevations since at least the 1950s and nobody has ever seen this high altitude water vapor that you claim exists. Why isn't it there now?
If it were fantasy, then why are the AGW mongers so worried about increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere making the Earth warmer?
Huh? If we expected Earth to become a warm paradise because of global warming why would anyone be worried. Of course neither you nor I will live long enough to ever see the return of an ice age.
Yes, it is big. I think someones said 11% and 40% of the northern hemisphere (that must be ignoring the oceans since they cover over 70% of the planet's surface). But it's still not big enough to overturn the existing science.
Actually the people who write the GCM's (General Circulation Models aka Global Climate Models) are for the most part what you could call atmospheric physicists. James Hanson for instance.
The problem is when you compare the data from the stations the CRU used to the stations the IEA used there isn't that much difference between them, especially since 1950. See here. Blue is IEA, red is CRU.
On what basis do you accuse climate scientists of blatant data tampering and dubious data fitting. And don't tell me some stolen emails prove it because they don't. All they show is that climate scientists are human. I'd say without putting in the tens of thousands of man hours that climate scientists have already put into analyzing and processing the raw data all you're doing is spreading FUD about climate science to support your own position.
Slashdot Mirror
Will we really be destroying the worlds economy or will we instead just be changing it? Transportation used to be built around horses and sailing vessels. That changed and we didn't destroy the economy. Why not look forward to the upcoming changes as opportunities?
When they use climate models to look at the past they call it a hindcast (as opposed to forecast).
There is evidence that the MWP was a regional phenomenon centered around the North Atlantic area, perhaps due to some changes in ocean currents. The LIA has some but less evidence for regionality. My understanding is that climate scientists are not dissatisfied with their hindcasts considering the uncertainties involved in the inputs. The GCMs are apparently quite good on hindcasts for the last 100 years or so where we have less uncertainty of the inputs.
They generally supply a cool place or a pool for a polar bear to retreat to in a zoo.
At this point, with all we know about life on earth and the extreme environments it's found in, I'd almost be surprised if we don't find at least some simple forms of life on Mars.
Of course an undisturbed buried carcass would become fossilized over time. It's not the parts that rot away but the parts that don't, bones and teeth, sometimes hair, feathers and scales that become fossilized. In some extraordinary cases softer parts have been prevented from rotting and been fossilized but it's pretty rare.
There is plenty of life in the tropical ocean but the waters there are nutrient poor compared to cold oceans. But it's seasonal, in the spring there are huge blooms of phytoplankton in the colder oceans that peter out in the fall. The amount of life in colder waters can be an order of magnitude greater than in tropical waters at times of the year and is seldom less.
No sterilization is needed and all deep burial needs is time and plate tectonics. There may be occasional catastrophic events, like volcanoes, but they are not necessary to the process. After all how did fossils of sea life end up at 20,000 feet in the Andes? The Nazca Plate is subducting under the South American Plate pushing up the Andes including the old sea floor where the fossils are found. The Andes have been rising for over 100 million years.
From the Wikipedia article on coal:
Petroleum is thought to have formed when the remains of zooplankton and alge settled to the bottom of lakes abd seas under anoxic conditions then is buried under sediment.
Neither of those requires sudden catastrophic events.
I never saw the point in name calling and such. Every one is entitled to their opinion, but at the same time they're not entitled to their own facts. I do admit to occasionally being snarky though. Thank you for a rational discussion.
--
We don't inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.
I'm astounded that you would say "it is not like this is either a big or complex data problem".
Bringing together data from a myriad of sources and normalizing it so it is connected and contiguous is an extraordinarily complex job. It may be that the computer code to process the data isn't particularly complex but that has nothing to do with the understanding you need to bring diverse sources of information together in a comprehensive whole.
And when it comes to the General Circulation Models (aka Global Climate Models) they run on some of the most powerful computer systems in the world and may take a month to finish a particular run. Modeling the dynamics of the atmosphere is about as complex as anything you can find. And the GCM's don't particularly depend on any data other than the input of forcings (like solar radiation and levels of various GHG's...) which aren't really data since we don't know exactly how they will change in the future. All we can do is use realistic scenarios for that input. The GCM's will converge on an outcome regardless of where you start them because when all the various factors involved come into balance it demands a particular outcome. A simple example of this kind of convergence is that you can set a pan of ice and a pan of boiling water next to each other on the counter and after a period of time they will both be the same temperature.
By my understanding the data that was thrown away by the CRU was processed data and the raw data is still available from the original sources. You have to realize that back when this happened storage on some sort of electronic media was immensely more expensive than it is nowadays. A 250 Meg hard drive for a large computer system might cost $10,000 and a backup tape might hold 50 Meg on a big reel. If they had known then that they would have to eventually defend the work against spurious attacks they probably would have found a way to keep it.
The vast majority of climate data is available if you care to look for it and the CRU etc. is but a part of the whole of climate science.
I agree with you that long comments can be hard and time consuming and often are a waste of time.
Well, I get notified when there's a reply to one of my post and often (but not always) respond.
You really ought to read the Wikipedia article on ozone depletion. It has a good overview of of ozone in the atmosphere. The science on it is quite robust. Ozone depletion is still a problem and will be for a long time. Please point me to the NASA scientists who couldn't find the ozone hole because I don't believe you. No creditable scientist ever said there would be no ozone up there. It forms naturally in the stratosphere when an O2 molecule dissociates after absorbing an ultraviolet photon. That single O atom then combines with another O2 to form O3 or ozone. They just said our increasing the available chlorine in the atmosphere through release of CFCs would reduce the amount of ozone and they've shown it to be true by measurements. Ozone is a very important gas in the atmosphere as it protects the surface and us from excess ultraviolet radiation.
Regarding the Russians, check this comparison of the IEAs stations to the CRUs stations. After 1950 there is practically no difference between them. That doesn't indicate any fraud to me.
What does Pat Buchanan's article have to do with the Russians? And what specifically is hard to dispute? All I see are some out of context facts and outright misunderstanding of what they mean. The increase in Antarctic sea ice is not unexpected. It is in part comes from the ozone hole causing the circumpolar winds to strengthen thus isolating Antarctica more strongly from the rest of the planet. Recent observation from the GRACE satellite show that East Antarctica has been losing total ice mass just like West Antarctica.
Steve McIntyre's post only covers the continental US, 1.6% of the Earth's surface area. 1934 may have been the hottest year in the continental US but what does that have to do with global temperatures? This year the continental US has been a bit cooler relative to the rest of the world. 2009 is still going to be in the top 10 global temperature years (likely #2 or #3).
Any data that may be missing or withheld is relatively trivial. The vast majority of climate and related data is available if you care to look for it. The raw data the CRU used and deleted is still available from the original sources. Raw temperature data from around the world is available from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Source code is available for the GISS ModelE GCM. There are a bunch of other links to both raw and cooked data as well as directories to other sources on this page.
I've already spent too long on this post so I'll sign off for now. Ciao.
I don't know about you but I prefer a temperature around 70 F myself. 90 F is just too damn hot for my taste.
If what you say about you say about water vapor rising in the atmosphere were true then this would be a desert planet because most of it would have escaped to space over the billions of years the planet has existed. That happened to Mars just because of it's low gravity and thin atmosphere. There are a myriad of things other than dust particles that can be condensation nuclei. Studies of the subject have found there is never a lack of them throughout the atmosphere. I'd be surprised if you could find a creditable atmospheric scientist that would agree with your hypothesis.
Fossils and fossil fuels are being made today. All it takes is the right conditions but that has little to do with temperature. If you buried a carcass and it lay undisturbed for a million years it would become fossilized. We've certainly found many fossils that were laid down during colder periods on the planet. A peat bog could eventually become a coal bed or oil field if it gets buried under favorable conditions. You do know that warm oceans are not nearly as productive as cold ones. Every year humpback whales (a mammal with a body temperature warmer than humans) migrate from warm Hawaiian waters, where they traveled to give birth and mate, to cold Alaska waters where they go to feed on immense spring blooms of krill and herring. There is very little for them to eat around Hawaii so they're basically fasting for the half of the year that they spend there and traveling between.
I dispute both of your "facts". Higher temperatures (and higher CO2 levels) may increase the rate of accumulation of potential fossil fuels but they don't preclude them from forming nowadays. The real conversion to fossil fuels largely takes place deep underground where temperatures and pressures are not significantly affected by surface conditions. The ideal temperature for life is what it's adapted to. If you take a gorilla to the arctic it will die of hypothermia. If you take a polar bear to the gorillas normal habitat it will die of heat stroke.
The CRU has not lost any raw data. They deleted processed data that they no longer had a use for. The raw data they used is still available from the original sources.
Phil Jones stepped down temporarily as head of the CRU because of the FUD manufactured heat surrounding him. When he's exonerated he may decide to resign anyway since the heat probably won't go away completely for a while. They may find a few nits to pick but I'll be shocked if they find any real scientific impropriety (as I imagine you will be shocked when they don't :).
Raw data is useless without processing. If you're talking about raw surface temperature data it's collected from hundreds of weather services and thousands of individual weather stations and other sources. There are discontinuities and errors in those records that have to be accounted for. I imagine many if not most of those sources have had an instances of discontinuities in their records. For instance a weather station may change thermometers for various reasons, or an urban heat island may develop around a station, or a station may be so poorly run that its data is unreliable, or they may find a systemic error in the measurments like they did with the satellite data, or... By studying the causes of those errors you can correct for them thus normalizing the data, or if you can't correct for them you can throw that particular data out as unreliable. Unless you're willing to take the time to make all of those adjustments (massage the data) anything you try to say about the raw data is bogus because you're not correcting for known errors. If you're going to challenge the station and data selection you need to do it with scientically rigorous information, not some blather about your perception of what some emails said.
And the vast majority of the raw data is available if you care to look for it. Temperature records from around the world are available at the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Source code is available for the GISS ModelE GCM. I imagine you will have to go to the original researchers for much of the proxy data though.
Are you a Brit? You only mentioned British services and the IPCC. Do you think NOAA or GISS and any of the other services around the world doing the same science feel slighted? The point is that CRU-HADLEY-MET is but one (well 3) of many different organizations around the world studying the subject. You have to impeach them all since they're mostly (if not completely) in agreement with each other.
I don't know why you got the flamebait mod either.
An allegation is just that, an allegation. Unless the accusers can show in a scientifically rigorous way that the stations were excluded for unwarranted reasons it's just more FUD.
The vast majority of the climate data is available from sources other than the CRU. The same sources they got their raw data from. If the list of Russian stations isn't available somewhere how did the IEA in Moscow get it to compare against their own set?
Keep in mind the FOIA we're talking about here is Britain's, not the US's. I've seen comments from (US) climate scientists that they are getting buried by requests lately. It amounts to a DDOS attack by the deniers causing the scientists to waste their time on responding instead of their real work.
I wish there was a +1 Troll mod.
Now that's an insightful comment.
The only "embargo" I'm aware of was when Climate Research's publisher refused to allow the editor-in-chief to publish a retraction of a paper with major errors in it. The e-i-c then resigned and several other editors did as well. Why would you want to publish in a journal that will publish a paper with known errors in it and refuse to publish a rebuttal? That's going to help your reputation? The publisher eventually admitted that the paper shouldn't have been published in the first place.
If you know of other embargoes pleas tell me about them.
Wadda ya mean normalization is never justified? You normalize data to account for things like the difference between old and new instruments, or a change in measurement technique, or measurements that were off in a consistent way because of a miscalibrated instrument, or to compensate for the UHI effect or... Without normalization the data is nearly useless. As long as the methods and reasons for the normalization are disclosed its a perfectly valid statistical technique. The information is available if you care to look for it. Do you want them to personally explain it to you?
The GISS (NASA) & NOAA data is 100% available. There is lots of raw data at the Global Historical Climatology Network. You can get the full code for the GISS ModelE GCM here.
Modern weather forecasting depends heavily on computer models. The satellite and radar data as well as regular weather station data are inputs to the models. Often meteorologists who are familiar with a particular region can improve the forecast with intuition but that's largely because it hasn't been included in the model yet, probably because it's on too small a scale to be included in the model.
Chaos is constrained by the physical limits of a system and can be analyzed statistically to help determine the constraints that lead to those limits. Thus the chaos of weather and natural variability can be analyzed to determine the factors that constrain climate. The better you understand the constraints the better you can understand how changes in them will constrain climate. That's what GCM's do. They incorporate our understanding of the constraints of climate into the models and project possible future climate outcomes based on various scenarios for changes in the constraints.
Please quote me an email that has the line you put in quotes. You won't find it.
That particular paper (Soon & Baliunas 2003) should have been rejected because of bad science and was published by the "troublesome editor" because of his ideology.
The main objections to the paper were they used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. (from the Wikipedia page on Sallie Baliunas).
I'd says using data reflecting moisture rather than temperature is a pretty serious error in the context of what the paper was trying to say and an editor that caused it to be published despite that is deserves castigation.
The reason Michael Mann said I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal... is because the publisher wouldn't allow the editor-in-chief to publish a retraction of the paper. Because of that the E-I-C and several other editors resigned. Reason enough for me to boycott the journal.
Maybe because they've already looked at what's being said and dismissed it long ago?
If you do the math you find that volcanoes and hydrothermal vents don't come close to releasing enough energy to melt the Arctic sea ice.
Bullshit! 99% of it is available, raw or cooked, if you care to look for it. But that wouldn't support your position very well, would it? Do you expect scientists to hold your hand so you can get it? They've got better things to do with their time.
Troll huh? Flamebait maybe but I wasn't trolling.
But I'd like to add that what I said isn't true of all global warming contrarians, just a substantial portion of them.
I guess you could call mathematics the science of numbers but to me it's more of a tool used to give us a means of understanding things. Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Armin, you never give up, do you? I know that anyway because I've seen your posts elsewhere.
Have you ever heard of something called plate tectonics? It shows that the various land masses on the earth move around. In the 4.5 billion years of Earths existence they've moved around quite a bit. Antarctica wasn't always at the South Pole you know. But there have been times when there was no ice in the polar regions and there were plants and animals on Antarctica. It's just that sea level was over 200 feet higher then.
Those seeds you mention exist throughout the atmosphere. They may be more concentrated in the troposphere but there are plenty of them everywhere. And even if what you say was true the atmosphere gets so thin at altitude it still wouldn't amount to that much water vapor. 3/4 of the mass of the atmosphere is concentrated within the first 6.8 miles (36,000 feet) of it. The top is sort of arbitrary but atmospheric effects are first noticed in space capsule reentry around 75 miles. So 75% of the atmosphere is concentrated in the first 9.1% of the depth (6.8/75). We've been comprehensively measuring the composition of the full depth of atmosphere at various elevations since at least the 1950s and nobody has ever seen this high altitude water vapor that you claim exists. Why isn't it there now?
Huh? If we expected Earth to become a warm paradise because of global warming why would anyone be worried. Of course neither you nor I will live long enough to ever see the return of an ice age.
As I mentioned in another reply that ignores the area of the oceans which are significant in their own right.
Yes, it is big. I think someones said 11% and 40% of the northern hemisphere (that must be ignoring the oceans since they cover over 70% of the planet's surface). But it's still not big enough to overturn the existing science.
And I sure want the Institute for Economic Analysis vetting my climate science. /sarcasm
Actually the people who write the GCM's (General Circulation Models aka Global Climate Models) are for the most part what you could call atmospheric physicists. James Hanson for instance.
The problem is when you compare the data from the stations the CRU used to the stations the IEA used there isn't that much difference between them, especially since 1950. See here. Blue is IEA, red is CRU.
Of course it's not ok to cherry pick data.
On what basis do you accuse climate scientists of blatant data tampering and dubious data fitting. And don't tell me some stolen emails prove it because they don't. All they show is that climate scientists are human. I'd say without putting in the tens of thousands of man hours that climate scientists have already put into analyzing and processing the raw data all you're doing is spreading FUD about climate science to support your own position.