Since when are ordinary people supposed to ignore mountains of evidence right in front of our noses simply because NASA pretends it doesn't exist? You sure give the government a lot of power if you are not willing to think for yourself. Do you EVER disagree with a US government agency?
Yeah, how dare I say something that contradicts a US government agency, eh?
Maybe you should ask NASA why they would endorse such a terrible study. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who took a high school science course:
To review, in their paper, they described their method as: "Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters."
All three substantive features of their method are false. Raters were not blind to authors (or any of the other info.) Raters were not independent. Raters were not anonymized.
They falsely described their methods. That is a very, very serious thing. There is no science without an accurate description of methods, and this paper, like all papers, was published on the assumption that they followed the methods they described.
Normally the way science works, that's the end. Nothing else needs to be done by anyone. There are no results to evaluate if they didn't follow their methods. Why? Because valid results critically depended on those methods, and when people don't follow their stated methods, we don't know what they did and thus can't rely on the results. Climate science, or its journals, can't be an exception to this basic norm and epistemic requirement of valid science. Why would they be an exception? (This has nothing to do with the truth of AGW or the reality of a consensus -- this is about a fraudulent and invalid study.) (from http://www.joseduarte.com/blog... )
And of course Richard Tol is not to be trusted, even though he apparently agrees with the *result* and is criticizing the method... http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
How dare he disagree with the experts in the US government!
Again, you meant to accuse me and NASA [nasa.gov] of apparently not being able to tell how bad a study is.
Apparently not. How bad does this paper have to be before you or NASA criticize it? You might as well have papers that rely on tarot readings - as long as they get the magic 97% result I doubt you or your ilk would complain.
The little graph you keep posting from their activist blog shows their paper got it wrong 62% of the time?? Is that supposed to be a defense??
As to the Curry post, I said it was "a much better discussion on consensus" than what you were providing. If you want to read into it that's your business. However, I will point out that 67% is not a consensus.
But I'm more interested in the quality of the paper making this 97% claim. Unfortunately it seems global warming activists, scientists, and even NASA (!) will endorse really, really bad papers as long as they produce the 'correct' results. It's a travesty.
You seem to think I am arguing with the results of John Cooks paper. I'm not and either is Tol. (I happen to think his results are wrong, but that's besides the point.)
You on the other hand are giving a free pass to an atrociously bad paper because you agree with the results. And so are many scientists.
The conversation was about the Cook study. And apparently you can't tell how bad a study is even if it's atrociously bad. "From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow." http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/...
Climate activists would be better off saying 'Yes that *particular* study IS crap' but you won't see that kind of plain honesty coming from the warmist camp. And no, you won't find much candor in the skeptic community either, although I think skeptics can afford to be more candid.
Funny you should link the Zimmerman study - they surveyed 3145 respondents, but only used 77 of those to get the magic 97% number. The question asked was “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Most skeptics and luke-warmers, including me, would answer 'yes' to that question. So the survey is essentially meaningless.
I agree that it is strange NASA is publicly endorsing this utter garbage.
"When a scientific paper falsely describes its methods, it must be retracted. They falsely described their methods, several times on several issues. The methods they described are critical to a subjective human rater study – not using those methods invalidates this study, even if they didn't falsely claim those methods. The ratings were not independent at any stage, nor were they blind. Lots of irrelevant social science psychology, survey, and engineering papers were included. The design was invalid in multiple ways, deeply and structurally, and created a systematic inflating bias. There is nothing to lean on here. We will know nothing about the consensus from this study. That's what it means to say that it's deeply invalid. The numbers they gave us have no meaning at this point, cannot be evaluated. Fraudulent and invalid papers have no standing – there's no data here to evaluate. If ERL/IOP (or the authors) do not retract, they'd probably want to supply us with a new definition of fraud that would exclude false descriptions of methods, and a new theory of subjective rating validity that does not require blindness or independence." (from http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...)
The above doesn't bother you in any way?
Would it bother you if a skeptical study falsely described its methods? I bet it would.
Yes, and that should raise a serious red flag. Because anyone can see for themselves that the Cook paper is utter garbage. It's blatant. And yet NASA supports this horrendous paper because it reaches the 'correct' conclusion. (and is useful for 'raising awareness'?)
And yet this one guy with a grudge totally succeeds in ripping it to shreds. But you wouldn't know. You are already looking for reasons to ignore him.
How about Jose Duarte?
"The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change."
It's tragicomedy to see people line up to support horrendously bad studies simply because they reach the 'correct' conclusions. This sort of uncritical acceptance of anything which supports your 'side' while rejecting anything critical, no matter how well thought out, is actually helping climate deniers gain support and momentum.
First off, I am not saying it's "all due to 'heat islands'".
What I am saying is what you said: "they addressed it by comparing the data both with those stations included, and then with them excluded, entirely , ie, using solely rural stations."
I'm just pointing out that they made the comparison using homogenized data.
Using that logic they would also declare it the hottest year if there was a 5% chance, with 25 'next-hottest' years hovering just below 5%. It's silly.
Science 101 would say that those years were statistically even. But global warming science plays by different rules because it's such an important issue.
The earth is warming. We don't know why. CO2 is increasing. We know CO2 increases should warm the climate. Conclusion: It must be CO2.
Problem: CO2 does not cause enough warming. Solution: Hypothesize that the climate is hyper-sensitive to small amounts of CO2 warming, and will amplify it by up to 450%. (!!)
And THAT is how you get predictions of catastrophic global warming.
If that's the case then man-made global warming is certainly not to blame. According to the IPCC most of the man-made global warming occurred from the mid 70's to 2000. The average temperature has been at the high range since 2000 but has not increased significantly. CO2 levels prior to 1950 were too low to cause any appreciable warming, and there was a slight cooling trend from 1950 to the mid 70's.
The period covered in the SS graph is a decade shorter than that covered by the Spencer-Christy graph and looks suspiciously like cherry-picking. By starting their graph in 1990, SS can use the Mt. Pinatubo-induced cold period of 1992-93 to tilt the trend to be more positive. The Spencer-Christy graph begins at the start of the satellite record — 1979 — providing a longer and more representative period.
More importantly, SS uses global surface temperature datasets, which do not accurately represent heat content in the bulk atmosphere. In contrast, Spencer and Christy use temperature data from the tropical troposphere — the place where the models project the strongest, least ambiguous, greenhouse warming signal.
Lol. Your interpretation is baffling. If I say it is "extremely likely" that you will get more than half your money back, would you interpret that to mean you are likely to get 100% of your money back? Or that you are likely to get at least 50% of your money back?
Since when does "more than half" equal 100% ??!
You spend the second half of your post justifying your name calling. It's not a dick move when you do it, right? Most people have double standards so you are not alone. Obviously you have nothing better to do. Unfortunately all too typical and boring.
"More than half the warming" since 1950 is their official, quantified position. You are ignoring the words right there in front of your face.
Sks is one of the worst sites out there, as evidenced by their study which one researcher characterizes as fraudulent. There's more evidence of course but I don't expect you to go looking for it. Confirmation bias at work.
"God-damned idiot"? Weren't you saying something about "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", and how those are "dick moves"? And I used to think right-wingers were inconsistent hypocrites...
I find it amusing that you are still capable of defending Sks after the travesty they produced. Much of the content on their blog is the same - but at least it's not masquerading as a scientific study!
The IPCC report is not MY source. It's YOUR source. Indeed it should be your primary source since you align yourself with the consensus. I'm just informing you of what YOUR source says. Evidently you prefer extreme advocacy blogs like Sks. (I'm what they call a 'luke-warmer'.)
I do agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the report. Why did they say that "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together", but then say their "best estimate" is similar to the observed warming? "More than half" means somewhere between 50% - 100%. Why did they phrase it that way if that's not what they meant? Why didn't they say "at least 90% of the warming"?
I tend to take things at face value, so when they say "more than half of the observed increase" I'm going to assume that's what they mean, especially since it's the statement they were willing to quantify @ 95%-100% probability.
You are free to assume they mean something other than what they say.
Speaking of their "best estimate", lets take a look at how their many "estimates" are holding up against observation:
The 'blog' post I referred you to was actually an article from the Wall St Journal reposted on the author's personal site (the first part of IPCC report was released btw). I couldn't find the original article at first but here it is. Here's a video with the author, based on IPCC scenarios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to your comment about "single data points", you wanted sources so I provided some as examples. And now I am criticized for that too? Really? There is more if a person would care to look, but it is clear you are unaware of what your own "side" even says, apparently preferring extreme advocacy sites like Sks to the IPCC, so I doubt you are willing to listen to differing views anyway.
I am going to hammer this final point: most of the predicted warming is due to climate sensitivity estimates, and NOT due to the warming radiated directly by CO2. These estimates are unproven, vary widely and are highly uncertain. The IPCC claims that climate sensitivity produces up to an additional 3.5 degrees of warming per additional degree of warming from CO2. I find that absurd. And if climate sensitivity is indeed lower as is suggested by recent research, then there is no global warming catastrophe.
You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"
I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".
It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass? Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?
Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...
In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.
Actually, it's [skepticalscience.com] quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research.
Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when are ordinary people supposed to ignore mountains of evidence right in front of our noses simply because NASA pretends it doesn't exist? You sure give the government a lot of power if you are not willing to think for yourself. Do you EVER disagree with a US government agency?
Yeah, how dare I say something that contradicts a US government agency, eh?
Maybe you should ask NASA why they would endorse such a terrible study. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who took a high school science course:
And of course Richard Tol is not to be trusted, even though he apparently agrees with the *result* and is criticizing the method...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
How dare he disagree with the experts in the US government!
Apparently not. How bad does this paper have to be before you or NASA criticize it? You might as well have papers that rely on tarot readings - as long as they get the magic 97% result I doubt you or your ilk would complain.
Here's a peer reviewed critique from Richard Tol: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
The little graph you keep posting from their activist blog shows their paper got it wrong 62% of the time?? Is that supposed to be a defense??
As to the Curry post, I said it was "a much better discussion on consensus" than what you were providing. If you want to read into it that's your business. However, I will point out that 67% is not a consensus.
But I'm more interested in the quality of the paper making this 97% claim. Unfortunately it seems global warming activists, scientists, and even NASA (!) will endorse really, really bad papers as long as they produce the 'correct' results. It's a travesty.
You seem to think I am arguing with the results of John Cooks paper. I'm not and either is Tol. (I happen to think his results are wrong, but that's besides the point.)
You on the other hand are giving a free pass to an atrociously bad paper because you agree with the results. And so are many scientists.
The conversation was about the Cook study. And apparently you can't tell how bad a study is even if it's atrociously bad. "From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow." http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/...
Climate activists would be better off saying 'Yes that *particular* study IS crap' but you won't see that kind of plain honesty coming from the warmist camp. And no, you won't find much candor in the skeptic community either, although I think skeptics can afford to be more candid.
Funny you should link the Zimmerman study - they surveyed 3145 respondents, but only used 77 of those to get the magic 97% number. The question asked was “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Most skeptics and luke-warmers, including me, would answer 'yes' to that question. So the survey is essentially meaningless.
Here's a much better discussion on consensus: https://judithcurry.com/2013/1...
I agree that it is strange NASA is publicly endorsing this utter garbage.
"When a scientific paper falsely describes its methods, it must be retracted. They falsely described their methods, several times on several issues. The methods they described are critical to a subjective human rater study – not using those methods invalidates this study, even if they didn't falsely claim those methods. The ratings were not independent at any stage, nor were they blind. Lots of irrelevant social science psychology, survey, and engineering papers were included. The design was invalid in multiple ways, deeply and structurally, and created a systematic inflating bias. There is nothing to lean on here. We will know nothing about the consensus from this study. That's what it means to say that it's deeply invalid. The numbers they gave us have no meaning at this point, cannot be evaluated. Fraudulent and invalid papers have no standing – there's no data here to evaluate. If ERL/IOP (or the authors) do not retract, they'd probably want to supply us with a new definition of fraud that would exclude false descriptions of methods, and a new theory of subjective rating validity that does not require blindness or independence." (from http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...)
The above doesn't bother you in any way?
Would it bother you if a skeptical study falsely described its methods? I bet it would.
Anybody who disagrees with SkepticalScience has a 'grudge'. Funny how that works.
SkepticalScience is an activist blog. I wouldn't trust anything they produce.
How about Richarg Tol? I'll bet he has a 'grudge' as well?
http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/...
Yes, and that should raise a serious red flag. Because anyone can see for themselves that the Cook paper is utter garbage. It's blatant. And yet NASA supports this horrendous paper because it reaches the 'correct' conclusion. (and is useful for 'raising awareness'?)
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...
And yet this one guy with a grudge totally succeeds in ripping it to shreds. But you wouldn't know. You are already looking for reasons to ignore him.
How about Jose Duarte?
"The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change."
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...
It's tragicomedy to see people line up to support horrendously bad studies simply because they reach the 'correct' conclusions. This sort of uncritical acceptance of anything which supports your 'side' while rejecting anything critical, no matter how well thought out, is actually helping climate deniers gain support and momentum.
Wrong. The NEW adjustments show less surface warming than the old adjustments.
No, it doesn't. The two data-sets you are comparing just use different adjustments.
First off, I am not saying it's "all due to 'heat islands'".
What I am saying is what you said: "they addressed it by comparing the data both with those stations included, and then with them excluded, entirely , ie, using solely rural stations."
I'm just pointing out that they made the comparison using homogenized data.
Skeptical Science does publish and 'create' its own scientific research.
http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/...
Using that logic they would also declare it the hottest year if there was a 5% chance, with 25 'next-hottest' years hovering just below 5%. It's silly.
Science 101 would say that those years were statistically even. But global warming science plays by different rules because it's such an important issue.
The earth is warming. We don't know why. CO2 is increasing. We know CO2 increases should warm the climate. Conclusion: It must be CO2.
Problem: CO2 does not cause enough warming. Solution: Hypothesize that the climate is hyper-sensitive to small amounts of CO2 warming, and will amplify it by up to 450%. (!!)
And THAT is how you get predictions of catastrophic global warming.
For example the Berkley Earth project re-analyzed the data starting with raw data and addressing concerns about heat islands,
They addressed concerns about urban heat islands by examining data after it was homogenized. Think about that for a second.
It looks to me like NOAA is really doing that. I am surprised they are switching their data set based on such a recent and controversial paper.
Here's a discussion at Judith Curry's site on the "pause buster" as it was dubbed: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06....
If that's the case then man-made global warming is certainly not to blame. According to the IPCC most of the man-made global warming occurred from the mid 70's to 2000. The average temperature has been at the high range since 2000 but has not increased significantly. CO2 levels prior to 1950 were too low to cause any appreciable warming, and there was a slight cooling trend from 1950 to the mid 70's.
Didn't you criticize me earlier for "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", saying it was a "dick move"?
Here's another graph by Spencer that includes surface temps.
And the following:
from: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...
Your problem is that "more than half" is the formal part. They could have said "more than three-quarters" but they didn't. Why not? In that light their "best estimate" doesn't mean all that much, especially if the vast majority of past estimates were over-estimates.
Lol. Your interpretation is baffling. If I say it is "extremely likely" that you will get more than half your money back, would you interpret that to mean you are likely to get 100% of your money back? Or that you are likely to get at least 50% of your money back?
Since when does "more than half" equal 100% ??!
You spend the second half of your post justifying your name calling. It's not a dick move when you do it, right? Most people have double standards so you are not alone. Obviously you have nothing better to do. Unfortunately all too typical and boring.
"More than half the warming" since 1950 is their official, quantified position. You are ignoring the words right there in front of your face.
Sks is one of the worst sites out there, as evidenced by their study which one researcher characterizes as fraudulent. There's more evidence of course but I don't expect you to go looking for it. Confirmation bias at work.
"God-damned idiot"? Weren't you saying something about "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", and how those are "dick moves"? And I used to think right-wingers were inconsistent hypocrites...
It's amazing how people think one geologically active area that's showing some melting is equivalent to "all over the continent".
I find it amusing that you are still capable of defending Sks after the travesty they produced. Much of the content on their blog is the same - but at least it's not masquerading as a scientific study!
Here's what IPCC reviewer Richard Tol had to say on the paper: http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/...
The IPCC report is not MY source. It's YOUR source. Indeed it should be your primary source since you align yourself with the consensus. I'm just informing you of what YOUR source says. Evidently you prefer extreme advocacy blogs like Sks. (I'm what they call a 'luke-warmer'.)
I do agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the report. Why did they say that "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together", but then say their "best estimate" is similar to the observed warming? "More than half" means somewhere between 50% - 100%. Why did they phrase it that way if that's not what they meant? Why didn't they say "at least 90% of the warming"?
I tend to take things at face value, so when they say "more than half of the observed increase" I'm going to assume that's what they mean, especially since it's the statement they were willing to quantify @ 95%-100% probability.
You are free to assume they mean something other than what they say.
Speaking of their "best estimate", lets take a look at how their many "estimates" are holding up against observation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
The 'blog' post I referred you to was actually an article from the Wall St Journal reposted on the author's personal site (the first part of IPCC report was released btw). I couldn't find the original article at first but here it is. Here's a video with the author, based on IPCC scenarios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to your comment about "single data points", you wanted sources so I provided some as examples. And now I am criticized for that too? Really? There is more if a person would care to look, but it is clear you are unaware of what your own "side" even says, apparently preferring extreme advocacy sites like Sks to the IPCC, so I doubt you are willing to listen to differing views anyway.
I am going to hammer this final point: most of the predicted warming is due to climate sensitivity estimates, and NOT due to the warming radiated directly by CO2. These estimates are unproven, vary widely and are highly uncertain. The IPCC claims that climate sensitivity produces up to an additional 3.5 degrees of warming per additional degree of warming from CO2. I find that absurd. And if climate sensitivity is indeed lower as is suggested by recent research, then there is no global warming catastrophe.
You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).
Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".
It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass? Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?
Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...
So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.
Actually, it's [skepticalscience.com] quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research.
Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.
Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work": http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...