CO2, Climate Change, Global Warming and Global Alarm

[g0zer]

I think im wasting my time here tho - i sort of feel like im argueing with a bishop about whether there is a God or not ... facts become meaningless in the face of belief and faith.

what facts are you talking about exactly?

all chaos models are bounded- the result from different starting conditions is different everytime.. but it is different within limits

if climate modellers says their models break down unless global warming equations are included... if you want to talk facts why dont you try actually deconstructing their models instead of their email trains? i dont have a PhD in mathmatics but maybe you do!

the email train that is critiqued in your link proves what exactly? that data was falsified? or the data range was selected to produce a trend line that curves upwards? or the function used to generate the trend line was selected deliberately?

i read the emails in the links you provided and they dont tell me anything. You would have to play with the actual raw dataset they used to form that graph and recreate the graph yourself and see if it differs from their output to actually understand what they are talking about.

Modelling the climate | Climateprediction.net

So does this (chaotic systems) mean that making an accurate weather forecast, or climate prediction, is a hopeless cause? The answer is no!

[azathoth]

The MWP is one of the reasons greenland was called 'green' the vikings grew vineyards etc there until the warming period finished and they had to move on

The MWP may have existed, however your tale is a complete myth. The ice sheet on greenland is over 100,000 years old. There is written evidence of the climate being so cold that the vikings had to keep all their cattle indoors for most of the year.

[gordonleslie]

[QUOTE=g0zer;1765300]

if climate modellers says their models break down unless global warming equations are included... if you want to talk facts why dont you try actually deconstructing their models instead of their email trains? i dont have a PhD in mathmatics but maybe you do!

QUOTE]

No i dont have a PhD in mathmatics but lucky for me (and you) Steve McIntyre DOES!! Please read his break down (as you requested) here

IPCC and the “Trick” Climate Audit

[gordonleslie]

so you read the article on the breakdown on the leaked emails and you dont find anything wrong with it?

[g0zer]

[quote=gordonleslie;1765325]

if climate modellers says their models break down unless global warming equations are included... if you want to talk facts why dont you try actually deconstructing their models instead of their email trains? i dont have a PhD in mathmatics but maybe you do!

QUOTE]

No i dont have a PhD in mathmatics but lucky for me (and you) Steve McIntyre DOES!! Please read his break down (as you requested) here

IPCC and the “Trick” Climate Audit

It is very unlikely that that the IPCC caption is correct in stating that a 40-year Hamming filter was used. Based on comparisons of the MBH reconstruction and Jones reconstruction, as well as the Briffa reconstruction, to versions constructed from raw data, it appears that a Butterworth filter was used – a filter frequently used in Mann’s subsequent work (a detail that, in addition, bears on the authorship of the graphic itself).

so the scientist in question has selected a trend line deliberately which is standard practice and neglected to update their appendices





so you do realise that what the scientists in question were projecting in 1999 and based on data from 1980.. is actually matching real world data now dont you?

the last 10 years has broken records all over the world

lol

To my knowledge, no one noticed or reported this truncation until my Climate Audit post in 2005 here. The deletion of the decline was repeated in the 2007 Assessment Report First Order and Second Order Drafts, once again without any disclosure. No dendrochronologist recorded any objection in the Review Comments to either draft. As a reviewer of the Second Order Draft, I asked the IPCC in the strongest possible terms to show the decline reported at CA here:

^the person you have linked doesnt sound too objective on this matter either.. they were a critic of the original work from 1999 and for at least 8 years were trying to get have a modelling output which shows a decline accepted... and now they are taking advantage of being able to rip apart their scientific peers email trains and host analysis of the same on the web.

[gordonleslie]

Errr no thats not what happened in 2000



is what happened

Notice the line wasnt extened from 1980 ->2000 in the original it was completely omitted.

[g0zer]

so you think that is the correct graph?

do you realise what the grey shading is? it is the range of the data sets....

[gordonleslie]

i read the emails in the links you provided

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf

Damn i wish i had your reading skills - im still only up to page 37 of 149

you must have a talent if you read that in less than an hour

[azathoth]

McIntyre is quite possibly the most well known public climate change 'denier' there is - i see that you havnt really done much research into the whole climate change debate.

Climate Audit

Well I read the entire thread eventually, here's my take on the situation.

The Briffa input is based on tree ring dendrochronology. One of the problems with this method of temperature measuring is that while most of the time you can calibrate your trees against known temperatures and it will continue to have a linear relationship. At some point the temperature gets too high which actually stunts the growth of the tree.

So naturally if temperature is increasing, this input will increase then at the 'too hot' point start to swing back around. (As it does in the raw Briffa data). An explanation for this is here:

The 800lb Gorrilla in the Hockey Stick’s Locker Room the Air Vent

Thus to anyone without knowledge of this factor, this line on the graph would suggest temperatures are decreasing. The team at CRU felt this would confuse the issue and set out to 'hide the decline'.

IMHO the appropriate thing to do would be to include the data up until the 1960s, since after this point it's believe to be uncalibrated. Explain the absence of data after this point. Any student of statistics will tell you that you don't show outliers or uncalibrated measurements in your final output.

But what it seems they did, was to alter the curve to fit a preconceived notion of how it should look. Without explanation why. There is quite a lot of conjecture about the actual work done and the emails don't tell the full story. But there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest this.

I rescind my assertion there was no misinformation, it seems there probably was - and in the absence of Briffa to defend himself it seems quite likely.

[g0zer]

also you realise if you followed that projection through the 2000 to 2010 range it predicts the weather should be colder than the mean... hahaha

who was right?

[g0zer]

Errr no thats not what happened in 2000



is what happened

Notice the line wasnt extened from 1980 ->2000 in the original it was completely omitted.

and finally that is not a graph that anyone from the IPCC created- it was created by the person hosting that page as they explicity state below.

it is shown to support why they are suggesting that the trendline used was not the one listed in the appendice.. reading is not just about speed, comprehension is important too

The diagram below shows the IPCC version of the Briffa reconstruction (digitized from the IPCC 2001) compared to actual Briffa data from the Climategate email of October 5, 1999, smoothed using the methodology said to have been used in the caption to the IPCC figure (a 40 year Hamming filter with end-point padding with the mean of the closing 20 years).

[gordonleslie]

also you realise if you followed that projection through the 2000 to 2010 range it predicts the weather should be colder than the mean... hahaha

who was right?

haha yeah the really sad thing is that no-one is 'right' because its such a complicated field with an INCREDIBLE number of variables.

I freely admit that i am no maths expert (am an engineer but the level of maths particualarly the statistics is beyond me)

The graph i posted starts in 1400 and goes to 2000. Obviously a 600 year window is a remarkably small period of time when we are talking about thinks like climate change.



Obviously the above graph has some major assumptions and had to be created using 'proxies' cause there wasnt a little dude with a white coat taking temperature reading 700 000 years ago.

[gordonleslie]

Ill try and dig up an article i read a few months ago talking about how CO2 basically only absorbs a certain 'spectrum' of radiation (heat) and that after a certain concentration is already absorbing 99.9% of this spectrum thus adding more CO2 does little for the greenhouse effect (but of course still adds to other effects)

[azathoth]

It's quite likely that this graph actually confirms increased temperatures, since it is believed that at the global mean temperatures reached in the 1960s that tree growth actually became stunted.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Loeh...ergence_CC.pdf

[gordonleslie]

It's quite likely that this graph actually confirms increased temperatures, since it is believed that at the global mean temperatures reached in the 1960s that tree growth actually became stunted.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Loeh...ergence_CC.pdf

It is a common misconception the climate change 'deniers' or 'skeptics' think that the temperatures havnt gone up (or down). Its that I dont believe that its caused by man - hence i disagree with AGW - Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming. (the man made bit is generally about CO2 and methane)

Its pretty much proven without a doubt that the earth has gone through ice ages so for people to 'deny' there has/is/going to be a change in the climate are delusional.

*EDIT* i didnt read all the article you linked - was way too technical. Is it safe to summerize that the writer of the article didnt like tree-ring proxies for temperature measurments? (temperature and tree ring corrolation is not linear)

[lit]

Too long didnt read.



More like global yawning:
Global warming truths

[g0zer]

The graph i posted starts in 1400 and goes to 2000. Obviously a 600 year window is a remarkably small period of time when we are talking about thinks like climate change.

600 years is plenty of time, 600 cycles is a plenty big enough data set to draw trends from, from a statistical POV.

if you can create a mathmatical climate model that generates an output that will mimic 600 years worth of weather on earth within a certain accuracy range and that model starts to deviate from that range in the last 30 years with deviation exceeding the correlation range by an order of magnitude for the last 10 years. then function greenhouse gas emissions into the equation to find the correlation is back within the bounds for the previous 600 cycles that should tell you something both about the source of recent warming and the modellers ability to mass and energy balance the CO2 contribution.

[shan]

hay people, have a read of BILL BRYSONs (think thats correct)
SHORT HISTORY OF NEARLY EVERYTHING
kind of makes you stop worrying over such matters.
not a bad thread i do admit,

[gordonleslie]

600 years is plenty of time, 600 cycles is a plenty big enough data set to draw trends from, from a statistical POV.

if you can create a mathmatical climate model that generates an output that will mimic 600 years worth of weather on earth within a certain accuracy range and that model starts to deviate from that range in the last 30 years with deviation exceeding the correlation range by an order of magnitude for the last 10 years. then function greenhouse gas emissions into the equation to find the correlation is back within the bounds for the previous 600 cycles that should tell you something both about the source of recent warming and the modellers ability to mass and energy balance the CO2 contribution.

no 600 years SOUNDS like a long time (after all we only live for 80ish years!) but on a climate change scale 600 years is not a big enough sample size when you are talking mathematics. (hell ice ages happen on average every 100 000 yaers 600 years only captures data from 0.6% of ONE ice age!)

Your last statement is meaningless as such mathematical models havnt been created yet.

[gordonleslie]

hay people, have a read of BILL BRYSONs (think thats correct)
SHORT HISTORY OF NEARLY EVERYTHING
kind of makes you stop worrying over such matters.
not a bad thread i do admit,

yes that book is a great read - im more worried about people worrying about climate change haha.