The problem with Global Climate Models

[tarheelbybirth]

Soooo, you're saying that if you discount 95% of the other models and just look at those that were smart enough to predict ENSO, that the Pause actually validated the models?

ENSO may not be predictable in the short term, but over 20+ years the aggregate impact of ENSO is relatively predictable. Since we're really measuring the aggregate anomaly here and not the squared variance line fit, I'm guessing most of the models built in 2005 or before are significantly incorrect at this point. Either they didn't build ENSO in at all (stupid), or they didn't time it right (which should have minimal effect on the aggregate anomaly anyway), but almost all of them are significantly off the aggregate. They may have recalibrated and done well at "line fitting" to prior data, but line fitting does not prove accurate future predictions.

If you have a link, this one I'd like to read.

So much ignorance...so little time. Read:

Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase

• James S. Risbey,
• Stephan Lewandowsky,
• Clothilde Langlais,
• Didier P. Monselesan,
• Terence J. O’Kane
• & Naomi Oreskes

The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.

 

[Joes Place]

Disclaimer:
I am not vouching for this article - I find that most articles on most sites on either side of this issue are likely to have a number of issues with them, some large, some small. I only offer this as a thought starter.

Your Watts link can bitch and moan about alleged 'inconsistencies' and 'shortcomings' of the models all they want, but the fact is that they have not produced ANY of their own 'low forcing' models which match observations. THAT is the litmus test for producing legitimate science vs. just listing a bunch of irrelevant ramblings about 'what exactly IS global temperature defined as?'.

The 'inaccurate' models you are complaining about have been re-run using corrected (i.e. ACTUAL) solar output, volcanic emissions/aerosol concentrations, CO2 levels etc. INSTEAD of the 'best guesses' made for those as model inputs years ago. What happens when these 'natural' forcings are corrected using ACTUAL values?

The graph shows the latest computer model simulations (from the CMIP project), which were used as input to the IPCC, along with five different temperature datasets. The comparison to be made is of the heavy dashed line (annotated in the graph just below the solid black line) and the colored lines. The heavy dashed line is the average predicted temperature including updated influences from a decrease in solar energy, human emitted heat-reflecting particles, and volcanic effects.
The dashed line is slightly above the colored markers in recent years, but the results are quite close. Furthermore, this year’s temperature to date is running hotter than 2014. To date, 2015 is almost exactly at the predicted mean value from the models. Importantly, the measured temperatures are well within the spread of the model predictions.​

So we see the models are doing a pretty good job. Certainly, they are good enough for us to project out into the future. I think of models as a crystal ball. We use them to see the future, albeit as a cloudy picture. While we cannot expect models to be perfect, they are good enough to help inform our decisions today.
​

In other words, the slower warming over the past decade is simply a combination of MANY natural forcings being LOWER than their trends and historical average values.

Do we WANT to pretend this combination of 'best case low end forcings' is going to continue for the next 50 to 100 years? Or is it more likely that most (or all) of them will revert to their mean values or exceed their mean values (which they HAVE done in the past - the definition of the 'mean' is that 50% of the time, values are above, 50% of the time they are below). Thus, WHEN these completely natural forcings rise ABOVE the mean, it's fairly likely that we will see temperatures rise FASTER than the models predict, particularly if they ALL go above their historical means as opposed to all being below their historical means.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This discussion reminds me of the old joke: the average American doesn't believe in evolution - and half of them are dumber than that.

 

[naturalmwa]

I think your comment about several meters being locked in disqualified you from being considered a serious person on this subject, tar.

Not unlike someone who refuses to tap the breaks on the nuclear bus as it heads for the cliff.

 

[codflyer]

In other words, the slower warming over the past decade is simply a combination of MANY natural forcings being LOWER than their trends and historical average values.

But, of course, it is clearly impossible that the faster warming of the 80's and 90's was due to any combination of natural forcings being higher than their trends (not to mention the nearly identical warming period in the 20's and 30's that happened sometime before nature stopped warming the planet out of the LIA and handed over all duties to humans). Also, color me unimpressed that the models get closer to accurate when you replace the previously incorrect assumptions and projections with what actually happened. It is the perpetual "we missed on a few things before, but NOW we really have it caged..." routine. To anyone that isn't married to one view or the other, it sure looks like the earth has been warming at about a 1.5 degree C per century rate with some natural decadal fluctuations due to oceanic oscillations for the last couple of hundred years or so.

 

[Joes Place]

But, of course, it is clearly impossible that the faster warming of the 80's and 90's was due to any combination of natural forcings being higher than their trends (not to mention the nearly identical warming period in the 20's and 30's that happened sometime before nature stopped warming the planet out of the LIA and handed over all duties to humans). Also, color me unimpressed that the models get closer to accurate when you replace the previously incorrect assumptions and projections with what actually happened. It is the perpetual "we missed on a few things before, but NOW we really have it caged..." routine. To anyone that isn't married to one view or the other, it sure looks like the earth has been warming at about a 1.5 degree C per century rate with some natural decadal fluctuations due to oceanic oscillations for the last couple of hundred years or so.

Firstly, the LIA was NOT a global phenomenon, it was much more REGIONAL. And recent analysis points to larger volcanic output during those times as a major factor in the cooler regional (and global) temperatures - something we have not recently observed in modern times.

I've offered to post an example of the variations over the past 100+ years, and how the PDO/ENSO is a major factor in observed surface warming; 'models' cannot predict El Nino/La Nina years, but if we look at those historically (and over this time period, where solar output has mostly remained constant) we see that in El Nino-dominated decades or periods, warming is about 2x the nominal trend, and during La Nina-dominated phases, temperatures do not cool down, but remain stable. Thus, over decadal spans, surface warming is NOT a year-over-year increase, it becomes a staircase. Only it's a staircase which is currently only going 'up'.

If you are interested in looking at that yourself, I can link and explain it for you.

But to claim 'the models have incorrect assumptions and projections' is nonsense, when things like TSI, volcanic output, actual CO2 levels and ENSO oscillations are CRITICAL inputs if you want 'models' to behave over short time spans (which seems to be your complaint here).

Those short-term spans all average out over longer periods (because AVERAGE values for those inputs are used, which means when these inputs run UNDER their averages, models overestimate observed temperatures; when these inputs run OVER their average, the models underestimate - which is what they have done in the past); this merely points out that if you want models to match observations within a short-term time span, you have to use the model outputs that had the correct input observations. That's not rocket science, that's basic science and basic common sense.

 

[codflyer]

Firstly, the LIA was NOT a global phenomenon, it was much more REGIONAL. And recent analysis points to larger volcanic output during those times as a major factor in the cooler regional (and global) temperatures - something we have not recently observed in modern times.

So, you don't like the LIA label...although you do acknowledge that global temperatures were lower. I think the debate about regional vs global in regard to the LIA is very much incomplete, and will likely never be adequately answered due to the lack of data from much of the planet...but as you said, based on the entirety of available evidence, global temps appear to have been down, and where we have the best data and historical reference, they were significantly down.

I've offered to post an example of the variations over the past 100+ years, and how the PDO/ENSO is a major factor in observed surface warming; 'models' cannot predict El Nino/La Nina years, but if we look at those historically (and over this time period, where solar output has mostly remained constant) we see that in El Nino-dominated decades or periods, warming is about 2x the nominal trend, and during La Nina-dominated phases, temperatures do not cool down, but remain stable. Thus, over decadal spans, surface warming is NOT a year-over-year increase, it becomes a staircase. Only it's a staircase which is currently only going 'up'.

So...models cannot predict...but we are going to continue to use them to predict even though we have already demonstrated that we do not have enough grasp of several significant inputs to project those with any accuracy at all. But, when we go back and plug in the actual observed data, then we can make it look better. The real problem though is that your argument actually undercuts the alarmism about CO2...if the trend both before and after the bulk of the CO2 emissions looks basically identical...then maybe there is something else going on and CO2 isn't the driver that some are claiming it is. Like I said, simply fitting a 1.5 d C rate of increase with oceanic oscillations matches the record pretty darn well both before and after CO2 is supposed to have taken over the climate.

But to claim 'the models have incorrect assumptions and projections' is nonsense, when things like TSI, volcanic output, actual CO2 levels and ENSO oscillations are CRITICAL inputs if you want 'models' to behave over short time spans (which seems to be your complaint here).

I really have no complaint...it is just an observation. What good are projections that are only valid when you know what has actually happened? I don't disagree that the long term trend is up, you don't even need these models to tell you that, I just don't see the calamity, and I don't see convincing evidence that CO2 is the major driver of it. If anything, the last 15 years or so has provided more and more evidence that it is not as powerful an influence as previously claimed, and if the temperature of the Earth is slowly rising regardless, having strong economies to deal with any required adaptation makes a lot more sense than hamstringing ourselves in the face of a reality that is a lot bigger than ourselves.

 

[Joes Place]

So, you don't like the LIA label...although you do acknowledge that global temperatures were lower. I think the debate about regional vs global in regard to the LIA is very much incomplete, and will likely never be adequately answered due to the lack of data from much of the planet...but as you said, based on the entirety of available evidence, global temps appear to have been down, and where we have the best data and historical reference, they were significantly down.

Regional temperatures were 'significantly down'; global temperatures were really not much lower, but were not increasing.

So...models cannot predict...but we are going to continue to use them to predict even though we have already demonstrated that we do not have enough grasp of several significant inputs to project those with any accuracy at all. But, when we go back and plug in the actual observed data, then we can make it look better. The real problem though is that your argument actually undercuts the alarmism about CO2...if the trend both before and after the bulk of the CO2 emissions looks basically identical...then maybe there is something else going on and CO2 isn't the driver that some are claiming it is. Like I said, simply fitting a 1.5 d C rate of increase with oceanic oscillations matches the record pretty darn well both before and after CO2 is supposed to have taken over the climate.

Again, we are primarily talking about corrections to TSI, ENSO, volcanic activity and aerosols. Per CO2 levels, none of the models could 'predict' the pause in CO2 emissions during the 2007 recession and following years (although that has had minimal impact on immediate temperatures - TSI and ENSO have a far greater immediate effect).

If you want to 'predict' that we will stay in a La Nina phase until 2100, or that TSI will remain low for the next 85 years and go 'all in' that our emissions aren't going to have any effect, that's a pretty bold risk to take considering we have about a 1/2 & 1/2 variation in those factors above and below historical means (that IS the mathematical meaning of 'the mean'). Not sure how to explain this any clearer to you - if you have a decade of forcings below the mean, temperatures will not increase much, when you have a decade of forcings above the mean, temperatures will rapidly increase faster than 'average'. And you can see that using ENSO and global temperature data since 1900 (when TSI has been mostly stable, and volcanic activity has been average or less). So, most models using 'average' forcing data will indicate steadily rising temperatures, with observations following a stair-step within that average window.

I really have no complaint...it is just an observation. What good are projections that are only valid when you know what has actually happened?

This makes no sense; why would you run models with incorrect/inaccurate input variables? Why would you expect those models to give you accurate, short term information? Since these variables go up and down over decadal periods, they are essentially irrelevant to long-term projections when those short term variations mainly cancel out and you are using 'average' data values with random variation to match typical swings for each of them. But if you want to explain why they do not match in a very particular region over a very short timeframe, you HAVE to adjust the inputs for that region.

Scientists are NOT using the models as picture-perfect projections of year-over-year actual temperatures; they ARE using them to BOUND the projections for upper and lower limits. So long as the observations are falling within those bounds, the models have a reasonable level of validation. They are not PERFECT, but they are very reasonable guesses to make policy decisions from. Would you prefer to make policy decisions ABSENT any data or best-estimate projections?

I don't see convincing evidence that CO2 is the major driver of it. If anything, the last 15 years or so has provided more and more evidence that it is not as powerful an influence as previously claimed, and if the temperature of the Earth is slowly rising regardless, having strong economies to deal with any required adaptation makes a lot more sense than hamstringing ourselves in the face of a reality that is a lot bigger than ourselves.

There is simply NO other input variable we can point to which is causing increasing temperatures. If someone can find a natural forcing which explains the data and matches the models BETTER than CO2 levels, they are doing a really really good job of hiding it from everyone.

 

[moral_victory]

You no the problem with this thread? No models.

 

[codflyer]

global temperatures were really not much lower, but were not increasing.

I think this statement is spoken with far more confidence than the evidence warrants. But, we don't have to go round and round about it. We can just agree that temperatures were lower.

So, most models using 'average' forcing data will indicate steadily rising temperatures, with observations following a stair-step within that average window.

I am not disagreeing with this. I have been pretty much on board with it for the last 15 years or so. And the result of the average forcings is not particularly alarming.

Since these variables go up and down over decadal periods, they are essentially irrelevant to long-term projections

Yeah, no kidding. That is why I find the constantly re-released and updated models (and the chest beating about their fit) so pointless. As you said, they are irrelevant, and their updated fit to short term trends conveys no increased confidence in the their long term projections. The fact that it stays "within the bands" is entirely unimpressive given the spread (and it is still very much on the lower edge, implying that CO2 levels are not driving the temperature the way the models want it to).

There is simply NO other input variable we can point to which is causing increasing temperatures. If someone can find a natural forcing which explains the data and matches the models BETTER than CO2 levels, they are doing a really really good job of hiding it from everyone.

So, we are back to this one. In a climatic system that we barely have scraped the surface of understanding-wise, we can confidently state that we have ruled out every other possible phenomenon. But, that criticism aside, I do not deny that CO2 is providing something of a warming forcing. I never have. I think the latest IPCC estimates of relatively low temperature increases over the next 85 years (somewhere between 1 and 1.5 deg C) are reasonable, and likely. Some of that I think is continuing recovery from LIA (even if you don't think it existed), and some of it is due to increased GHG emissions. I find the bolt-on theories of positive feedbacks amplifying the warming to 3, 5, even 10 deg C utterly unconvincing and supremely unlikely.

 

[codflyer]

You no the problem with this thread? No models.

I do find her oscillations more intriguing.

 

[Joes Place]

I think this statement is spoken with far more confidence than the evidence warrants. But, we don't have to go round and round about it. We can just agree that temperatures were lower.

Yes, they were lower, but per all of the available data sets, there is no consistency that they were substantially lower GLOBALLY. MAYBE 0.1 or 0.2°C lower than the previous centuries, but the warming seen since the mid-to-late 1800's is a vastly larger (>+0.7°C) and significantly more consistent global signal.

Just look for yourself at some of the traces: around the year 1000, most of the data shows a -0.25°C level against the 1961-1990 average. In the alleged LIA, SOME of the data show another -0.25 or more cooler temperatures (e.g. the central estimate is about -0.5°C); others show virtually NO DIFFERENCE to maybe another 0.1°C drop. Each proxy represents a different region or estimate; thus, when SOME show drops and others do not, you have REGIONAL variation that cannot be presumed to be GLOBAL.

Were European temperatures lower during the LIA? Almost certainly 'yes', and probably by at least 1°C or more; but those lower temperatures were offset by other regions being somewhat warmer or otherwise stable. (You do understand the concept of 'weighted averaging', no?) Overall global temperatures were not nearly as 'cool' as many in the denial crowd will admit; they rely on overly biasing the European data and anecdotal stories of how bad crops were and England's rivers freezing over.

In contrast, nearly ALL the proxies AND the instrumental record show consistent warming since 1900. Consistent and overlapping data tracks from multiple sources are indicative of a global, not a regional, effect.

 

[Lone Clone]

And if you wonder why some people are skeptical about the Global Warming extremists, just read this thread.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And if you wonder why some people are skeptical about the Global Warming extremists, just read this thread.

Something about actual evidence that makes you cross-eyed perhaps?

 

[Joes Place]

Something about actual evidence that makes you cross-eyed perhaps?

And here is one of the most comprehensive looks at the past 2000 years of temperature reconstructions, involving 78 scientists from 24 different countries - that's a LOT of people and nations to be involved in an alleged climate conspiracy!!!

The past 2000 years of climate change have now been reconstructed in more detail than ever before by the PAGES 2k project. The results reveal interesting regional differences between the different continents, but also important common trends. The global average of the new reconstruction looks like a twin of the original “hockey stick”, the first such reconstruction published fifteen years ago.

78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience. It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available .

The data shown in Figure 2 reflect this: they show some coherent signals, especially a long-term cooling trend that leads to increasingly cooler climate conditions from the relatively warm Middle Ages until this is turned around in the late 19th Century (see the next section). But, as expected, some regional variability is superimposed, especially on shorter time scales of decades to a century, where particularly warm and cold phases do not coincide in their timing on different continents, as the authors emphasize in the abstract:

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal hot or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.​

But they identify some shorter intervals where extremely cold conditions coincide with major volcanic eruptions and / or solar minima (as already known from previous studies).
​

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.​

Coupled with the completely INDEPENDENT analysis of the more recent warming and assessments of station data biases by the BEST study (back when Anthony Watts actually tried to be a real scientist), this provides very clear confirmation that we have a substantial change in climate in the last 100+ years vs. the past 2000 years. THAT is why so many climate scientists are very concerned and raise the alarms - NO ONE can explain the 'hockey stick' using only 'natural' forcings; and the man-made forcings (CO2, land deforestation, etc) are not stopping or leveling off, they are increasing at an accelerating rate.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...climate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/

 

[codflyer]

And here is one of the most comprehensive looks at the past 2000 years of temperature reconstructions, involving 78 scientists from 24 different countries - that's a LOT of people and nations to be involved in an alleged climate conspiracy!!!

The past 2000 years of climate change have now been reconstructed in more detail than ever before by the PAGES 2k project. The results reveal interesting regional differences between the different continents, but also important common trends. The global average of the new reconstruction looks like a twin of the original “hockey stick”, the first such reconstruction published fifteen years ago.

78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience. It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available .

The data shown in Figure 2 reflect this: they show some coherent signals, especially a long-term cooling trend that leads to increasingly cooler climate conditions from the relatively warm Middle Ages until this is turned around in the late 19th Century (see the next section). But, as expected, some regional variability is superimposed, especially on shorter time scales of decades to a century, where particularly warm and cold phases do not coincide in their timing on different continents, as the authors emphasize in the abstract:

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal hot or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.​

But they identify some shorter intervals where extremely cold conditions coincide with major volcanic eruptions and / or solar minima (as already known from previous studies).​

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.​

Coupled with the completely INDEPENDENT analysis of the more recent warming and assessments of station data biases by the BEST study (back when Anthony Watts actually tried to be a real scientist), this provides very clear confirmation that we have a substantial change in climate in the last 100+ years vs. the past 2000 years. THAT is why so many climate scientists are very concerned and raise the alarms - NO ONE can explain the 'hockey stick' using only 'natural' forcings; and the man-made forcings (CO2, land deforestation, etc) are not stopping or leveling off, they are increasing at an accelerating rate.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...climate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/

People are going to have a conniption about Watts, but then link to thinkprogress and anything that Mann has done? Seriously? If folks are going to disqualify anything that appears on a website run by Watts out of hand, then how can they turn a blind eye to all the times Mann has been caught distorting/manipulating data, colluding to hide information, obstructing analysis of his methods, wearing his politics on his sleeve, etc. Can you imagine the eruption of the alarmist blogosphere if Watts had lied about being a Nobel Prize recipient as Mann did? If Watts had sued someone for saying something about him that he didn't like? I am not saying that Watts is an angel...but, come on people.

That aside, I do not put a whole lot of stock in these reconstructions. Trees are not good thermometers, especially if you are trying to establish a global average temperature down to a tenth of a degree. Just look at the uncertainty range in that graph (it should really be larger even). You could absolutely draw a MWP and LIA into even this alarmist propaganda graph. We have had numerous discussions in the past on the unreliability of these proxies as well. In situations where uncertainty is high, bias is much more able to drive results, and I think that is the case here.

BTW...it is not a climate conspiracy...it is just run of mill group-think and confirmation bias being applied to incomplete data. The same crap that had us believing that dietary fats are really bad for us, that lysenkoism was a thing, that phrenology had value...etc.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

People are going to have a conniption about Watts, but then link to thinkprogress and anything that Mann has done? Seriously? If folks are going to disqualify anything that appears on a website run by Watts out of hand, then how can they turn a blind eye to all the times Mann has been caught distorting/manipulating data, colluding to hide information, obstructing analysis of his methods, wearing his politics on his sleeve, etc..

Once again...and likely not for the last time..."Climategate" has been investigated by six different independent scientific bodies and no wrong-doing was found by any of them. No distortion, no manipulation, no collusion, no obstruction...nothing. Now, you've been informed...feel free to look it up for yourself. But if - knowing the facts - you continue to lie, you're no better than your lying shill Watt.

 

[Joes Place]

BTW...it is not a climate conspiracy...it is just run of mill group-think and confirmation bias being applied to incomplete data. The same crap that had us believing that dietary fats are really bad for us, that lysenkoism was a thing, that phrenology had value...etc.

When those who disagree with the analysis perform and publish their OWN studies which come up with an answer 180° from what I've posted, you can claim a 'groupthink' phenomenon. But 78 DIFFERENT researchers from 24 countries? Using DIFFERENT proxy data series?

Go ahead and ignore what 9 out of 10 doctors tell you when you have a health issue, and go to that guy in Mexico that has a 'magic potion' that'll cure you. I'll stick with the general consensus, which has ALSO posted ALL of their data openly for others to re-analyze....

 

[Joes Place]

BTW...it is not a climate conspiracy...it is just run of mill group-think and confirmation bias being applied to incomplete data.

And let's be honest: the individual who's group generated THIS data:

Has testified before Congressional committees that 'there has been no warming since 1998'....

 

[codflyer]

Once again...and likely not for the last time..."Climategate" has been investigated by six different independent scientific bodies and no wrong-doing was found by any of them. No distortion, no manipulation, no collusion, no obstruction...nothing. Now, you've been informed...feel free to look it up for yourself. But if - knowing the facts - you continue to lie, you're no better than your lying shill Watt.

LOL...I wasn't specifically referring to just climategate, but even if I was, your whitewashing of it is as bad as anything you accuse Watts of. I agree that there was no criminal wrong doing or anything like that, and it doesn't prove that climate change is a "hoax" like some overzealous critics claim...but it is rife with all the things you deny: distortion, manipulation, collusion, obstruction, and just plain shoddy science. The inquiries (some better than others) you refer to typically examined the question of whether or not "Climategate" proved that the science was completely wrong and that global warming was all a big hoax...they did not exonerate the participants of bad behavior, poor practices, and lack of transparency. It is actually a pretty good illustration of how group think and confirmation bias takes place on that scale...insulate yourself from critics, demonize your opposition, and ensure that your work is reviewed to the greatest extent possible only by already like-minded individuals.

 

[Joes Place]

It is actually a pretty good illustration of how group think and confirmation bias takes place on that scale...insulate yourself from critics, demonize your opposition, and ensure that your work is reviewed to the greatest extent possible only by already like-minded individuals.

Oh...you're referring to the Heartland Institute....

Yes, this is a perfect example of what goes on at their pseudoscience 'climate meetings'.

 

[codflyer]

Oh...you're referring to the Heartland Institute....

Yes, this is a perfect example of what goes on at their pseudoscience 'climate meetings'.

I am sure it does to an extent...and if you are an alarmist zealot, then you steal data from them, and if that isn't damning enough for your taste you just forge something...

Isn't this a fun game to play...

 

[codflyer]

And let's be honest: the individual who's group generated THIS data:

Has testified before Congressional committees that 'there has been no warming since 1998'....

For guys who get all over folks like Watts for omitting details, misrepresenting people, and doing shoddy work...you sure like to emulate the behavior. First of all, you are referring to Roy Spencer's group...and he certainly did not generate that graph. It is using his UAH data, but YOU are the one who applied the smoothing filters, making it look very different than what Spencer's group has actually produced:

THAT is the graph that he presented to congress at the time. And your assertion that he said "there has been no warming since 1998" is just plain dishonest (or willfully ignorant). What he REALLY said was:

"The level of warming in the most recent 15 year period is not significantly different from zero, despite this being the period of greatest greenhouse gas concentration. This is in stark contrast to claims that warming is accelerating”

The difference in meaning and context between a flat statement (that you made up) that "there has been no warming" and the qualified statement (which actually happened) that average temperature deviations in the prior 15 years are "not significantly different from zero" is substantial...and his point has the added benefit of also being true.

If you want to say that you have a better handle on his data than he does and have a good justification for the way you smoothed it, fine. But there is no need to engage in the type of behavior you and Tarheel find so objectionable in the opposition.

 

[codflyer]

When those who disagree with the analysis perform and publish their OWN studies which come up with an answer 180° from what I've posted, you can claim a 'groupthink' phenomenon. But 78 DIFFERENT researchers from 24 countries? Using DIFFERENT proxy data series?

Go ahead and ignore what 9 out of 10 doctors tell you when you have a health issue, and go to that guy in Mexico that has a 'magic potion' that'll cure you. I'll stick with the general consensus, which has ALSO posted ALL of their data openly for others to re-analyze....

Oh I don't know...this one looks pretty much in line with what I have been saying the whole time:

And before you or Tarheel run off to thinkprogress or somewhere to find some character assassination marching orders against poor Fredrik Ljungqvist, notice that it fits pretty well with the stuff the Mann and Moberg were doing (as I also said before, that you could easily fit MWP and LIA with their data):

Even the deceptively named skepticalscience.com didn't argue with the data itself, rather, they just tilted at the easier canard about the MWP being warmer than today that some uneducated, fringe "skeptics" might throw out there.

So, contrary to your assertion that I am just whistling against the wind of science here, I think I am well established, even by Michael Mann, to say that at least some portion of the warming we have seen in the modern record could be attributed to a recovery from the LIA.

 

[Lone Clone]

I don't think anybody is defending Mann anymore, are they? Hell, there's a book recently published devoted entirely to documenting and exposing the guy and his methods, based on his own words and actions.

http://www.amazon.com/%22A-Disgrace...TF8&qid=1439556895&sr=8-4&keywords=mark+steyn

 

[Joes Place]

Oh I don't know...this one looks pretty much in line with what I have been saying the whole time:

And before you or Tarheel run off to thinkprogress or somewhere to find some character assassination marching orders against poor Fredrik Ljungqvist, notice that it fits pretty well with the stuff the Mann and Moberg were doing (as I also said before, that you could easily fit MWP and LIA with their data):

Even the deceptively named skepticalscience.com didn't argue with the data itself, rather, they just tilted at the easier canard about the MWP being warmer than today that some uneducated, fringe "skeptics" might throw out there.

So, contrary to your assertion that I am just whistling against the wind of science here, I think I am well established, even by Michael Mann, to say that at least some portion of the warming we have seen in the modern record could be attributed to a recovery from the LIA.

Oh great!!! you took one or two datasets of the literally DOZENS the PAGES2K group used!!!

FYI: Mann was NOT an author on that project from what I can see; they DID reference his work and perhaps use some of his data, but to claim 'he has no credibility' is really irrelevant. The PAGES2K work is THE most comprehensive look by nearly 80 separate scientists across a myriad of different fields of study.

So, link all the individual studies you want....PAGES2K probably used them as part of the analysis.

 

[codflyer]

Oh great!!! you took one or two datasets of the literally DOZENS the PAGES2K group used!!!

FYI: Mann was NOT an author on that project from what I can see; they DID reference his work and perhaps use some of his data, but to claim 'he has no credibility' is really irrelevant. The PAGES2K work is THE most comprehensive look by nearly 80 separate scientists across a myriad of different fields of study.

So, link all the individual studies you want....PAGES2K probably used them as part of the analysis.

I didn't take anything, I just posted a recognized and peer-reviewed reconstruction that supported my position, as requested. And it wasn't some "denier" propaganda either. And it jives quite well with even what Mann and other ardent alarmists have come up with, as well as PAGES2K (it just wasn't crafted to look extra hockey-sticky). My position has been consistent for the entire thread, that at least some portion of the recent warming could be from recovery from the LIA. Nothing that you have posted has contradicted that, as much as you wish it did. I only referenced Mann in regard to the hypocrisy of jumping all over Watts and dismissing anything he says or that is posted on his website out of hand...but then totally giving folks like Mann a pass and continuing to reference him. Personally, I don't like the "attack the messenger" style, and am more than willing to judge the work of Mann, Watts, or anyone else based on the merit of the work itself...not based on what thinkprogress or some other place has told me I should think of that person based on selective outrage.

 

[Joes Place]

I didn't take anything, I just posted a recognized and peer-reviewed reconstruction that supported my position, as requested. And it wasn't some "denier" propaganda either. And it jives quite well with even what Mann and other ardent alarmists have come up with, as well as PAGES2K (it just wasn't crafted to look extra hockey-sticky). My position has been consistent for the entire thread, that at least some portion of the recent warming could be from recovery from the LIA. Nothing that you have posted has contradicted that, as much as you wish it did. I only referenced Mann in regard to the hypocrisy of jumping all over Watts and dismissing anything he says or that is posted on his website out of hand...but then totally giving folks like Mann a pass and continuing to reference him. Personally, I don't like the "attack the messenger" style, and am more than willing to judge the work of Mann, Watts, or anyone else based on the merit of the work itself...not based on what thinkprogress or some other place has told me I should think of that person based on selective outrage.

What you posted, per the caption, is NORTHERN HEMISPHERE data. Of COURSE it's not propaganda, but it is a REGIONAL dataset.

PAGES2K includes that AND datasets representing information from the whole globe. Do you understand that there can be DIFFERENCES between the northern and southern hemispheres with regard to global temperatures??!!! This has been the confusion regarding the LIA and MWP among climate researchers for many years when those proxies and papers were first published. But guess what? Science ISN'T static, and as more datasets rolled in, the ability to analyze ALL of them showed a different result (Yay science!!!). So, I have no doubt you can Google up graphs that show REGIONAL temperature trends that are consistent with a 'LIA', but those regional data are not reflective of the global trends.

So, yes, my posts COMPLETELY contradict that there is some 'major' global temperature correction from the LIA; is there SOME 'rebound'? Sure. But at BEST it is 0.1-0.2°C. Since the mid 1800's we have seen a nearly 1°C increase beyond that, and aside from CO2 levels, we have no input variable from a natural source which can explain the warming. Thus, using the LIA as an explanation of 'natural climate variability' is an incorrect assertion, because it was not a global temperature phenomenon, and global temperatures rebounded very little from that regional event. Same with the MWP - it is NOT reflected in southern hemisphere data.

Regarding Watts - not many scientists have any respect for his positions anymore, because most of what he posts is incorrect, cherry picking, or completely ignoring that he was part of the BEST study and claimed he would accept the results, whatever they are. But when they literally debunked his hypothesis he had been propagating for years, he bailed. And the BEST data not only refuted his hypothesis, it implied that recent warming was WORSE than what the general climate community had been presenting. Bailing out when your hypothesis doesn't match the data is NOT the hallmark of an objective scientist; it's the indicator of an activist who is politicizing the science and making a living off of it. So it's not surprising that most scientists regard him with scorn.

Regarding the UAH data- I cannot tell which version of the data you have posted, but the WoodForTrees site pulls the most recent datasets from UAH and others directly from their source sites. You can plot any of those datasets with or without smoothing however you want. But not using smoothing incorporates monthly (seasonal) variation into the plots, which makes it all but impossible to see longer term trends. Stacked running means, which I have used in the plot I posted, are the CORRECT scientific way to convey the data to show the long term (decadal) trends. And Judith Curry has a nice writeup on her website which shows how that works, which I have linked before.

Thus, Roy Spencer is conveying a VERY NON-SCIENTIFIC opinion when he stated to Congress 'no warming since 1998', because you MUST look at data with SOME smoothing to eliminate the noise in the data; when you do that, his statement can be shown to be utterly false. It is a political ploy, NOT a legitimate scientific statement. And there is simply no way to defend it, either.

 

[codflyer]

What you posted, per the caption, is NORTHERN HEMISPHERE data. Of COURSE it's not propaganda, but it is a REGIONAL dataset.

PAGES2K includes that AND datasets representing information from the whole globe. Do you understand that there can be DIFFERENCES between the northern and southern hemispheres with regard to global temperatures??!!! This has been the confusion regarding the LIA and MWP among climate researchers for many years when those proxies and papers were first published. But guess what? Science ISN'T static, and as more datasets rolled in, the ability to analyze ALL of them showed a different result (Yay science!!!). So, I have no doubt you can Google up graphs that show REGIONAL temperature trends that are consistent with a 'LIA', but those regional data are not reflective of the global trends.

LOL...you started the whole line of discussion by posting a graph of collected northern hemisphere data and called it global...I didn't call you out on it because it would have been a distraction to no real purpose (the differences really are not that substantial when you fold in southern hemisphere reconstructions).

So, yes, my posts COMPLETELY contradict that there is some 'major' global temperature correction from the LIA; is there SOME 'rebound'? Sure. But at BEST it is 0.1-0.2°C. Since the mid 1800's we have seen a nearly 1°C increase beyond that, and aside from CO2 levels, we have no input variable from a natural source which can explain the warming. Thus, using the LIA as an explanation of 'natural climate variability' is an incorrect assertion, because it was not a global temperature phenomenon, and global temperatures rebounded very little from that regional event. Same with the MWP - it is NOT reflected in southern hemisphere data.

1. It absolutely does not. 2. I never said MAJOR, but I did say that a relatively significant portion could very well be attributed to it (thus reducing the forcing of CO2 to something that actually matches the current data better without having to contort to explain away the relative warming hiatus despite CO2 level increases). 3. Your "at BEST" comment and definitive assertions about the LIA not being a global phenomenon are the type that make this debate so difficult...willingness to make definitive statements based on very incomplete data and interpretations betrays a lack of seriousness of actually arriving at reality, and more of an inclination to blindly defend a pre-staked out position.

Regarding Watts - not many scientists have any respect for his positions anymore, because most of what he posts is incorrect, cherry picking, or completely ignoring that he was part of the BEST study and claimed he would accept the results, whatever they are. But when they literally debunked his hypothesis he had been propagating for years, he bailed. And the BEST data not only refuted his hypothesis, it implied that recent warming was WORSE than what the general climate community had been presenting. Bailing out when your hypothesis doesn't match the data is NOT the hallmark of an objective scientist; it's the indicator of an activist who is politicizing the science and making a living off of it. So it's not surprising that most scientists regard him with scorn.

Fine. I have not defended Watts...just pointed out your double standard. Based on your blatant misrepresentation of Spencer's testimony in this very thread though, forgive me if I don't just take your characterization of the issues around Watts at face value.

Regarding the UAH data- I cannot tell which version of the data you have posted, but the WoodForTrees site pulls the most recent datasets from UAH and others directly from their source sites. You can plot any of those datasets with or without smoothing however you want. But not using smoothing incorporates monthly (seasonal) variation into the plots, which makes it all but impossible to see longer term trends. Stacked running means, which I have used in the plot I posted, are the CORRECT scientific way to convey the data to show the long term (decadal) trends. And Judith Curry has a nice writeup on her website which shows how that works, which I have linked before.

I posted the graph that he actually used during the congressional testimony that you have distorted. He is the data via woodfortrees:

I smoothed it to address the monthly/seasonal fluctuations, but did not add your decadal smoothing, which, while it is a valid process when used properly, can also severely distort data when used incorrectly...and I would argue that the amplitude of your smoothing relative to the total size of the data set is an unwise way to smooth it, and can lead to a situation where the smoothing completely overwhelms the actual data.

Thus, Roy Spencer is conveying a VERY NON-SCIENTIFIC opinion when he stated to Congress 'no warming since 1998', because you MUST look at data with SOME smoothing to eliminate the noise in the data; when you do that, his statement can be shown to be utterly false. It is a political ploy, NOT a legitimate scientific statement. And there is simply no way to defend it, either.

Still can't just quote him correctly, huh? Where is Tarheel to pronounce you a shill? And he did utilize smoothing, he just didn't (mis)apply significant decadal smoothing the way you did. If you want to defend your handling of his data, please go right ahead. I would argue that your use of the data is much harder to defend than his.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

LOL...I wasn't specifically referring to just climategate, but even if I was, your whitewashing of it is as bad as anything you accuse Watts of. I agree that there was no criminal wrong doing or anything like that, and it doesn't prove that climate change is a "hoax" like some overzealous critics claim...but it is rife with all the things you deny: distortion, manipulation, collusion, obstruction, and just plain shoddy science. The inquiries (some better than others) you refer to typically examined the question of whether or not "Climategate" proved that the science was completely wrong and that global warming was all a big hoax...they did not exonerate the participants of bad behavior, poor practices, and lack of transparency. It is actually a pretty good illustration of how group think and confirmation bias takes place on that scale...insulate yourself from critics, demonize your opposition, and ensure that your work is reviewed to the greatest extent possible only by already like-minded individuals.

I didn't "whitewash" a damn thing. You can't claim that six different different investigations found no evidence of...and I'll say this again since you seem to like to make unsupported claims...NO evidence of distortion, mani[ulation, collusion, obstruction, or shoddy science. YOU can't make it true simply because it fits your narrative. That you then have the gall to accuse anyone of misrepresentation is ridiculous.

From the various investigations:

"...there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data."

"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

"...no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."

"...there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann."

"...we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

"...found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

"...no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data."

"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed."

Now...tell us AGAIN how the investigations "did not exonerate the participants of bad behavior, poor practices, and lack of transparency". Give us some more of that "demonization" of which you're so enamored. But I'm sure in your mind, ALL of those investigators were simply covering for their brethren...and you DON'T suffer - in spades - from confirmation bias. Shill.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I posted the graph that he actually used during the congressional testimony that you have distorted. He is the data via woodfortrees:

I smoothed it to address the monthly/seasonal fluctuations, but did not add your decadal smoothing, which, while it is a valid process when used properly, can also severely distort data when used incorrectly...and I would argue that the amplitude of your smoothing relative to the total size of the data set is an unwise way to smooth it, and can lead to a situation where the smoothing completely overwhelms the actual data.

So where's the vaunted "pause"? The only way you can claim that data shows any significant pause is to start in '98. How about showing us the trend line from, say, 1996? Bet it's positive.

 

[Joes Place]

I posted the graph that he actually used during the congressional testimony that you have distorted. He is the data via woodfortrees:

I smoothed it to address the monthly/seasonal fluctuations, but did not add your decadal smoothing, which, while it is a valid process when used properly, can also severely distort data when used incorrectly...and I would argue that the amplitude of your smoothing relative to the total size of the data set is an unwise way to smooth it, and can lead to a situation where the smoothing completely overwhelms the actual data.

Woohoo!!! ANNUAL smoothing!!! Only that shows you something far more related to WEATHER year over year, and not CLIMATE, which occurs over periods of MANY years. That's why we use DECADAL smoothing to see true trends and not spurious outliers. (or, in Roy Spencer's case, perhaps it's more accurately 'outliars')

Decadal smoothing using stacked running means filters is how to DO NOT distort the data inflections; using decadal filtering ELIMINATES BIASES created by ONE SPURIOUSLY WARM YEAR. And El Nino year which was the strongest event on record. Since this year is shaping up to be a similar El Nino event, it would make sense to compare 2015 to 1998, but NOT to compare 1998 to any other ENSO Neutral or La Nina year. Decadal filters and smoothing filters eliminate the noises and biases.

Now, if you are trying to USE those biases and noise to make your political case, THEN you'd avoid using scientific 'best methods' to present your data. But if you are testifying before Congress, one would expect 'best methods' to be used, and intentionally biased data to be avoided. Particularly if you are trying to form policies around it.

I suspect if 'scientists' were presenting data/methods to Congress on how to evaluate inspection methods for Iranian nuke sites, you'd probably squawk pretty loudly if they were using intentionally misleading analysis claiming they'd be capable of tracking enrichment activities (and enabling Iran to effectively hide enriched nuclear material). So, why is it then 'ok' for a scientist to misrepresent data on climate to Congress?

 

[IMCC965]

Obama says wildfires in cali are caused by global warming . however we continue the inconvenient record setting lows in the usa.

Along with the environmental nazis and extreme EPA rules not allowing any of the forests to be cleaned up. This has caused excessive forest clutter that causes huge wildfires.

It's their own fault.

 

[IMCC965]

I love these threads because the climate chicken littles post graphs. I LOVE posting graphs too!!

 

[codflyer]

So where's the vaunted "pause"? The only way you can claim that data shows any significant pause is to start in '98. How about showing us the trend line from, say, 1996? Bet it's positive.

Who said that there wasn't a slightly positive trend line? Not me. Not Dr Spencer. You guys are priceless.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Who said that there wasn't a slightly positive trend line? Not me. Not Dr Spencer. You guys are priceless.

So run the data...from '96. Show us what "not significantly different from zero" looks like.

And I'll assume you recognize your error in reference to the "Climategate" investigations. That's progress.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I love these threads because the climate chicken littles post graphs. I LOVE posting graphs too!

Posting them you've got cold. Understanding graphs...that's your problem.

 

[codflyer]

Woohoo!!! ANNUAL smoothing!!! Only that shows you something far more related to WEATHER year over year, and not CLIMATE, which occurs over periods of MANY years. That's why we use DECADAL smoothing to see true trends and not spurious outliers. (or, in Roy Spencer's case, perhaps it's more accurately 'outliars')

Decadal smoothing using stacked running means filters is how to DO NOT distort the data inflections; using decadal filtering ELIMINATES BIASES created by ONE SPURIOUSLY WARM YEAR. And El Nino year which was the strongest event on record. Since this year is shaping up to be a similar El Nino event, it would make sense to compare 2015 to 1998, but NOT to compare 1998 to any other ENSO Neutral or La Nina year. Decadal filters and smoothing filters eliminate the noises and biases.

Now, if you are trying to USE those biases and noise to make your political case, THEN you'd avoid using scientific 'best methods' to present your data. But if you are testifying before Congress, one would expect 'best methods' to be used, and intentionally biased data to be avoided. Particularly if you are trying to form policies around it.

I suspect if 'scientists' were presenting data/methods to Congress on how to evaluate inspection methods for Iranian nuke sites, you'd probably squawk pretty loudly if they were using intentionally misleading analysis claiming they'd be capable of tracking enrichment activities (and enabling Iran to effectively hide enriched nuclear material). So, why is it then 'ok' for a scientist to misrepresent data on climate to Congress?

Any filtering by definition distorts the data. Maybe you are distorting it to elucidate a trend...or maybe you are just distorting it. You really need to know what you are doing and why, and convey very specific reasons for your choices. I personally find your definition of many years in regard to climate sort of funny, since we are talking about a data set that only consists of about 30 years total. And your decadal smoothing has compressed it by almost ten years on the x-axis (nearly a third of the entire data set). Is that a big deal? Maybe, maybe not, depending on what you are trying to do (if you are trying to make the slope appear steeper, then mission accomplished). But, it is not nearly as cut and dried as you make it out to be, and despite the much more threatening look of your graph, it really doesn't represent much difference quantitatively from the one that he presented to congress (both show about a +.32 degree anomaly).

 

[Joes Place]

Any filtering by definition distorts the data. Maybe you are distorting it to elucidate a trend...or maybe you are just distorting it. You really need to know what you are doing and why, and convey very specific reasons for your choices. I personally find your definition of many years in regard to climate sort of funny, since we are talking about a data set that only consists of about 30 years total. And your decadal smoothing has compressed it by almost ten years on the x-axis (nearly a third of the entire data set). Is that a big deal? Maybe, maybe not, depending on what you are trying to do (if you are trying to make the slope appear steeper, then mission accomplished). But, it is not nearly as cut and dried as you make it out to be, and despite the much more threatening look of your graph, it really doesn't represent much difference quantitatively from the one that he presented to congress (both show about a +.32 degree anomaly).

...but using an outlier El Nino year as the 'arbitrary' start date for 'no warming' is NOT distorting the data!!! Holy Moly, Batman!!!

So NOW '30 years total' is not enough to discuss climate, but an 'alleged 17 year run of no apparent warming' is an indication that climate change and warming are NOT occuring IS relevant???!!! You have a big problem with consistency in your argument here.

Smoothing CAN hide high-frequency information and noise. But those are things that occlude long-term trends, and in this case, decadal smoothing is absolutly the correct approach, IF you want to discuss climate and not 'weather' or 'outliers'. Climate is the low-frequency, slow change, not the cherry-picking of any specific year as a convenient start date. There is no excuse for that if you're trying to properly and honestly convey science information to laymen.

The decadal smoothing does NOT 'exclude' the data outside the smoothing window. It uses data from 5 years prior to the plot start and 5 years after (This is why the plot ends in 2010: data from 2006 thru 2015 are used to plot the data point in 2010.) So, the 30 year window is NOT impacted by the endpoints at all.

If that time window is too narrow, then Spencer shouldn't be discussing anything LESS than 30 years to convey a relevant point about trends anyway.

Here is his WHOLE dataset using decadal smoothing.

NOTHING is eliminated from that; it simply filters out the noise in the short term (i.e. higher frequency) trends.

Here's the BEST study data whole set with the same filtering. You can see the same 'dips' in the data as the UAH set (UAH I've used an 'offest' factor so they align - different data sets use different reference dates for their 'zero' point, which is why these do not overlay properly without the offset). Thus, smoothing is NOT 'hiding' anything in his data set- it's a feature consistent with just about ANY of the global data sets; it just allows you to see the trends without all the extraneous noise. This is Science 101 stuff here; it is not 'hiding' anything.

Pretty easy to see why Anthony Watts lost all his credibility when he waffled on his "I'll stand by the results, whatever they are" statement when the results came out...

(Note that the BEST study is over, and there has been no update to the data since the early 2000s; thus, even though there probably IS a leveling off here, just as seen with other datasets, the data doesn't run out long enough; but the 'hiatus' when looking at the decadal smoothing is, at best, about 5 years. There was an 'actual' hiatus from about 1945 to 1976 easy visible in the smoothed data, which corresponds to a long stretch of La Nina dominated ENSO. Only temperatures didn't 'drop' during La Nina, they just stayed still. The warming during El Nino dominated stretches is nearly 0.2°C/decade, so for a 50/50 ENSO split we have about a 0.1°C/decade increase during the last century)

You've posted nothing that excuses Roy Spencer's intentionally misleading testimony to Congress. It's shameful.

 

[codflyer]

I didn't "whitewash" a damn thing. You can't claim that six different different investigations found no evidence of...and I'll say this again since you seem to like to make unsupported claims...NO evidence of distortion, mani[ulation, collusion, obstruction, or shoddy science. YOU can't make it true simply because it fits your narrative. That you then have the gall to accuse anyone of misrepresentation is ridiculous.

From the various investigations:

"...there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data."

"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

"...no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."

"...there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann."

"...we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

"...found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

"...no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data."

"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed."

Now...tell us AGAIN how the investigations "did not exonerate the participants of bad behavior, poor practices, and lack of transparency". Give us some more of that "demonization" of which you're so enamored. But I'm sure in your mind, ALL of those investigators were simply covering for their brethren...and you DON'T suffer - in spades - from confirmation bias. Shill.

I can play this game too. Just from the House of Commons investigation:

" we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others"

"climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided."

" The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure."

" We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics."

"The Deputy Information Commissioner has given a clear indication that a breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 may have occurred but that a prosecution was timebarred"

"the organization writing the [other] code did not adhere to standards one might find in professional software engineering. The code had easily identified bugs, no visible test mechanism, was not apparently under version control and was poorly documented. It would not be surprising to find that other code written at the same organization was of similar quality. And given that I subsequently found a bug in the actual CRUTEM3 code only reinforces my opinion."

"we note that CRU could have been more open at that time in providing the detailed methodological working on its website. We recommend that all publicly funded research groups consider whether they are being as open as they can be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies."

I could go on, but this is tiring. I stand by what I said. The investigations did not exonerate the participants of bad behavior, poor practices, or lack of transparency. Pretending that there was nothing at all to the Climategate emails is as bad as pretending that they prove that global warming is a hoax.